Uncategorized

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.

Lil Peppi

"What's the solution? We're the solution. So stop with the excuses and make a contribution."

Word, Lil Peppi.

What's it going to take to enact proactive energy and environmental policy?

While the TVA hand-wringing went on at Senate hearings in Washington, D.C., another coal pond broke last week at the Widows Creek Fossil Plant in Jackson, Ala.

Not that we didn't know: Widow Creek was listed in a recent Environmental Integrity Project report as one of the worst 50 coal-fired power plant pollution "wet dumps" because of its toxic metals.

The "spill," this time in Alabama, according to the first reports, leaked "only gypsum."

Earlier this week, coal sludge was released into the Ocoee River Gorge in eastern Tennessee, as the TVA sought to repair a sediment dam. According to the state Department of Environment and Conservation, "Forest Service employees were walking the stream bank picking up what dead fish they could find ... No live fish were seen."

These accidents beg the question: How much longer are we going to sit back and allow crisis management to determine our energy and environmental policies?

What's it going to take? Dead bodies?

As Appalachian Voices editor Bill Kovarik pointed out, "The effusive praise in the hearing Thursday morning Jan. 8 went beyond the standard courtesies afforded witnesses in Senate hearings, perhaps because it was clear that the TVA's CEO was a relic of a bygone age who would need to be handled with respect and care as he was ushered out the door."

Instead of courtesies and crisis management, we need to:

• Phase-out all wet storage of toxic coal ash.
• Inspect all toxic coal ash storage and disposal units.
• Enact federal regulation of all toxic coal ash storage and disposal.

In the meantime, the EIP report found:

International energy group criticized for congenital ignorance and pessimism about renewables

Finally, someone is calling out the International Energy Agency for its absurd negativity about renewables:

The international body that advises most major governments across the world on energy policy is obstructing a global switch to renewable power because of its ties to the oil, gas and nuclear sectors, a group of politicians and scientists claims today.

The experts, from the Energy Watch group, say the International Energy Agency (IEA) publishes misleading data on renewables, and that it has consistently underestimated the amount of electricity generated by wind power in its advice to governments. They say the IEA shows "ignorance and contempt" towards wind energy, while promoting oil, coal and nuclear as "irreplaceable" technologies. In a report to be published today, the Energy Watch experts say wind-power capacity has rocketed since the early 90s and that if current trends continue, wind and solar power-generation combined are on track to match conventional generation by 2025.

This is important -- people wield those IEA reports like they're gospel. They do immense harm to green efforts.

Here's the full report on wind power [PDF] from Energy Watch.

Small solar needs long-distance transmission as much as big wind

Average cost for new wind capacity in 2007 was per $1,710 per KW, according to the Annual Report on Wind Power 2007 [PDF]. Some of the largest new wind farms had costs as low as $1,240 per KW, while the smallest ones tallied costs as high as $2,600 per KW.

Further, large new wind farms got more use from each KW than small ones -- as much 40 percent capacity utilization for big farms on the best sites vs. a 33 percent to 35 percent average. Since capital costs and capacity utilization overwhelmingly determine wind costs, big wind is simply less expensive than small wind.