Climate Climate & Energy

A post-petroleum American dream

"This craziness is not sustainable," concludes The New York Times op-ed columnist Bob Herbert, and he's talking about the economy, not the environment. He continues:

Without an educated and empowered work force, without sustained investment in the infrastructure and technologies that foster long-term employment, and without a system of taxation that can actually pay for the services provided by government, the American dream as we know it will expire.

And without petroleum. Oil is shooting over $100 per barrel, caused ultimately by a looming decline in global supply, and exacerbated by rising demand in China and India, foolish policies such as the occupation of Iraq, and repressive regimes such as in Nigeria. And if we are serious about reducing carbon emissions to near zero in order to avert climate catastrophe, we must scale back our use of petroleum to near zero.

While we're learning to live without petroleum, we need to rebuild the workforce, infrastructure, technologies, and tax system, as Herbert suggests. I will argue in this post that we can accomplish all of these goals by replacing internal combustion engines with electric motors, using other energy sources for other petroleum uses, and perhaps most importantly, by changing the arrangement of the buildings, production, and people in our society in order to eliminate the need for so much petroleum.

In order to understand how to accomplish all of this, we need to know how petroleum is used, so let's look at some numbers!

Projected CO2 emissions dwarf previous expectations

This recent paper on the likely path of China's CO2 emissions is striking in that the projections are much greater than once thought. They are so large that they dwarf any reductions by all other nations who have signed the Kyoto Protocol. On top of this is the fact that China doesn't have all that much non-fossil fuel energy potential and in fact is highly dependent on coal.

The questions that need to be asked are these:

1. Is it possible for China to actually decrease absolute emissions? If so, how, and how much will it cost? Who will pay for it?
2. If China can't reduce absolute emissions, how much more do all the rest of us need to decrease our emissions to offset China's increase? Is this feasible? Within what time frame? And again, how, and how much will it cost?

If we can't answer these questions, we really are in big trouble.

World’s pollutingest countries to meet for climate talks in Japan

The world’s 20 biggest-polluting countries will meet in Japan on Friday for a three-day climate conference designed as a run-up to the July G8 meeting where current G8 leader Japan wants to put climate at the top of the agenda. Japan has expressed support for cutting G8-country emissions by 50 percent from 1990 levels by […]

New Pew survey on energy shows big support for fuel efficiency and renewables

Last week Pew released a small survey on public attitudes toward energy policy. Some results: The two highest numbers are in support of raising fuel efficiency standards (90%) and "increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar and hydrogen technology" (81%). Supporting public transit is in third, with 72%. Republicans and Democrats differ on nuclear […]

Another black eye for the ‘green fuel’

Apparently, biodiesel makers are having trouble keeping their product from spilling into waterways — when they’re not actively dumping glycerin (a biodiesel product) into streams. That’s the message from an article in Tuesday’s New York Times. According to industry dogma, biodiesel is "nontoxic, biodegradable and suitable for sensitive environments," The Times reports. Not so fast. […]

Are solar incentives a subsidy for the rich?

The following is a guest essay by Tom Konrad, a financial analyst specializing in renewable energy and energy efficiency companies, a freelance writer, and a contributor to AltEnergyStocks.com.

-----

One of the most common arguments against incentives to help people buy solar panels for their homes is that they are a subsidy for the rich, paid for by everyone. The argument is that only the rich can buy a photovoltaic system, which, even with subsidies, costs thousands of dollars. Why should everyone chip in to help rich people buy new toys?

On the surface, this argument is persuasive. Why should everyone pay if only the rich get the benefit?

Basic fairness dictates that society should only subsidize activities which create societal (rather than individual) benefit. On closer examination, however, we see that the bulk of the benefit for solar goes to society rather than the homeowner/installer.

Let's look at the benefits of a photovoltaic system. Numbers are for a 4-kW system, installed for $8 per peak watt with the rebates currently available in to me in Colorado, plus the federal tax credit.

What’s right with the WCI?

Last week, my colleague Eric de Place dinged the Western Climate Initiative -- an effort by Western states and provinces to develop a carbon market with a strict, declining cap -- for kicking the can down the road on transportation fuels.

Of course, the WCI has not ruled out the possibility of capping emissions from the transportation sector. They've just delayed a decision until they run some more economic analysis. So there's no reason to gnash our teeth over a lost opportunity -- not yet, anyway. Still, it's hard to tell whether the glass is half full (transportation fuels haven't been ruled out -- hooray!) or half empty (transportation isn't clearly in yet -- boo!).

However, I listened in on a WCI climate conference call yesterday -- and I gotta say, I really like what they've done with electricity!

The WCI floated a draft proposal last week. And in my view, at least, the glass is about as full as it can get:

Climate change has it out for transportation infrastructure, says report

Climate change is likely to wreak havoc on U.S. transportation infrastructure, according to a report released Tuesday by the National Research Council. Think bridge joints weakened by too-high temperatures, flooded tunnels, shipping disrupted by heavy storms, roads threatened by erosion, and much, much more! Coastal regions are likely to be especially hard hit, as more […]

WaPo ad

An ad ran in the Washington Post a while back assuring everyone that the U.S. isn’t running out of natural gas (PDF). Indeed, North America has 120 years worth! Scarcity? What scarcity? (Note, however, 50% of the alleged future nat gas is bound up in shale. Kinda dirty.) The ad is from the American Clean […]

A brief summary of Tom & Paul’s approach to international climate justice

In Tom Athanasiou's recent post, "The greening of the global south," he describes an article in U.K. magazine The Prospect as "honest," "well-informed," and "criticizing the alternatives to trading."

I actually think these objections are pretty easy to answer, but in order to do so, I have to present the objections first.

The article begins by adopting some of points Tom and Paul present in their book The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World: