Articles by Joseph Romm

China is prepared to make a climate deal

Potentially a very big deal -- The Independent reports "China 'will agree to cut its carbon emissions'":

China, now the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, will eventually agree to cut its soaring carbon dioxide emissions, one of the country's leading environmentalists forecast yesterday -- but only on the basis of a deal with the United States and the rest of the developed world.

When is eventually?

The Chinese would be very unlikely to set their own unilateral target for reducing CO2, said Professor C S Kiang, the founding dean of the College of Environmental Science at the University of Beijing. But they would join in the next, post-2012 stage of the Kyoto protocol, the international climate change treaty, and seek to reduce their emissions to a definite figure, as long as this was part of a global agreement that involved all countries acting together -- including the US -- and the transfer to China of modern energy technology, he said.

Now, Kiang says, all the world needs is a new U.S. President:

How to keep wind power soaring

If you are interested in how wind power can continue to soar, be sure to read an excellent study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: "Using the Federal Production Tax Credit to Build a Durable Market for Wind Power in the United States" (PDF).

The authors conclude:

... our analysis suggests that a longer-term extension of the federal PTC may provide a number of benefits, including accelerated wind deployment, reductions in installed wind project costs, and increased domestic wind turbine and component manufacturing. At the same time, we also identify several PTC design considerations, beyond the duration of any extension, that may deserve consideration by Congress.

Thanks to Hal L. for sending this my way.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

OPEC nations demand that petroleum-consuming countries maintain current thirst for oil

NPR's Marketplace called me today for comments on this bizarre Financial Times article: "Opec to seek assurances on oil demand."

Apparently these absurdly rich countries -- with projected revenues of $658 billion this year -- who are selling their product at nearly $100 a barrel, are threatening not to invest in new production unless the consuming countries promise to maintain demand. Seriously! No, seriously:

Opec will this week seek assurances from some of the world's biggest oil consumers that they will maintain their demand as the members of the oil cartel come under intense pressure to boost investment in production capacity.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, which is saying a lot considering who our president is. First off, who exactly can speak for the consuming nations and make a binding promise to keep up demand in the face of record-breaking prices? Nobody. This is capitalism. If high prices lead to fuel-switching, how could, say, President Bush, promise to stop it -- especially since he has already promised to encourage fuel switching?

Second, as I blogged recently, pretty much every producing country, except Saudi Arabia, is producing flat out. Yet demand keeps going up even at these prices. If OPEC is really worried about demand destruction, then they should want to invest in as much new production as quickly as possible. Indeed, the IEA predicted back in July that the world will see "increasing market tightness beyond 2010, with OPEC spare capacity declining to minimal levels by 2012."

Third, IEA projects global oil demand will "expand by 1.9 million barrels a day, or 2.2% a year on average, reaching 95.8 million barrels a day by 2012, up from 86.13 million barrels a day this year." OPEC would be crazy not to invest in as much new supply as they could to meet this demand. Where is a better place for their money -- holding dollars?

So what is the real motive behind this bizarre threat? And how is the normally dependable Financial Times confused?

Coal plants, like nuclear, suck up lots of water during operation

We've seen states like Kansas reject coal plants because of concerns the emissions will accelerate global warming. That's coal's biggest fatal flaw. We've also seen that nuclear power has its own Achilles heel in a globally warmed world -- water.

Now the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in a major editorial, raises both the emissions issue and the water issue for coal. It questions whether now is the time to be building thirsty coal plants in a state where major water sources like Lake Lanier (see picture) are drying up:

Months before the drought had seized the public's full attention, the state Environmental Protection Division [EPD] granted permits for a new coal-fired power plant in Early County, a rural community in a severely depressed corner of southwest Georgia. But for a variety of reasons -- including mounting concerns about long-lasting water shortages and worsening air pollution -- state regulators ought to reconsider, or perhaps even reverse, their decision.

The drought has forced citizens and political officials to confront environmental concerns that are usually brushed aside. So, while Mother Nature has our attention, Georgia's leaders should think broadly about conserving all of our resources and expanding our energy portfolio.

Just how much water does the coal plant need?