Americans Flunk Climate Test

Dave Rochlin - www.climatepath.org

According to a new Yale study, most Americans are aware of climate change, but have no idea why it is happening. The Yale team claims that only 8 percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B grade, while 52% would get an F. The grading was done by a school where grade inflation is an issue, and Dubya carried a C+ average, so these numbers are even worse than they sound.

The study found a generally poor level of understanding of such issues as how much greenhouse gas concentrations have increased in the last 100 years (a lot), the impact of livestock on global warming (quite large), and how long greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere (a very long time.) The last item is particularly alarming, since our near term inability to reverse the impact of emissions is what drives the urgency to take action now. Slowing climate change is more like stopping an aircraft carrier than turning a speedboat.

But most concerning is that most in the survey admitted that they don’t know all that much about the issue. The Yale team reports that only 1 in 10 say that they are “very well informed” about climate change, and 75 percent say they would like to know more. What exactly are people waiting for? The truth is out there.

I suppose one could argue that as long as scientists are on top of the issue, we’ll all be informed at the depth we need to, in order to make collectively prudent decisions. But I have started reading Naomi Oreskes new book (The Merchants of Doubt), which documents how frequently (and easily) science is undercut by manipulating popular opinion. It only takes a few influential deniers to mislead the public.

Perhaps instead of “no child left behind” we need a policy of “no planet left behind?”

Follow ClimatePath on Facebook!

Originally posted at care2.com. Photo: Some rights reserved by hans.gerwitz

The fight for the future starts in California.

By Dave Rochlin - ClimatePath

When California passed AB32, the landmark greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction bill in 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger said;

"Using market-based incentives, we will reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. That's a 25 percent reduction. And by 2050, we will reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it's too late."

But the opposition apparently borrowed another quote from the governator:

"I'll be back."

And back they are, with a coal and oil interest backed ballot initiative which seeks to overturn AB32 before most of the more significant pieces of it take effect. The fight reflects the two sides of the debate on what to do about global warming.

On one side are the folks who believe we must act, and who are also happy to assert that by taking action, we will create thousands of new green and 'clean tech' jobs, while reshaping our economy around energy conservation, clean technology, and renewable energy production. Not surprisingly Silicon Valley is firmly behind AB 32, and against efforts to repeal it. California imports a significant amount of electricity, and sources almost all if its coal, natural gas, and oil from outside the state. The prospect of breaking this dependency and reducing emissions through the use of technology represents a pretty exciting future, and many feel that the state will become more competitive as a result.

As Schwarzenegger also said;

"Some have challenged whether AB 32 is good for businesses. I say unquestionably it is good for businesses. Not only large, well-established businesses, but small businesses that will harness their entrepreneurial spirit to help us achieve our climate goals.

But on the other side are those who claim we should not act, and that the initiative will cost the state jobs while reducing GDP by as much as $100 Billion dollars over the next ten years. This case is being pressed by a consortium of oil refiners, truckers, and coal interests, who like things just the way they are. If California stands alone and energy costs rise in the state, this could be the future, as businesses move operations out of the state, and consumers seek out cheaper products and services from elsewhere, even if they have a higher embedded carbon footprint.

So if AB32 stands, apparently there are two very different possible futures in the Golden State. One in which the rest of the country scrambles to keep up with a new energy paradigm that makes California an economic engine, or one in which the burden of taking responsibility for emissions simply adds cost. Not coincidentally, this is the same debate that's going on in Washington over national climate legislation.

My guess is that the impact of AB32 will be closer to neutral, and certainly somewhere in between these two extremes: On one hand, energy costs will rise, which will hurt businesses and consumers. But California will use less, create energy jobs, and keep more money in the state. And in the long term, the state will be protected from energy price shocks. One thing is certain: The big losers in all of these scenarios are those whose business models continue to be built around the demand for fossil fuel. And that's why they are putting up money to overturn AB32.

The economic consequences of meaningful and comprehensive emissions legislation won't be known for some time, and Californians are being asked to take a leap of faith. An uncertain future is pretty scary, but scarier still is a failure to take action on curbing our addiction to fossil fuels and the consequences of that addiction.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.”

Originally posted on care2. Photo: CC license - Flickr. Some rights reserved by tibchris

Does Google know something about energy that the rest of us don't?

Dave Rochlin - www.climatepath.org

Google announced a large wind energy deal this week that reveals a lot about where they think energy markets are headed. Other big energy consumers should take notice.

Rather than simply buying renewable energy credits (RECs) and adding some solar panels to show their commitment to green, Google’s energy subsidiary signed a 20-year power purchase agreement with NextEra Energy. Google will begin buying 114 megawatts of electricity from an Iowa wind farm later this summer. Now of course Google doesn’t consume much of their energy anywhere near Iowa, but they can (and intend to) sell this energy on wholesale markets, and simultaneously buy energy where they do use it.

By buying the wind energy directly, Google has created a giant hedge against both rising energy prices and the future cost of compliance with emissions reduction mandates – either voluntary or mandatory. RECs are a way to separate out the actual energy from the credit for low emissions, and this direct investment locks in their costs for both.

Why would they want to do this? Aside from their intention on greening their operations, they believe it makes good business sense.

On the energy side, world demand keeps increasing. China recently overtook the US in total energy use according to the International Energy Agency, and India is poised to become a large importer of coal to meet their growing demand. While there is much debate about whether and when we’ll start to deplete fossil fuel reserves, it’s clear that higher demand and higher costs associated with the extracting future reserves (think of BP drilling a mile underwater for oil) will send energy prices upwards. And demand-wise, plug-in electric cars could undo some of the other energy savings that are slowing electricity use in the U.S.

On the renewables side, while the cost of solar, wind and other ‘clean’ sources will continue to fall and capacity continue to increase, a climate bill in the US could create a shortfall, sending the price of ‘clean energy’ (or at least the REC piece) up. With the senate climate bill stalled, and both carbon offset and REC markets showing weak demand, this may seem hard to imagine today. But in a few years, it could be quite a different story.

A group called NERA Economic Consulting has partnered with a very cool startup called Crowdcast to try and predict how this will all play out. They use ‘the wisdom of crowds' to come up with a consensus forecast, which Crowdcast claims is typically more reliable than individual expertise. Half 'the crowd' thinks we’ll have a senate bill by June of 2012, that it will require a 17% reduction in emissions, and that the price per ton of carbon credits (which can be used to make up for missed reduction targets) will rise above $10.

Google will be immune to both overall energy and emissions targets, and in fact might be in a position to sell their excess green energy for quite a tidy profit. My bet is that by 2020, Google will be – as usual – laughing all the way to the bank.

As they say “Through the long term purchase of renewable energy at a predetermined price, we’re partially protecting ourselves against future increases in power prices. This is a case where buying green makes business sense.”

Follow ClimatePath on facebook!

Photo: CC License via Flickr: Yodel Anecdotal

Unquenchable thirst: The many things we do with oil.

Dave Rochlin - www.climatepath.org

With BP's broken underwater well still leaking oil into the gulf at an alarming rate, there are many calls to reduce our dependence on oil of all kinds.

Animator Mark Fiore recently did a wonderful video highlighting the bizarre notion of using "dinosaur squeezings" to power cars.



But oil is used in a lot more than our gas tanks. Petroleum is in many other products, and we use it for many of our processes. We also rely on it to grow, cook, eat, and even enhance our food. This second video, featuring eco-man and badger girl (which I made with the cool web tool xtranormal), highlights this.



I'm no Mark Fiore, but you get the point, I hope. A fairly exhaustive web list of many of the everyday goods that come from oil is available here, courtesy of the Illinois Oil and Gas Association. The list covers everything from ballet tights to venetian blinds. It certainly is food for thought. The list isn't 1001 items long, but easily could be.

The website also quotes Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.N. Ambassador for the United States.

"Oil is a product that arouses so much passion. A lot of people have a passionate fear, or distaste, or downright hatred almost for oil. There is no other product that so many people need so badly, yet so many people believe should be produced entirely without profits."

As long as we need it "so badly", there isn't much chance we are going to stop drilling for oil off our shores. While there is a lot of talk about alternative energy, it seems that we also need to reconsider the role of oil as an input for all the other things we consume.

Photo copyright TommL at istockphoto.com

President Obama calls for a price on carbon. Will it work?

Posted by Dave Rochlin - http://www.ClimatePath.org

In a recent speech at Carnegie Mellon University, President Obama called for a price to be put on CO2 emissions, in order to move us on the path towards renewable energy. He figures the market will help do the rest.

" ...the only way the transition to clean energy will succeed is if the private sector is fully invested in this future, if capital comes off the sidelines and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs is unleashed. And the only way to do that is by finally putting a price on carbon pollution."

A price on carbon has dual purposes:

• It raises the cost of energy, which should encourage conservation.
• It closes the cost gap between fossil fuels and alternative energy.

But will it work?

According to the most recent EPA greenhouse gas inventory, US greenhouse gas output is 7 billion tons a year. At a price of $25 per ton -- as envisioned in the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act -- the total added cost if we priced all US emissions would be $175 Billion dollars per year, or about $1750 per household per year. Of course we won't be charging for all emissions....more likely just those above our 17% reduction cap, so the short term number (in grossly oversimplified terms) is really more like $350 per household....and that's only if we were not simply giving away all the permits. And in the long term? The senate bill targets an 80% reduction by 2050...but I'll believe that commitment when I see it.

I suppose this could show up as an additional $.25/gallon at the gas pump, or perhaps another $.01- $.02 per KwH for electricity. More likely, a lot of it would be buried in the cost of all the things we buy...carbon pricing by a thousand paper cuts!

When I talk about offsets (which I do a lot), I often have people tell me that a carbon tax is a much better answer, because it sends clear signals about the cost of consuming energy. So let's look at some major sources of emissions to see what pricing carbon might do:

Driving (roughly 20% of US emissions)
I really doubt that adding another $10 per barrel to the cost of oil is going to change driving habits or vehicle choices much. Demand only seems to change with massive ($30 or more per barrel) type price shocks, and even then only temporarily. If you don't like a Prius at $60 per barrel, you probably still don't like it at $70. Rather than carbon pricing, we either need to tax the real price of oil (including military expenditures, health costs, and deficit-related currency weakness) or simply rely on higher mandates on gas mileage, like the ones the EPA just enacted.

Flying (roughly 3-5% of US emissions)
Much of the cost of flying is fuel related, and this is an area where carbon pricing could have the greatest impact. While 10% at the gas pump does not scare drivers much, a 5% or 10% increase in the price of flying has a big impact on demand....there are plenty of pricing studies that confirm this. But even in this case, the drop in passenger miles would probably not hit the 17% reduction target. Of course airlines are already looking for exemptions to cap and trade in both the US and Europe. Perhaps we need some sort of mandatory fuel targets (per passenger) for airplane flights?

Electricity Generation (roughly 30% of US emissions)
For a home using 9,000 KWH per year, the carbon penalty would be around $15 per month. Most homes could easily save this much by using cold water for washing clothes and changing out a few lightbulbs, or shutting off vampire appliances and computers. And yet most of us don't. We don't seem to be that rational when it comes to electricity.

The utilities would look at both cost per kWH and capital expense, if it is a purely market based decision. Many uilities don't really compete, so any cost increases would simply be passed on anyway. This makes it rational to avoid new capital expenses, and stick with the old power plants. Emissions and renewable energy targets and other mandates (like additional scrubbers) could be much more impactful.

Industrial Energy Use (roughly 10% of US emissions)
Businesses have gotten smart about energy use in a big way. The more energy intensive the business operation, the more they are conserving in order to cut cost. But if they are taking action anyway, how much more impact will carbon pricing have? For those on the margin (less energy intensive businesses) some may start to care. But the big polluters are already paying attention to conservation. The senate bill also has some trade protections (carbon tariffs) so simply raising prices on goods and services ever-so-slightly is an option...no need to worry about foreign competition.

Agriculture (roughly 7% of US emissions)
This sector seems to be given a waiver: If so, the CO2 equivalent of agriculture related Methane (21 times that of CO2) and Nitrous Oxide (310 times that of CO2) will not be priced. Need I say more?

Another big issue is that the price on carbon - as envisioned in current climate legislation - will go right back into the pockets of US consumers, either in the form of rebates or in defict reduction that will keep both taxes and inflation down. So the more we reduce our consumption or switch to renewables, the less we get back in rebates....sort of a reverse incentive.

While I think capturing the true cost of energy is an important step, I am not all that optimistic that carbon pricing alone will change behavior. What are some other options? Here are a few I can think of:

Conservation Capital
There's a high ROI on energy reduction (which would be even higher if energy costs go up due to carbon pricing.) But many changes require upfront capital. How about a low interest or no interest capital fund or Fannie-Mae type system for businesses and households to fund conservation and energy retrofits? This scheme is already being considered for residential solar.

Hard Targets
We could simply set renewables and emissions targets, as has been done with automobiles. If the market knows that a utility needs to get to 20% renewables in ten years, the "ingenuity of entrepreneurs" that The President referred to will kick into high gear an compete vigorously for a piece of the pie, lowering costs and increasing innovation.

Cost Transparency
Better feedback on energy use and costs would lead to better decisonmaking. Let's hook those smart meters into our thermostats and iphones, so we can see at anytime how much we are spending on power. And instead of an MPG gauge on cars, how about a taxi-meter style read out that shows how much we are spending on gas as we drive? These sort of in-your-face mechanisms are more likely to change behavior.

Spend Intelligently and Holistically
While we are pricing carbon at $25 or higher, I can think of an amazing innovation that 'eats' carbon for $10 per ton, and has years of successful field trials. It's called a tree, and we are losing as much as 80,000 acres of them each day. Trees also can preserve biodiversity and provide income in poverty zones. Using less and cleaner energy is a worthwhile goal, but a planet covered with solar panels and turbines instead of trees is not the kind of future we should aspire to. It's all about balance.

Follow ClimatePath on Facebook!

Original photo CC license http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdburton/ modified by ClimatePath. All rights reserved.

Coal Use and CO2 Emissions Projected to Rise By More Than 50% By 2035

Dave Rochlin - www.climatepath.org

The world's hunger for energy is insatiable, according to the most recent Energy Outlook published by The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

And if nothing changes, this will lead to an increase in coal consumption from 132 quadrillion Btu in 2007 to 206 quadrillion Btu in 2035, most of which will come from growth in India and China. As a result, annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions could rise from 29.7 billion metric tons in 2007 to 42.4 billion metric tons in 2035.

Things are generally flat in the OECD countries, as they move from manufacturing to service based economies, and focus on efficiency rather than growth in their transportation sectors. But as manufacturers locate factories in developing countries where wages are cheapest, and those wage earners increase their standard of living, the countries least equipped to invest in renewable energy and public infrastructure will be the most active in growing their energy and fuel use. So the EIA projects plenty of additional coal and oil consumption.

Policymakers refer to this as an issue of energy intensity of the economy (how much energy is used for every dollar of GDP) and carbon intensity of energy (the sources used to produce the energy.) Most of the projected growth is in countries with high energy and carbon intensity.

This good news is that this scenario is based on the reference case—which assumes that current laws and policies remain unchanged throughout the projection period. There seem to growing public and political will to make some changes. But while China and India have floated the idea of cutting their emissions intensity in half as a percent of GDP (primarily through improved energy intensity) growth in their economies and only small reductions in the carbon intensity of the energy will overrun these reductions. Before we start finger pointing, however, keep in mind that exports to the US and other OECD countries have been powering China's industrial growth.

In any case, the reference scenario is quite scary, and we have to do much better. A healthy dose of conservation and alternative/renewable energy is needed, both in OECD and non-OECD countries. This means supporting a strong and effective energy and climate bill in the US, and the completion of the UN climate work that was started in Copenhagen. It's going to take a global solution to tackle this problem.

Chart by U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) from The International Energy Outlook 2010.

Quiz: Is The Senate Climate Bill Right For You?

Dave Rochlin - www.climatepath.org

Is the recently released senate climate bill right for you? Take the quiz below to assess where you stand on the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill, AKA "The American Power Act", announced last week.

The bill's intent is "To secure the energy future of the United States, to provide incentives for the domestic production of clean energy technology, to achieve meaningful pollution reductions, to create jobs, and for other purposes."

It sounds like there's something for everyone, right? At almost a thousand pages, there should be! But opinions vary. In trying to placate enough constituents to get a viable bill, a lot of trade-offs have been made. Can you accept them? Take this handy quiz and find out....and tell us what you think and how you scored! If you don't want to do the math by hand, an interactive version is available here.

The Quiz:

1. I Believe 350 Is:
a. A great temperature for baking cookies.
b. A noble but unachievable goal.
c. The upper limit for a safe and just planet (e.g. 350 parts per million of CO2)

2. My View On Offshore Drilling:
a. States should be able to decide.
b. Three words: "Drill baby drill.
c. Two words: Deepwater Horizon.

3. Carbon Offsetting:
a. The best way to make an immediate impact on climate and support sustainable development.
b. A flawed tool, but with fixes should be part of the solution.
c. Is like paying someone else to not have an affair so you can.

4. Nuclear Power:
a. Three words: Fission baby fission.
b. Ugh. Painful to consider but necessary.
c. Think Chernobyl, and where exactly do you plan on storing the waste?

5. International Cooperation:
a. If China doesn't do their part, what's the point?
b. If we lead others will follow.
c. The free market will sort it all out.

6. Agribusiness:
a. US agriculture needs help, not regulation.
b. Paying farmers/ranchers to follow better environmental practices makes sense.
c. "Sustainable agriculture" does not mean subsidizing beef and big farms.

7. Climate Change and Jobs:
a. Green jobs are the future.
b. Climate legislation is a job killer.
c. The free market will sort it all out.

8. Pricing Carbon:
a. Let's discourage emissions, but without punishing consumers or businesses.
b. Fossil fuel is a sin...it's time for a sin tax.
c. The free market will sort it all out.


Your Results:

Give yourself 3 points for each "a" answer, 2 points for each "b" and 1 Point for each "c".

19-24 : This bill fits you like your favorite pair of blue jeans.
15-19 : Life's full of trade offs. You'll take the good with the bad.
0-14 : You take comfort knowing that the bill probably won't pass anyway.

If you scored 15 or more, you may want to encourage your senator to support the bill here.

More information on each question and how we based our scoring is listed out below.

How We Based Our Scoring:

1. 350: The bill seeks to cut emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and by more than 80 percent by 2050. These goals are consistent with what was promised by the President in Copenhagen, but fall well short of both UN targets and what is necessary to reduce CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm.

2. Offshore Drilling: The bill encourages off shore drilling, but the states can opt out if it is within 75 miles of their coast. It gives states over 1/3 of the revenue to protect their coastlines, and money for land and water conservation.

3. Offsets: Up to 2 Billion tons of offsets could be used for hitting reduction targets, emphasizing forest preservation and carbon sinks, and waste/agricultural changes both domestically and internationally. Includes additional oversight for offsets.

4. Nuclear Power: A very heavy emphasis is placed on nuclear power. Increased funding for nuclear loan guarantees to $54 billion, and provisions for tax credits for construction of new facilities.

5. International Cooperation: The bill stipulates that, in the event that no global agreement on climate change is reached, an international reserve allowance program would be implemented. This would require that imports from other countries that have not taken action on emissions pay a comparable amount at the border in order to avoid "carbon leakage."

6. Agribusiness: Farms are exempted from mandatory action. The bill would create agricutural revenue through a domestic program that lets agricultural interests receive credits if they make reductions in emissions, which could then be sold into the offset/permit market.

7. Climate Change and Jobs: While proctionalism has been a concern, offshoring of emissions intensive industries (aka "climate leakage") is also a concern. If no global agreement on climate change is reached, the bill would require that imports from other countries that have not taken action on limiting emissions pay a comparable amount at the border. In addition to protecting domestic jobs from climate leakage, the bill proposed spending on retraining of workers and developing "emerging careers and jobs in the fields of clean energy, renewable energy, energy efficiency, climate change mitigation, and climate change adaptation."

8. Pricing Carbon: The bill would set a price on carbon ($12-$25 per ton), but would give away plenty of permits to business, potentially send revenues back to consumers in the form of energy rebates (or use the money for defiect reduction), and protect low and middle-income families.

The full text of the bill can be found at http://kerry.senate.gov/americanpoweract/intro.cfm

You can support senate action at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/122/Support-the-climate-bill

Photo Copyright: Question marks from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/valeriebb/ / CC BY-SA 2.0 American Power Act logo from the office of Senator John Kerry. Combined photo work by ClimatePath, all rights reserved.