Running Out of Oil, and Why 450 is the New 350.

By Dave Rochlin - originally posted on care2.com

The International Energy Agency (IEA) issued their annual World Energy Outlook, and despite a drop in 2009 demand due to the global recession, the numbers look grim. As Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the IEA put it;

"...a continuation of current trends in energy use puts the world on track for a rise in temperature of up to 6°C and poses serious threats to global energy security."

The IEA is to consuming countries what OPEC is to producing ones, advising members on energy supply and policy.Their activities include estimating how much oil is available and what future energy consumption will look like, and things may be even grimmer than they have been letting on.

Oil supplies in flux
According to a report in the Guardian, the Agency may have deliberately overstated world oil supplies, in order to avoid a worldwide buying panic. An unnamed (and therefore unverified) sources claim that the US has played an influential role in encouraging the organization to "underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves." Another (also unnamed) source was quoted as saying "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad."

"Peak oil" refers to the point at which the rate of production of oil, which has generally marched steadily upwards, begins to decline. If we continue our current energy habits and assume no change in government policies (called the 'Reference Scenario'), we will need to produce an additional 20 million barrels a day by 2030. It is not clear where that oil supply would come from, and is projected as "crude oil fields yet to be found."

Is even '450' a stretch?
In the 'Reference Scenario', the world's primary energy demand in 2030 is estimated to grow by a staggering 40% over the current figures. Much of this increase would be in coal use, which would grow by 50% and have a severe impact on climate change.

The IEA also looked at the alternative scenario needed to hold greenhouse gasses to 450 ppm, which is generally considered the maximum upper limit to avoid irreversible and possibly cataclysmic change (we are currently at 385.) What would need to happen? By 2030, a third of the world's power needs to come from renewables and/or nuclear, 60% of cars need to be plug in or hybrid, and we need to invest nearly $10 Trillion globally in energy efficiency. These are all what I would call 'stretch goals', and is partially why others have described staying below 450 ppm as pursuing "the greatest achievement in the history of the human race."

The IEA didn't even bother figuring out what it would take to reduce total ghg back to 350 ppm, a 'do no harm' target which seems to be completely out of reach.

Pay now or pay later
Conspiracy theorists claim that global warming is a hoax designed to create new 'green' profits via cap-and-trade and clean technology. While some concerns about Wall Street are always warranted, here is the simple math: The IEA estimates that carbon should eventually carry a cost of around $50 per ton, which translates to $20 per barrel of oil. If we continue on our current path, however, demand will likely drive up oil prices by at least $50 per barrel, sending over $4 trillion dollars to OPEC members in the next 20 years, just for the oil And the cost of climate change? The NRDC estimates that in the US alone, it will be $300 Billion a year by 2030. Many put the global figure in the Trillions.

So whether for the planet or the pocketbook, it's time to wake up. Things simply will not stay the way they are. We can either start spending on clean energy and efficiency now, or pay even more for the privilege of using up more fossil fuel and polluting the planet, with dire consequences. Why does this seem like a difficult choice?

Should you fly if you care about climate change?

By Dave Rochlin - originally posted on care2.com

If we are "addicted" to oil (as even George Bush admitted), then I guess air travel would need to be classified as heroin: Extremely harmful, and yet almost impossible to quit.

As an example of how deep this addiction runs:
I'm on an email group list of well known climate bloggers, and one of my colleagues recently asked, "So... what bloggers on this list are going to Copenhagen?" (for the UN climate meetings next month)

A few of the answers:

• "We will have several people there."
• "We will be sending two people."
• "We are sending 12 Midwest delegates."
  

You get the idea. These folks are among the most active and engaged on the issue of climate change, and yet many will be jetsetting multiple writers to Denmark (possibly myself included).

They are almost certainly aware that in terms of personal carbon impact, flying is one of the worst things you can do: Without flying, the average person's carbon footprint in the US (the amount of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses we emit as individuals) is 16 tons. But for the 25% of American who fly, the average footprint is 6 tons higher. And for the roughly 6 Million 'frequent fliers' in The US, the typical footprint is 40 tons - almost triple the average. Yikes!

Flying is especially harmful because the emissions are released much further up in the atmosphere. There was a memorable scene in the movie The Age of Stupid, where a family tries to work out a reasonable carbon budget, and realizes that their holiday flying makes it impossible. As the father says, "the only thing worse than flying seems to be to set fire to a rainforest."

So what is a concerned eco-citizen to do? Waiting for the airlines to fix the problem is certainly not a good option. The Air Transportation Association is lobbying to avoid taxes or cap-and-trade on their industry, while also making vague promises to reduce emissions by 50% in the next 40 years. Unfortunately, most estimates are that airline travel will actually grow substantially as a portion of total emissions in upcoming decades.

Can we stop flying? Given the global nature of business and politics, as well as the importance of cultural sensitivity and awareness in an interconnected world, I hope not (although we can fly less, that's for sure.) I'm glad that concerned writers will be in Copenhagen to document the UN climate talks, even if they need to get on airplanes to get there.

The only remaining answer seems to be for fliers to fund activities that reduce their flight emissions via what is known as 'offsetting' -- funding other programs that do more good than the harm we create. Offsetting often gets a bad name, sometimes called the equivalent of a medieval pardon, or simply purchasing guilt reduction. But what it really does is pragmatically mitigate a potential environmental problem through a 'swap', something we do all the time. As examples, we chose to set aside national parks rather than halt westward expansion, conservation funds often trade forest tracts and logging rights with timber interests, and we support hatcheries to make up for dams and lost Salmon habitats. So why not set aside forests or support wind energy to make up for the flying we can't seem to avoid? While none of these 'swaps' are perfect, they are much better alternatives to doing nothing to mitigate activities that - for economic and other reasons - we just can't stop doing.

In the case of flying, offsetting the impact of a one way trip overseas adds roughly 2% ($15) to the price of a ticket. In an era where airlines now charge $32 for advanced seating assignments, $25 for an extra bag, and even for meals, that seems like a bargain to me.

Going back to the original heroin analogy, I suppose offsetting would be the moral and practical equivalent of Methadone -- a safe way to allow us to gradually withdraw from our addiction, rather than quitting cold turkey.

I think it's a good solution to the air travel dilemma, but I know not everyone agrees. What do you think?

Photo copyright:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hdport/ / CC BY 2.0

Wall Street expert says buy stock in Campbell's Soup: The myths and logic of climate skeptics.

By Dave Rochlin - originally posted on care2.com

I just saw a short video featuring James Altucher, a weekly columnist for the Financial Times and long time Wall Street fund manager, who is bullish on Campbell's Soup and winter coats, and bearish on climate change.

Altucher is obviously a very bright guy, but he echoed a couple of the more prominent myths and erroneous arguments of climate skeptics:

"Peak temperatures world wide were hit in 1998, and the world has been cooling ever since."

This bit of urban myth is based on the data shown in the chart at left from AP. As you can see, naysayers jumped on a single high data point, ignoring basic statistical analysis and common sense. As the AP reported in busting this myth:

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming." The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics....Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set.

This idea has been perpetuated by both the BBC, and inadvertanly by Freakonomics author Steven Levitt, who has been backpedaling faster than you can say "buy my book."

"Nobody really knows whether the globe is heating or cooling or how much is man made and how much is just the Earth's natural cycle."

This "we can't be sure" tactic has been used before - by folks resisting DDT bans, cigarette warning labels, sulfur dixoide limits to reduce acid rain, and CFC controls to keep our ozone layer from being destroyed. The scientific evidence is pretty overwhelming, and near consensus. Does that mean that everyone agrees? Of course not.

A minority report released to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee listed 700 scientists who disagree. But a survey study of several thousand leading scientists conducted by the University of Illinois found that 97% of climatologists who are active in research believe that human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. (As a side note, petroleum geologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47% believing in human involvement.) The study concluded that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

Here are a few more recent comments from skeptics:

"I live right outside of Orlando and it is the coldest it has been since I have lived in Florida. It was 65 the other day."

Yes, but it was unusally hot in my neighborhood last week.

"The Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing."

Maybe (this is still being studied)...but increased snowfall caused by warming is the likely explanation, and overall sea ice and glacier trends are alarmingly negative, particularly in the arctic. Here is a chart from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which tracks sea ice and glaciers.

It's a hoax. Al Gore is making millions of dollars on this issue.

As a cleantech venture capitalist, Al certainly has plenty of skin in the game. Billions of dollars are being invested in finding low carbon solutions, and there will be plenty of money made. By the same logic, however,the claims of well funded and motivated naysayers, including the US chamber of commerce and Big Oil should be rejected as well. So I guess nobody is right. Yes Al and the usual suspects might be making bank, but it doesn't mean climate change is a hoax.

Oh by the way, using Altucher's methods and logic, I observed that Campbell's Soup stock has been on a downward trend since 1998...which I guess proves that the planet must be warming.

Passing the Planet's Redline

By Dave Rochlin - originally posted on care2.com

Peter Russell, a British author and futurist, has a mesmerizing world clock on his website. This clock doesn't tell time, it measures global stress issues, such as population growth, species extinctions, deforestation, and CO2 emissions. I reset the clock, sat down to read the paper, and came back an hour later. What happened in my 60 minutes of leisure time?

• 1480 hectares of forest were cut down (3660 acres)
• 690 hectares of new desert were created (1700 acres)
• 3.1 Million tons of CO2 were emitted
• 3.5 Million barrels of oil were pumped
• 3 species went extinct
• The world's population grew by 8,800 people

In autoracing, the term 'redlining' refers to the maximum speed an engine and its components can operate at without causing damage to the system. Go over the redline and the damage is usually widespread and severe. Watching the numbers on the world clock continue to grow, can there be any doubt that there is a planetary redline for each of these metrics? We don't know where the upper limits are, but it goes without saying that our world can not support limitless population, greenhouse gas emissions, desertification, or oil. If we knew these upper limits, and watched as the needle slowly approached the redline, I wonder if we would take the issues more seriously.

On the climate front, the carbon meter currently reads 385 parts per million (ppm). Many of the world's leading scientists estimate that 450 ppm is our self destruct point. Still others feel that we need to drop back down to 350 ppm, and have already hit the redline -- we just don't know it yet. The number is rising by 2-3 ppm per year, and to get atmospheric CO2 to stop rising, scientists believe that global emissions need to be cut by at least 50%. Whether we are approaching or have passed the limit, we clearly need to take our foot off the accelerator.

There is of course a second definition of redlining, which is the practice of denying or increasing the cost of necessary services (health, food, jobs) to residents in defined racially determined areas. Sadly, in an indirect way the world clock also measures this. As the metrics increase, it is many of the poorest in the poorer countries who will be impacted most, exacerbating the differences between 'haves' and 'have nots'.

Because of both redline issues, we need to start thinking more holistically about our planet. As Russell says;

"The real crisis we are facing is not an environmental crisis, a population crisis, economic crisis, a social crisis, or a political crisis. It is, at its root, a crisis of consciousness. A crisis is an indication that the old mode of operating is no longer working, and a new approach is required. This is true of a personal crisis, a family crisis or a political crisis. In the case of the environmental the old way that is no longer working is our self-centred materialistic consciousness. It may have worked well in the past, when we needed to provide ourselves with the basic commodities necessary for our individual well-being – but it clearly no longer works today."

Note: Follow me on twitter, and be alerted when I post! http://twitter.com/ClimateTweeter

Image copyright ClimatePath. Adapted from http://www.flickr.com/photos/shanafin/ / CC BY-SA 2.0. Globe image courtesy of Nasa.

How You Too Can Be a Climate Superhero.

By Dave Rochlin - originally posted on care2.com

The trouble with taking action on climate change is that the issue is so big. Unlike giving money to your church, supporting your local schools, or volunteering to build houses or work in a local shelter, it's hard to believe that your individual action is making a difference. If you're reading this blog, you're already conservation minded, encouraging action, trying to use your car less, and at least thinking of offsetting or buying green energy, etc. What more can you do?

Well I saw a story in my local newspaper that reminded me of the impact we can have as individuals, simply by refusing to accept the stupid things we see around us every day:

A regular commuter on BART (the SF Bay Area's light rail system) noticed that the lights were on all day every day in the parking lot at her local station. It struck her as a huge waste of electricity, even though it was a "drop in the bucket" to BART. She called and and was told that they must be testing the lighting system. Since she works across the street from the station, she doubted that this was the case...the lights had been every day for months.

Rather than accepting a brush off, she enlisted a local newspaper columnist, that recontacted the transit agency on her behalf. A BART crew visited the parking lot and determined that the master light switch had been inadvertently set to manual instead of automatic. The crew simply reset the switches to automatically shut off during the day and fixed the problem.

Parking lots use a lot of lights, and this simple citizen action had 10 or 20 times the impact vs. just reducing her energy consumption at home. By spending a few hours and showing a little determination, she had the strength of ten men...in other words, she was transformed from mere mortal to superhero!

When you speak up, sometimes others listen. It's great to share these successes, to keep us all inspired that we can make a difference.

Photo: Adapted from http://www.flickr.com/photos/xurble/ / CC BY 2.0

Ecology or Economy? Singing the Climate Week Blues.

By Dave Rochlin - originally posted on care2.com

Ecology or economy? Do we really have to choose?
It's got me singing the climate week blues.

"Climate Week" - timed to coincide with last week's UN meetings and the Clinton Global Initiative - left me both excited and dreading the next few months.

The international community is solidly united behind creating a comprehensive climate change agreement, factoring in both economic growth and social justice while setting aggressive targets. As I mentioned last week, even President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao got in on the act. But the US economy is built on fossil fuel consumption, and even the modest reduction targets proposed by the House of Representatives are met with intense resistance.

I'd rather show than tell in this case, so take a look at the 2 minute YouTube video that ClimatePath put together.




The world needs, and world leaders demand, a 20-25% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid the critical 2 degrees (C) threshold, yet such a reduction seems to require changes far above what we're willing to pursue. The question leading up to Copenhagen climate meetings is: What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force? We'll soon find out.

The age of stupid?

By Dave Rochlin - originally posted on care2.com

I recently went to the remote global premier of the film The Age of Stupid, which included a live simulcast to over 500 theaters in 45 countries as a tie-in to climate week and the UN climate meetings in New York.

The movie is set up as a series of modern day vignettes looked at through the eyes of an archivist 45 years in the very bleak future, who can only wonder at why we were so stupid. To be honest, I was a bit skeptical that this film would cover any new ground: There are only so many ways to represent the potential dangers and damage of climate change, many of which were covered via Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and Leonardo DiCaprio's 11th hour (and in the case of a few scenes, the lightweight and unbelievable "The Day After Tomorrow".)

But I was impressed by the honest treatment of the complexity of the issues surrounding action on climate change. The film acknowledges that it isn't as easy as simply turning off the 'carbon tap'. The aspirations of billions for a middle class life, the entrepreneurial spirit, the contradictions between what we need to do for a living and what we believe, and even the simple unwillingness of many to accept aesthetic inconveniences (even while expressing concern over the climate) are all featured, providing an interesting human face and counterpoint to the growing body of scientific evidence and urgency for action. The film is full of ironies, such as the segment on a young Nigerian woman who points out the injustices of Shell Oil in her community, while selling diesel and wistfully aspiring to the "American good life", which of course is powered at least in part by Shell.

Most of the characters seem to feel "trapped" in a lifestyle that they know is unsustainable, even as the evidence of the planetary impact mounts around them. Perhaps we are not living so much in an "age of stupid" as an age of covet or inertia? Whatever the case, these are very real behavioral barriers to tackling the climate issue. For the "haves", we need to somehow increase the sense of urgency without waiting for the kind of planetary apocalypse to occur that the film projects. For the "have nots ", using climate action as a tool rather than barrier for development is also a way to encourage positive change.

The post film discussion was equally interesting, featuring the film's director (Franny Armstrong), Kofi Annan, the head of the IPCC, and many others. All seem generally alarmed at how much hangs in the balance in the next few months, both with US climate policy and worldwide commitment in Copenhagen. There was also a strong and consistent call for serious lifestyle change and economic retooling in the west as a matter of self preservation and social justice.

Finally, Ms. Armstrong rolled out a "10:10" campaign, urging a voluntary commitment to reduce emissions 10% by 2010. While the idea to send a message of public will is a strong one, the target is pretty tame, requiring little change, inconvenience or financial commitment, and is simply not enough. If anything, it may send a message that true public will is lacking.

Has she fallen into one of her film's traps of symbolic gestures over real change? Or perhaps as a Brit, she has does not fully appreciate that for the average American, 10% is easy. While Europeans have already captured the low hanging fruit, we clearly have not. For this "side of the pond", I have been a proponent of 20:20 or more, which is 20% via reduction and 20% more via offsetting.

Whatever your commitment, all of this attention is well timed. A strong populist message to the UN and the climate delegates needs to be sent.

Photo courtesy Spanner Films, all rights reserved.