China's carbon emissions: how much are ours?

One of the big hangups in a global climate agreement has been the interest of the United States in holding developing economies accountable for their climate emissions.  But there's one big problem - a lot of the carbon emissions in China and India serve their export businesses, ones that U.S. firms often set up to obtain cheap labor and more relaxed environmental standards. 

In other words, we own a great deal of China's carbon emissions, because they serve U.S. consumption.  In fact, at least 23% of China's emissions are from exports to industrialized countries. 

I think our share is a bit bigger than we've admitted.

The danger (and cost) of carbon markets

This post at Triple Pundit notes that a study of the largest carbon market, the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism, finds that most of the carbon offset money is being sent to coal and oil companies and that "much of the market does not reflect actual reductions in emissions."

This is why a world offset market - as opposed to a local offset market - is a really bad idea. And why we shouldn't be giving carbon emissions credits away for free.

Electricity: an addition to fueled power plants

Why do we go to so much effort to find, process, and combust or react fuels to generate heat for electricity when all that heat is already provided? This nice essay reflects on the follies of power generation from fossil fuels and nuclear when there's an abundance of free heat (read: geothermal) underground to meet all our water boiling (for steam turbine) needs. Here's a taste:

An even more popular way to boil water with fuel is to blast the tops off of mountains and then dig out the carbon that was sequestered by nature eons ago. We then crush and wash this carbon and store the poisonous residue in ponds. We hope to find a way to safely dispose of this waste someday too, but the rest of the poison, the sulfur, mercury, and heavy and radioactive metals fly out of the smokestack when we burn the coal to boil water. Every ton of carbon we burn unites with oxygen atoms from the air to go up the stack as 3.7 tons of CO2. Since this CO2 has been causing nasty climate problems, we are working on a way to hide it in underground caverns. Unfortunately hiding this much CO2 costs a lot of money so we're spending $407 million next year hoping for a breakthrough idea.

Which presidential candidate cares the most about the environment?

Find out their positions on carbon caps, fuel efficiency standards, renewable electricity and new coal power from the League of Conservation Voters.

You'll note there's a large gap between the Democratic and Republican candidates, with the exception of Senator McCain.

Eat local, save the environment?

This article looks at the term "food miles," how far your food has traveled from farm to plate. In an era where environmental impact and carbon emissions are important components of the price of food, distance matters:

On its face, the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. In Iowa, the typical carrot has traveled 1,600 miles from California, a potato 1,200 miles from Idaho and a chuck roast 600 miles from Colorado. Seventy-five percent of the apples sold in New York City come from the West Coast or overseas, the writer Bill McKibben says, even though the state produces far more apples than city residents consume. (emphasis mine)

And yet, as it turns out, focusing on shipping distance alone obscures the overall environmental impact of a given meal:

Instead of measuring a product’s carbon footprint through food miles alone, the Lincoln University scientists expanded their equations to include other energy-consuming aspects of production — what economists call “factor inputs and externalities” — like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of other cultivation inputs.

Incorporating these measurements into their assessments, scientists reached surprising conclusions. Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit. (emphasis mine)

Buying local does have other advantages. Shopping at an independent retailer keeps 45 cents of every dollar spent in the community, versus 14 cents for shopping at a chain or franchise store. There's probably a similar payback on local food. But if you're out to minimize environmental impact, it's probably better to grow food where it grows best, and to pay a fair price for shipping (e.g. such as a carbon tax on fossil fuel used in shipping).

Bush's climate hypocrisy

Let's examine this turn of events:

1. In 2001, the President was entirely skeptical about the human role in climate change: "we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it."
2. As late as last week, the President continued to resist any action to mitigate global warming. The headline: U.S. rejects all proposals on climate change. In a draft document for the upcoming G8 summit, the attached note suggests that the United States is "fundamentally opposed" to all of Germany's proposed carbon mitigation steps. "Germany had stated in its draft that it wanted agreement to curb the rise in average temperatures this century to 2C and raise energy efficiency in power and transport by 20% by 2020."
3. Then, this week, Bush supports negotiations among the top 15 greenhouse gas emitters to reduce carbon emissions. "By the end of 2008, he said, the countries would forge national plans for slowing emissions from 2012 through 2030 or so, devise uniform methods for measuring progress, increase research and testing of nonpolluting energy options, and settle on a common, but nonbinding, target for eventual large reductions in emissions decades out."

So the Johnny-come-lately to climate mitigation has a plan that's weaker than what's on the table at G8, starts later, and consists of nonbinding targets. Oh, bravo, Mr Bush.

Update 3:58: I'd hate for you to miss this tidbit. Amidst Bush's new commitment to climate change, a policy of reducing efforts to measure global warming from space. Doubt the science, just stop collecting evidence!

Buy off your carbon sins

This Tanzanian traveler has a firsthand account of why carbon offsets are not the best idea:

Word around town is that a nearby village got a contract for carbon offsets! They got a bunch of money and devices to plant 10,000 trees. No trees were planted. The money disappeared into the pockets of the corrupt and they told the foreigners that all the trees were planted and showed them trees that were already there.

This is why carbon offsets are like Catholic indulgences. Paying someone else to redeem your sins and clear your conscience is a feel-good manuver. Reducing carbon emissions is what really matters.

The bandwagon nearly full, President Bush hops on

In a reversal of his long-expressed belief that the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency lacked the authority to regulate carbon emissions, and on the heels of a Supreme Court decision explicitly overruling him, President Bush has hopped on the carbon regulation bandwagon.

President Bush yesterday ordered the Environmental Protection Agency and three other federal departments to write new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and trucks, reversing his position that the federal government lacks the authority to mandate changes to curb one of the chief causes of global warming.

The turnaround is somewhat surprising, given Bush's slow conversion to fact-based theories on climate change. And yet, I've been baffled by the President's rationale for holding out so long. Since when has President Bush said he lacks the authority to do anything?*

*Note: see warrantless wiretapping, suspending habeus corpus, or condoning torture.

When moralists forget economics

Energy Roundup's been doing a lot on companies "going green," and today they quoted a guy from the Ayn Rand Institute who took issue with companies becoming more environmentally sustainable:

In a debate on CNBC today, however, Peter Schwartz of the Ayn Rand Institute suggested Corporate America was only hurting itself, saying it was bending to the demands of environmentalists. “Businesses should be ashamed of themselves for doing it,” he said. “They shouldn’t appease enviromentalists any more than we should appease Islamists by making women wear veils.” (emphasis original)

I criticized Yahoo yesterday for its green plan, but that's because it was planning to spend money on carbon offsets. As noted in the Energy Roundup, Coca-Cola plans to reduce carbon emissions by becoming more energy efficient. For the amateur economists out there, that means they will save money. As I recall from my read of Atlas Shrugged, making money was pretty much the only thing a person should concern themselves with.

If Coca-Cola should be ashamed of improving energy efficiency, call me a socialist.

Carbon neutral - indulgences for the American "environmentalist"

From several sources, Yahoo! has announced that it's "going carbon neutral." A lot of companies are hopping on the green bandwagon lately, and this is the latest large company to say that it will offset its carbon emissions. That word - offset - is a crucial one.

Offsets are a lot like Catholics in the Middle Ages buying indulgences to sin. When Yahoo! "offsets" its carbon emissions, it will not have to improve server energy efficiency, switch to energy efficient lighting, or even put out a single ounce less of carbon. Instead, they'll go to a place like Carbonfund.org, which will sell them offsets for $5.50 per ton of carbon (a tenth of what studies show is the real cost of solving climate change). Carbonfund will then invest that money in alternative energy projects (like wind), energy efficiency projects, and reforestation. In theory, the money will work to reduce carbon emissions (or increase carbon sinks) somewhere in the world where it can be done cheapest. It's outsourcing for Kyoto and it has several drawbacks.

To be truly carbon neutral, Yahoo! would have to get all of its electricity from a carbon neutral source (such as wind power), would have to buy servers that were constructed in a carbon neutral fashion, and ensure that its employees came to work in a carbon neutral way.

Yahoo's "carbon neutral" commitment is sadly in harmony with attitudes of the American public about global warming. A new poll reveals that 60% now believe that global warming is a problem requiring action. But when it comes to making a personal commitment to solving it?

Most people are wary of any government effort to protect the environment by imposing restrictions on how they live, work or get around. A majority of those surveyed in the poll, conducted March 23-25, said they wouldn't want a surcharge added to their utility bill if their homes exceeded certain energy-use levels. And most Americans would oppose any laws requiring cars sold in the USA to dramatically improve their gas mileage or restrictions on development to try to limit suburban sprawl.

Because the carbon problem is so vast, it's silly to try to target policies to individual aspects of society such as utility bills or gas mileage, or providing "carbon offsets." Instead, the United States could implement a universal carbon tax. It would send a clear market-based price signal to all Americans that your lifestyle has costs and you will actually have to pay them. And a carbon tax cuts out the middleman. Do we really need a Carbonfund to manage climate change if we're all paying a fair price?

While effective carbon mitigation really requires national policy, if you want to start offsetting your carbon use (personally), get some tips here.

Supreme Court: The EPA must regulate carbon

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court decided last week that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that should be regulated by the EPA. In addition to raising the possibility of federal policy on greenhouse gases, the ruling may also empower states such as California, which has moved on its own to regulate carbon dioxide.

Ultimately, the slow march toward carbon caps and climate gas regulation in the United States is likely to run headlong into American energy habits, particularly where cars are concerned. The Wall Street Journal has an April 5 article entitled "Horsepower Nation," noting that Americans still like a lot of power in their cars, despite the rising cost of gas and greater emissions:

Car makers are getting better at using technology to squeeze out more power without decreasing fuel efficiency. But environmentalists and government regulators criticize the industry for using technology -- such as more sophisticated fuel control systems -- to boost power instead of mileage...

...Mike Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation Inc., the nation's largest publicly traded dealership chain, says fuel efficiency has consistently ranked behind cup holders and sound systems in consumer desires over the past 20 years.

A couple thoughts come to mind at this:

1. Americans still don't grasp the full extent of the threat of global warming.
2. Public policy has to lead the market, since customers simply do not select for climate impact at the point of sale.

Update 2:38pm: the WSJ Energy Roundup has a nice summary of reactions to the Supreme Court decision.

The "Cost" of Combatting Climate Change

The WSJ Energy Roundup has a brief summary of a study by the McKinsey group (subscription required) on the most cost-effective ways to combat global warming. The quick read: efficiency.

Better insulation, lighting, and agricultural practices in both the developed and the developing world could help the world reduce carbon emissions by 26 Gigatons per year by 2030, at a cost of less than $52/ton of carbon. This carbon reduction is predicted to hold global warming to 2 degrees Celsius on average.

The total bill isn't cheap, but it's manageable. If each carbon mitigation step were selected in order of least cost, the whole thing could be done for less than $665 billion (over 23 years). Even the more expensive version runs $1.46 trillion (about the same as the Iraq war, which has been spent in 4 years).

Numbers Review
The criticism I have with the WSJ post is their calculation of the portion of European GDP this will cost. They tally up the total in Euros ($1.1 trillion) and divide that over 14 (?) years (2030 - 2007 = 23 in my calculator). Then they note that this will amount to 0.7% of GDP, a not unsubstantial portion of the 2.8% growth last year.

First, doing the math over 23 years reduces the impact to about .035% of GDP.

Second, at least one study estimates the cost of climate change inaction at 20% of U.S. GDP. So, inaction costs a bit more than action.

Third, a lot of the carbon mitigation activity - buying new insulation, new lighting, etc - requires spending money. This money, when spent, increases GDP. So why are they saying this?

an anti-global-warming bill of the sort McKinsey is talking about would mean an appreciable drag on growth.

It might, if all the money was spent by the government. But even then, the spending would be stimulating domestic production of energy efficient materials. And most of all, spending to mitigate climate change offsets spending to deal with it.

In other words, there's as good a chance that saving the world will be good for the economy as not.

Ideology leads to inanity

There are plenty of problems with ethanol, from its relatively low energy balance to the use of corn - a high-intensity crop - to produce it. But whether or not ethanol is the dream fuel, no amount of wishing will make oil shale a better option. There are so many ways to dismantle this argument, but I'll just do one.

In the first section, Mr. Feulner of the Heritage Foundation notes that ethanol is a poor choice because of it's refining challenges:

For one thing, it's expensive to refine ethanol (emphasis mine)

But after he gushes about the availability of oil shale and its potential to supply all of US oil needs by 2020, Feulner admits:

...there's a reason the U.S. economy doesn't already run on oil shale: It's difficult to collect and refine. (emphasis mine)

So let's check the scorecard on oil shale, which the RAND Foundation says can't be developed unless oil prices top $70-95/barrel:

• Gallons of fuel produced last year: (Ethanol - 4 billion; Oil from shale - 0)
• Carbon reductions over gasoline: (Ethanol 5-10%; Oil from shale - 0)
• Renewable: (Ethanol - yes; oil shale - no)

Sounds like a real winner...

Why carbon "offsets" aren't the answer to global warming

David Morris of the Minneapolis-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance writes on the increasing interest in carbon offsets - essentially paying someone else to reduce carbon emissions that you generate. In examining the role of other pollution-reduction techniques and the results of some of the early carbon trading schemes, Morris concludes that:

• Buying carbon offsets is like buying indulgences for sins - it just makes people feel good. In particular, the monitoring of offset programs is so lax there's no way to know if emissions are truly offset
  
• A global carbon offset market discourages people from taking responsibility for the local impacts of their behavior. Local offsets, on the other hand, mean that polluters have to do something in their community to improve their climate impact.
• A cap and trade market seems very capitalist and efficient, but evidence shows that good old regulation or a carbon tax could reduce climate change emissions far faster than a market mechanism. (Note: the much heralded success of the US-based sulfur dioxide cap and trade market owes much to the cost estimates of the polluters that proved to be massively inflated.)
  

Morris envisions a more stringent and accountable carbon reduction regime, where carbon emitters have to actually reduce their own emissions or offset them within their local community and where polluters can't simply buy a cleaner conscience on a world market.

I think a smaller-scale cap and trade (e.g. local offsets) could prove very effective, but only if the policy is set at a national scale and it sets stringent carbon reductions (no generous baselines, please).