Environmental Policies Kill - Again!, by Iain Murray
Openmarket, February 11, 2009 @ 11:31 am
One of the main themes of my book, The Really Inconvenient Truths, is that misguided environmental policies often lead to humanitarian and environmental disaster. We’ve just seen another example in Australia, where fires have claimed many lives. Distraught survivors are certain they know at least part of the reason why the fires were able to do so:
During question time at a packed community meeting in Arthurs Creek on Melbourne’s northern fringe, Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council’s help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,” he said.
It’s called bushfire season for a reason: the bush catches fire. If you want to reduce the effects, you cut back the bush. Policies that stop this are criminally dangerous.
It’s a similar story here in the US. Every year wildfires cause more damage than they should because landowners are restricted from clearing land because of a variety of environmental policies. See here for the disturbing details of one such case from the 1990s. Here’s how I summarize the American approach to wildfires in my book:
When Californian farmers adjacent to the national forests found the kangaroo rat, which graces the Endangered Species List, on their property in the 1990s, they soon found that the rat had destroyed their livelihoods. They were unable to develop their properties in any way without paying a fine for every acre of land they owned, even if they only wished to develop a small portion of it and even if the rat habitat would be unaffected. So they sold their land to property developers, who were easily able to afford the fees. As a result, homes stood next to national forests where previously there had been a buffer zone of farmland.
Meanwhile, the forest service was unable to carry out controlled burns in those forests adjacent to the homes because the underbrush they wished to clear was also home to, you guessed it, the kangaroo rat. Even building a firebreak could get landowners into trouble under the Endangered Species Act. This problem was already apparent. After similar fires in 2003, California’s Blue Ribbon Fire Commission, created by then governor Gray Davis and whose members included Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein as well as state legislators of both parties, concluded that “habitat preservation and environmental protection have often conflicted with sound fire safety planning.”
Liberal environmentalist dogma, however, prevented any action being taken to ensure that sound fire safety planning was enabled, far less that logging companies be allowed to do their bit to protect landowners and the environment. Instead, the contradiction was allowed to stand and when the fires swept through California, the environmental “protections” of the Endangered Species Act led directly to the destruction of the very habitats and animals they were meant to save.
Congressmen should know about these problems and the best available solution. In September 2000, the late and much lamented Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage of Idaho, chair of the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee of the House Resources Committee, held hearings on private conservationand the lessons the nation could learn from exemplary private landowners.
Skeet Burris, a South Carolina tree farmer and the American Tree Farm System’s “National Tree Farmer of the Year,” was asked if he practiced controlled burns on his private forestland. He replied that he did because it was necessary to protect the health of his pines and that fire was an integral part of the ecosystem of the southern pine forests. He said he burned about one third of his forest annually.
Chenoweth-Hage asked if, before he began his burns, he waited until there was a huge fuel build-up, a long drought, and an especially hot spell with low humidity and high winds. To some laughter, Burris responded that such a policy would be insane. When he was told that such conditions were characteristic of prescribed burns on the national forests, he explained that he couldn’t afford to take such risks.
His forests and home were all that he owned and that his children and grandchildren would inherit. Furthermore he couldn’t risk his controlled burn destroying his neighbors’ forests and homes because he would personally be held liable. There would be no taxpayers to foot the bill, no transfer to another forest, no early retirement on a taxpayer pension, no other golden parachutes. As the landowner he would personally bear the costs— and that drove his behavior.
As R.J. Smith says: “As long as man is part of nature, we can only have a sound and healthy environment by the exercise of caring stewardship and management. For guidance in that we must now look to the nation’s successful private conservationists.” Liberal environmentalism, on the other hand, has set theforests ablaze.
Instead of repealing or reforming these regulations, the stimulus bill included $500 million for “wildland fire management.”
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Libertarians on Audubon’s report "Birds and Climate Change"
Audubon’s Bird-brained Conclusion: More Global Warming Misdirection. By Chip Knappenberger
Master Resource, February 11, 2009
On Tuesday, the National Audubon Society released a report “Birds and Climate Change,” which interpreted an average northern shift of the over-wintering range of a large collection of North American bird species over the course of the past 40 years or so. Audubon decided that this range shift was due, in part, to “global warming.” Therefore, it was bad and action must be taken to avert it:
What the Audubon Society failed to mention was that contained within the data from its own report was that the numbers of bird species with increasing populations topped those with population declines by a margin of more than 2-to-1. In other words, “global warming” has been a net benefit for the Audubon’s collection of North American bird species. Which leaves you wondering, why would we want to take action that could result in a countering of that trend?
The Audubon Society’s report describes the analysis of 40 years worth of data collecting under their Christmas Bird Count (CBC) program. For three weeks of each year around Christmas time, volunteers from around the country conduct bird counts within their designated observing area. The methodology of the CBC program is designed such that the data collected can be used in subsequent historical analyses aimed at tracking the patterns of bird species (and their numbers) both spatially and temporally.
The latest analysis of this CBC dataset was geared towards assessing the patterns of the winter range of 305 North American bird species and whether or not they were related to temperature conditions. It turns out, that over the past 40 years (from the early 1960s to the early 2000s) the average winter range of the collection of bird species has moved northward by about 40 miles. Since the early 1960s were a cool period and the early 2000s were warm one, the temperature rise during this period seems a likely culprit. Audubon highlighted the 20 fastest moving species as well as the trace of January average temperature across the United States in the figure copied below.
[see figure in original post]
Which is all well and good—North America’s bird species are adapting their behavior to a changing climate. So what’s the problem?
Actually, Audubon was largely at a loss to find one, instead, trying to convince us that evidence of climate change is reason enough to try to stop it—apparently Audubon knows what the “best” climate is for birds.
Well, perhaps they don’t.
Hidden in the recesses of their “Birds and Climate Change” report (their Appendix 1) is a table of various statistics that were calculated for each of the 305 bird species analyzed. Included in the large table among the statistics for things such as how far each species has moved northward and how far they had moved inland, was the value (and statistical significance) of the overall population trend for each species. Funny how in a report about how “global warming” is impacting bird species, that Audubon didn’t highlight the ultimate test of bird species health—the overall population trends.
They reason why becomes clear when you start looking over the numbers.
Of the 20 species highlighted in their figure (Figure 1 above), 9 of them showed statistically significant population increases, 9 of them had no statistically significant change in population, and only 2 of the species showed population declines.
Of the overall 305 species analyzed, 120 (39%) showed statistically significant population increases, 128 (42%) showed no change, and 57 (19%) showed a statistically significant declines.
This is strong indication that, in net, North American bird species have seemed to improve their overall condition during the past 40 years—a time of winter warming.
One potential reason why, is that most of these bird species tend to spend their summers further north than they do their winters—migrating between their preferred winter and summer ranges in the spring and fall. Birds don’t migrate for the fun of it, but to find the resources to meet their needs—food, nesting grounds, competition avoidance, etc. As migration is a particularly taxing time on the birds, the less time/distance they have to migrate the better. That they don’t have to travel as far south in the winter is a good thing. And since over the past 40 years, summer temperatures across North America have warmed much less than winter temperatures, it is quite likely that the total average distance that North America’s bird species have to migrate each year has declined (and the populations have grown).
Audubon wants you to sign their petition pushing for action on climate change based upon the findings of their bird report—not because of findings of harm, but simply of affect:
Our recently-released Birds and Climate report clearly shows that climate change is affecting birds – and our world – now. For the past 40 years, as our climate has warmed, birds have shifted their winter ranges further and further north. This ecological disruption is yet another wake up call that we must act quickly to solve the climate crisis. The birds’ northward movement is another signal that climate change is here and action is needed now.
We need global warming legislation that will help birds and wildlife survive what is coming by protecting their habitats and will reduce global warming pollution 80 percent by 2050 to avoid the worst impacts of a rapidly changing climate. Tell your lawmakers where you stand on global warming by signing our petition.
Don’t you think it would be decent of the National Audubon Society to highlight to their potential petition signors that they would be lending their support for legislation which is aimed to combat an effect that is leading to an overall improvement in the general health of North America’s bird species?
[update: Audubon has now included a FAQ about their analysis on their website which includes a discussion of the population increases--predictably, they find no good news in those numbers!]
Q: Didn’t some species fare really well over the past 40 years (even showing population increases)?
A-Yes, many of the species that moved north and inland increased in population at the same time. But it would be short-sighted to focus on what may appear to be short-term gains. Where food or habitat is available, species may do well in the short term, but ultimately the need to adjust to changing climate conditions can put species in peril in a variety of ways. Some will move into areas where an unusually harsh winter will still bring conditions they cannot survive. Others may be unable to find food or suitable habitat (especially if the healthy habitats they need, like grasslands) are already being decimated by overuse, pollution, and other threats. Even species that fare well amid the changes are likely to force out other, less adaptable birds, taking a long-term toll on ecological health and all it supports.
Master Resource, February 11, 2009
On Tuesday, the National Audubon Society released a report “Birds and Climate Change,” which interpreted an average northern shift of the over-wintering range of a large collection of North American bird species over the course of the past 40 years or so. Audubon decided that this range shift was due, in part, to “global warming.” Therefore, it was bad and action must be taken to avert it:
It is the complete picture of widespread movement and the failure of some species to move at all that illustrate the impacts of climate change on birds. They are sending us a powerful signal that we need to 1) take policy action to curb climate change and its impacts, and 2) help wildlife and ecosystems adapt to unavoidable habitat changes, even as we work to curb climate change itself.
What the Audubon Society failed to mention was that contained within the data from its own report was that the numbers of bird species with increasing populations topped those with population declines by a margin of more than 2-to-1. In other words, “global warming” has been a net benefit for the Audubon’s collection of North American bird species. Which leaves you wondering, why would we want to take action that could result in a countering of that trend?
The Audubon Society’s report describes the analysis of 40 years worth of data collecting under their Christmas Bird Count (CBC) program. For three weeks of each year around Christmas time, volunteers from around the country conduct bird counts within their designated observing area. The methodology of the CBC program is designed such that the data collected can be used in subsequent historical analyses aimed at tracking the patterns of bird species (and their numbers) both spatially and temporally.
The latest analysis of this CBC dataset was geared towards assessing the patterns of the winter range of 305 North American bird species and whether or not they were related to temperature conditions. It turns out, that over the past 40 years (from the early 1960s to the early 2000s) the average winter range of the collection of bird species has moved northward by about 40 miles. Since the early 1960s were a cool period and the early 2000s were warm one, the temperature rise during this period seems a likely culprit. Audubon highlighted the 20 fastest moving species as well as the trace of January average temperature across the United States in the figure copied below.
[see figure in original post]
Which is all well and good—North America’s bird species are adapting their behavior to a changing climate. So what’s the problem?
Actually, Audubon was largely at a loss to find one, instead, trying to convince us that evidence of climate change is reason enough to try to stop it—apparently Audubon knows what the “best” climate is for birds.
Well, perhaps they don’t.
Hidden in the recesses of their “Birds and Climate Change” report (their Appendix 1) is a table of various statistics that were calculated for each of the 305 bird species analyzed. Included in the large table among the statistics for things such as how far each species has moved northward and how far they had moved inland, was the value (and statistical significance) of the overall population trend for each species. Funny how in a report about how “global warming” is impacting bird species, that Audubon didn’t highlight the ultimate test of bird species health—the overall population trends.
They reason why becomes clear when you start looking over the numbers.
Of the 20 species highlighted in their figure (Figure 1 above), 9 of them showed statistically significant population increases, 9 of them had no statistically significant change in population, and only 2 of the species showed population declines.
Of the overall 305 species analyzed, 120 (39%) showed statistically significant population increases, 128 (42%) showed no change, and 57 (19%) showed a statistically significant declines.
This is strong indication that, in net, North American bird species have seemed to improve their overall condition during the past 40 years—a time of winter warming.
One potential reason why, is that most of these bird species tend to spend their summers further north than they do their winters—migrating between their preferred winter and summer ranges in the spring and fall. Birds don’t migrate for the fun of it, but to find the resources to meet their needs—food, nesting grounds, competition avoidance, etc. As migration is a particularly taxing time on the birds, the less time/distance they have to migrate the better. That they don’t have to travel as far south in the winter is a good thing. And since over the past 40 years, summer temperatures across North America have warmed much less than winter temperatures, it is quite likely that the total average distance that North America’s bird species have to migrate each year has declined (and the populations have grown).
Audubon wants you to sign their petition pushing for action on climate change based upon the findings of their bird report—not because of findings of harm, but simply of affect:
Our recently-released Birds and Climate report clearly shows that climate change is affecting birds – and our world – now. For the past 40 years, as our climate has warmed, birds have shifted their winter ranges further and further north. This ecological disruption is yet another wake up call that we must act quickly to solve the climate crisis. The birds’ northward movement is another signal that climate change is here and action is needed now.
We need global warming legislation that will help birds and wildlife survive what is coming by protecting their habitats and will reduce global warming pollution 80 percent by 2050 to avoid the worst impacts of a rapidly changing climate. Tell your lawmakers where you stand on global warming by signing our petition.
Don’t you think it would be decent of the National Audubon Society to highlight to their potential petition signors that they would be lending their support for legislation which is aimed to combat an effect that is leading to an overall improvement in the general health of North America’s bird species?
[update: Audubon has now included a FAQ about their analysis on their website which includes a discussion of the population increases--predictably, they find no good news in those numbers!]
Q: Didn’t some species fare really well over the past 40 years (even showing population increases)?
A-Yes, many of the species that moved north and inland increased in population at the same time. But it would be short-sighted to focus on what may appear to be short-term gains. Where food or habitat is available, species may do well in the short term, but ultimately the need to adjust to changing climate conditions can put species in peril in a variety of ways. Some will move into areas where an unusually harsh winter will still bring conditions they cannot survive. Others may be unable to find food or suitable habitat (especially if the healthy habitats they need, like grasslands) are already being decimated by overuse, pollution, and other threats. Even species that fare well amid the changes are likely to force out other, less adaptable birds, taking a long-term toll on ecological health and all it supports.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
In the End, People Are Still the Problem
In the End, People Are Still the Problem, by Chris Horner
Planet Gore/NRO, Feb 10, 2009
The New York Times’s Andy Revkin wonders if the worst thing we could do would be to give humans abundant, cheap, clean energy . . .
A solar-powered city, Masdar, is being built in Abu Dhabi. If super-cheap solar power is achieved, will humanity grow too much?
One aim of this blog is to explore efforts to expand the menu of cheap, non-polluting, renewable energy options. That’s a pretty clearcut need given the risks attending the unfettered use of fossil fuels and the reality that 2 billion people today cook on guttering fires using fuelwood or dung harvested mainly by girls who are not going to school as a result.
But I had a dream about energy one fitful night not long ago and it left me a little cold. I pondered what kind of world might result if Nate Lewis at Caltech or Dan Nocera at M.I.T. or Shi Zhengrong at Suntech Power Systems in China had a breakthrough that made solar panels as cheap as paint?
We could synthesize food, even meat, in solar-powered factories. We could render water from the sea or briny aquifers drinkable in endless amounts (as is being done with wind power in sere parts of Australia even now).
And we could, in essence, vastly increase the carrying capacity of the planet. Fossil fuels were a bit part of the growth spurt from 1 billion to nearly 7 billion people in two short centuries. On a finite planet, where would limitless energy, combined with humanity’s infinite aspirations, take us? This leads to a question that’s been touched on here periodically. Does a shift in values and aspirations have to accompany the technological leaps that will assuredly be made in the coming decades? . . .
There is, of course, nothing new to this view:
Planet Gore/NRO, Feb 10, 2009
The New York Times’s Andy Revkin wonders if the worst thing we could do would be to give humans abundant, cheap, clean energy . . .
A solar-powered city, Masdar, is being built in Abu Dhabi. If super-cheap solar power is achieved, will humanity grow too much?
One aim of this blog is to explore efforts to expand the menu of cheap, non-polluting, renewable energy options. That’s a pretty clearcut need given the risks attending the unfettered use of fossil fuels and the reality that 2 billion people today cook on guttering fires using fuelwood or dung harvested mainly by girls who are not going to school as a result.
But I had a dream about energy one fitful night not long ago and it left me a little cold. I pondered what kind of world might result if Nate Lewis at Caltech or Dan Nocera at M.I.T. or Shi Zhengrong at Suntech Power Systems in China had a breakthrough that made solar panels as cheap as paint?
We could synthesize food, even meat, in solar-powered factories. We could render water from the sea or briny aquifers drinkable in endless amounts (as is being done with wind power in sere parts of Australia even now).
And we could, in essence, vastly increase the carrying capacity of the planet. Fossil fuels were a bit part of the growth spurt from 1 billion to nearly 7 billion people in two short centuries. On a finite planet, where would limitless energy, combined with humanity’s infinite aspirations, take us? This leads to a question that’s been touched on here periodically. Does a shift in values and aspirations have to accompany the technological leaps that will assuredly be made in the coming decades? . . .
There is, of course, nothing new to this view:
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source
of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought
to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't
give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to
the earth or to each other.— Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth—Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22
Giving society cheap, abundant energy . . . would be the equivalent of
giving an idiot child a machine gun. — Paul Ehrlich, “An Ecologist's Perspective
on Nuclear Power,” May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists
Public Issue Report
Monday, February 9, 2009
DOE Award Results in Several Patents, Potential Increased Coal Recovery
DOE Award Results in Several Patents, Potential Increased Coal Recovery
Energy Dept, February 9, 2009
Technology Addresses Economic, Environmental Waste Impoundment Issues
Washington, D.C. — A $13 million cooperative effort with the Office of Fossil Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) over the past seven years has resulted in the successful demonstration of a novel technology that addresses a problem plaguing coal operators and environmentalists alike: separating fine coal particles from water and their ultimate use as a significant energy resource.
Researchers at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, Va., have developed and patented an advanced technology called a hyperbaric centrifuge that can successfully remove water from very fine coal slurries. During recent prototype tests at Arch Coal Company’s Cardinal plant in Logan County, W.Va., the technology reduced the moisture to a level that the waste coal can now be marketed commercially. The result is significant to the energy consumer in that U.S. coal producers each year discard large amounts of moisture-laden coal fines that can potentially be salvaged for energy use while simultaneously cleaning up the environment.
"We are heartened by the success of Virginia Tech’s technology because it represents a major step forward in clean coal separation technology while addressing environmental concerns associated with waste coal impoundments," said Dr. Victor K. Der, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. "The continued success and application of this technology holds promise for converting millions of tons of 'lost' energy into a valuable resource for the U.S. energy consumer."
Virginia Tech received the award from NETL as part of the Office of Fossil Energy's Hydrogen and Fuels program. Virginia Tech used the grant to develop the prototype centrifuge, evaluate its operation and design, and demonstrate it at coal-cleaning plants in Virginia, Alabama, and West Virginia. Several other technologies were also developed as part of the $13 million cooperative research effort.
Virginia Tech's Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) tested the centrifuge at three operating plants, including the most recent test at the Arch Coal plant, where waste coal slurry went through the centrifuge at a rate of 30 gallons per minute and was dewatered to 13-19 percent moisture with coal recovery greater than 97 percent. Virginia Tech, in conjunction with West Virginia University, formed CAST in 2001 under the sponsorship of NETL to develop advanced separation technologies.
The prototype unit tested at the Cardinal plant was constructed by Decanter Machine Company, Johnson City, Tenn., as part of a license agreement with Virginia Tech. Based on the successful test result, the company is currently building a full-size commercial unit with a capacity of 600 gallons per minute. Virginia Tech holds a U.S. patent on the technology, as well as international patents in seven countries.
Dr. Roe-Hoan Yoon, the lead developer of the technology at Virginia Tech, explains that the centrifuge applies a combination of air pressure and centrifugal force to successfully reduce significant levels of moisture in fine coal. He said that the idea came from basic research.
The success of the hyperbaric centrifuge is significant in the overall scheme of clean coal research in that the high moisture content of fine coal waste forces coal producers to discard the waste in storage areas called waste impoundments. Estimates indicate that these impoundments nationwide hold about 2 billion tons of fine coal in abandoned ponds and an additional 500 million to 800 million tons in active ponds. Technology that can recover these wastes would produce valuable resources to our Nation's energy supplies.
Removing moisture from very fine coal particles left over from the coal preparation process has been difficult in the past. Conventional methods such as thermal dryers or mechanical dewatering have either been too costly or have been unable to dewater ultrafine coal particles (0.1 millimeters or less). The hyperbaric centrifuge has successfully addressed those issues.
Virginia Tech researchers explain that the centrifuge, when combined with another Virginia Tech–developed clean coal technology called Microcel(TM), can remove both ash and water from the fine coal discarded at impoundments. These technologies will not only help coal producers minimize waste generation, but will also create small businesses recovering coal from existing waste impoundments.
Energy Dept, February 9, 2009
Technology Addresses Economic, Environmental Waste Impoundment Issues
Washington, D.C. — A $13 million cooperative effort with the Office of Fossil Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) over the past seven years has resulted in the successful demonstration of a novel technology that addresses a problem plaguing coal operators and environmentalists alike: separating fine coal particles from water and their ultimate use as a significant energy resource.
Researchers at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, Va., have developed and patented an advanced technology called a hyperbaric centrifuge that can successfully remove water from very fine coal slurries. During recent prototype tests at Arch Coal Company’s Cardinal plant in Logan County, W.Va., the technology reduced the moisture to a level that the waste coal can now be marketed commercially. The result is significant to the energy consumer in that U.S. coal producers each year discard large amounts of moisture-laden coal fines that can potentially be salvaged for energy use while simultaneously cleaning up the environment.
"We are heartened by the success of Virginia Tech’s technology because it represents a major step forward in clean coal separation technology while addressing environmental concerns associated with waste coal impoundments," said Dr. Victor K. Der, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. "The continued success and application of this technology holds promise for converting millions of tons of 'lost' energy into a valuable resource for the U.S. energy consumer."
Virginia Tech received the award from NETL as part of the Office of Fossil Energy's Hydrogen and Fuels program. Virginia Tech used the grant to develop the prototype centrifuge, evaluate its operation and design, and demonstrate it at coal-cleaning plants in Virginia, Alabama, and West Virginia. Several other technologies were also developed as part of the $13 million cooperative research effort.
Virginia Tech's Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) tested the centrifuge at three operating plants, including the most recent test at the Arch Coal plant, where waste coal slurry went through the centrifuge at a rate of 30 gallons per minute and was dewatered to 13-19 percent moisture with coal recovery greater than 97 percent. Virginia Tech, in conjunction with West Virginia University, formed CAST in 2001 under the sponsorship of NETL to develop advanced separation technologies.
The prototype unit tested at the Cardinal plant was constructed by Decanter Machine Company, Johnson City, Tenn., as part of a license agreement with Virginia Tech. Based on the successful test result, the company is currently building a full-size commercial unit with a capacity of 600 gallons per minute. Virginia Tech holds a U.S. patent on the technology, as well as international patents in seven countries.
Dr. Roe-Hoan Yoon, the lead developer of the technology at Virginia Tech, explains that the centrifuge applies a combination of air pressure and centrifugal force to successfully reduce significant levels of moisture in fine coal. He said that the idea came from basic research.
The success of the hyperbaric centrifuge is significant in the overall scheme of clean coal research in that the high moisture content of fine coal waste forces coal producers to discard the waste in storage areas called waste impoundments. Estimates indicate that these impoundments nationwide hold about 2 billion tons of fine coal in abandoned ponds and an additional 500 million to 800 million tons in active ponds. Technology that can recover these wastes would produce valuable resources to our Nation's energy supplies.
Removing moisture from very fine coal particles left over from the coal preparation process has been difficult in the past. Conventional methods such as thermal dryers or mechanical dewatering have either been too costly or have been unable to dewater ultrafine coal particles (0.1 millimeters or less). The hyperbaric centrifuge has successfully addressed those issues.
Virginia Tech researchers explain that the centrifuge, when combined with another Virginia Tech–developed clean coal technology called Microcel(TM), can remove both ash and water from the fine coal discarded at impoundments. These technologies will not only help coal producers minimize waste generation, but will also create small businesses recovering coal from existing waste impoundments.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Cutting Emissions While Increasing Them
Cutting Emissions While Increasing Them. By Roger Pielke, Jr.
Prometheus, February 6th, 2009
Here is a remarkable display of incoherence. According to a report commissioned by Greenpeace and discussed by The Christian Science Monitor, the economic stimulus package now under debate by the U.S. Congress will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
What does the report mean by “reduce”? It means that some future emissions that might have occurred will be avoided. Emissions will therefore increase, just not as much as under some other scenario. The difference between that other scenario and the scenario implied by the stimulus package represents a “reduction” in emissions. Yes, you are reading that right.
The great thing about this approach to emissions reductions is that it is an infinite resource. For instance, I just decided not to buy a Hummer and reduced my future emissions by an enormous amount. You can do the same, and if we all pitch in, maybe it will solve the problem. Or as the head of resaerch for Greenpeace observes:
The fact of the matter is that the goal of the stimulus bill is to stimulate the economy. Absent a reduction in the ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to GDP, emissions will go up in the real world, regardless of silly accounting tricks. Of course, silly accounting tricks on emissions are to be expected by those seeking to present BAU as progress, but I’m really surprised that it is Greenpeace that is engaging in such shenanigans.
Prometheus, February 6th, 2009
Here is a remarkable display of incoherence. According to a report commissioned by Greenpeace and discussed by The Christian Science Monitor, the economic stimulus package now under debate by the U.S. Congress will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
What does the report mean by “reduce”? It means that some future emissions that might have occurred will be avoided. Emissions will therefore increase, just not as much as under some other scenario. The difference between that other scenario and the scenario implied by the stimulus package represents a “reduction” in emissions. Yes, you are reading that right.
The great thing about this approach to emissions reductions is that it is an infinite resource. For instance, I just decided not to buy a Hummer and reduced my future emissions by an enormous amount. You can do the same, and if we all pitch in, maybe it will solve the problem. Or as the head of resaerch for Greenpeace observes:
The fact that the federal government could spend so much money and actually help
slow global warming means we’ve really turned the page as a country,” said Kert
Davies, Greenpeace’s Research Director, in a press release.. “This is a real
sign that we’re starting to move beyond the era of fossil fuels.”
The fact of the matter is that the goal of the stimulus bill is to stimulate the economy. Absent a reduction in the ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to GDP, emissions will go up in the real world, regardless of silly accounting tricks. Of course, silly accounting tricks on emissions are to be expected by those seeking to present BAU as progress, but I’m really surprised that it is Greenpeace that is engaging in such shenanigans.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Fuel Cell Projects Continue Push for Low-Cost, Environmentally Friendly Coal Power
SECA Fuel Cell Program Moves Two Key Projects Into Next Phase
Projects Continue Push for Low-Cost, Environmentally Friendly Coal Power
Energy Dept, February 5, 2009
Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has selected two projects for continuation within the Department's Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) Program research portfolio. The projects—led by FuelCell Energy, in partnership with VersaPower Systems, and Siemens Energy—have successfully demonstrated solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) designed for aggregation and use in coal-fueled central power generation. Further development of these low-cost, near-zero emission fuel cell systems will substantially contribute to solving the Nation's energy security, climate, and water challenges.
The selections were based upon an assessment of demonstrated progress in developing high-performance, low-cost SOFC technology. FuelCell Energy is testing two ~10 kilowatt SOFC stacks incorporating planar cells; each has surpassed 4,700 hours of operation to date. Similarly, Siemens is testing a ~10 kilowatt SOFC stack incorporating its new higher power Delta cells, with 2,500 hours of operation to date. With the continuation, these projects will pursue cell materials and design development to further improve performance, reduce cost, and integrate the cells into larger stacks for evaluation and incorporation into larger demonstrations beginning in 2012.
From an environmental perspective, fuel cells are one of the most attractive technologies for generating electricity. SOFCs operate by separating oxygen from air and transferring it across a solid electrolyte membrane, where it reacts with a fuel—such as synthesis gas derived from coal, biofuels, or natural gas—to produce steam and carbon dioxide (CO2). Condensing the steam results in a pure stream of CO2 gas, which can be readily captured for storage or other use in a central location. This feature, coupled with very high efficiencies and the fact that fuel cells operate more efficiently at lower temperatures than combustion-based technologies, results in near-zero emissions. In addition, eliminating the need for steam bottoming cycles, and the ability to keep fuel and air streams separate, significantly reduce water withdrawal.
To realize the intrinsic advantages of SOFCs requires achievement of SECA's cost reduction goals. Projects in the SECA portfolio are conducting research and technology development to lower costs and improve reliability, ultimately culminating in the demonstration of fuel cell technologies that can support power generation systems as large as several hundred megawatts capacity. Key program goals, as defined by the Office of Fossil Energy and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, include:
Projects Continue Push for Low-Cost, Environmentally Friendly Coal Power
Energy Dept, February 5, 2009
Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has selected two projects for continuation within the Department's Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) Program research portfolio. The projects—led by FuelCell Energy, in partnership with VersaPower Systems, and Siemens Energy—have successfully demonstrated solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) designed for aggregation and use in coal-fueled central power generation. Further development of these low-cost, near-zero emission fuel cell systems will substantially contribute to solving the Nation's energy security, climate, and water challenges.
The selections were based upon an assessment of demonstrated progress in developing high-performance, low-cost SOFC technology. FuelCell Energy is testing two ~10 kilowatt SOFC stacks incorporating planar cells; each has surpassed 4,700 hours of operation to date. Similarly, Siemens is testing a ~10 kilowatt SOFC stack incorporating its new higher power Delta cells, with 2,500 hours of operation to date. With the continuation, these projects will pursue cell materials and design development to further improve performance, reduce cost, and integrate the cells into larger stacks for evaluation and incorporation into larger demonstrations beginning in 2012.
From an environmental perspective, fuel cells are one of the most attractive technologies for generating electricity. SOFCs operate by separating oxygen from air and transferring it across a solid electrolyte membrane, where it reacts with a fuel—such as synthesis gas derived from coal, biofuels, or natural gas—to produce steam and carbon dioxide (CO2). Condensing the steam results in a pure stream of CO2 gas, which can be readily captured for storage or other use in a central location. This feature, coupled with very high efficiencies and the fact that fuel cells operate more efficiently at lower temperatures than combustion-based technologies, results in near-zero emissions. In addition, eliminating the need for steam bottoming cycles, and the ability to keep fuel and air streams separate, significantly reduce water withdrawal.
To realize the intrinsic advantages of SOFCs requires achievement of SECA's cost reduction goals. Projects in the SECA portfolio are conducting research and technology development to lower costs and improve reliability, ultimately culminating in the demonstration of fuel cell technologies that can support power generation systems as large as several hundred megawatts capacity. Key program goals, as defined by the Office of Fossil Energy and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, include:
- Cost of $175 per kilowatt (2007 dollars) for a minimum 40,000 hour fuel cell stack.
- Cost of $700 per kilowatt (2007 dollars) for an integrated fuel cell power block.
- Maintaining high power density in the large cells necessary for economic manufacturing.
- 2012—Multiple 1‑megawatt systems to demonstrate 5-year life by 2017.
- 2015—Multiple 5‑megawatt systems to demonstrate system integration with heat recovery turbines, power electronics, and other system level features by 2017.
- 2020—Full scale 250–500 megawatt integrated gasification fuel cell plant as part of DOE’s Near-Zero Emissions Coal-Based Electricity Demonstration Program.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Energy Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Surface Transportation
Energy Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Surface Transportation. By Samuel R. Staley, Ph.D.Testimony to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Massachusetts Joint Committee on Transportation
2. Mobility and Economic Competitiveness
First, we must recognize the central purpose of transportation policy is to provide for and improve mobility for citizens and businesses. In other words, transportation policy is focused on finding effective ways to move people, goods, and services from point A to point B faster and cheaper. This central goal should not be minimized despite the more current concerns over the state of the national economy and the vigorous public discussion over the impending stimulus package. At the end of the day, transportation policy will continue to be about providing efficient, safe, and reliable mobility above all other policy goals or objectives, and the focus of reauthorization will inevitably move beyond the short-term politics surrounding the economic recession.
Importantly, mobility is the proper goal of transportation policy. Reason Foundation Vice President Adrian Moore and I explain the critical role mobility plays in ensuring our continued global competitiveness in our book Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive Economy. We summarize a growing body of research that shows empirically what urban economists have known for decades: Mobility is critical to national and urban economic success.
The reason is straightforward. Economic productivity improves when we lower the costs of production and make it easier for people to interact. Increased mobility gives workers access to an increasingly diverse number of jobs, and employers enjoy greater access to an increasingly large skilled and productive workforce. This is why congestion has such debilitating impacts on economic growth. As congestion increases, and costs of getting from point A to point B grow, production costs increase and the "opportunity circle" that includes access to markets, resources and jobs resources shrinks.
Thus, while transportation investments are critical to economic productivity and growth, job creation is an indirect impact of successful transportation policy and not a primary goal. This, in fact, is the lesson from the Interstate Highway program created in the 1950s. The central objective of this multibillion dollar program was to link the nation's largest urban centers and integrate them into a truly national transportation network. This goal served economic purposes as well as broader national goals of geographically unifying the nation (in much the same way railroads did in the 19th century) and providing for a more efficient national defense.
The economic impacts were enormous and tangible. The Interstate Highway System and upgrades to various state and regional roads boosted economic growth because these new roads reduced transportation costs dramatically, allowing businesses to improve productivity. Some of these effects, such as providing more efficient routes for long-haul freight movement, were intended. Reducing urban traffic congestion was another, less important goal successfully met, although few anticipated the decentralization of metropolitan areas that followed.
As we move forward thinking about transportation and sustainability, we also need to recognize the fundamental link between mobility, economic productivity, and economic growth.
Reason Foundation, January 27, 2009
1. Overview
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, members of the subcommittee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to discuss environmental sustainability and the future of transportation in the United States. This is a central issue as the federal government works toward its six-year authorization of transportation funding, and understanding the proper context for addressing environmental issues will be critical.
I would like to focus my remarks on two over-arching points:
- Transportation policy that loses sight of mobility as a central goal puts our economic competitiveness at risk; and
- Mobility is compatible with long-term goals of environmental sustainability.
2. Mobility and Economic Competitiveness
First, we must recognize the central purpose of transportation policy is to provide for and improve mobility for citizens and businesses. In other words, transportation policy is focused on finding effective ways to move people, goods, and services from point A to point B faster and cheaper. This central goal should not be minimized despite the more current concerns over the state of the national economy and the vigorous public discussion over the impending stimulus package. At the end of the day, transportation policy will continue to be about providing efficient, safe, and reliable mobility above all other policy goals or objectives, and the focus of reauthorization will inevitably move beyond the short-term politics surrounding the economic recession.
Importantly, mobility is the proper goal of transportation policy. Reason Foundation Vice President Adrian Moore and I explain the critical role mobility plays in ensuring our continued global competitiveness in our book Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive Economy. We summarize a growing body of research that shows empirically what urban economists have known for decades: Mobility is critical to national and urban economic success.
The reason is straightforward. Economic productivity improves when we lower the costs of production and make it easier for people to interact. Increased mobility gives workers access to an increasingly diverse number of jobs, and employers enjoy greater access to an increasingly large skilled and productive workforce. This is why congestion has such debilitating impacts on economic growth. As congestion increases, and costs of getting from point A to point B grow, production costs increase and the "opportunity circle" that includes access to markets, resources and jobs resources shrinks.
Thus, while transportation investments are critical to economic productivity and growth, job creation is an indirect impact of successful transportation policy and not a primary goal. This, in fact, is the lesson from the Interstate Highway program created in the 1950s. The central objective of this multibillion dollar program was to link the nation's largest urban centers and integrate them into a truly national transportation network. This goal served economic purposes as well as broader national goals of geographically unifying the nation (in much the same way railroads did in the 19th century) and providing for a more efficient national defense.
The economic impacts were enormous and tangible. The Interstate Highway System and upgrades to various state and regional roads boosted economic growth because these new roads reduced transportation costs dramatically, allowing businesses to improve productivity. Some of these effects, such as providing more efficient routes for long-haul freight movement, were intended. Reducing urban traffic congestion was another, less important goal successfully met, although few anticipated the decentralization of metropolitan areas that followed.
As we move forward thinking about transportation and sustainability, we also need to recognize the fundamental link between mobility, economic productivity, and economic growth.
3. Transportation and the Environment
The critical role transportation plays in economic growth and productivity does not obviate the need to consider the environmental consequences of our transportation investments, the environmental impact of different modes, or the way we use transportation facilities. On the contrary, as we become more aware of the environmental impacts of human activity, we have a responsibility to mitigate the negative effects. We have, for example, made tremendous strides toward improving our air quality even as our use of automobiles has increased dramatically. Air quality, by all metrics, has improved steadily in most U.S. urban areas since the early 1970s as a result of new technologies that lowered emissions while preserving the mobility implicit in automobile use. Indeed, rising economic productivity, and the increased wealth that comes with it, allows us to be even more creative and innovative in improving mobility in an environmentally responsible manner.
Thus, mobility and environmental protection can be complimentary goals. The key is to understand the right contexts in which these goals are pursued and choose strategies that allow for both to be achieved simultaneously. Environmental policy that explicitly or implicitly reduces mobility undermines the long term viability of our cities and national economy and, as a consequence, our ability to meet our long-term environmental policy goals.
A case in point is the role technology will play in meeting greenhouse gas targets. Preliminary findings of research being conducted by The Hartgen Group for Reason Foundation indicates that newly legislated fuel mileage standards will outstrip most other commonly proposed strategies for mitigating carbon dioxide by large margins (see Table 1). In an analysis of greenhouse gas trends in 48 urbanized areas, current trends suggest that without mitigating strategies, CO2 will increase 52 percent by 2030. The new CAFÉ mandates recently enacted by Congress will reduce CO2 by 31.2 percent by 2030. In contrast, increasing the price of fuel to $5 per gallon would only reduce emissions by about 4 percent. The combined effect of increasing the transit share of work trips by 50 percent, increasing the walk to work share by 50 percent, and increasing telecommuting would reduce CO2 emissions by just 2.5 percent.
Notably, the new fuel mileage mandates are also more cost-effective, averaging about $52 per ton removed, and meet the McKinsey & Company benchmark reported in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? In contrast, most other strategies are significantly more costly. Physical capacity improvements, increasing transit's mode share, and reducing overall travel by raising the gas tax are expected to cost close to (or more than) $4,000 per ton removed.
4. Environmental Mitigation Strategies and Mobility
Each of these greenhouse gas mitigation strategies has different impacts on mobility and, as a result, on our nation's productivity. Increased fuel mileage mandates do not impact our nation's mobility although they have somewhat smaller impacts on the costs of using specific types of cars and trucks. If the mandates are modest and provide enough of a lead time, they can allow consumers and private suppliers to make choices about what technologies and modes of transport are most efficient for achieving transportation goals. This, combined with the independent decisions of millions of Americans to purchase more fuel efficient automobiles, can increase productivity and mitigate greenhouse gases.
In contrast, policies that attempt to directly reduce travel have an adverse impact on mobility and impinge on our economic productivity by reducing the opportunity circles accessible by employers, workers, and households.
A few quick illustrations make this point. Portland, Oregon's Tri-Met operates perhaps the most successful rail transit system in place among mid-size (and smaller) U.S. cities. Sixty-four light rail transit stations are part of a regional transit network that covers an urban area of 474 square miles and serves 1.2 million people according to the National Transit Database. Yet, these transit stations account for just 22 square miles, or about 5 percent of the regional service area. Even with the more compact urban form created in part by a mandated regional growth boundary, Tri-Met's ability to influence regional urban form and travel patterns is limited to the immediate area around the transit stations.
Arlington, Virginia provides another example. Arlington hosts some of the nation's most robust transit-oriented developments, using a large volume heavy rail system to support development at Metro stations around Ballston and Courthouse Square on the Orange Line and Pentagon City and Crystal City on the Blue Line. The eleven Metro stations represent about 8 percent of the county's land area. About 20 percent of the county's population lives within walking distance (1/4 mile) of one of these Metro stops. Among those within walking distance, however, the private automobile still captures more than half, and often two-thirds or more, of total trips. Thus, in Arlington, rail transit is used by just 5-10 percent of the county's population. Notably, transit's share of total travel in the Washington, DC urban area remains around 7 percent.
The point, however, is not to criticize transit. On the contrary, transit plays a vital role along key corridors in many urban areas and enhances mobility for many. Rather, transit's role in meeting environmental policy goals needs to be kept in context.
Despite recent gains in ridership, public transit remains a relatively small part of the overall travel equation in most major urbanized areas in the U.S. Notably, higher gas prices contributed to a reduction in road travel by 100 billion vehicle miles traveled in 2008, according to the Federal Highway Administration, a fall of about 4 percent. Public transit experienced an increase of about 5 percent. Yet, because transit carries a very small portion of travel, transit was able to capture just 3 percent of the overall decline in road travel.
In addition, the kinds of policies that will be necessary to fundamentally change land use to boost transit ridership significantly would require a dramatic and largely involuntary relocation of people and families into housing they do not want. The single-family, detached house would be an option only for the wealthier income brackets in our major urban areas, effectively inverting the existing distribution of home options and choices.
A policy that focuses largely on shifting travelers out of cars and into transit will reduce mobility. An examination of work trip travel times in 276 metropolitan areas found that the length of public transit trips exceeded those for private automobiles in 272 of those areas. On average, public transit riders spend about 36 minutes traveling to work while private automobile travelers commute about 21 minutes. This does not have to be the case. The innovative use of HOT Lanes, such as the networks being built in Northern Virginia and discussed in Atlanta, Houston, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Miami can finance critically needed road capacity while also providing viable bus rapid transit alternatives.
5. Sustainable Transportation Policy
Sustainable development policies call for a balancing of three goals: economic growth, the equitable use of resources, and environmental preservation. Transportation policy that undermines mobility compromises the productivity necessary to support better environmental stewardship.
What federal policy initiatives, then, can preserve the overarching goals of transportation policy to improve mobility while also recognizing the importance of meeting environmental goals?
First, achieving environmental goals will depend primarily on technological solutions, not broad-based changes in human behavior. The dramatic improvements in air quality in major urban areas is directly attributed to technological solutions, and the same will be true for addressing national greenhouse gas goals. Federal policymakers should resist attempts to directly use transportation policy to address broader environmental goals because it tends to be a very blunt and inefficient instrument.
Second, maintain mobility as the central goal of transportation policy. Policies that directly reduce mobility, including those designed explicitly to reduce vehicle miles traveled or direct commuters to alternatives that will lengthen commute times, should be avoided. While environmental concerns should play a role, federal objectives should include searching for and implementing win-win solutions.
Third, continue to put congestion reduction as a key priority for transportation policy and investments. Widespread traffic congestion places substantial burdens on businesses and individuals. Mitigating these effects should be a primary goal of transportation policy makers to ensure our cities and national economy remain competitive. Many congestion-mitigation strategies-HOT lanes, tolled facilities, capacity expansion-will also have environmental benefits, but their central purpose is to reduce transportation costs and improve economic productivity.
Fourth, aggressively move toward a transportation funding approach based on distance-based financing such as comprehensive road pricing. This approach would establish a more direct, transparent and accountable user-based funding system.
Fourth, aggressively move toward a transportation funding approach based on distance-based financing such as comprehensive road pricing. This approach would establish a more direct, transparent and accountable user-based funding system.
Thank you for your attention. I welcome any comments or questions members of the subcommittee may have.
Sam Staley is director of urban policy at Reason Foundation. He is co-author of Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive 21st Century (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008). An archive of Staley's work is here, and Reason's transportation research and commentary is here.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Energy industry stimulus plan
IER’s Bold Stimulus Plan: A Roadmap to Improving the Economy and Creating Jobs, All at No Cost to the Taxpayer
Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. As our competitors around the globe have shown us in recent years, job creation and economic growth begin with access to abundant, affordable energy supplies.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s stimulus proposals are founded on the fundamentally flawed notion that we will achieve prosperity if we make coal, oil, and natural gas, which make up 85 percent [1] of the energy that fuels our economy, more expensive and less available. Meanwhile, President Obama wishes to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on the most expensive and least efficient energy sources and force American consumers to pay more to purchase them.
Energy is, literally, “the capacity to do work.” More energy means more work, more jobs, and more economic growth. Less affordable energy means less work performed here at home. Affordable energy creates jobs and stimulates investment in America.
IER supports government policies that encourage private investment, foster job creation, and provide American consumers access to the vast, proven, affordable energy supplies they own beneath the 2.3 billion acres of government lands not leased for responsible energy production. These enormous taxpayer-owned resources, and the American jobs they would create, have been held hostage by a decades-long government policy of saying, “No, we can’t”.
Today, IER is offering a bold economic stimulus plan that will create jobs, strengthen our economy, enhance our national energy security, and make the U.S. more competitive in the world. Best of all, it won’t cost taxpayers a dime. In fact, it could generate hundreds of billions of dollars, along with jobs and new energy supplies for the future.
IER’s plan represents the most significant change in government energy policy in more than three decades. We urge the Obama Administration to say, “Yes, we can” to our two-part plan, which begins by embracing the fundamental medical precept: First, Do No Harm:
Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. As our competitors around the globe have shown us in recent years, job creation and economic growth begin with access to abundant, affordable energy supplies.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s stimulus proposals are founded on the fundamentally flawed notion that we will achieve prosperity if we make coal, oil, and natural gas, which make up 85 percent [1] of the energy that fuels our economy, more expensive and less available. Meanwhile, President Obama wishes to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on the most expensive and least efficient energy sources and force American consumers to pay more to purchase them.
Energy is, literally, “the capacity to do work.” More energy means more work, more jobs, and more economic growth. Less affordable energy means less work performed here at home. Affordable energy creates jobs and stimulates investment in America.
IER supports government policies that encourage private investment, foster job creation, and provide American consumers access to the vast, proven, affordable energy supplies they own beneath the 2.3 billion acres of government lands not leased for responsible energy production. These enormous taxpayer-owned resources, and the American jobs they would create, have been held hostage by a decades-long government policy of saying, “No, we can’t”.
Today, IER is offering a bold economic stimulus plan that will create jobs, strengthen our economy, enhance our national energy security, and make the U.S. more competitive in the world. Best of all, it won’t cost taxpayers a dime. In fact, it could generate hundreds of billions of dollars, along with jobs and new energy supplies for the future.
IER’s plan represents the most significant change in government energy policy in more than three decades. We urge the Obama Administration to say, “Yes, we can” to our two-part plan, which begins by embracing the fundamental medical precept: First, Do No Harm:
- Vow to defend jobs and investments against expensive, job-killing climate regulations. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently stated that she would not allow EU climate regulations that “take decisions that would endanger jobs or investments in Germany.” President Obama should follow suit and vow to defend American jobs against costly climate regulations.
- Halt EPA’s attempt to regulate carbon dioxide using the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act was designed to regulate regional air pollutants, not global concentrations of carbon dioxide. President Obama needs to apply a cost-benefit analysis to EPA’s proposal to make 85 percent of the energy that fuels our economy more expensive and less available, cost Americans $7 trillion over the next 20 years, and accomplish little, if any, real reductions in global temperature.
- Renounce plans to bankrupt coal companies. As a presidential candidate, Obama said he would bankrupt coal-fired power plants with climate regulations. America currently gets 48 percent of our electricity from coal. Unlike wind and solar, coal is reliable, affordable, and proven. Wind and solar cannot power modern society’s always-on electricity needs.
- Join other policymakers in denouncing billions for “project[s] that depend on significant taxpayer subsidies while potentially doubling power costs” for American consumers and abandon all efforts to implement Federal Renewable Fuels Standards, Federal Renewable Portfolio Standards and Low Carbon Fuel Standards.
And second, say “Yes, we can” and pursue the following landmark changes in federal energy policy:
- End subsidies for all forms of energy and return the money to American taxpayers. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in energy production. Furthermore, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), direct payments to individuals and cutting taxes have the fastest and most significant impacts on the economy.
- Continue our progress on the most significant change in energy policy in decades: Streamline regulations to produce energy from American resources on American lands and coastal waters. ICF International recently released a study that shows developing America’s abundant but currently off-limits domestic energy supply would create 160,000 new jobs alone and generate $1.7 trillion for local, state, and federal tax revenue.
- Provide coastal states with 50 percent of revenue from offshore and onshore energy leasing. Last year alone, the U.S. raised over $23 billion from energy leasing on federal lands.
- Support exploration and energy production in ANWR. According to the Energy Information Administration, ANWR “is the largest unexplored, potentially productive geological onshore basin in the United States.” It contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of oil. Opening ANWR would create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, generate billions of dollars in state and federal revenue, and enhance our energy security.
- Expedite job creation by waiving all regulations on federal lands for the expedited construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. Congress did this in 1973 for the 800 mile-long Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline, which was built in just three years and has since delivered 16 billion barrels of oil to American consumers. Russia, Iran, and Qatar control 60 percent of the world’s natural gas supplies. We should use our abundant supplies of natural gas, and not allow another OPEC-style cartel to limit our energy sources.
- Allow the exploration and experimentation necessary to produce affordable energy from America’s oil shale resources. The western United States is home to an estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil equivalent in oil shale. This is about three times the amount of proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. This resource is untapped and needs research to develop economically.
- Permit the exploration and experimentation necessary to produce affordable energy from methane hydrates. A 2007 study found that the U.S. has about 5,700 trillion cubic feet of methane hydrates—about 900 times the current annual gas consumption in the U.S. Like oil shale, this resource is untapped, and companies need to research ways to bring it to market.
- Limit frivolous lawsuits designed to thwart responsible development of American energy and the American jobs it creates. The following quote sums up this problem best. In an interview with Dow Jones Newswires in January 2003, The Wilderness Society’s Peter Morton threatened: “If you bid on a lease on public land, you can expect (environmental litigation).“
- Remove regulatory impediments to building and expanding refineries. We have not built a new refinery in the United States since 1976 because of environmental regulations and bureaucratic red tape. While existing refineries have gone to great lengths to expand their capacity to meet domestic demand, refinery expansions are becoming even more difficult due to regulatory impediments.
- Resolve issues involving the Yucca Mountain Repository for spent nuclear fuel. The Federal government has been studying Yucca Mountain as a fuel repository for the last 30 years. Ratepayers have paid billions to the Nuclear Waste Fund—it’s time for the Federal government to move forward and provide a return on that investment.
- Remove regulatory barriers to building the next generation of nuclear power plants. The Federal government should not stand in the way of developing nuclear fuel reprocessing, pebble-bed reactors, or whatever forms of nuclear energy are economical.
[1] According to EIA, in 2007 39 percent of our energy came from petroleum, 22 percent from coal, 23 percent from natural gas, 8 percent from nuclear, 2.4 percent from hydroelectric, 2.1 percent from wood derived fuels, 1.0 percent from biofuel, 0.3 percent from geothermal, 0.3 percent from wind, and 0.1 percent from solar. The latest data from EIA is available here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
On European Parliament's plans for pyrethroids and organophosphates
Insecticide or Suffering? By Gilbert Ross, M.D.
American Council on Science and Health, Sunday, January 18, 2009
Next week, the European Parliament will debate stringent regulation of a number of effective pesticides. It is apparently too much to expect a sense of shame from European public health officials and their activist "environmental" collaborators when the subject of chemical pesticides is raised.
What about some sense of history? Or compassion? Not likely, as the European Parliament votes next Tuesday on a proposal to tighten the already onerous restrictions on many common insecticides. If this regulation is passed, the consequences will be devastating -- not in Europe, but in Africa and Asia.
Over the decades from World War II through the late 1960s, widespread use of the potent and safe insecticide DDT led to eradication of many insect-borne diseases in Europe and North America. But at the doorstep of global malaria control, DDT became the poster child for environmental degradation, thanks to Rachel Carson's polemic, Silent Spring.
Based on no scientific evidence of human health effects, the newly established U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT, and its European counterparts followed suit. Subsequently, more than 1 million people died each year from malaria -- but not in America or Europe. Rather, most of the victims were children and women in Africa and Asia.
Today, even while acknowledging that indoor spraying of small amounts of DDT would help prevent many deaths and millions of illnesses, nongovernmental organizations continue -- with great success -- to pressure African governments not to allow its use. In order to stave off such pressure and be allowed to sell their agricultural products in Europe, African public health officials cave, and their children die needlessly. Yet, rather than learning the tragic lesson of the DDT ban, the European Union leadership in concert with activists wants to extend this unscientific ban to other effective insecticides, including pyrethroids and organophosphates -- further undercutting anti-malarial efforts.
The currently debated regulation would engender a paradigm shift in the regulation of chemicals, from a risk-based approach -- based on real world exposures from agricultural applications -- to a hazard-based standard, derived from laboratory tests and having little or no basis in reality as far as human health is concerned. Of course, this is fine with anti-chemical zealots in the activist camps. Their concern is bringing down chemical companies in the name of "the environment" -- tough luck if African children have to be sacrificed to their agenda, as was the case with DDT (which is still banned in the EU and not under consideration in the current debate).
Further consequences involve discontinuation of currently used insecticides, leading to higher prices and decreased availability of these chemicals, which would worsen food shortages and increasing malnutrition. Moreover, farmers and marketers of agricultural products in the world's poorest regions would withdraw from using restricted pesticides out of fear of discrimination against their exports in the EU, with similar consequences for farmers' yields, income and local nutrition. Such bans would, in effect, become nontariff trade barriers against poor African farmers.
The banned insecticides will not be easily replaced -- researchers in this area of chemistry will take note of the new, stringent standards and decide the potential return on their investment is not worth the effort of passing through the regulatory hurdles. Development of newer, more effective pesticides will come to a halt.
Most poignantly, the fight against malaria and other insect-borne tropical diseases would take another hit, with resulting illness, disability and death disproportionally affecting children under five and pregnant women.
And what, after all, is the "danger" of these chemicals being debated? In fact, there is no evidence to support the activists' contention that insecticides pose a health threat to humans. Even DDT, one of the most studied chemicals of all time, has been conclusively shown to be safe for humans at all conceivable levels of exposure sufficient to control malaria and save millions of lives.
So these new restrictions would have no benefit, yet contribute to much suffering. Is it asking too much for someone in power in the European Union to care?
Gilbert Ross, M.D., is medical director of the American Council on Science and Health in New York City.
American Council on Science and Health, Sunday, January 18, 2009
Next week, the European Parliament will debate stringent regulation of a number of effective pesticides. It is apparently too much to expect a sense of shame from European public health officials and their activist "environmental" collaborators when the subject of chemical pesticides is raised.
What about some sense of history? Or compassion? Not likely, as the European Parliament votes next Tuesday on a proposal to tighten the already onerous restrictions on many common insecticides. If this regulation is passed, the consequences will be devastating -- not in Europe, but in Africa and Asia.
Over the decades from World War II through the late 1960s, widespread use of the potent and safe insecticide DDT led to eradication of many insect-borne diseases in Europe and North America. But at the doorstep of global malaria control, DDT became the poster child for environmental degradation, thanks to Rachel Carson's polemic, Silent Spring.
Based on no scientific evidence of human health effects, the newly established U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT, and its European counterparts followed suit. Subsequently, more than 1 million people died each year from malaria -- but not in America or Europe. Rather, most of the victims were children and women in Africa and Asia.
Today, even while acknowledging that indoor spraying of small amounts of DDT would help prevent many deaths and millions of illnesses, nongovernmental organizations continue -- with great success -- to pressure African governments not to allow its use. In order to stave off such pressure and be allowed to sell their agricultural products in Europe, African public health officials cave, and their children die needlessly. Yet, rather than learning the tragic lesson of the DDT ban, the European Union leadership in concert with activists wants to extend this unscientific ban to other effective insecticides, including pyrethroids and organophosphates -- further undercutting anti-malarial efforts.
The currently debated regulation would engender a paradigm shift in the regulation of chemicals, from a risk-based approach -- based on real world exposures from agricultural applications -- to a hazard-based standard, derived from laboratory tests and having little or no basis in reality as far as human health is concerned. Of course, this is fine with anti-chemical zealots in the activist camps. Their concern is bringing down chemical companies in the name of "the environment" -- tough luck if African children have to be sacrificed to their agenda, as was the case with DDT (which is still banned in the EU and not under consideration in the current debate).
Further consequences involve discontinuation of currently used insecticides, leading to higher prices and decreased availability of these chemicals, which would worsen food shortages and increasing malnutrition. Moreover, farmers and marketers of agricultural products in the world's poorest regions would withdraw from using restricted pesticides out of fear of discrimination against their exports in the EU, with similar consequences for farmers' yields, income and local nutrition. Such bans would, in effect, become nontariff trade barriers against poor African farmers.
The banned insecticides will not be easily replaced -- researchers in this area of chemistry will take note of the new, stringent standards and decide the potential return on their investment is not worth the effort of passing through the regulatory hurdles. Development of newer, more effective pesticides will come to a halt.
Most poignantly, the fight against malaria and other insect-borne tropical diseases would take another hit, with resulting illness, disability and death disproportionally affecting children under five and pregnant women.
And what, after all, is the "danger" of these chemicals being debated? In fact, there is no evidence to support the activists' contention that insecticides pose a health threat to humans. Even DDT, one of the most studied chemicals of all time, has been conclusively shown to be safe for humans at all conceivable levels of exposure sufficient to control malaria and save millions of lives.
So these new restrictions would have no benefit, yet contribute to much suffering. Is it asking too much for someone in power in the European Union to care?
Gilbert Ross, M.D., is medical director of the American Council on Science and Health in New York City.
Chernobyl, Three Miles Island and thyroid cancer
Nuke Those Fears! By Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D.
Greens dismiss nuclear energy based on little more than greatly exaggerated depictions of the supposed dangers and difficulties of its use.
American Council on Science and Health, Jan 27, 2009
Excerpts:
The environmental mantra these days has two main components -- clean energy and green (sustainable) energy -- anything but oil and coal. Proponents strongly encourage the development of solar and wind energy, neither of which is ready yet for widespread commercial use. But they ignore or downplay the use of a well understood and already commercialized technology -- nuclear energy -- based on little more than greatly exaggerated depictions of the supposed dangers and difficulties of its use.
One fear that has been widely promoted is that of large-scale accidents in nuclear power plants. Anti-nuclear activists point to two examples of that -- the explosion at the Russian Chernobyl reactor in 1986, and the partial meltdown of the fuel rods at the Three Mile Island reactor in 1979.
The Chernobyl explosion was due to errors made by the operators during a test and a lack of adequate safety features and procedures that could have prevented such errors. It will surprise many that, with the exception of workers who were on the scene and received massive acute doses of radiation, there has been no evidence of increased radiation-caused mortality. In contrast to the Chernobyl plant, modern nuclear facilities have redundant safety features to prevent such errors.
Although it has also been used as an example of a large-scale accident, there was actually little release of radioactivity from the Three Mile Island reactor -- even though about half of the fuel melted. The level of radioactivity received by the surrounding area was not significantly greater than that normally supplied by natural background sources. In other words, the containment precautions were effective. Of course, the anti-nuclear fanatics' propaganda pays no attention to these simple facts.
Another fear that has been widely promoted is that release of radioactivity from a nuclear plant -- specifically the radioactive iodine, I131 -- would cause thyroid cancer in exposed children. This fear actually has some biological basis in that the thyroid gland avidly takes up iodine. It can be prevented from absorbing the radioactive iodine, however, by giving a large dose of non-radioactive iodine. An even simpler preventive measure: avoid drinking milk for a week or two after such an (unlikely) event. Of course prevention of I131 release is a much better option.
It is true that a year after the Chernobyl accident screening studies revealed an increased occurrence of thyroid cancer in exposed children. However, many scientists have questioned whether this was really due to the Chernobyl-related exposure, since thyroid cancer typically has a latency period of thirty years. Further, it is important to note that prior to the explosion, there was very little screening of children in the Chernobyl area -- but around 90% were screened afterwards. This fact alone very likely contributed to the increased incidence observed. In addition, the incidence of thyroid cancer was actually lower in the highly contaminated region than in the general Russian population.
[...]
Dr. Ruth Kava is Director of Nutrition at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
Greens dismiss nuclear energy based on little more than greatly exaggerated depictions of the supposed dangers and difficulties of its use.
American Council on Science and Health, Jan 27, 2009
Excerpts:
The environmental mantra these days has two main components -- clean energy and green (sustainable) energy -- anything but oil and coal. Proponents strongly encourage the development of solar and wind energy, neither of which is ready yet for widespread commercial use. But they ignore or downplay the use of a well understood and already commercialized technology -- nuclear energy -- based on little more than greatly exaggerated depictions of the supposed dangers and difficulties of its use.
One fear that has been widely promoted is that of large-scale accidents in nuclear power plants. Anti-nuclear activists point to two examples of that -- the explosion at the Russian Chernobyl reactor in 1986, and the partial meltdown of the fuel rods at the Three Mile Island reactor in 1979.
The Chernobyl explosion was due to errors made by the operators during a test and a lack of adequate safety features and procedures that could have prevented such errors. It will surprise many that, with the exception of workers who were on the scene and received massive acute doses of radiation, there has been no evidence of increased radiation-caused mortality. In contrast to the Chernobyl plant, modern nuclear facilities have redundant safety features to prevent such errors.
Although it has also been used as an example of a large-scale accident, there was actually little release of radioactivity from the Three Mile Island reactor -- even though about half of the fuel melted. The level of radioactivity received by the surrounding area was not significantly greater than that normally supplied by natural background sources. In other words, the containment precautions were effective. Of course, the anti-nuclear fanatics' propaganda pays no attention to these simple facts.
Another fear that has been widely promoted is that release of radioactivity from a nuclear plant -- specifically the radioactive iodine, I131 -- would cause thyroid cancer in exposed children. This fear actually has some biological basis in that the thyroid gland avidly takes up iodine. It can be prevented from absorbing the radioactive iodine, however, by giving a large dose of non-radioactive iodine. An even simpler preventive measure: avoid drinking milk for a week or two after such an (unlikely) event. Of course prevention of I131 release is a much better option.
It is true that a year after the Chernobyl accident screening studies revealed an increased occurrence of thyroid cancer in exposed children. However, many scientists have questioned whether this was really due to the Chernobyl-related exposure, since thyroid cancer typically has a latency period of thirty years. Further, it is important to note that prior to the explosion, there was very little screening of children in the Chernobyl area -- but around 90% were screened afterwards. This fact alone very likely contributed to the increased incidence observed. In addition, the incidence of thyroid cancer was actually lower in the highly contaminated region than in the general Russian population.
[...]
Dr. Ruth Kava is Director of Nutrition at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
How to Cull Geese Flocks (PETA- and GeesePeace-Approved!)
How to Cull Geese Flocks (PETA- and GeesePeace-Approved!), by Greg Pollowitz
Planet Gore/NRO, Monday, January 26, 2009
Here's a good article on the problem of non-migratory Canada Geese in Connecticut. First up, why they won't migrate:
"There has been a steady increase of the nonmigratory Canada geese since the 1950s," Cherichetti said.
Harris estimated that there were 40,000 Canada geese in the state, primarily in the southwestern region.
Cherichetti said the geese are staying because they have the perfect combination of foraging (food), nesting (habitat) and covering habitat in this area of the state. They also don't have many natural predators left in Connecticut.
"With each nesting pair producing nonmigratory goslings each year, there are thousands of geese born each year that do not migrate," said Patrice Gillespie of the Wilton Conservation Commission member and a member of the Norwalk River Watershed Initiative. "Because we feed them and provide them with mowed lawns and well-groomed grass, we provide them with an ample food source, thus contributing to the excess nutrient problem they create."
And take a look at the "approved" method for controlling the population:
As a result, Cherichetti and other local environmental activists are urging local residents, especially those with waterfront property, to do their part in controlling the geese population through geese "family planning."
"We are trying to reduce their long-term growth rate by locating their nests and oiling their eggs," Cherichetti said. "The oiling means that the clutch of eggs is non-viable and won't mature into chicks. The birds continue to incubate the nests because they don't realize the eggs aren't viable. If we were to take the eggs away instead, it would result in the geese laying more eggs."
According to Cherichetti, in order to legally oil the eggs, municipalities must obtain a registration from the Fish and Wildlife Service. Then, with the permission of private property owners, environmental officers like Cherichetti can enter their property and oil the nests.
Eggs are only oiled if they do not float during a float test. If an egg, submerged in water, floats it means it is in the later stages of incubation and the chick has fully formed, so the egg wouldn't be oiled. If the egg sinks, in means it has been incubated for less than 13 days and the chick is not matured, so the egg is allowed to be oiled.
This method has been approved by several animal rights groups, including GeesePeace, PETA and the Humane Society because of the "float test" method, Cherichetti said.
"I think it's because of that clause that animal rights groups approve of the oiling and are even quite active in the oiling because they recognize that without minimally invasive methods to control the geese population the geese are going to have other issues like over-competition for food and diseases," Cherichetti said.
Other issues . . . like airplane crashes. Thanks in part to a feel-good bird-sanctuary earmark provided by Sen. Chuck Schumer, Laguardia airport has witnessed and a near tripling of bird strikes over the past few years:
When Flight 1549 took off from LaGuardia, North and South Brother Island Sanctuaries were about one-and-a-half miles to its west. As the jet headed north, it flew within two miles of Goose Island, another city bird sanctuary.
Seconds later, pilots radioed a bird strike and the plane started losing altitude as it headed for the Hudson.
"I predicted something just like that based on what we knew as a result of our study and the close proximity of a large bird population," aviation attorney Andrew Maloney said.
Data that we obtained from the Port Authority shows a dramatic increase in the number of reported bird strikes at LaGuardia in the last six years — From 31 bird strikes in 2002 to 87 in 2007, nearly a tripling in the number of strikes.
Parks and Recreation insists its sanctuaries pose no threat to aircraft. Egrets and cormorants nest on the islands. Experts we spoke to say both can pose risk to aircraft. In 2004, a passenger jet had to make an emergency landing in Chicago after one engine ingested two cormorants and caught on fire.
"Each one of these birds that are wading birds, all get sucked into engines and all pose a threat. They all pose a threat," Garber said.
A spokesperson for Parks and Recreation says there is no causal link between birds nesting on these islands and any bird strikes. She said the Port Authority has not contacted parks about the issue.
Planet Gore/NRO, Monday, January 26, 2009
Here's a good article on the problem of non-migratory Canada Geese in Connecticut. First up, why they won't migrate:
"There has been a steady increase of the nonmigratory Canada geese since the 1950s," Cherichetti said.
Harris estimated that there were 40,000 Canada geese in the state, primarily in the southwestern region.
Cherichetti said the geese are staying because they have the perfect combination of foraging (food), nesting (habitat) and covering habitat in this area of the state. They also don't have many natural predators left in Connecticut.
"With each nesting pair producing nonmigratory goslings each year, there are thousands of geese born each year that do not migrate," said Patrice Gillespie of the Wilton Conservation Commission member and a member of the Norwalk River Watershed Initiative. "Because we feed them and provide them with mowed lawns and well-groomed grass, we provide them with an ample food source, thus contributing to the excess nutrient problem they create."
And take a look at the "approved" method for controlling the population:
As a result, Cherichetti and other local environmental activists are urging local residents, especially those with waterfront property, to do their part in controlling the geese population through geese "family planning."
"We are trying to reduce their long-term growth rate by locating their nests and oiling their eggs," Cherichetti said. "The oiling means that the clutch of eggs is non-viable and won't mature into chicks. The birds continue to incubate the nests because they don't realize the eggs aren't viable. If we were to take the eggs away instead, it would result in the geese laying more eggs."
According to Cherichetti, in order to legally oil the eggs, municipalities must obtain a registration from the Fish and Wildlife Service. Then, with the permission of private property owners, environmental officers like Cherichetti can enter their property and oil the nests.
Eggs are only oiled if they do not float during a float test. If an egg, submerged in water, floats it means it is in the later stages of incubation and the chick has fully formed, so the egg wouldn't be oiled. If the egg sinks, in means it has been incubated for less than 13 days and the chick is not matured, so the egg is allowed to be oiled.
This method has been approved by several animal rights groups, including GeesePeace, PETA and the Humane Society because of the "float test" method, Cherichetti said.
"I think it's because of that clause that animal rights groups approve of the oiling and are even quite active in the oiling because they recognize that without minimally invasive methods to control the geese population the geese are going to have other issues like over-competition for food and diseases," Cherichetti said.
Other issues . . . like airplane crashes. Thanks in part to a feel-good bird-sanctuary earmark provided by Sen. Chuck Schumer, Laguardia airport has witnessed and a near tripling of bird strikes over the past few years:
When Flight 1549 took off from LaGuardia, North and South Brother Island Sanctuaries were about one-and-a-half miles to its west. As the jet headed north, it flew within two miles of Goose Island, another city bird sanctuary.
Seconds later, pilots radioed a bird strike and the plane started losing altitude as it headed for the Hudson.
"I predicted something just like that based on what we knew as a result of our study and the close proximity of a large bird population," aviation attorney Andrew Maloney said.
Data that we obtained from the Port Authority shows a dramatic increase in the number of reported bird strikes at LaGuardia in the last six years — From 31 bird strikes in 2002 to 87 in 2007, nearly a tripling in the number of strikes.
Parks and Recreation insists its sanctuaries pose no threat to aircraft. Egrets and cormorants nest on the islands. Experts we spoke to say both can pose risk to aircraft. In 2004, a passenger jet had to make an emergency landing in Chicago after one engine ingested two cormorants and caught on fire.
"Each one of these birds that are wading birds, all get sucked into engines and all pose a threat. They all pose a threat," Garber said.
A spokesperson for Parks and Recreation says there is no causal link between birds nesting on these islands and any bird strikes. She said the Port Authority has not contacted parks about the issue.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Green jobs debate: Can Economists Have an Opinion?
Green Jobs: The Debate Is Over On This Issue, Too?, by Robert Murphy
Master Resource, January 18, 2009
When I passed around my critique of Nordhaus’ case for a carbon tax, a typical complaint was that I wasn’t a climate scientist, and so I had no business saying that some of the IPCC projections were possibly biased towards the alarmist side. Of course no one likes to be criticized, but I understood that it was a perfectly fair objection to raise. As an economist, I really wasn’t qualified to cast aspersions on the models of Jim Hansen and such.
So it is with great amusement that I watch the extreme global warming crowd react to minor expressions of doubt coming from their previous allies in the context of a “green recovery.” Many economists who are completely sold on manmade climate change–and even think that it is important for the federal government to take quick action to curb the problem–are merely pointing out that the Obama Administration efforts to link this issue with the recession may be inefficient. To repeat, they are NOT saying that the government should ignore global warming, or even that the government should ignore the unemployed. All they are saying is that it might be foolish to try to design a single, magic bullet policy that solves both problems in one stroke (i.e. “Green Jobs”).
For this heresy, these green economists have had their heads bitten off by some of the loudest alarmists. And some of the alarmists–most notably Joe Romm, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress–have no qualms telling professional economists that they know nothing about job creation. In fact, Romm thinks mainstream economists should drop out of the debate altogether, even though one might have thought policy issues like a carbon tax would involve both climate scientists and economists.
The poor guys over at Environmental Economics are taking heavy fire too, and again for the heresy of questioning whether the stimulus plan will create jobs. To repeat, these two bloggers are professional economists and they favor a carbon tax. Yet when they raise practical concerns to make sure the policies deliver what they promise, many of the true believers will have none of it: Here’s the best one, but also one, two, and three. I think the environmental economists have seen how quickly they can be rejected once they simply raise concerns about the most effective way to enact environmental policies.
If professional climatologists want to say that people like me (though not Richard Lindzen!) have no business criticizing their models, that’s fine. But by the same token, when my colleague and I issue a critique of “green job” studies, these same critics ought to keep their mouths shut, right? (Note that I am not saying economists have a monopoly on economic truth–ha! Far from it. I am just making a point about the inconsistency in the rhetoric coming from the alarmists.)
Master Resource, January 18, 2009
When I passed around my critique of Nordhaus’ case for a carbon tax, a typical complaint was that I wasn’t a climate scientist, and so I had no business saying that some of the IPCC projections were possibly biased towards the alarmist side. Of course no one likes to be criticized, but I understood that it was a perfectly fair objection to raise. As an economist, I really wasn’t qualified to cast aspersions on the models of Jim Hansen and such.
So it is with great amusement that I watch the extreme global warming crowd react to minor expressions of doubt coming from their previous allies in the context of a “green recovery.” Many economists who are completely sold on manmade climate change–and even think that it is important for the federal government to take quick action to curb the problem–are merely pointing out that the Obama Administration efforts to link this issue with the recession may be inefficient. To repeat, they are NOT saying that the government should ignore global warming, or even that the government should ignore the unemployed. All they are saying is that it might be foolish to try to design a single, magic bullet policy that solves both problems in one stroke (i.e. “Green Jobs”).
For this heresy, these green economists have had their heads bitten off by some of the loudest alarmists. And some of the alarmists–most notably Joe Romm, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress–have no qualms telling professional economists that they know nothing about job creation. In fact, Romm thinks mainstream economists should drop out of the debate altogether, even though one might have thought policy issues like a carbon tax would involve both climate scientists and economists.
The poor guys over at Environmental Economics are taking heavy fire too, and again for the heresy of questioning whether the stimulus plan will create jobs. To repeat, these two bloggers are professional economists and they favor a carbon tax. Yet when they raise practical concerns to make sure the policies deliver what they promise, many of the true believers will have none of it: Here’s the best one, but also one, two, and three. I think the environmental economists have seen how quickly they can be rejected once they simply raise concerns about the most effective way to enact environmental policies.
If professional climatologists want to say that people like me (though not Richard Lindzen!) have no business criticizing their models, that’s fine. But by the same token, when my colleague and I issue a critique of “green job” studies, these same critics ought to keep their mouths shut, right? (Note that I am not saying economists have a monopoly on economic truth–ha! Far from it. I am just making a point about the inconsistency in the rhetoric coming from the alarmists.)
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Long-Range Transport of Anthropogenically and Naturally Produced Particulate Matter in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic
Long-Range Transport of Anthropogenically and Naturally Produced Particulate Matter in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic: Current State of Knowledge by Kallos et al. 2007. By Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am
Climate Science, Jan 16, 2009
There is a valuable research paper that documents the important role of aerosols on weather and climate, with an emphasis on their transport across long distances. The paper, by an outstanding scientist at the University of Athens, is
Kallos, G., M. Astitha, P. Katsafados, and C. Spyrou, 2007: Long-Range Transport of Anthropogenically and Naturally Produced Particulate Matter in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic: Current State of Knowledge. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 46, 1230–1251.
The abstract reads
“During the past 20 years, organized experimental campaigns as well as continuous development and implementation of air-pollution modeling have led to significant gains in the understanding of the paths and scales of pollutant transport and transformation in the greater Mediterranean region (GMR). The work presented in this paper has two major objectives: 1) to summarize the existing knowledge on the transport paths of particulate matter (PM) in the GMR and 2) to illustrate some new findings related to the transport and transformation properties of PM in the GMR. Findings from previous studies indicate that anthropogenically produced air pollutants from European sources can be transported over long distances, reaching Africa, the Atlantic Ocean, and North America. The PM of natural origin, like Saharan dust, can be transported toward the Atlantic Ocean and North America mostly during the warm period of the year. Recent model simulations and studies in the area indicate that specific long-range transport patterns of aerosols, such as the transport from Asia and the Indian Ocean, central Africa, or America, have negligible or at best limited contribution to air-quality degradation in the GMR when compared with the other sources. Also, new findings from this work suggest that the imposed European Union limits on PM cannot be applicable for southern Europe unless the origin (natural or anthropogenic) of the PM is taken into account. The impacts of high PM levels in the GMR are not limited only to air quality, but also include serious implications for the water budget and the regional climate. These are issues that require extensive investigation because the processes involved are complex, and further model development is needed to include the relevant physicochemical processes properly.”
Among the conclusions is the finding that
“Climate and air-quality feedbacks are not well understood, and hence future work requires specialized surface and upper-air measurements to explore the validity validity of the various model elements.”
It should be obvious, that skillful multi-decadal climate predictions cannot be made, despite claims by the IPCC and CCSP assessments that this is possible.
Climate Science, Jan 16, 2009
There is a valuable research paper that documents the important role of aerosols on weather and climate, with an emphasis on their transport across long distances. The paper, by an outstanding scientist at the University of Athens, is
Kallos, G., M. Astitha, P. Katsafados, and C. Spyrou, 2007: Long-Range Transport of Anthropogenically and Naturally Produced Particulate Matter in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic: Current State of Knowledge. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 46, 1230–1251.
The abstract reads
“During the past 20 years, organized experimental campaigns as well as continuous development and implementation of air-pollution modeling have led to significant gains in the understanding of the paths and scales of pollutant transport and transformation in the greater Mediterranean region (GMR). The work presented in this paper has two major objectives: 1) to summarize the existing knowledge on the transport paths of particulate matter (PM) in the GMR and 2) to illustrate some new findings related to the transport and transformation properties of PM in the GMR. Findings from previous studies indicate that anthropogenically produced air pollutants from European sources can be transported over long distances, reaching Africa, the Atlantic Ocean, and North America. The PM of natural origin, like Saharan dust, can be transported toward the Atlantic Ocean and North America mostly during the warm period of the year. Recent model simulations and studies in the area indicate that specific long-range transport patterns of aerosols, such as the transport from Asia and the Indian Ocean, central Africa, or America, have negligible or at best limited contribution to air-quality degradation in the GMR when compared with the other sources. Also, new findings from this work suggest that the imposed European Union limits on PM cannot be applicable for southern Europe unless the origin (natural or anthropogenic) of the PM is taken into account. The impacts of high PM levels in the GMR are not limited only to air quality, but also include serious implications for the water budget and the regional climate. These are issues that require extensive investigation because the processes involved are complex, and further model development is needed to include the relevant physicochemical processes properly.”
Among the conclusions is the finding that
“Climate and air-quality feedbacks are not well understood, and hence future work requires specialized surface and upper-air measurements to explore the validity validity of the various model elements.”
It should be obvious, that skillful multi-decadal climate predictions cannot be made, despite claims by the IPCC and CCSP assessments that this is possible.
Can We Start Shooting the Geese Now?
Can We Start Shooting the Geese Now? By Greg Pollowitz
Here's a press release form New York City's website, NYC.gov, on a pilot program focusing on more environmentally friendly ways to control Canadian geese. This method brags about special dogs that won't attack the geese:
This April, the Central Park Conservancy and the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation will pilot a one-month program using an environmentally-safe method to attempt to reduce the number of geese in Central Park. The first step of the process includes herding- but never touching or attacking- the geese with highly-trained border collies. Skilled trainers will lead two border collies in driving the geese away from the Park’s lawns and water bodies throughout the month of April. Urban Park Rangers and Central Park Conservancy staffers will supervise training and goose management.
Large flocks of resident Canada geese leave excessive goose droppings, resulting in large areas of landscape that are unavailable for public use and recreation. In Central Park, geese continually overgraze the grass around the Harlem Meer and its surrounding landscapes, increasing erosion. The high nitrogen content in goose droppings can alter water chemistry and produce algae that rob the water of oxygen, killing fish and other wildlife.
Bred to herd sheep, collies have a natural instinct to round up flocks of geese. By patrolling various areas of the Park, the geese will be encouraged to abandon the lawns and water. In conjunction with the border collies, public education is crucial. Feeding geese only encourages them to linger in public areas. Herding dogs and education are two methods of Canada goose management that are approved by the Humane Society and the USDA Office of Wildlife Services.
Brilliant. They got the geese out of Central Park and to someplace else. Like Laguardia.
Here's a press release form New York City's website, NYC.gov, on a pilot program focusing on more environmentally friendly ways to control Canadian geese. This method brags about special dogs that won't attack the geese:
This April, the Central Park Conservancy and the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation will pilot a one-month program using an environmentally-safe method to attempt to reduce the number of geese in Central Park. The first step of the process includes herding- but never touching or attacking- the geese with highly-trained border collies. Skilled trainers will lead two border collies in driving the geese away from the Park’s lawns and water bodies throughout the month of April. Urban Park Rangers and Central Park Conservancy staffers will supervise training and goose management.
Large flocks of resident Canada geese leave excessive goose droppings, resulting in large areas of landscape that are unavailable for public use and recreation. In Central Park, geese continually overgraze the grass around the Harlem Meer and its surrounding landscapes, increasing erosion. The high nitrogen content in goose droppings can alter water chemistry and produce algae that rob the water of oxygen, killing fish and other wildlife.
Bred to herd sheep, collies have a natural instinct to round up flocks of geese. By patrolling various areas of the Park, the geese will be encouraged to abandon the lawns and water. In conjunction with the border collies, public education is crucial. Feeding geese only encourages them to linger in public areas. Herding dogs and education are two methods of Canada goose management that are approved by the Humane Society and the USDA Office of Wildlife Services.
Brilliant. They got the geese out of Central Park and to someplace else. Like Laguardia.
BHO: From Lady Liberty to renewable energy
From Lady Liberty to renewable energy, by Dave Rochelson
change.gov, Saturday, January 17, 2009 02:45pm EST
Just a few days before his inauguration as the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama stopped in Bedford Heights, Ohio, to visit the Cardinal Fastener factory there.
In his remarks, President-elect Obama pointed out that the company’s roots in the country go deep—its bolts appear in both the Statue of Liberty and the Golden Gate Bridge—but it now earns half its profits from the manufacture of parts for wind turbines.
“In some ways you can’t think of a more iconic company than Cardinal Fastener,” President-elect Obama said. “The story of this copmany…is that renewable energy isn’t something pie in the sky. It’s not part of a far off future. It’s happening all acorss America right now.”
Watch the video of the President-elect’s tour of the factory and his remarks
change.gov, Saturday, January 17, 2009 02:45pm EST
Just a few days before his inauguration as the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama stopped in Bedford Heights, Ohio, to visit the Cardinal Fastener factory there.
In his remarks, President-elect Obama pointed out that the company’s roots in the country go deep—its bolts appear in both the Statue of Liberty and the Golden Gate Bridge—but it now earns half its profits from the manufacture of parts for wind turbines.
“In some ways you can’t think of a more iconic company than Cardinal Fastener,” President-elect Obama said. “The story of this copmany…is that renewable energy isn’t something pie in the sky. It’s not part of a far off future. It’s happening all acorss America right now.”
Watch the video of the President-elect’s tour of the factory and his remarks
Friday, January 16, 2009
Cato: Why Congress Should Turn Federal Lands into Fiduciary Trusts
A Matter of Trust: Why Congress Should Turn Federal Lands into Fiduciary Trusts. By Randal O'Toole
Cato, January 15, 2009
Policy Analysis no. 630
The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service collectively manage well over a quarter of the land in the United States. Although everyone agrees that the lands and resources managed by these agencies are exceedingly valuable, the lands collectively cost taxpayers around $7 billion per year.
Several Cato Institute studies have called for privatization of the public lands, but this idea is strongly resisted by environmentalists, recreationists, and other users of public land. An alternative policy that will both enhance the values sought by environmentalists and improve the fiscal management of the lands is to turn them into fiduciary trusts. Under this proposal, the U.S. would retain title to the lands, but the rules under which they would be governed would be very different.
Fiduciary trusts are based on hundreds of years of British and American common law that ensures that trustees preserve and protect the value of the resources they manage, keep them productive, and disclose the full costs and benefits of their management. For trust law to apply, public land trusts must be based on a law written by Congress that clearly defines the trustees, the beneficiaries, and a specific mission or missions for the trusts.
Congress should create two types of trusts. Market trusts would have a mission of maximizing revenue while preserving the productive capacity of the land. To achieve this mission, Congress should allow them to charge fair market value for all resources. Nonmarket trusts would have a mission of maximizing the preservation and, as appropriate, restoration of natural ecosystems and cultural resources on the public lands.
Each pair of market and nonmarket trusts would jointly manage all federal lands in one of about a hundred ecoregions. Each ecoregion would have about 5 to 10 million acres of federal land that might include forests, parks, refuges, and other public lands. Trustees would be elected by a friends' association that anyone would be welcome to join. Trusts would be funded out of the user fees they collect, with some retained by the market trust and some given to the nonmarket trust. In some cases, excess user fees would be returned to the U.S. Treasury.
The trust idea would significantly improve both fiscal and environmental management of the public lands. Congress should begin to implement this idea by testing it on selected national forests, parks, and other federal lands
Full text here
Cato, January 15, 2009
Policy Analysis no. 630
The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service collectively manage well over a quarter of the land in the United States. Although everyone agrees that the lands and resources managed by these agencies are exceedingly valuable, the lands collectively cost taxpayers around $7 billion per year.
Several Cato Institute studies have called for privatization of the public lands, but this idea is strongly resisted by environmentalists, recreationists, and other users of public land. An alternative policy that will both enhance the values sought by environmentalists and improve the fiscal management of the lands is to turn them into fiduciary trusts. Under this proposal, the U.S. would retain title to the lands, but the rules under which they would be governed would be very different.
Fiduciary trusts are based on hundreds of years of British and American common law that ensures that trustees preserve and protect the value of the resources they manage, keep them productive, and disclose the full costs and benefits of their management. For trust law to apply, public land trusts must be based on a law written by Congress that clearly defines the trustees, the beneficiaries, and a specific mission or missions for the trusts.
Congress should create two types of trusts. Market trusts would have a mission of maximizing revenue while preserving the productive capacity of the land. To achieve this mission, Congress should allow them to charge fair market value for all resources. Nonmarket trusts would have a mission of maximizing the preservation and, as appropriate, restoration of natural ecosystems and cultural resources on the public lands.
Each pair of market and nonmarket trusts would jointly manage all federal lands in one of about a hundred ecoregions. Each ecoregion would have about 5 to 10 million acres of federal land that might include forests, parks, refuges, and other public lands. Trustees would be elected by a friends' association that anyone would be welcome to join. Trusts would be funded out of the user fees they collect, with some retained by the market trust and some given to the nonmarket trust. In some cases, excess user fees would be returned to the U.S. Treasury.
The trust idea would significantly improve both fiscal and environmental management of the public lands. Congress should begin to implement this idea by testing it on selected national forests, parks, and other federal lands
Full text here
Thursday, January 15, 2009
“Green Jobs” Stimulus Package Summary, Text, and Industry Views
“Green Jobs” Stimulus Package Summary and Text. By Institute for Energy Research
Today Congressional Democrats unveiled $825 billion in spending and tax cuts intended to stimulate the economy.
January 15, 2009
Rep. Obey’s Summary of the Bill
Text of the “Green Jobs” Stimulus Bill
Discussion Draft of the Bill Report
The bill is partially based on studies which purport to show large numbers of jobs created by government spending on “green technology” such as energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. IER recently released a study demonstrating that the campaign to sell government ‘green jobs’ as a cure for our economic ills relies on misguided assumptions, unsound data, and false hope.
Among the key findings of IER’s Green Jobs: Fact or Fiction?:
- “[Obama’s green jobs plan] would likely increase consumer energy costs and the costs of a wide array of energy-intensive goods, slow GDP growth and ironically may yield no net job gains. More likely, [it] would result in net job losses.”
- “Although each report [in defense of ‘green jobs’] is unique, a common characteristic is that they all rest on incomplete economic analysis, and consequently greatly overstate the net benefits of their policy recommendations.”
- “[The Center for American Progress] estimates that this “fiscal stimulus” will result in the creation of two million jobs. Yet the CAP methodology treats the $100 billion as manna from heaven; it does not consider the direct and indirect adverse effects (including job destruction) of imposing higher costs on a wide array of energy-intensive industries and thereby raising prices for consumers.”
- “The government doesn’t create wealth simply by taking $100 billion from one group of firms and handing it over to a different group …”
- “After broadly defining the renewable industry, the Council of Mayors study goes on to paint a picture of expanding markets that can only grow further. In reality, with the single exception of wind, U.S. power production from renewables has stagnated for the past fifteen years.”
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Do Obama “Green Jobs” Plan Requires Expanding Government Payroll with 600K Bureaucrats?
Job Mirage: Obama “Green Jobs” Plan Requires Expanding Government Payroll with 600K Bureaucrats
Institute for Energy Research, January 6, 2009
Washington, DC – Institute for Energy Research president Thomas J. Pyle released the following statement today in response to the president-elect’s announcement this past weekend that his plan to generate three million so-called “green jobs” includes expanding the government’s payroll to accommodate 600,000 new wage earners:
NOTE: On Saturday, President-elect Obama offered a revised assessment of how many new “green jobs” could be created by his administration, upping the number to three million – “more than eighty percent of them in the private sector.” The burden of supporting the remaining 20 percent would presumably fall to the public sector, which means that 600,000 new government jobs would need to be created to meet the president-elect’s goal
Institute for Energy Research, January 6, 2009
Washington, DC – Institute for Energy Research president Thomas J. Pyle released the following statement today in response to the president-elect’s announcement this past weekend that his plan to generate three million so-called “green jobs” includes expanding the government’s payroll to accommodate 600,000 new wage earners:
“The road back to economic recovery and long-term prosperity will be built by an active, job-creating private-sector, paved by reliable, affordable energy, and financed by the revenues and royalties generated as a result of it. Expanding the government’s payroll in times of unemployment is no different than printing out more money in times of recession – both may change the short-term perception of the economy, but neither will improve the actual performance of it.
“You can create all the new government jobs you want, but if those jobs can’t survive the night without the constant nourishment of subsidies, mandates and distorted tax treatment, you haven’t created any new wealth – only re-distributed it. A national policy that requires consumers to pay more for their energy will only price American goods above foreign ones, and contribute to economic decline.
“Activity is not the same thing as achievement, and to the extent we continue confusing the two, the more protracted and severe our current economic downturn will be.”
NOTE: On Saturday, President-elect Obama offered a revised assessment of how many new “green jobs” could be created by his administration, upping the number to three million – “more than eighty percent of them in the private sector.” The burden of supporting the remaining 20 percent would presumably fall to the public sector, which means that 600,000 new government jobs would need to be created to meet the president-elect’s goal
Monday, January 5, 2009
Environmental reporters ought to be more responsible too
Environmental reporters ought to be more responsible too. By "eric"
Real Climate, Jan 03, 2009
At RealClimate, we have more than once been accused of being imbalanced — criticizing those who would deny the basic science of climate change, while leaving inflammatory statements by what might be called the "environmentalist side" without comment. It's not an entirely a fair criticism, because there is a world of difference between the willful obfuscation of science and the naive exaggeration of it. There are however plenty of silly, and sometimes outrageous, claims made - see e.g. the Telegraph on Jan. 3rd — and we probably ought to do a better job of calling these out, particularly when they show up in prominent places. So to inaugurate the New Year, I humbly offer a rant about a minor but illustrative example that I happened to notice because there was a link to it on Nature Reports Climate Change.
The subject of the linked article, in the British online newspaper The Independent, is the decline of various bird and butterfly species in England. The article, entitled Changing climate devastates UK species, reports that "insects in particular, and creatures that feed on insects…were sharply reduced in numbers" due to a "cold late spring, a wet summer, with few sunny days, and the long dry autumn…." Now I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claim that 2008 was a hard year for UK insects and insectivores. But this is weather we're talking about, not climate. And while it is true that at least one prominent study shows that there has been an overall increase in rainfall in the latitude band that includes the UK, and that climate models reproduce this trend (see e.g. the Zhang et al. article in Nature, in 2007), one cannot, as we are fond of pointing out, attribute a single, or even several individual extreme weather events to "climate change".
Indeed, Peter Stott, a co-author on the Zhang et al. study noted, in reference to 2007 (the wettest summer on record in the UK) that "This latest study cannot make the link between climate change and what we have experienced so far this summer." Moreover, most projections actually suggest drier summers in the UK in the future, though with increased convection (so less total precipitation, but bigger rainstorms).
Another thing that bugs me about the Independent article is the suggestion that climate is becoming "more unpredictable". I suspect what is meant here is that we used to know what a mean season and normal variations were, and now we don't. That's valid, since the baseline climate is changing. But saying it this way — that "climate is becoming more unpredictable" is misleading. In fact, climate may, if anything, become more predictable as anthropogenic forcing becomes even more dominant (as greenhouse gas concentrations increase), relative to natural forcing and variability. And what is definitely not the case — but might be inferred from the article — is that weather is becoming more unpredictable. Weather prediction is based on observations just a few days in advance — climate and climate trends have nothing to do with it.
The point here is not that we shouldn't be concerned about the fate of insects and birds in the UK (that would be the kind of conclusion that only the most willfully ignorant would draw.) They have been in decline for a long time (mostly due to land use change and pesticides) and there is little doubt that climate change will continue to add insult to injury. But it is simply wrong to confuse a year or even two years of unfavorable weather with a change in climate, and it is irresponsible to headline an article that is really about weather with the provocative juxtaposition of "climate" and "devastates". Doing so gives the average reader the sense that their personal observations about "weird weather patterns" or fewer sightings of Parus caeruleus represent definitive manifestations of climate change. The fact is, climate changes are — so far — small enough in most places, relative to the natural variability, that one's personal experience is a very poor guide to what is happening over the long term (observations of sea ice changes by those that live in the high Arctic notwithstanding).
Real Climate, Jan 03, 2009
At RealClimate, we have more than once been accused of being imbalanced — criticizing those who would deny the basic science of climate change, while leaving inflammatory statements by what might be called the "environmentalist side" without comment. It's not an entirely a fair criticism, because there is a world of difference between the willful obfuscation of science and the naive exaggeration of it. There are however plenty of silly, and sometimes outrageous, claims made - see e.g. the Telegraph on Jan. 3rd — and we probably ought to do a better job of calling these out, particularly when they show up in prominent places. So to inaugurate the New Year, I humbly offer a rant about a minor but illustrative example that I happened to notice because there was a link to it on Nature Reports Climate Change.
The subject of the linked article, in the British online newspaper The Independent, is the decline of various bird and butterfly species in England. The article, entitled Changing climate devastates UK species, reports that "insects in particular, and creatures that feed on insects…were sharply reduced in numbers" due to a "cold late spring, a wet summer, with few sunny days, and the long dry autumn…." Now I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claim that 2008 was a hard year for UK insects and insectivores. But this is weather we're talking about, not climate. And while it is true that at least one prominent study shows that there has been an overall increase in rainfall in the latitude band that includes the UK, and that climate models reproduce this trend (see e.g. the Zhang et al. article in Nature, in 2007), one cannot, as we are fond of pointing out, attribute a single, or even several individual extreme weather events to "climate change".
Indeed, Peter Stott, a co-author on the Zhang et al. study noted, in reference to 2007 (the wettest summer on record in the UK) that "This latest study cannot make the link between climate change and what we have experienced so far this summer." Moreover, most projections actually suggest drier summers in the UK in the future, though with increased convection (so less total precipitation, but bigger rainstorms).
Another thing that bugs me about the Independent article is the suggestion that climate is becoming "more unpredictable". I suspect what is meant here is that we used to know what a mean season and normal variations were, and now we don't. That's valid, since the baseline climate is changing. But saying it this way — that "climate is becoming more unpredictable" is misleading. In fact, climate may, if anything, become more predictable as anthropogenic forcing becomes even more dominant (as greenhouse gas concentrations increase), relative to natural forcing and variability. And what is definitely not the case — but might be inferred from the article — is that weather is becoming more unpredictable. Weather prediction is based on observations just a few days in advance — climate and climate trends have nothing to do with it.
The point here is not that we shouldn't be concerned about the fate of insects and birds in the UK (that would be the kind of conclusion that only the most willfully ignorant would draw.) They have been in decline for a long time (mostly due to land use change and pesticides) and there is little doubt that climate change will continue to add insult to injury. But it is simply wrong to confuse a year or even two years of unfavorable weather with a change in climate, and it is irresponsible to headline an article that is really about weather with the provocative juxtaposition of "climate" and "devastates". Doing so gives the average reader the sense that their personal observations about "weird weather patterns" or fewer sightings of Parus caeruleus represent definitive manifestations of climate change. The fact is, climate changes are — so far — small enough in most places, relative to the natural variability, that one's personal experience is a very poor guide to what is happening over the long term (observations of sea ice changes by those that live in the high Arctic notwithstanding).
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Wind farm industry forced to admit environmental benefit of wind power in reducing carbon emissions is only half as stated
UK Telegraph: Promoters overstated the environmental benefit of wind farms, by Patrick Sawer
The wind farm industry has been forced to admit that the environmental benefit of wind power in reducing carbon emissions is only half as big as it had previously claimed.
Last Updated: 8:14AM GMT, Dec 21, 2008
The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) has agreed to scale down its calculation for the amount of harmful carbon dioxide emission that can be eliminated by using wind turbines to generate electricity instead of burning fossil fuels such as coal or gas.
The move is a serious setback for the advocates of wind power, as it will be regarded as a concession that twice as many wind turbines as previously calculated will be needed to provide the same degree of reduction in Britain's carbon emissions.
A wind farm industry source admitted: "It's not ideal for us. It's the result of pressure by the anti-wind farm lobby."
For several years the BWEA – which lobbies on behalf of wind power firms – claimed that electricity from wind turbines 'displaces' 860 grams of carbon dioxide emission for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated.
However it has now halved that figure to 430 grams, following discussions with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
Hundreds of wind farms are being planned across the country, adding to the 198 onshore and offshore farms - a total of 2,389 turbines - already in operation. Another 40 farms are currently under construction.
Experts have previously calculated that to help achieve the Government's aim of saving around 200 million tons of CO2 emissions by 2020 - through generating 15 per cent of the country's electricity from wind power - would require 50,000 wind turbines.
But the new figure for carbon displacement means that twice as many turbines would now be needed to save the same amount of CO2 emissions.
While their advocates regard wind farms as a key part of Britain's fight against climate change, opponents argue they blight the landscape at great financial cost while bringing little environmental benefit.
Dr Mike Hall, an anti-wind farm campaigner from the Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery group in the Lake District, said: "Every wind farm application says it will lead to a big saving in the amount of carbon dioxide produced. This has been greatly exaggerated and the reduction in the carbon displacement figure is a significant admission of this.
"As we get cleaner power stations on line, the figure will get even lower. It further backs the argument that wind farms are one of the most inefficient and expensive ways of lowering carbon emissions."
Because wind farms burn no fuel, they emit no carbon dioxide during regular running. The revised calculation for the amount of carbon emission they save has come about because the BWEA's earlier figure did not take account of recent improvements to the technology used in conventional, fossil-fuel-burning power stations.
The figure of 860 grams dates back to the days of old-style coal-fired power stations. However, since the early 1990s, many of the dirty coal-fired stations have been replaced by cleaner-burning stations, with a consequent reduction in what the industry calls the "grid average mix" figure for carbon dioxide displacement.
As a result, a modern 100MW coal or gas power station is now calculated to produce half as many tonnes of carbon dioxide as its predecessor would have done.
The BWEA's move follows a number of rulings by the ASA against claims made by individual wind farm promoters about the benefits their schemes would have in reducing carbon emissions.
In one key adjudication, the ASA ruled that a claim by Npower Renewables that a wind farm planned for the southern edge of Exmoor National Park, in Devon, would help prevent the release of 33,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was "inaccurate and likely to mislead". This claim was based on the 860-gram figure.
The watchdog concluded: "We told Npower to ensure that future carbon savings claims were based on a more representative and rigorous carbon emissions factor."
The ASA has now recommended that the BWEA and generating companies use the far lower figure of 430 grams.
In a letter to its members, the BWEA's head of onshore, Jan Matthiesen, said: "It was agreed to recommend to all BWEA members to use the single static figure of 430 g CO2/kWh for the time being. The advantage is that it is well accepted and presents little risk as it understates the true figure."
This is now the figure given on the BWEA's website. The organisation will also be forced to lower its claim for the total amount of carbon dioxide emission saved by the 2,389 wind turbines currently operating around Britain.
But the association denied the change weakened the case for wind farms.
Nick Medic, spokesman for the BWEA, said: "Wind farms are still eliminating emissions. The fact is that fossil fuel burning power stations belch out CO2 and wind farms don't. That has not changed.
"The fact is we need to reduce carbon emissions, however you account for them. But there are people who just don't like wind farms and will use any argument against them."
The wind farm industry has been forced to admit that the environmental benefit of wind power in reducing carbon emissions is only half as big as it had previously claimed.
Last Updated: 8:14AM GMT, Dec 21, 2008
The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) has agreed to scale down its calculation for the amount of harmful carbon dioxide emission that can be eliminated by using wind turbines to generate electricity instead of burning fossil fuels such as coal or gas.
The move is a serious setback for the advocates of wind power, as it will be regarded as a concession that twice as many wind turbines as previously calculated will be needed to provide the same degree of reduction in Britain's carbon emissions.
A wind farm industry source admitted: "It's not ideal for us. It's the result of pressure by the anti-wind farm lobby."
For several years the BWEA – which lobbies on behalf of wind power firms – claimed that electricity from wind turbines 'displaces' 860 grams of carbon dioxide emission for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated.
However it has now halved that figure to 430 grams, following discussions with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
Hundreds of wind farms are being planned across the country, adding to the 198 onshore and offshore farms - a total of 2,389 turbines - already in operation. Another 40 farms are currently under construction.
Experts have previously calculated that to help achieve the Government's aim of saving around 200 million tons of CO2 emissions by 2020 - through generating 15 per cent of the country's electricity from wind power - would require 50,000 wind turbines.
But the new figure for carbon displacement means that twice as many turbines would now be needed to save the same amount of CO2 emissions.
While their advocates regard wind farms as a key part of Britain's fight against climate change, opponents argue they blight the landscape at great financial cost while bringing little environmental benefit.
Dr Mike Hall, an anti-wind farm campaigner from the Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery group in the Lake District, said: "Every wind farm application says it will lead to a big saving in the amount of carbon dioxide produced. This has been greatly exaggerated and the reduction in the carbon displacement figure is a significant admission of this.
"As we get cleaner power stations on line, the figure will get even lower. It further backs the argument that wind farms are one of the most inefficient and expensive ways of lowering carbon emissions."
Because wind farms burn no fuel, they emit no carbon dioxide during regular running. The revised calculation for the amount of carbon emission they save has come about because the BWEA's earlier figure did not take account of recent improvements to the technology used in conventional, fossil-fuel-burning power stations.
The figure of 860 grams dates back to the days of old-style coal-fired power stations. However, since the early 1990s, many of the dirty coal-fired stations have been replaced by cleaner-burning stations, with a consequent reduction in what the industry calls the "grid average mix" figure for carbon dioxide displacement.
As a result, a modern 100MW coal or gas power station is now calculated to produce half as many tonnes of carbon dioxide as its predecessor would have done.
The BWEA's move follows a number of rulings by the ASA against claims made by individual wind farm promoters about the benefits their schemes would have in reducing carbon emissions.
In one key adjudication, the ASA ruled that a claim by Npower Renewables that a wind farm planned for the southern edge of Exmoor National Park, in Devon, would help prevent the release of 33,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was "inaccurate and likely to mislead". This claim was based on the 860-gram figure.
The watchdog concluded: "We told Npower to ensure that future carbon savings claims were based on a more representative and rigorous carbon emissions factor."
The ASA has now recommended that the BWEA and generating companies use the far lower figure of 430 grams.
In a letter to its members, the BWEA's head of onshore, Jan Matthiesen, said: "It was agreed to recommend to all BWEA members to use the single static figure of 430 g CO2/kWh for the time being. The advantage is that it is well accepted and presents little risk as it understates the true figure."
This is now the figure given on the BWEA's website. The organisation will also be forced to lower its claim for the total amount of carbon dioxide emission saved by the 2,389 wind turbines currently operating around Britain.
But the association denied the change weakened the case for wind farms.
Nick Medic, spokesman for the BWEA, said: "Wind farms are still eliminating emissions. The fact is that fossil fuel burning power stations belch out CO2 and wind farms don't. That has not changed.
"The fact is we need to reduce carbon emissions, however you account for them. But there are people who just don't like wind farms and will use any argument against them."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
