A McClatchy Newspapers article [LINK] suggests that the House republicans are going to move on to the Clean Air Act now that they've "repealed" the health care act. It's actually a really nice article, so I recommend taking a look. The idea is that the republicans don't like that the EPA is going to try to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, so they want to re-write the Clean Air Act to make sure that is not in the EPA's purview.
The argument seems to be that (a) the Congress should pass regulatory legislation, (b) carbon dioxide shouldn't be considered a "pollutant," (c) regulating carbon dioxide will "kill" jobs. Who is making this argument? Well, it seems like Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) is fully on board, but Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is the one who introduced the so-called Free Industry Act and she has 96 co-sponsors who are all Republicans except Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK).
In terms of the points above, I think there are some obvious problems. (a) There is no legislation that is going to regulate emissions that is going to get through congress. That ship sailed last year, even before that commercial in which Joe Manchin literally shot the bill [YOUTUBE]. So the republican position seems to be, "let's do nothing." (b) The EPA went to court to determine whether CO2 is a pollutant, and it is. Case closed, literally. [WIKIPEDIA] (c) Just asserting that reducing carbon pollution will "kill" jobs does not make it true. One of the reasons that Barack Obama was so overwhelmingly elected was because he championed the idea of reducing our dependence on foreign oil by moving toward a renewable energy infrastructure, creating thousands of "green jobs." There are a number of arguments for moving in this direction to create jobs and move the USA into a leadership position in green technology that can be used (read: sold) to other countries [LINK]. I think this point is one where there could be actual debate, but there are so many reasons to move away from fossil fuels that they overshadow possible short-term economic implications. In the long-term, I think everyone agrees that fossil fuels are bad for everyone.
One last point. Just like in the case of health care, there is not enough support to move any of this legislation through the Senate, much less through the White House. It is an exercise in futility, a symbol of the frustration that the Republicans feel and the animosity they have toward environmental regulation. It is also a waste of time in Congress and a waste of taxpayer money. It will make headlines, though, and confuse the American public, who I'm pretty sure now believe that the healthcare bill has really been repealed.
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
2009-09-08
Hatoyama says emission cuts are coming, maybe
So Japan's PM says that the country is going to reduce carbon emissions by 2020 to 75% of 1990 emissions [LINK], but is requiring other countries to come along for the ride.
First off, great! It is terrific to see a world leader take a stand and give a real goal... dare I say a target.
Second, this could be a genius move on Hatoyama's part. Japan is pretty amazing when it comes to designing and building stuff, and there is a strong track record of taking ideas/concepts originated elsewhere and making them more useable, streamlined, and efficient (cars, VCRs, etc). So my first take on this is that Japanese companies like Toyota and Mitsubishi ( cf.) are going to have an obvious target for building efficient things (things of all kinds!). These companies already have a head start down this path, and having a huge economy destined to reduce emissions means there is economic incentive to improve R&D.
If these companies, which are already leading the world, now accelerate their R&D, they will be selling their wares to the rest of the world shortly. This will be especially true if Hatoyama gets his way and other countries do vow to reduce emissions. If Japanese companies can do for power generation what they have done for other industries, then the whole world will be buying Honda wind turbines and Sony solar panels in now time. (possible example) What a boost to the Japanese economy! Wish the USA could have thought of that.
First off, great! It is terrific to see a world leader take a stand and give a real goal... dare I say a target.
Second, this could be a genius move on Hatoyama's part. Japan is pretty amazing when it comes to designing and building stuff, and there is a strong track record of taking ideas/concepts originated elsewhere and making them more useable, streamlined, and efficient (cars, VCRs, etc). So my first take on this is that Japanese companies like Toyota and Mitsubishi ( cf.) are going to have an obvious target for building efficient things (things of all kinds!). These companies already have a head start down this path, and having a huge economy destined to reduce emissions means there is economic incentive to improve R&D.
If these companies, which are already leading the world, now accelerate their R&D, they will be selling their wares to the rest of the world shortly. This will be especially true if Hatoyama gets his way and other countries do vow to reduce emissions. If Japanese companies can do for power generation what they have done for other industries, then the whole world will be buying Honda wind turbines and Sony solar panels in now time. (possible example) What a boost to the Japanese economy! Wish the USA could have thought of that.
2009-08-26
Is peak oil a myth?
An op-ed piece by Michael Lynch in the New York Times suggests that "peak oil theory" is just a myth [LINK]. Really what he's saying is that it is a crazy left-wing conspiracy theory. I wanted to just post some reaction to his op-ed, calling some of his arguments into question. I'm not going to claim he's wrong, just that his arguments are far from persuasive. First, let's also have some disclosure, Michael Lynch is President and Director of Global Petroleum Service, part of Strategic Energy & Economic Research Inc [LINK]. This is a consulting firm, and I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of their clients are oil companies. He's also been associated with other energy policy organizations as well as MIT. I'm not saying he is not credible, I'm sure he's an expert, I'm just saying Lynch is probably as biased as the people he is criticizing.
Lynch dismisses the statement that the "easy oil is gone." This is a common point made by people concerned with peak oil, as Lynch points out. The idea is that 100 years ago, there were oil fields that literally had oil coming out of the surface. Remember the Beverly Hillbillies? Now there aren't such high-pressure fields. Instead of accepting that as true, Lynch says the argument is "vague and irrelevant." He then says that Persian oil drillers 100 years ago wouldn't think that oil was "easy." This is a false analogy. Nobody is saying that the labor of extracting oil was ever easy. The point is about how much energy has to be spent to extract a given amount of oil, which then produces a given amount of energy. It's not easy to quantify, but as I understand the state of oil today, more energy is used to extract oil per unit energy now than it was, say, in the 1950s.
A point made just after the one above revisits the oil crises in 1973 and 1979. Lynch points to predictions from "experts" saying prices would just keep going up. Then they didn't go up. This is supposed to be part of Lynch's op-ed about arguments of political instability playing a part in oil production; he's saying that political instability is nothing new. In my reading of his article, I find that this whole section is really a straw-man argument. He brings it up because, "When their shaky claims on geology are exposed, the peak-oil advocates tend to argue that today’s geopolitical instability needs to be taken into consideration." So he sets up an argument that is not about peak oil just to shoot it down. The question of peak oil is essentially one of geology and technology; geopolitics certainly plays a role in oil production (well, maybe not according to Lynch), but it isn't part of the peak oil theory except that if production ceases in a region, then the peak would be pushed back in time.
Finally, Lynch ends with this:
Well, there's a bit of an appeal to authority here, but I'm not going to claim that there's a real logical fallacy. This might just be a case of presenting (without evidence) a number that differs from the estimates I've seen before. Because there are no sources or evidence presented, it is impossible for the reader to know if this point is true or not. My guess is that there are some large error-bars on that 10 trillion barrel number, and this value is probably at the high end of them. I would hazard to guess that the 2 trillion barrel number is too low (and I have heard that number before), but that 10 trillion barrels is a pretty high estimate. The recoverable part of whatever the true number is the real question. The truth is, though, that at some point the extraction of oil becomes cost ineffective compared to other energy sources. It might be when the oil has to be mined from 5000 feet below the ocean surface or when they have to drill miles into continental bedrock or when tar sands have to be utilized, but there must be a point where the amount of energy going into the extraction of oil is nearly the same as the amount of oil extracted. At that point, there's no need to extract any oil since becomes a zero sum gain. I've always heard the argument that alternative energy sources will become much more cost effective in the run up to the zero sum gain on oil, so we'll probably never reach that extreme.
The bottom line seems to be that there are still disagreements about whether peak oil theory will pan out or not. The oil consultants say no, and a bunch of academics say yes. Hmm, interesting. Like other, strangely similar, "debates," the answer will likely be learned in the next couple of decades. And also like those other issues, by the time we find out the answer, it might already be too late to change course without drastically impacting all of our lives.
Lynch dismisses the statement that the "easy oil is gone." This is a common point made by people concerned with peak oil, as Lynch points out. The idea is that 100 years ago, there were oil fields that literally had oil coming out of the surface. Remember the Beverly Hillbillies? Now there aren't such high-pressure fields. Instead of accepting that as true, Lynch says the argument is "vague and irrelevant." He then says that Persian oil drillers 100 years ago wouldn't think that oil was "easy." This is a false analogy. Nobody is saying that the labor of extracting oil was ever easy. The point is about how much energy has to be spent to extract a given amount of oil, which then produces a given amount of energy. It's not easy to quantify, but as I understand the state of oil today, more energy is used to extract oil per unit energy now than it was, say, in the 1950s.
A point made just after the one above revisits the oil crises in 1973 and 1979. Lynch points to predictions from "experts" saying prices would just keep going up. Then they didn't go up. This is supposed to be part of Lynch's op-ed about arguments of political instability playing a part in oil production; he's saying that political instability is nothing new. In my reading of his article, I find that this whole section is really a straw-man argument. He brings it up because, "When their shaky claims on geology are exposed, the peak-oil advocates tend to argue that today’s geopolitical instability needs to be taken into consideration." So he sets up an argument that is not about peak oil just to shoot it down. The question of peak oil is essentially one of geology and technology; geopolitics certainly plays a role in oil production (well, maybe not according to Lynch), but it isn't part of the peak oil theory except that if production ceases in a region, then the peak would be pushed back in time.
Finally, Lynch ends with this:
In the end, perhaps the most misleading claim of the peak-oil advocates is that the earth was endowed with only 2 trillion barrels of “recoverable” oil. Actually, the consensus among geologists is that there are some 10 trillion barrels out there. A century ago, only 10 percent of it was considered recoverable, but improvements in technology should allow us to recover some 35 percent — another 2.5 trillion barrels — in an economically viable way. And this doesn’t even include such potential sources as tar sands, which in time we may be able to efficiently tap.
Well, there's a bit of an appeal to authority here, but I'm not going to claim that there's a real logical fallacy. This might just be a case of presenting (without evidence) a number that differs from the estimates I've seen before. Because there are no sources or evidence presented, it is impossible for the reader to know if this point is true or not. My guess is that there are some large error-bars on that 10 trillion barrel number, and this value is probably at the high end of them. I would hazard to guess that the 2 trillion barrel number is too low (and I have heard that number before), but that 10 trillion barrels is a pretty high estimate. The recoverable part of whatever the true number is the real question. The truth is, though, that at some point the extraction of oil becomes cost ineffective compared to other energy sources. It might be when the oil has to be mined from 5000 feet below the ocean surface or when they have to drill miles into continental bedrock or when tar sands have to be utilized, but there must be a point where the amount of energy going into the extraction of oil is nearly the same as the amount of oil extracted. At that point, there's no need to extract any oil since becomes a zero sum gain. I've always heard the argument that alternative energy sources will become much more cost effective in the run up to the zero sum gain on oil, so we'll probably never reach that extreme.
The bottom line seems to be that there are still disagreements about whether peak oil theory will pan out or not. The oil consultants say no, and a bunch of academics say yes. Hmm, interesting. Like other, strangely similar, "debates," the answer will likely be learned in the next couple of decades. And also like those other issues, by the time we find out the answer, it might already be too late to change course without drastically impacting all of our lives.
2009-08-01
The Indian problem
I was just reading a Grist article about India wanting a global agreement on combatting climate change, while at the same time opposing binding emissions limits [LINK]. This has been, and I think will remain, a key issue for international agreements and negotiations concerning climate change. India and China have a couple of billion people, many of whom live in abject poverty. Both countries are making long strides in their development, becoming global powerhouses in terms of manufacturing and providing low-cost services to the "developed world." In this dash to bring the standard of living in China and India into alignment with the developed countries, the fossil-fuel use in these nations has increased tremendously. Of course, at the same time most Indians still burn biomass for cooking and heating [LINK, see also video].
So on the face of it, this seems to be a dilemma. India and China want to lift their populations out of poverty, expand their economies, and become global leaders. Doing this requires dramatic increases in infrastructure, and includes expanding electricity and water resources. The apparent consequence is increased carbon emissions. So, from the perspective of these developing nations, to improve the standard of living for their populations requires intensive use of fossil fuels and increased emissions, and from their perspective it's not fair that just when they are making progress the "West" tells them that they can't use the cheap (and dirty) energy that will accelerate their endeavors. From the outsider's point of view, though, ramping up the carbon emissions is bad for the whole world.
The only solution that I see to this dilemma is actually exactly what India says it doesn't want: binding emissions restrictions. Such restrictions could be quite complicated in their details, but the point is to prevent the infrastructure in developing nations from building in a dependence on fossil fuels. The world's developed nations are now addicted to fossil fuel, and it is obvious that this has become an impediment to combatting climate change. Introducing the same addiction for another 30% of the world's population doesn't seem useful. Instead, by introducing binding emissions cuts for everyone (and that is key!), the developing nations will be able to practically leap-frog the fossil-fuel phase that the west has been stuck in for a century. It'll be cost efficient, too, since all the western nations are transitioning away from fossil fuels, driving the prices of renewable energy technology down. So while all the developing nations are spending gads of money to deconstruct their antiquated systems while building up entirely new infrastructure for a low-carbon future, India and China should be able to simply begin with renewable systems (for much of their countries at least). This strategy would actually accelerate China and India's progress in catching up with developed countries because they'd avoid what will undoubtedly be a painful transition away from fossil fuels, while pioneering the large-scale use of renewable energy technologies.
Of course, this has all been about energy and money. There are a host of issues related to the impacts of climate change that will disproportionately hurt developing nations, so avoiding those impacts should be a very high priority for those countries. Maybe we should review some of those issues in a future post.
So on the face of it, this seems to be a dilemma. India and China want to lift their populations out of poverty, expand their economies, and become global leaders. Doing this requires dramatic increases in infrastructure, and includes expanding electricity and water resources. The apparent consequence is increased carbon emissions. So, from the perspective of these developing nations, to improve the standard of living for their populations requires intensive use of fossil fuels and increased emissions, and from their perspective it's not fair that just when they are making progress the "West" tells them that they can't use the cheap (and dirty) energy that will accelerate their endeavors. From the outsider's point of view, though, ramping up the carbon emissions is bad for the whole world.
The only solution that I see to this dilemma is actually exactly what India says it doesn't want: binding emissions restrictions. Such restrictions could be quite complicated in their details, but the point is to prevent the infrastructure in developing nations from building in a dependence on fossil fuels. The world's developed nations are now addicted to fossil fuel, and it is obvious that this has become an impediment to combatting climate change. Introducing the same addiction for another 30% of the world's population doesn't seem useful. Instead, by introducing binding emissions cuts for everyone (and that is key!), the developing nations will be able to practically leap-frog the fossil-fuel phase that the west has been stuck in for a century. It'll be cost efficient, too, since all the western nations are transitioning away from fossil fuels, driving the prices of renewable energy technology down. So while all the developing nations are spending gads of money to deconstruct their antiquated systems while building up entirely new infrastructure for a low-carbon future, India and China should be able to simply begin with renewable systems (for much of their countries at least). This strategy would actually accelerate China and India's progress in catching up with developed countries because they'd avoid what will undoubtedly be a painful transition away from fossil fuels, while pioneering the large-scale use of renewable energy technologies.
Of course, this has all been about energy and money. There are a host of issues related to the impacts of climate change that will disproportionately hurt developing nations, so avoiding those impacts should be a very high priority for those countries. Maybe we should review some of those issues in a future post.
2009-07-31
Short german video
Below find a nice short film about fossil-fuel based life. It's in German (w/English subtitles), and focuses on a German audience. Is there an equivalent film for the US?
2009-07-17
Is this what news sounds like?
Working from home today, I spent some time with the TV on (CNN & MSNBC) and with the radio (NPR) on. Why did I have to read about the agreement between Munich Re and other companies to proceed with plans to build large-scale solar power plants across north Africa on a environmental blog? Thank goodness Grist exists to give at least a little coverage to the story [LINK]. This is a follow up to a previous entry on this blog.
The gist of the story is that the meeting appears to be a success, and the plan is for a 400billion Euro investment ( over how long I can't tell). It sounds like a lot, but according to the story, these solar power plants would account for 15% of Europe's power by 2050. Plus, it would provide a substantial amount of power to the countries of northern Africa. A reliable, reasonably affordable, source of electricity (and employment) would certainly help stabilize the local economical and political environments across the region. I hope that their timeline is conservative, as it would be much more exciting if they could get these plants online by, say, 2020, at least supplying some electricity to Europe.
There are critics according the article. The only one they cite is a German whose argument appears to be, why do this in north Africa and not Germany. Honestly, that is pretty lame. There are certainly prospects for solar energy in Germany, but they can't compare with subtropical Africa in terms of amount of sunshine and amount of open area. Secondly, if that's the only complaint, I hope these critics get together and put some money up to start building solar power plants in Germany; that would be terrific.
I can not express how exciting I think this project is. The fact that there are huge industry backers speaks to the potential benefits as well as profits. That the plan is long-term means that there won't be short-term disappointment when there isn't much progress in the planning stages (people get disappointed so fast, e.g., the American public's dissatisfaction with the pace of the Recover Act money being distributed). Plus, this project will push the technologies involved, especially those HVDC cables, into more affordable and reliable products. A bonus would be if some American companies took notice and started seriously working on a similar solution for both North and South America.
The gist of the story is that the meeting appears to be a success, and the plan is for a 400billion Euro investment ( over how long I can't tell). It sounds like a lot, but according to the story, these solar power plants would account for 15% of Europe's power by 2050. Plus, it would provide a substantial amount of power to the countries of northern Africa. A reliable, reasonably affordable, source of electricity (and employment) would certainly help stabilize the local economical and political environments across the region. I hope that their timeline is conservative, as it would be much more exciting if they could get these plants online by, say, 2020, at least supplying some electricity to Europe.
There are critics according the article. The only one they cite is a German whose argument appears to be, why do this in north Africa and not Germany. Honestly, that is pretty lame. There are certainly prospects for solar energy in Germany, but they can't compare with subtropical Africa in terms of amount of sunshine and amount of open area. Secondly, if that's the only complaint, I hope these critics get together and put some money up to start building solar power plants in Germany; that would be terrific.
I can not express how exciting I think this project is. The fact that there are huge industry backers speaks to the potential benefits as well as profits. That the plan is long-term means that there won't be short-term disappointment when there isn't much progress in the planning stages (people get disappointed so fast, e.g., the American public's dissatisfaction with the pace of the Recover Act money being distributed). Plus, this project will push the technologies involved, especially those HVDC cables, into more affordable and reliable products. A bonus would be if some American companies took notice and started seriously working on a similar solution for both North and South America.
2009-07-11
Munich Re -- the new sun god?
An exciting development in the development of large scale solar power is an upcoming meeting initiated by reinsurance company Munich Re [LINK]. The giant company is pulling interested parties together to, apparently seriously, discuss possibilities of building a series of large solar thermal plants in northern Africa and the Arabian peninsula and transmitting the power via high-voltage, direct-current (HVDC) cables.
This isn't a new idea, but the fact that such a gigantic company is getting serious about it is a positive direction. It's an expensive proposition, especially because of the HVDC cables, which would run all the way to Europe (at least). But if these companies can actually put up some capital and show that the system works, then I'm sure the idea would spread and governments in North America and Asia would get involved. (Is it all too late? Maybe, but let's try to be a little optimistic today.)
(Okay, the normal spelling of the Egyptian sun god is Ra, but Re is an acceptable alternate spelling [LINK].)
This isn't a new idea, but the fact that such a gigantic company is getting serious about it is a positive direction. It's an expensive proposition, especially because of the HVDC cables, which would run all the way to Europe (at least). But if these companies can actually put up some capital and show that the system works, then I'm sure the idea would spread and governments in North America and Asia would get involved. (Is it all too late? Maybe, but let's try to be a little optimistic today.)
(Okay, the normal spelling of the Egyptian sun god is Ra, but Re is an acceptable alternate spelling [LINK].)
2009-05-27
The future of energy: oil sands
According to an article from Agence France-Presse, ExxonMobil's Canadian subsidiary is going ahead with a $7BILLION project in Alberta to mine oil out of the oil sands. It's supposed to eventually produce 300,000 barrels per day. That's a spicy meatball.
The company is also touting (read: "greenwashing") it's carbon emissions and efficiency standards, claiming to have reduced emissions by 7% last year. To their credit, they aren't talking about reducing their use of fossil fuels, just being more efficient with them.
What does it all mean? ExxonMobil's products account for a gigantic chunk of fossil fuel carbon emissions, and the fact that they are pouring billions of dollars into expansion means they don't expect to be selling less fossil fuel any time soon. That they are getting more efficient in their treatment of fossil fuel just indicates that they are trying to squeeze every last penny from the cheap fuel (and also get to claim they are being "green"). At the end of the day, these stories are the ones that make me pessimistic that anything will abate humanity's appetite for cheap, dirty energy. Sure there is hope in increasingly aggressive restrictions and regulation of carbon emissions, but with the power/money behind the ExxonMobils of the world, it's hard to imagine that they don't have plenty of wiggle room, nor that they will fail to get more wiggle room built into future regulations.
Or maybe I'm just having a bad day. Read more about ExxonMobil's intersection with climate and environmental issues in a WaPo piece from a couple years ago by Steven Mufson.
2009-04-21
China gently asked to please think about playing nice someday
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has approached China, "warning" the country that it needs to reduce carbon emissions. [LINK] Will China take this warning to heart, and start cleaning up its act? Well, considering that 80% of China's electricity is from burning coal, and the well-used statistics that China is opening a new coal-fired power plant every week, I think not.
Maybe I'm just feeling pessimistic today, but I just don't see China and India shaping up in time to stop atmospheric CO2 levels reaching 450, and probably 550, ppm. The two countries have more than 2 billion people, and are both "developing" nations, which now seems to mean nations that are trying to replicate what the USA and other "Western" nations did 50 years ago. The desire to "catch up" with the developed world is so great that these giants can not rationally address climate issues.
What is the solution? Well, ignoring geoengineering for now, the only way to get China and India to shift away from fossil fuels is to demonstrate a better system, that is more efficient and at least as cheap as the fossil fuel based one that has taken hold. One big obstacle on that front is that China has enormous coal reserves, so burning coal is amazingly cheap in China, and it's hard to imagine an energy system that will be cheaper for China than coal. That even holds for a system that will be cheap in, say, the USA, since such a system would either be sold to China or reverse-engineered, which would incur additional costs.
The IEA warns of some kind of regulation, which I guess could be effective if such regulations were very widely adopted. That would add up to the same kind of carbon tariffs that India wants to avoid. The problem is that China is such a gigantic manufacturer that it would be difficult for many countries (e.g., the USA) to penalize China without hurting themselves. Clearly this is a sticky issue, and there's not a good solution. The problem is that a solution is desperately needed to avoid dangerous levels of anthropogenic climate change.
UPDATE:
I just came across an article in New Scientist that suggests China and the USA might be coming together on plans for reduced carbon emissions. In actuality, these are two unrelated stories. The one about China is kind of interesting. China's climate negotiator, Su Wei, says that in their next 5-year plan, China will likely reduce the "carbon intensity" of their energy production. Here's what he says, "China hasn't reached the stage where we can reduce overall emissions, but we can reduce energy intensity and carbon intensity." What does that mean? Not much. As I have to keep saying, it doesn't matter what the carbon emissions per capita are, only the total amount of carbon. Just because China will become more efficient in their use of energy doesn't mitigate global warming. In fact, by continuing to increase carbon emission, China continues to exacerbate the problem.
2009-04-13
India won't play nice
An article by Rama Lakshmi in the Washington Post is a reminder that despite the increasing concern about global warming and carbon emissions, developing nations still want to develop without constraint. Put pretty succinctly by one of the Indian delegates to a recent UN conference, "It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce [carbon emissions] when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity."
The article goes on to say, "Last week, India's special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, told reporters in Bonn that he opposed any attempt by the European Union and the United States to impose 'carbon tariffs' on exports of Indian goods produced in energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminum, cement and fertilizer." It also says that India doesn't think it is fair to be targeted for its emissions because per capita India emits 1/10 of what the US does.
The problem, clearly, is that the population of India is over 1 billion people, and growing. A second problem is that the climate system just doesn't care about the population; the temperature rises in direct proportion to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, without dividing by the number of humans who put it there.
There are tricky ethical issues here, and there is no absolutely right answer. India does deserve to continue to develop, bringing the standard of living up for its citizens. India must take responsibility for its contribution to global warming, which threatens the standard of living for just as many people around the world (through changes in precipitation, sea-level, ecosystem response, melting of permafrost, changing migratory patterns, etc).
What can the UN or the United States do to spur India to action, to make a real effort to reduce CO2 emissions? Well, not a whole lot for now. However, going back to Shyam Saran's comment above, I see no reason not to impose carbon tariffs in the near future. This will depend on the adoption of some kind of carbon pricing mechanism (e.g., "cap and trade"). Once a price is placed on carbon use, then it will have to be applied to imports as well, including the amount of energy that goes into transporting material goods.
From my simple viewpoint, which might be naive, it seems like there would absolutely have to be such tariffs. Otherwise, it would become even cheaper to outsource jobs to developing countries. This includes non-manufacturing. Already it is very cheap for companies in the US (and elsewhere) to hire Indian companies to do a lot of work (see e.g., The World is Flat
). If energy costs were to rise substantially in the US because of the price of carbon emissions, without a commensurate rise in price of outsourcing, then there would be little choice left other than to send those jobs overseas, which would be a severe blow to the local economy. So a carbon pricing system imposed, say, on American companies would necessarily include the carbon emitted by their contractors, provided that the contractors are not already paying for those emissions. The job of tracking all the emissions and who pays for what seems gargantuan and nearly intractable. In the end, the whole goal of the system would be to get enough people paying enough money that large-scale shifts in energy generation would ensue, eventually eliminating the need for burning fossil fuels. But the path is tortuous, even if paved with good intentions.
The article goes on to say, "Last week, India's special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, told reporters in Bonn that he opposed any attempt by the European Union and the United States to impose 'carbon tariffs' on exports of Indian goods produced in energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminum, cement and fertilizer." It also says that India doesn't think it is fair to be targeted for its emissions because per capita India emits 1/10 of what the US does.
The problem, clearly, is that the population of India is over 1 billion people, and growing. A second problem is that the climate system just doesn't care about the population; the temperature rises in direct proportion to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, without dividing by the number of humans who put it there.
There are tricky ethical issues here, and there is no absolutely right answer. India does deserve to continue to develop, bringing the standard of living up for its citizens. India must take responsibility for its contribution to global warming, which threatens the standard of living for just as many people around the world (through changes in precipitation, sea-level, ecosystem response, melting of permafrost, changing migratory patterns, etc).
What can the UN or the United States do to spur India to action, to make a real effort to reduce CO2 emissions? Well, not a whole lot for now. However, going back to Shyam Saran's comment above, I see no reason not to impose carbon tariffs in the near future. This will depend on the adoption of some kind of carbon pricing mechanism (e.g., "cap and trade"). Once a price is placed on carbon use, then it will have to be applied to imports as well, including the amount of energy that goes into transporting material goods.
From my simple viewpoint, which might be naive, it seems like there would absolutely have to be such tariffs. Otherwise, it would become even cheaper to outsource jobs to developing countries. This includes non-manufacturing. Already it is very cheap for companies in the US (and elsewhere) to hire Indian companies to do a lot of work (see e.g., The World is Flat
). If energy costs were to rise substantially in the US because of the price of carbon emissions, without a commensurate rise in price of outsourcing, then there would be little choice left other than to send those jobs overseas, which would be a severe blow to the local economy. So a carbon pricing system imposed, say, on American companies would necessarily include the carbon emitted by their contractors, provided that the contractors are not already paying for those emissions. The job of tracking all the emissions and who pays for what seems gargantuan and nearly intractable. In the end, the whole goal of the system would be to get enough people paying enough money that large-scale shifts in energy generation would ensue, eventually eliminating the need for burning fossil fuels. But the path is tortuous, even if paved with good intentions.
2009-03-30
Is this the ultimate greenwash?
A recent study finds that manufacturing processes used to make a lot of stuff, apparently especially tech stuff, is incredibly inefficient when it comes to energy consumption. [LINK] A particularly painful example is the manufacture of solar panels, which is so inefficient that it diminishes the long-term payoff of using renewable energy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)