Mann and Kump hit the nail right on the head when they say “there is no easy way to meet the world’s rising energy demands in a climate-friendly manner” (Dire Predictions p 161), and they are right. I feel that countries (particularly developed countries) need to be more willing to give up more of their GDP towards funding for advancing alternative energy resources and quickly, to meet the demand of growing population rates world-wide. As mentioned in Dire Predictions, there has been an increase in emission rates from the transportation sector. I feel this is, as well as “building green” are especially important for developing countries. Urban development planning is essential, and needs to focus on the accessibility of public transportation, decreasing the demand for automobiles. In addition, building infrastructures that are green is important, because according to Mann and Kant, the commercial and residential building sector accounted for about 4 GT of CO2 equivalent in 2004, and is are large consumers of energy. The main issue is funding. These developing countries rely heavily on coal because it is inexpensive and readily accessible to them. I feel that one way we can divert funding for these projects is to have countries that were delayed to comply with the standards set in the Kyoto Protocol pay fines. This money will essential be the funds used to assist developing countries and their efforts to go green, as well as partake in technology transfers, and building certain infrastructures, such as windmill farms and solar panel fields. A large portion of the world’s agricultural sectors lay within these developing countries, so we do need to invest in them, because we are all interconnected and rely on each other. Another big obstacle is the uncertainty of who will be affected by the changes in Earth’s climate, how and where we will need to focus our efforts to mitigation strategies. As stated in “Climate Change: Current Issues and Policy Tools,” “much will remain unknown no matter how much is invested in research” because humans have not been around long enough to witness the potential outcomes of the drastic increase of GHG into Earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, I feel that yes, we do need to continue to invest money into researching global warming, but I feel that it would be in everyone’s best interest to use some of that money, along with additional funding from developed countries towards advancing alternate, and green energy resources, as well as strategic planning for mitigation, despite the uncertainty.Nothing worth having is easily attainable.
Tags: Clean Development Mechanism, climate change, developing countries, interconnectivity, student-citizens, sustainable development
The Union of Concerned Scientists released a September 2007 report called “How to Avoid Dangreous Climate Change” in which they acknowledged that a “450 ppm CO2 eq stabilization target should represent the upper limit on concentrations of heat-trapping emissions set by any policy that seeks to avoid dangerous climate change.” They examined current policy proposals before Congress and concluded that no current proposal would “come close to meeting the proposed lower end of the US emissions budget range.” To fit within the required “budget” these scientists suggest that the “global economy must undergo a profound technological transformation and substantially reduce its emissions from fossil fuels.”
A recent Congressional Research Service report called “Climate Change: Current Issues and Policy Tools,” suggested that the US policy on climate change could influence and support global cooperation in future climate change discussions. In discussing the myriad policy options to addressing US’ response to climate change, this CRS report aknowledges what the Union of Concerned Scientists’ report failed to consider: the “pressures from interest groups” on legislators. Without attempting to understand what it will take to manuever through the unyielding pressure of US interest groups and their lobbyists, identifying preferred stabilization targets is a moot point.
A study by the Center for Public Integrity showed that there is an increase of more than 300% in the number of lobbyists on climate change in just five years in the United States. The Center also estimated that the lobbying expenditures on climate change exceeded $90 million. The industries represented by the lobbyists vary significantly, as “virtually every segment of the economy was seeking to weigh in.” The makeup of the lobbyists include manufactruers, coal companies, electriciy companies, insurance companies, private equity firms, Wall Street banks, unions, and even environmental groups. The environmental lobbyists and alternative energy lobbyists together are outnumbered by all other interestsby more than 8-to-1.
Many fear that the comprimises that will be sought between the varied interests will “forestall the sort of aggressive (legislative) action that is really needed.” NASA’s Jim Hansen warned that the “danger is that special interests will dilute and torque government policies causing the climate to pass tipping points, with grave consequences for all life on the planet.”
It is necessary to understand the influence of these special interests groups on US climate policy to understand upcoming international negotiations. For example, on Wednesday, September 30, 2009, Democrats in the United States Senate proposed new climate legislation sponsored by Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry. It is a “cap-and-trade” bill that would require a 20% emissions reduction from the 2005 levels. Though a step in the right direction, the bill still has the “stench” of special interests, will likely “require concessions to appease advocates for the oil industry, nuclear power industry, manufacturing industry, and other industries,” and will probably not be debated on the floor until 2010. This means that the US would enter the international negotiations in Copenhagen without a offering domestic leadership on the issue.
Until US climate policy officials and US Congress can escape the influence of powerful lobbyists, US and International negotiations are bound to fail. One person who recognizes that the climate change problem is mostly a “political” problem is billionaire George Soros. he recently donated $100 million to establish a Climate Policy Initiative to “serve as a global climate watchdog against special interests.” At least someone is stepping up to special interests.
Tags: cap and trade, coalitions, lobbyists, Public Policy, US Energy Policy
Indeed, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from the energy, agricultural and transportation sectors will require investment of time and money on developing technologies. But while solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources have struggled to gain significant financial and federal support, corn-based ethanol has dominated the game. Consider this: of all 2007 federal subsidies allotted for renewable energies two-thirds were granted to corn-based ethanol companies. This accounted for $3 billion in renewable energy tax credits, over four times the mere $690 million in credits for the remaining companies working to expand and develop all other forms of renewable energy. Needless to say, the federal government has practically put all of their eggs in one basket with regards to renewable energy sources. One should consider why as well as assess just how effective ethanol may be.
2007 Renewable Energy Tax Credits by Technology
Ethanol, one of the most common biofuels, is produced by fermenting and distilling sugary or starchy materials such as corn or sugarcane. While producing ethanol by sugarcane is more efficient, corn production of ethanol is the standard in the United States as we produce upwards to 40% of the world’s corn. For some, corn-based ethanol production is considered to be an efficient process as its energy yield is greater than the energy required to produce it. However, many people believe these calculations do not properly account for the whole picture. For example, in order to use ethanol as a fuel it must be free of water and it cannot be pumped through conventional pipelines. As a result, the common practice of transporting ethanol is by tanker trucks or rail tank cars. Additionally, the energy costs of the amount of fuel used to produce the fertilizers and corn seeds as well as wastewater disposal are often neglected. By calculating in these energy factors, ethanol production is upwards to six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power. Clearly, the ethanol and corn industry have had some effective lobbying efforts and Midwest politicians have remained loyal to their home states and constituents.
Source: Rolling Stone
But energy efficiency is only one of the many concerns of corn-based ethanol use (Please take a minute or two to view the posted video). There are also major ethical questions that arise when considering the prospect of trading food for energy when many people are starving and/or face malnutrition (especially in developing countries). Additionally, the IMF estimates that 60% of the recent increase in world food prices can be related to biofuel subsidies in the United States and Europe.
While researchers are currently seeking more efficient alternatives for ethanol production (such as cellulosic ethanol which is derived from switchgrass) the corn-industries stake and influence in this debate still scares me. It seems as if the farmers and large agribusiness companies like Archers Daniels Midland are the only ones benefiting from corn-based ethanol production. This needs to change. Our taxpaying dollars need to be used more efficiently. The stranglehold that ethanol has on federal subsidies for renewable energies must be lifted.
Tags: biofuels, climate change, developing countries, ethanol
The Union of Concerned Scientist asserts that in order to prevent “dangerous” climate change, we must stabilize the global concentration of atmospheric green house gasses at 450 parts per million (ppm). Stabilization at or below this level, would provide a 50% or “medium chance,” of avoiding a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius. One we reach our peak emission point, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise due to the lifetimes of various gasses. Therefore our concentration will most likely be above 450ppm for some period of time. To reach stability at 450 ppm, society must reduce green house gas emissions by 80% by 2050. Under this scenario, industrialized nations must reach their peak emissions rate by 2010 while developing nations must reach peak emissions between 2020 and 2025. These are some pretty startling numbers… Developed nations, we’ve got 81 days and counting.
Waste management as a sector is only responsible for 2.8% of total greenhouse gases, (Kump and Mann 159), but it’s a sector that can be almost eliminated. There are currently two mainstream methods of dealing with out waste: incineration & land filling. The main climate change concern is the release of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than Carbon Dioxide, from anaerobic decomposition in landfills. There are other environmental and social concerns surrounding waste management but because connections to climate change are not as apparent as those of methane, they are often overlooked.
As a form of disposal, incineration or the burning of solid waste, reduces trash volume, decreases the area required for landfills, and produces less water pollution that landfills. Also, in recent years, incineration has been touted for its “waste to energy” potential. Kump and Mann describe incineration as “waste recycling” and as an inexpensive “renewable energy resource.” This however is not entirely true. Waste is indeed being burned to create energy. In the United States, Waste Management’s “Waste to Energy” program has produced over 75 billion kilowatt hours of energy. But this is not exactly a clean process. Waste incineration is responsible for the creation of the most toxic chemicals on earth: Dioxins. Many of these incinerators are built in low-income, minority communities, where resistance is weak. Read about an example of this phenomena in “Race, Wealth, and Solid Waste Facilities in North Carolina“.
Waste incineration plant
Waste incineration can be considered “recycling” in the sense that toxic chemicals in solid waste are “recycled” in to air pollution and toxic ash, but this is stretching the definition. Those opposed to incineration argue that the process actually discourages recycling and waste prevention. Incineration destroys potentially useful products, products that can be reused, recycled, or composted. When we burn a piece of paper, or a metal bed-frame we destroy a valuable resource. Replacing these items, usually from scratch, wastes even more natural resources, requires even more energy, and emits even more greenhouse gases.
A landfill and flock of birds
Landfilling our waste is the more common of the two management options. In a landfill, thin layers of solid waste are compacted in confined areas creating an anaerobic environment. Bacteria slowly decompose the waste, releasing methane, into the atmosphere. In recent years, methane recovery has become a business; landfills are extracting/capturing methane from their off-gas and selling it as en energy source. Reducing methane emissions is a lucrative mitigation practice and the use of this technology is predicted to increase as climate change becomes ever pressing.
Ground water contamination from landfill leachate is a major source of concern. Leachate refers to water that percolates through landfill systems, becomes contaminated and filters out of the waste. This contamination of groundwater can lead to serious health problems for those living within a landfills watershed. For more information on health impacts, click here. Newly constructed landfills have strict design requirements to collect leachate water and dispose of it properly. However, it is very difficult to ensure that no leachate escapes into surrounding groundwater. What does landfill leachate have to do with climate change? Although there may be no apparent direct connection, access to clean, drinkable water is excepted to decline as our climate change. As we mitigate and adapt to climate change, we can only help ourselves by thinking broadly about the impacts of our actions.
compost cycle
The real question is, what is waste? Mann and Kump say, “life pollutes.” Others are saying, waste is a resource; in natural systems, there is no such thing as waste. Byproducts are coproducts and are always used. If we adjust out thinking about waste, and start asking ourselves, “what can i do with this?” instead of, “where can I throw this?” our waste will decrease dramatically.
According to the EPA, nearly 25% of the waste we landfill is organic matter that can be composted. Compost is then used to fertilize agricultural soils, decreasing our dependence on fossil fuel based fertilizers. Many sources suggest that another 70% of the solid waste we landfill and incinerate is recyclable- metals, plastics, and paper.
Bioremediation, (the process of using microorganism and enzymes to destroy and breakdown toxic/hazardous materials into harmless compounds) and Phytoremediation (the use of plants to filter and remove toxins) are gaining ground in waste management industry. By using natural decomposers and altering environments through catalysts such as temperature or ph we can mimic natural processes and turn our wastes into resources.
Moral of the story: Think before you consume. Separate out your “wastes” into resource piles. Reuse! Reuse! Reuse!
Tags: climate change, Danielle Hoffman, landfills, mitigation, waste, waste incineration
The Brazilian Proposal, that aims to create standards based on historical emissions data, is the only fair and efficient way to ensure greenhouse gas emission standards are met.
The field of public policy aims to provide solutions to complex societal issues through government initiatives. As I discussed in my September 28 blog, a conclusive connection has already been made between humans and global warming. The question from here on out is what do we do?
The Brazilian Proposal was first made in May of 1997. According to the UNFCCC website, it proposed that different emissions reduction standards be set for parties according to the impact they have made historically on temperature rise. The benefit of this approach is that it allows developing countries to continue building an economic infrastructure while at the same time holding them accountable to emissions standards.
Although many would argue they should be allowed to build an economic infrastructure without global emissions standards, climate change is a global issue and for that reason we can no longer afford to rely on coal and other harmful pollutants. The field of sustainable development is rapidly emerging at many universities around the world & through graduates of these programs I believe nations can thrive while being environmentally conscious.
With developing nations doing their share, the focus turns to the United States who it can be argued are largely to blame for temperature change looking at historical emissions data. In order to meet the proposed goal set by many climatologist of a 70 to 80 percent reduction of the year 2000 greenhouse gas emissions levels by 2050, I would argue in favor of, “A steadily accelerating reduction rate with absolute reduction reductions that peak and then decline” (Luers, A, et. al: 15). This approach would address the problem immediately yet gradually, which allows time for future technological innovation to develop that can more rapidly address this situation later.
Along with major environmental policy is the concern for the economy and the affect policy will have on the public. Although our goal in shaping environmental policy is to ensure the well being of the Earth, it is a known fact that because our economy is largely based on fossil fuel intensive growth that emissions standards can harm economic growth. With an economic shift could come immense strains on public sector budgets, higher prices for normal goods, job losses, and reduced incomes all because of the inclusion of the environment as an external costs.
According to the National Priorities Project this is the current federal government spending, with very little going to the environment.
Therefore, at this critical juncture there must be a complete political reform in Washington. Firstly, we must integrate an environmental awareness into educational curriculums so that future generations are at least knowledgeable about the environment. In addition to future planning, the government and companies must shift their priorities and therefore funding. For instance, the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act allocated $39-Billion for energy programs that aim to build a new economy around clean & secure energy, thus bringing their discretionary budget for the Department of Energy up to a projected $33.9 billion in 2009 (according to the Office of Management & Budget). Although a step in a positive direction, there is a huge discretion between this $33.9-Billion discretionary budget and the $654.7 Billion discretionary budget for the Department of Defense.
Looking at these budgets shows us that our current priority is defense and not the environment, something that must be addressed with climate change policy. By investing more into the environment for the creation of green jobs and technological innovation, as well as providing government subsidies to companies to ensure the price of goods does not dramatically increase, I believe we can lessen the impact of lower-emissions standards for the public while addressing climate change in a sensible matter.
Change is on the way, but will we embrace it?
Tags: Brazilian Proposal, Education, Federal Spending, Office of Management & Budget, Public Policy, sustainable development
Your Comments