Uncategorized

Coal industry front group touts benefits of strong emissions regulations

You may have thought the coal industry would never sing the praises of environmental regulations. But now that the clean coal carolers have moved on, the ACCCE (American Coalition for Clean Coal Euphemisms?) is singing a different tune.

In an analysis titled "77 Percent Cleaner," the ACCCE makes one of the strongest cases I have recently seen for EPA regulations:

Over the last 35 years, America's coal-based electricity providers have invested more than $50 billion in technologies to reduce emissions. Due to investments like these, our coal-based generating fleet is more than 77 percent cleaner on the basis of regulated emissions per unit of energy produced.

The calculations are based on five pollutants: carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. The data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reflects the environmental performance per unit of energy produced. That is, the relationship of emissions per billion kilowatt-hours. From 1970 to 2005, the value for that ratio fell from 30,510 short tons per billion kilowatt-hours to just 6,970 short tons per billion kilowatt-hours -- a reduction of 77.15 percent.

If the coal industry is publicly bragging about reducing regulated emissions, then it is obviously endorsing those regulations. And if the industry is bragging about the investments it had to make because of those regulations, then it is implicitly stating it is prepared to make further, large investments to achieve new regulatory requirements.

The ACCCE even includes a nice figure that makes the case for strong greenhouse regulations:

The energy impact of web searches is very low

Some myths are hard to kill. The Times Online "reports":

Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research ...

While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. "Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power," said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon.

The overhyping of the internet's energy use goes back a decade, pushed by two right-wing deniers, Mark Mills and Peter Huber. They were actually using their easily-refuted analysis to argue against climate restrictions -- I kid you not. In this 1999 press release [PDF] from the laughably-named denier group, the "Greening Earth Society," Mills says:

While many environmentalists want to substantially reduce coal use in making electricity, there is no chance of meeting future economically-driven and Internet-accelerated electric demand without retaining and expanding the coal component.

I ended up writing a major report debunking this myth and then testifying in front of the Senate Commerce committee [PDF] (i.e. John McCain) and the House [PDF] on the subject. Jon Koomey and others at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) did even more work debunking this nonsense (click here for everything you could possibly want to know on the subject).

There are actually two mistakes in the Harvard calculation. The first, which was the focus of my research, is the big picture issue. What is the net energy consumed by the internet? I argue the internet is a net energy saver -- and a big one -- since it increases efficiency (especially in things like the supply chain) and dematerialization (it uses less energy to research online than in person). The fact that U.S. energy intensity (energy consumed per dollar of GDP) began dropping sharply in the mid-1990s is but one piece of evidence that internet- and IT-driven growth is less energy intensive.

I, for instance, am able to work at home and telecommute thanks to the Internet and a broadband connection. That saves the energy consumed in commuting and a considerable amount of net building energy: Most people's homes are an underutilized asset, which consume a great deal of energy whether or not they are there.

The other mistake just involves the more narrow question of how much energy is consumed by Googling. Wissner-Gross says it is 7g of CO2 per search. My LBNL colleagues say that is way too high, and Google itself has rebutted that analysis with their own, which I reprint here:

Newt Gingrich is an idiot

This short video should utterly discredit Newt Gingrich:

Then again, if nothing has discredited this dimwit yet, it's hard to see what could.

Join the local movement with Grist

If you call Seattle home, we've got news for you ...

First things first: Howdy, neighbor! Grist is based in Seattle, too. Sure, we've got our political reporter in D.C. and an organic farmer in N.C., but most of us live and work -- and try to be as green as we can be -- within spitting distance of the Space Needle (relatively speaking, that is).

That's why we've launched Grist Local: Seattle, a weekly email featuring event listings, sustainable business profiles, and other news about the green scene in the Emerald City. You can get it zapped straight to your inbox every Wednesday for the low, low price of free! (And worth every penny.)

In fact, if you sign up now, you'll get your very first Grist Local email bright and early tomorrow (fresh off the presses). Here's a sneak peak:

Slicing and dicing global greenhouse gas data

Say you said to yourself, "Gee, I wish we could prevent global warming." Your next thought might be, "Gosh, where do greenhouse emissions come from?" Well, I asked myself just that question a while back. So I decided to jump into the IPCC Working Group III Assessment Report, and I've posted a Google workbook, called "GreenhouseGasEmissions," which should let you know just about everything you always wanted to know about the global sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The biggest surprise to me was the sheer number of major sources. I don't know whether it would be easier to slay a few big greenhouse gas monsters or a bunch of medium-sized ones, but we're basically stuck with the latter.

Speaking of monsters, according to my calculations, all coal-fired power plants together are responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse gases (all of these figures are for 2004, in CO2 equivalent megatonnes, from IPCC Working Group III reports, and any errors are mine). Shutting down all coal-fired power plants would decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent -- but that would still leave 82 percent, and I'm assuming we want to get as close to zero human-made greenhouse gas emissions as possible.

Amazingly, the fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) used to provide heat for buildings and industry are responsible for 21 percent of greenhouse gas emissions -- more than all the coal-fired power plants. In a way, that statistic understates the importance of using carbon-free sources like wind, solar, and geothermal for electricity generation, because if we want to switch transportation from oil to electricity, we will have to replace transportation's oil, responsible for 14 percent of emissions, with electricity sources that do not include the use of fossil fuels. And if we want to eliminate the emissions from heating, we will have to use carbon-free electricity and also redesign/retrofit buildings.

Forests might be some of the cheapest of the "lowest hanging fruit" to save, since they account for almost 16 percent of emissions. But I'm worried about what to do about belching livestock -- how do we get rid of their 4 percent? It might be easier to prevent the 5 percent of all emissions caused by the overuse of nitrogen-based fertilizers.

Before we get into details, however, let's take a stroll through the basics of greenhouse gas accounting.

TVA could have planned for a normal accident such as the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tenn.

Those coal ash spills should have been expected.

Normal Accidents is a 25-year-old book by Charles Perrow, subtitled "Living with High-Risk Technologies." Perrow, reflecting on the Three Mile Island nuclear incident and other accidents, argued that modern advanced technologies are so complex, and require such careful monitoring and management, that accidents, including potentially massive system failures, have to be considered "normal," not exceptional, events.

The technologies he wrote about included many we consider commonplace today, but climate change and other global environmental impact risks were not among the "accidents" he anticipated.

Economists seem to have learned precious little from the book, highly acclaimed as it was. Economic calculations still get made on the basis of "expected values" -- the statistically most likely outcomes -- despite the fact that these values do not accommodate the virtual certainty of unexpected events.

Analyses like Environmental Impact Statements -- required for major federal investments under the National Environmental Policy Act -- are still based on what economists call "expected utility theory" (EUT). Based on past experience and recorded data, we project the probability of different events and use those odds in combination with the "utility" or value associated with each alternative event to arrive at an expected value for a course of action.

That doesn't make sense ... or does it?

Do the emissions from a single Google search matter?

Apparently the question of how much greenhouse gas emissions can be traced to a single Google search is the hottest topic on the internets.

Research from U.S. physicist Alex Wissner-Gross says a single search produces 7g of CO2. Google says, nuh uh, it only produces 0.2g CO2 -- less than your personal computer generates while running it. Lots more here.

There may be some value in drawing attention to the substantial carbon footprint of the IT industry, but by the time this kind of thing gets filtered through the media it ends up yet another story about how every human action is a source of guilt and shame. Now they want us to search Google less?

In fact, the emissions of Google searches is a goofy distraction. As Joe notes, the internet has been a phenomenal driver of energy efficiency and dematerialization. Imagine how much clueless driving around has been eliminated by Google Maps!

Robert Mendelsohn says global warming is 'a good thing for Canada'

I asserted in Part 1 that economists don't understand climate science. Exhibit 1 would be Robert Mendelsohn, an economics professor at Yale University, whose "research" has prompted headlines in our neighbor up north like "A warmer climate could hold lots of benefits for Canada" and "The UP side of global warming":

Leading the charge is Robert Mendelsohn, an economics professor at Yale University, who says the benefits of global warming for Canada -- from a longer growing season to the opening up of shipping through the Northwest Passage -- will outweigh the negative effects.

"You're lucky because you're a northern-latitude country, Mendelsohn says. "If you add it all up, it's a good thing for Canada."

This series will have three recurring themes about Voodoo Economists aka Mainstream Economists who Opine on Weather (MEOWs):

1. MEOW's understanding of what global warming is doing to the planet now and what it is likely to do by 2100 on our current emissions path ranges from arrogantly incomplete to criminally ignorant. They really talk more about the weather than the climate.
2. MEOW's cost-benefit calculations ["if you add it all up"] are analytically unsound and qualify more as an opinion than a scientifically accurate statement.
3. The right wing loves what the economics profession is saying and publishing on climate, which is why they quote and cite them so giddily.

For instance, you would never know from this article -- or any of Mendelsohn's comments -- that Canada is already suffering widespread and completely unpredicted devastation from climate change:

"The pine beetle infestation is the first major climate change crisis in Canada" notes Doug McArthur, a professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver.

The pests are "projected to kill 80 per cent of merchantable and susceptible lodgepole pine" in parts of British Columbia within 10 years -- and that's why the harvest levels in the region have been "increased significantly." One analyst calls the devastation "probably the biggest landscape-level change since the ice age."

Losing every harvestable pine tree in British Columbia is apparently not a big deal to arrogant MEOWs like Mendelsohn:

Forests will become more productive, Mendelsohn says. The northern forests will expand into the tundra and the southern forests will grow better. The types of trees in different regions will change. Fire and disease might well take out old forests, but Mendelsohn says forestry companies can also be allowed to go in and take out at-risk trees. "Rather than let it be destroyed naturally, you harvest it into the marketplace and then just let the natural systems replace what should be there next."

Yeah, cut down the "old forests" before the climate-driven pests get them and replace them with "what should be there" -- that's an economic plus for everyone! If you look up hubris in the dictionary ...

The reality on the ground is quite different than the opining from Mendelsohn's ivory tower (Note to self: Maybe the towers are made of ivory because in economist-land there ain't no friggin' trees left). As the Chicago Tribune reported this month in a story titled, "Canada's forests, once huge help on greenhouse gases, now contribute to climate change":

The ultimate directory of climate change cases

The estimable Arnold & Porter law firm has released a comprehensive online directory of climate change cases. Don't be deceived by the simplicity of the opening page. Just click on "Case Index" at the bottom of the opening page, which opens up a 35-page directory. Fantastic!

Green Map's inspiring 'green eye' view of the world

What kind of power tool did you wish for this holiday season? Grist readers are likely to be seeking something that transforms the view of their own community, highlighting all the ecological richness and green living innovations in a tapestry that weaves in local culture and justice resources to boot.

So if you didn't get that cordless DeWalt screwgun you wanted, consider the powerful tool of the Green Map network, which has been busy creating unique community self-portraits of over 500 places around the world, from Seattle to Singapore (and Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, at right). And each map is locally-created, which I find to be the most inspiring aspect: The map making groups transcend gender and ethnic lines in many places around the world, bringing together powerful groups (in 54 countries!) from among those who normally do not interact to create a sustainable vision of their city or place.

It's also an ideal time to get involved with these folks' new participatory platform OpenGreenMap.org. Designed to reduce the stumbling blocks of fundraising, technology, and distribution and involve significantly more people, they are open to enhancements in any language. Every site on the map has space for your images, insights, and impact assessments, so you can help tell the story of its evolution. It's a great place to find projects to emulate and to learn about how each site has changed the people and community it serves.