Sean recently wrote a provocative post on why "additionality" -- one of the bedrock principles of carbon markets as presently designed -- is an expensive waste of time. This is a rich topic, and my perspective as a carbon offset retailer differs from his as an energy producer. It's worth spending a few posts exploring why.
Standard survey questions often uphold (or manufacture) false dichotomies. Case in point: the perpetual practice of pitting the environment against the economy. Nonetheless, these questions can reveal interesting trends over time. And every now and then, the numbers show that the public sees right through "either/or" questions that just don't add up -- like recent research that shows Americans link economic opportunity to environmental protection. First, recent trends on that pesky "environment vs. economy" question: According to a new Gallup poll conducted March 6-9, despite fears of a looming recession, Americans continue to favor protecting the environment even at the risk of curbing economic growth: 49 percent to 42 percent. But this seven-point margin is down from the 18-point margin of a year ago, when 55 percent favored the environment. Further, the 49 percent of Americans currently favoring the environment over growth is only two points above the historical low over the past couple of decades.
When I bought my house, I didn't realize that the stream that travels its acres is perennial and spring-fed ... which seemed like the perfect scenario for a microhydro generator. These units make a lot of power all day and night, unlike solar and (usually) wind. It works by siphoning off a portion of water to run through a pipe, then through a generator, and then back into the creek. Voilà! So I did the measurements and found 140 gallons per minute, which is about enough for the purpose, but less than a 20 foot drop in elevation, which is the killer. Microhydro usually requires either high head or high volumes to pencil out, but I have barely the minimum of each. At best, it would account for 20 percent of the house's needs -- not quite good enough for me to think too deeply about the capital expense or the fact that the town's Conservation Commission probably wouldn't allow the use. Other nearby commissions have also been unfriendly to residents employing or proposing it on their properties, even though microhydro is not a consumptive use and requires no dams. I have some small consolation, though, knowing that all the electricity in this portion of my county's grid is already 100 percent hydro, due to its proximity to the Deerfield River (one of the most developed rivers in the country, with small dams working up a good portion of its length from southern Vermont into western Massachusetts). Which is nice, in a way: the next nearest power plant to my community uses coal from a mountaintop removal mine in Appalachia, so this somewhat green power is welcome. So I was interested to see news that small hydro is possibly on the verge of a boom, with new estimates of 30,000 MW of potential small hydro capacity in the U.S. alone. This would build on small hydro's ubiquity in the industry, if the article is right that 80 percent of the existing hydro projects in the U.S. are low power (under 1 MW) or small hydro (1 to 30 MW). The industry is saying it can get more power out of falling water without any more dams:
This lede made me laugh out loud: As concerns about greenhouse gases and global warming mount, nuclear energy is getting a second look in California, with supporters ranging from the governor to at least one environmental activist. Oh goodie! Who’s the token "at least one environmental activist" this time? Is it Patrick Moore, 20-year industry shill co-founder of Greenpeace? Is it James Lovelock, fearful and panicked dystopian author of the Gaia hypothesis? Or is it Stewart Brand, future tech true believer founder of the Whole Earth Catalog? Those are pretty much your three choices. Oh, this time it’s door No. …
William Chandler, director of the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program, has borrowed my phrase for the title of his new study: "Breaking the Suicide Pact: U.S.-China Cooperation on Climate Change." It begins: Together, China and the United States produce 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Their actions to curb or expand energy consumption will determine whether efforts to stop global climate change succeed or fail. If these two nations act to curb emissions, the rest of the world can more easily coalesce on a global plan. If either fails to act, the mitigation strategies adopted by the rest of the world will fall far short of averting disaster for large parts of the earth. These two nations are now joined in what energy analyst Joe Romm has aptly called "a mutual suicide pact." American leaders point to emissions growth in China and demand that Chinese leaders take responsibility for climate change. Chinese leaders counter that American per capita greenhouse gas emissions are five times theirs and say, "You created this problem, you do something about it."
Today we present the good, the bad, and the ugly of energy sources on Navajo land. The good: The Navajo Nation has formed a joint venture with Boston-based Citizens Energy Corp for a wind-power project on its vast Western reservation. The bad: The tribe continues to try to push through a controversial coal plant as well, and recently sued the U.S. EPA for not yet issuing an air permit. The ugly: Energy companies have renewed interest in large deposits of uranium on Navajo land; the tribe banned uranium mining in 2005 after decades of compromised health and safety.
This is the third post in a series about details we are still getting wrong in the climate policy discussion. See also part one and part two. There is no shortage of economic analysis and policy discourse that shows that carbon tax and cap-and-trade methodologies can deliver economically equivalent outcomes. The general consensus -- at least today -- seems to be that since they're equivalent, it really comes down to politics, and it's politically difficult to do anything with the word "tax" in it, so we'll do cap-and-trade. I like the conclusion, but the rationale is pure bunkum. To understand why, we need only go back to my simple test of any climate policy proposal: the degree to which it encourages investment in capital that lowers atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Cap-and-trade and carbon taxes do not pass the test equally.
The U.S. West is warming faster than the rest of the country, and faster than the planet as a whole, according to an analysis of 50 scientific studies done by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. From 2003 to 2007, the globe was 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than its average 20th century temperature; during the same period, 11 Western states averaged 1.7 degrees warmer. Westerners are unlikely to dispute the findings, considering the ongoing drought. (Note: Yes, it is snowing in Seattle today; no, that does not mean global warming isn’t happening.) Scientists predict that the West will continue warming at …
A new study bolsters the importance-of-place arguments made by people like Wendell Berry: the strongest way to get people to engage with the problems and to act responsibly for the global environment is to focus on the threats to their own place). This doesn't really surprise me -- but it does prompt me to change my signature line to "Save your community -- cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year."