Climate Progress

The European Environment Agency (EEA) reports:

Total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-27, excluding emission and removals from land-use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF), decreased by 0.7 % between 2004 and 2005 and by 7.9 % between 1990 and 2005.

Over the same period, 1990 to 2005, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are up an alarmaing 17%. The EEA report underscores a point I have made repeatedly — the transportation sector remains the toughest nut to crack:

Between 1990 and 2005, greenhouse gas emissions decreased in all sectors except in the transport sector, where they increased significantly.

The EU-15 are down 2% since 1990, whereas Kyoto requires an 8% drop averaged over 2008-2012. This suggests the EU-15 will be buying some tons on the international market (perhaps from their neighbors) if they want to meet their target, which I hope they do — notwithstanding how politically unattractive that must seem to those countries with the richest country in the world refusing to do its part.

If you’d like to see how each country is doing, this figure has all the details (click on it to enlarge, and then click on it again):

(more…)

Nothing is worse for the climate than large scale coal-to-liquids. Not even the tar sands. In September, the Chinese news agency said it would rein in liquid coal plants. A Guardian story yesterday puts the lie to that claim:

A Chinese energy company is poised to open a chemical plant to make liquid fuels for cars and aircraft from coal, a move that has alarmed environmental campaigners who say it will increase carbon emissions and worsen global warming.

The plant, in Inner Mongolia, will use technology developed by Germany during the second world war to convert coal directly into synthetic diesel, dubbed “Nazi fuel”.

Nazi fuel. Has such an inviting ring to it.

The Chinese facility, operated by Shenhua Corporation, will be the first of its type in the world….

A study last year by the Chinese Academy of Sciences said: “Production of liquid fuels from coal is practically the most feasible route to cope with the dilemma in oil supply.”

I agree — if by feasible you mean, “will just about guarantee the end of the planet’s livability by 2100.”

Shame on the schizophrenic Chinese Academy, which in 2005 signed the Academies statement (along with the U.S., Russia, India, Brazil, and major European countries) that called for “substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions” — something that would be quite impossible with widespread use of Nazi fuel liquid coal.

At least two more commercial scale coal-to-liquids plants are under construction in China, although the Chinese government has expressed concern about the possible environmental impact of uncontrolled expansion, and has taken steps to limit the number of smaller facilities.

Oh, why didn’t you say that to begin with: The Chinese government “expressed concern” about environmental impacts and is limiting the number of “smaller” facilities. That almost restores my faith in the wisdom of their leaders. Almost. Significant production of liquid coal would officially make their climate policy as immoral as ours. I fear that the figurative “U.S.-China Suicide Pact on Climate” I describe in my book is starting to become a literal one.

Capturing the carbon dioxide from liquid coal would reduce the negative consequences, though “would still produce at least 20% more carbon dioxide than petrol and diesel made from oil.” But, in any case, the Chinese plants are not designed for capture, even if they had some large, certified repository to put the carbon dioxide in, which they don’t. So the life cycle emissions will be “almost twice the carbon pollution as using conventional diesel.”

And putting this in dry Inner Mongolia doesn’t strike me as a terrific idea given that “the energy-intensive conversion plants also require massive amounts of cooling water to stop them overheating.”

I thought the Chinese were supposed to be wise and holistic, what with Confucius and Tai Chi and the I Ching and yin & yang and acupuncture, and inventing paper, movable type, the compass, silk, and porcelain, and all that. Turns out they are as dumb as us. Or maybe dumber. I mean, we would never go for something dubbed Nazi fuel … would we?

Related Posts:

• Coal-to-Liquid Is a Dead End
• New Years Resolution #47: Get the real facts out on liquid coal
• Liquid coal means liquid problems
• Memo to Air Force: Stop misleading the public on liquid coal
• Congress should say NO to coal-to-diesel
• The WSJ (and Climate Progress) on Liquid Coal
• Liquid Coal Hearing Report
• China reins in liquid coal
• Liquid Coal Goes Down In Flames In Senate
• The Post Gets Coal-Liquids Story Mostly Right
• Plug-in Hybrids Beat Coal-to-Liquids (Duh!)
• Coal State Newspapers Attack Liquid-Coal Plans
• Some Thoughts on Coal to Diesel

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg got a lot of attention this week for comparing the threat of global warming to terrorism. In the same way Arnold overshadows him, these remarks perhaps overshadowed the Mayor’s equally blunt thoughts on food vs. fuel:

A new US energy law will cause an increase in global food prices and lead to starvation deaths worldwide because it continues to promote corn ethanol….

“People literally will starve to death in parts of the world, it always happens when food prices go up.“

[Rhetorical note to Mike: The word “literally” is overkill in such a blunt sentence. Nobody is going to think you meant people would “figuratively” starve to death.]

Who can stop the corn supremacy?

Reuters reports:

Japan will be able to meet its greenhouse gas emissions limits agreed under the Kyoto Protocol through additional, mainly voluntary, agreements with industry, a government panel said.

The measures will help Japan cut 37 million tonnes or more of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent a year, a joint panel on climate change under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and the Ministry of Environment said in a final report approved on Friday.

Offered in the spirit of actually posting some Climate Progress now and then….

I was watching the grilling by Jay Inslee (D-WA) of Energy Secretary Bodman this morning at the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the “Department of Energy’s Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Proposal.”

And Inslee got Bodman to say, “I haven’t talked to the president about cap-and-trade.” [I’m guessing their conversations are more like — Bodman: “How ’bout them Giants?” Bush: “Turd-Blossom? What are you doing here?”]

Inslee was amazed, but it is hard to be surprised by anything this administration does or doesn’t do — Samuel Nevergen’ Bodman included.

Strangely, Bodman’s defense of our do-nothing policy vis-a-vis the Chinese is that he spent many years trying to negotiate with them on currency and he concluded:

There is no leverage with the Chinese. The only leverage is what we are willing to do.

I wrote it down, and believe that is the verbatim quote. But it would seem to me that’s an argument for us actually doing something! And in any case the Chinese clearly see little benefit to themselves from raising the value of their currency vs. the dollar — whereas I hope they see some benefit to themselves from avoiding catastrophic global warming. If not, the planet is toast.

That said, if you were China and saw the U.S. doing nothing to reduce emissions, and in fact had been lobbied behind the scenes heavily for seven years by senior U.S. officials who were telling you 1) climate change isn’t serious, 2) the U.S. wasn’t going to do anything while Bush was President, and, 3) by the way, we’d really like your help in subverting the entire international negotiating process — well, gosh, big surprise that “there is no leverage with the Chinese.”

When will this long national nightmare end???

For those interested in sources of growing carbon emissions, the N.Y. Times ran an important article today, “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler.” Here’s a startling factoid:

To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

And the indirect effect of growing meat consumption on the climate is equally large:

(more…)

The international dimension of climate in Hell and High Water (paperback now at Amazon):

The “international fairness” issue is the emotional home run. Given the chance, Americans will demand that all nations be part of any international global warming treaty. Nations such as China, Mexico and India would have to sign such an agreement for the majority of Americans to support it.

–Frank Luntz, 2002

We don’t need an international treaty with rules and regulations that will handcuff the American economy or our ability to make our environment cleaner, safer and healthier.

–Frank Luntz, 2002

What country’s insatiable thirst for oil imports is most responsible for the tightening world market since the mid- 1990s? Hint: It’s not China. From 1995 to 2004, China’s annual imports grew by 2.8 million barrels a day. Ours grew 3.9 million. China sucks up about 6 percent of all global oil exports. We demand 25 percent, even though China has a billion more consumers.

In what year will China’s total contribution to climate change from burning fossil fuels surpass ours? Hint: Climate change is driven by rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and those concentrations have been driven by cumulative emissions since the dawn of the industrial revolution. While China’s CO2 emissions might well exceed ours by 2010, its cumulative emissions might not surpass ours until after 2050.

(more…)

The deal to deforest the rainforests on 60,000 hectares of Woodlark Island for massive plantation of oil palm trees appears to be dead:

Vitro Plant, developer of a proposed oil palm project on Woodlark Island in Milne Bay, is said to have withdrawn the project…. It is believed Vitro’s withdrawal is due to pressure from environmentalists and non-governmental organisations to conserve the natural habitat of Woodlark Island.

Still, I’m looking forward to seeing someone do an analysis of deforestation generated by palm-oil for the whole country, since this article claims:

Mr. Hickey [Minister for Agriculture and Livestock] said oil palm was the largest income earner in the agriculture sector in Papua New Guinea. He said the value of export in 2006 was K660 million compared to coffee and cocoa at K337 million and K204 million respectively. [Note: $1 U.S. = 2.8 Kina.] Mr Hickey said the value of export of round logs in 2006 was K490 million. He said the world market demand for oil palm was very high and would remain high and with the increase in both production and price, the value of export would increase in the medium to long term.

The President who said “America is addicted to oil“ now begs the Saudis for another fix. Like some binge-drinking, pill-popping starlet — is there any other kind? — the President is prostrate before his top foreign “dealer,” begging for more, even at the risk of public humiliation:

The Saudi oil minister, however, waited only a short time before announcing that oil prices would remain tied to market forces — a direct slap at Bush.

Wow! When even your dealer won’t sell you more, you have got a real problem.

Just one hour later, though, “President Bush made a private visit to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah to again ask him to open the spigots.”

That is like being turned down by your dealer and then desperately appealing directly to Pablo Escobar.

Anyone for rehab or, say, plug in hybrids?

The appropriations omnibus bill just passed through Congress “recommends that the Export-Import Bank provide 10 percent of its financing capacity to promote the export of clean energy products and services.” This was a recommendation by many groups, including the Center for American Progress (CAP).

Having supported more than $400 billion dollars of U.S. exports during the past 70 years, the Export-Import Bank is one of the most powerful tools at the U.S. government’s disposal for spurring innovation and economic growth.

But in yet another backward-looking strategy typical of this Administration:

In fiscal year 2006, Ex-Im promoted $1.8 billion in traditional fossil fuel exports but only $9.8 million in renewable energy exports.

As CAP notes:

This new provision is an important first step toward shifting this ratio in favor of the industry that has the greater growth potential: clean energy.

Kudos to all concerned (and yes, 10% is not enough, but it is a start — and it beats the heck out of 0.5%).