Jim,

 

Thanks to you and Peter for forwarding the Somerville biofuels information.  Very interesting and informative; I haven’t had a chance yet to view “An Inconvenient Truth”  but it on my list.

Have you had an opportunity to participate in the ACORE or Climate Group teleconferences yet?  Also very informative.

 

Dear Jim

 

I will forward my CV with 30 years experience in the market. I hold a COO role in power generation. I am ex GE  senior management expert on energy and global strategy. I deal with every aspect in the oil & gas markets  as well as every aspect on emerging markets in energy.

 

 

Sincerely

 

G Trevor Hicks

 

 

The Climate Group is currently seeking candidates for three vacancies in its Woking (near London) UK, and New York, USA offices.

1. Carbon & Finance Programme Manager (based Woking, UK)
To lead the organisation's work on banking and finance, as well as programmes relating to the voluntary carbon market including the recently released Voluntary Carbon Standard.

2. Research Programme Manager (based Woking or New York)
To drive forward the organisation's research programme, including the annual 'Carbon Down Profits Up' report and associated projects.

3. Researcher (based Woking or New York)
To work on the organisation's research programme, with a dual focus on energy and corporate strategy internationally

Please note the deadline for applications is 5th August 2006

Full job descriptions and further details on application can be downloaded from:

http://www.theclimategroup.org/index.php?pid=816

Best regards

Jim Walker MSc
Chief Operating Officer

www.theclimategroup.org

One Crown Square  |  Church Street East  |  WOKING GU21 6HR  |  United Kingdom

THE °CLIMATE GROUP ^® is the trading name and registered trade mark of The Climate Change Organisation Ltd, 4964424, charity 1102909.  This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager and delete this email from your system. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

 

                       

                                GLOBAL WARMING                       Nov. 25, 2003

                                                                                              Rev. 3/3/06

                                                                                              John. J Burton

 

April 14, 2006 The concern about global warming has not changed for the better since this essay was written.  Kyoto has been signed by Russia and has gone into effect, but the United States shows no signs of joining.  The melting of arctic ice has publicized the coming of global warming and Katrina has highlighted the hurricane threat but this has not influenced Congress to take action.  European countries have taken only modest actions and it appears most will not meet their Kyoto targets.

 

1. Contents

2. Overview – A Challenge to the Civilized World

3. How Certain are we of its Cause and Effects?

4. Its Predicted Effects – On the US and on the World

5. What is Causing it – The Scientific View.

6. What is our Government Doing Concerning Global Warming?

7. Why is our Government Doing So Little About Global Warming?

8. What Should Our Government Be Doing About It?

9.. The United States vs. The Rest of the World.

 

2. Global Warming - A Challenge to the Civilized World

The matter of global warming is an issue that questions and challenges some of the basic components of our culture and economic system. .

 

Knowledge

This era is said to be one of a knowledge society replacing the industrial era. But few of US voters know even the basics of the causes and effects of global warming, nor do most of us realize how important this matter is to our coming generations – with more knowledge of it, we may decide it is a more serious threat than terrorism.

 

Our Economic System

The capitalist economic system has overcome attempts at communism and socialism and that of the US is hailed as the best though imperfect economic system in the world. Our current President, after acknowledging that we should take action, now says the actions needed to diminish global warming would ruin our economy. Can we take effective countermeasures without seriously damaging our economy?

 

But as I see it, the importance of consumerism is that it generates jobs.  If we eliminated the types of consumption that were big users of energy, we would need to substitute other activities that generate employment.  Fortunately, this appears to be a practical solution.  The activities we would substitute to reduce the use of fossil fuels are generally labor intensive.

 

Life Styles

The first actions could be what economists call “no regrets” programs. These are essentially programs that save energy and costs but whose payback is so long that government financial incentives are needed for adoption by the public. But to effectively slow up global warming we would need to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels by actions that would affect the life styles of most of us. Recent polls find that 60% of knowledgeable voters would accept a higher gas tax if it would help to avert global warming.

 

The Ethical Dilemma.  We must balance concerns for ourselves vs. those of future generations and must balance the interests of Americans vs. those of the multitudes in the undeveloped nations.  Looking back in our history we must regret some of the actions of our ancestors re slavery, treatment of Indians, gender discrimination, etc. Will our future generations be horrified at failure of this generation to slow up global warming? Also, do we have a moral obligation to the people of the poor nations who, lacking our wealth and technology, and in some cases because of their geography, will be much more adversely affected by global warming than will the United States?

 

3 How certain are we that human activities are causing a global warming that will be disastrous by the end of the century?

 

Starting in the 1970s, when global warming was predicted with some degree of reliability, the likelihood that it will happen unless we take preventive actions has steadily become more accepted worldwide by both scientists and governments. So the real debate in US and foreign countries is now only about what should be done and by whom. 

 

 The most intensive study has been made by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This consists of hundreds of scientists, some of whom write, and others who review these reports.    The U.S. Academy of Sciences and the US National Research Council have endorsed the work of the IPCC.

 

 The reports by the IPCC, issued in 1992, 1995 and 2001, have become increasingly certain of man-made global warming and their estimated rise in temperature has increased to 1.4- 5.8⁰ Celsius ( 2.5-10.4⁰ Fahrenheit) by the end of this century.   Their last report says there is a 90-99% probability that by the end of this century the world will experience higher maximum temperatures and more hot days over nearly all the land areas.

 

Since 1958 the percentage of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere has been constantly measured at a point on top of an extinct volcano in Hawaii. This has shown a steady annual rise, starting from 358 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 372 ppm today. This compares with an estimated 268 ppm before the start of the industrial age.  

 

 The scientific prediction has long been that the warming would be greater in the Arctic regions and we have already seen that this is happening with a substantial reduction of Arctic ice thickness and areas of open water.  Antarctic temperature has risen 2.5⁰ Celsius (4.5⁰ F.) in the past 50 years.  Glaciers have been melting and the frost lines rising on the mountains of all northern continents. 

 

Notes:

In 1890 a Swedish chemist made the startling prediction that the growing burning of fossil fuels would double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and this would have a “greenhouse effect” and lead to worldwide warming.   But this forecast was scorned and it was not until 1967 that two US scientists at Princeton warned that doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause a temperature rise of 4 degrees F. and thus started growing studies by thousands of climatologists and other scientists.

 

In 1989 Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at the National Center for Climate Research in Colorado said that  greenhouse gas theory is validated by hundreds of physical measurements of the properties of atmospheric gases.

 

On January.29, 1999 the American Geophysical Union said in an official policy statement that there is a “compelling basis for legitimate public concern” about our human-induced climate change.

 

A May 16, 2000 EPA report starts with “The earth’s climate is predicted to change because human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases”.. Near the end of the report it says  “Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1.6-6.3 degrees F. by 2100 with significant regional variation.”

 

In 2001 the Hadley Center in England which has had a large staff studying climate change for several years, forecast extreme weather conditions in England by 2100. Prime Minister Tony Blair said these are the considered opinions of some of the world’s best scientists and we cannot afford to ignore them.

 

The Nay-Sayers

The predictions by scientists in the 1980s that global warming, caused for the most part  by burning of fossil fuels, was going to be a serious problem alerted the coal, oil and gas industries who saw that this might led to legislation restricting the use of fossil fuels. They contributed millions of dollars to programs and publications that in turn hired a number of prominent scientists to campaign  for them. These argued that it was uncertain that global warming will take place and anyway climate changes are by natural factors with man’s activities having no or little effect.  

 

 But a check into funds received by each of these scientists found that most had received funds from the fossil fuel industries or from organizations funded by these industries.

Some examples:

Fred Singer, Director of Science and Environment Policy Project, acknowledged on TV program Nightline that  he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal, and ARCO.

The Greening Earth Society was funded by Western Fuels, a group of coal mining companies whose annual reports noted it had spent $583,000 in 1988 in “advocacy in the area of climate change”.   This funds Dr. Michaels and his World Climate Report.

                                                                                                                                               4. Global Warming – Its Predicted Effects on the U.S. and on the World

 

The Chief Predicted Effects in this century:

A warmer climate, especially so in the northern regions and inland areas.

Rising ocean levels, predicted by the IPCC to amount o 0.1 to 1.0 meter.

A warmer ocean that will increase the frequency and severity of violent weather events, including hurricanes.

Climate changes in rainfall and droughts that will upset agricultural practices

Movement away from the tropics of warmer weather which will require existing animal and vegetable life to adapt by also shifting their locations.

Some tropical diseases will move into middle latitude countries.

 

One matter that I see as getting far too little attention is that studies of what will happen have been limited to too short a future time. Since 1990 we have known of the need for action but as of today there is little prospect of effective countermeasures. All during the time we going about business as usual, two things are happening.  First, our rate of emissions is steadily increasing, so each year the amount of reduction needed to get back to a safe level gets bigger. Second, the carbon dioxide we are putting into the atmosphere has a life there of about 100 years, so what we have already put there and the amount we cannot avoid adding, regardless of our hoped for actions such as the Kyoto program, is going to result in the 22nd century in warming to a degree that has not appeared in published studies.

 

We should bear in mind that the only known safe level of CO₂ in the atmosphere is what was there when we began to burn fossil fuels (268 ppm). This level is now 372 ppm and rising very year. Even if we were to promptly cut back our emission rate as much as indicated in the Kyoto agreement,  global warming will nevertheless continue . The best we can hope to do is to slow global warming and reduce its future magnitude.

 

The following concerns only what can be expected by the year 2100 but we should not forget that more extreme and less predictable effects will follow in later centuries.

 

The average global temperature will have risen 1.4-5.8⁰ C. (2.5-10.4⁰ degrees F.) during this century.  In the northern hemisphere, the rise will be greatest in the Arctic region and least in the tropics. Also it will be higher than average over land areas such as the US western plains.. 

 

The tropical diseases that may advance into northern areas include malaria, dengue fever and encephalitis. Already it has been noticed that mosquitoes and some diseases have moved higher upon mountains.

 

There will be a wide difference among countries concerning the effects and the actions for protection against the effects.  Wealthy nations such as the U.S. will have the money and technology for countermeasures so the effect will be mainly financial.  Poor nations will generally have neither this wealth nor technology and can expect to suffer severely; their agriculture will have to cope with unexpected weather events and some like Bangladesh will suffer severely from higher ocean levels and storms. Disease levels will increase in the crowded cities along the coasts.    

 

Vegetation, including farm crops and trees, will grow faster because of the higher carbon dioxide content in the air.  But in some areas, such as in western U.S., earlier snow melt in the mountains will reduce the availability of water needed in the summer.

 

There is certain to be a rise in ocean levels, due both to expansion from warming and added water from the melting of ice in the north polar region.  This will chiefly effect small islands in the South Pacific, low lying areas like Bangladesh, and the US  Atlantic coast to a lesser degree. The IPCC estimates this will most likely amount to 1-3 ft.

 

Besides the predicted temperature rise, there will be substantial changes from our normal weather patterns; perhaps “climate change” is a better term than global warming.  The worst effects will be in the poor countries where money and technology are lacking for adapting agriculture to changed weather patterns. 

 

Due to polar ice melting, the ocean circulation that warms Western Europe may cease completely by 2100 resulting in much colder weather in this area for a period of years.

 

And there are some so-called “surprise factors”-- unpredictable things that could result from a new climate situation. The tundra in Alaska and Siberia holds enormous amounts of methane underground in a frozen state called

methane clathrate. A warming climate could get this released into the atmosphere which would be catastrophic because methane is a very potent greenhouse gas.  Methane has 20 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide thought it life in the atmosphere is much shorter. Also there is methane clathrate frozen under pressure at deep ocean bottoms which could be released by a warmer ocean.  Another “surprise factor” could be release of carbon dioxide by warmer oceans which so far have been absorbing about 1/2 of the carbon dioxide we have been emitting.

 

 

Notes

   The last IPCC report included with it estimates different degrees of confidence in its various predictions. Some of theses were:

It had medium confidence in predicting that vector-borne diseases, including malaria and dengue fever may expand their range in North America.

 

 It had high confidence it its predictions of:

   Higher temperatures and more hot days over most l land areas.

   Higher minimum temperatures, with fewer cold days and frost days over most  land areas.

 More intense precipitation events over many northern hemisphere mid to high latitude regions.

 A potential for surprise in weather-related losses in North America.

 Sea level rise would result in coastal flooding and risk from storm surges in areas such as  Florida and in much of the US Atlantic coast line.

 

Snow-melt watersheds in western North America will experience spring flows( high confidence) and reductions in summer flows ( medium confidence).

 

In estimating temperature in 2100, the IPCC has made estimates based on six scenarios.  These try to take into account the different economic , technological social and political practices that may take place during this century and the resulting temperature in 2100. For example, a combination of fast economic growth, high technologies and continued high use of fossil fuels for energy predicts a 4.4 degrees C. rise. With the same conditions but high use of non-fossil fuels, the temperature rise is only to 2.5 degrees.

 

In his book “ Global Warming- The  Complete Briefing”, John Houghton, co-chairman of one of the IPCC groups,  notes that the IPCC estimates have covered  what will happen in this century. A longer time horizon has not been given much attention but a further rise  in CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere will give a much more severe impact and increases the imperative to take necessary action soon.. . 

                                                                                     

 

5. What is Causing Global Warming ? The Scientific View.

 

The basic explanation of why the earth is now warming and will continue to do so at least through this century is clear. During he last 10 – 20,000 years the temperature of he earth has stayed about the same with only temporary warm and cold spells.  This is due to a fortunate balance wherein the heat lost by the earth as it revolves in a frigid outer space is balanced by the heat it receives and 0retains from the sun’s rays.  Global warming is due to it now retaining more of this heat from the sun’s rays due to man’s activities in this industrial age.

 

Of the heat received from the sun’s rays, a portion is reflected back.  But some of this reflected portion does not get back into outer space; it is re-reflected back to the earth’s surface by what is called the greenhouse effect.  Certain components of the earth’s atmosphere, water vapor and the greenhouse gases (chiefly carbon dioxide and to a lesser extent methane), act like the glass in a greenhouse and re-reflect some of these rays back again to the earth.   Before mankind began to add to the amount of these greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, this amount of heat from the sun that was kept by he earth plus that re-reflected was just enough to maintain a steady temperature on the earth.     

 

When coal, oil, or natural gas is burned in order to get heat or energy, the carbon in them is converted to carbon dioxide (CO₂). This CO₂ accounts for about 2/3 of the greenhouse gas effect. We have pretty reliable figure on the amount of CO₂ we put into the atmosphere each year as the amount of each of these has long been recorded by international commercial organizations.

 

Another source of the increased amount of CO₂ added to the atmosphere in the past century is from the burning of tropical forests. Here again we have a carbon balance that has been upset by mankind’s activities.   Without human interference the amount of CO₂ absorbed by trees and other vegetation is in balance with that given off by these when they decay.   There is not only a huge amount of carbon in trees and vegetation but there is even more in the soils beneath them So when large amounts of tropical forest are  burned as in Brazil and Indonesia,  we are putting stored carbon into the atmosphere just as in the case of  our burning of the stored carbon in fossil fuels.  About ¼ of  human-caused emission of  CO₂ in the past 20 years has been from what scientists call “ land use change” which includes trees, all vegetation and soils.   At present the addition of CO₂ by destruction of tropical forests is about balanced by increases in stored carbon in forests and soils in the northern temperate zone.

 

Although it is best to focus our thinking about global warming on CO₂, we know that methane (CH₄) is the second most important greenhouse gas.  Its increased emission has been more variable than that of CO2 and we still do not have an accurate knowledge of the amounts of the various sources of its emissions into the atmosphere.  It is emitted by growing rice, by cattle, by decomposition in landfills and an important amount comes simply from leaks in natural gas pipelines.

 

Both ozone and the halocarbons ( like Freon) that destroy it have small effects on global warming but these effects are complicated and  relatively unimportant.

 

The water vapor in the atmosphere is a strong greenhouse gas.  Its warming effect can be either positive or negative - low clouds are warming and high clouds are cooling. Just what effect more clouds and water will have is uncertain.

 

Notes

The observed sea level rise differs in many places because the sea level is measured in comparison to the adjacent land and the land may be sinking or rising. At Stockholm, the land is sinking 16 inches every 10 years. At Honolulu it is rising  6 inches per 10 years.

 

 Substantial but temporary effects on the earth’s surface temperature have been caused by volcanic eruptions. Tambora in Indonesia erupted in 1815 and 1816 became known as “the year without a summer”.   Dust went straight up to the stratosphere and was carried around the world, obscuring the sun. Snow fell in New England in June.   In 1992 the eruption of Mount Pinatubo slowed up the global warming trend.

 

Because of the sun’s high temperature, the rays it emits are short length. With its cooler temperature, the rays the earth reflects are shorter (infra-red) lengths and at this wave length greenhouse gases which did not reflect the longer length incoming rays from the sun reflect much of them back to the earth. .

 

The predicted temperature rise in this century will be the fastest in the 10,000 years of this interglacial period. The 1990s had the highest temperature rise in our recorded history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.  What is our Government Doing Concerning Global Warming?

 

So far practically nothing worthwhile has been done, and by our refusal to join the Kyoto agreement, we are discouraging international efforts. When we had a shortage of petroleum in the 1970s because of an OPEC petroleum embargo, several energy saving measures were adopted to reduce our use of petroleum such as the CAFÉ standards which forced auto manufacturers to improve gasoline mileage. But nothing like this has been done to counter the more serious long term problem of climate change. .

 

Global warming as a serious threat was acknowledged by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 at the Rio Summit Conference as needing  action but he declined to join with the European Nations who proposed an agreement for nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels. When President Clinton came into office, he proposed a 25 cent gasoline tax but Congress cut this to 4.3 cents. During the 1990s there were several federal laws enacted to increase the efficiency of various appliances, thus reducing their energy use. Also a subsidy was put into effect for electric power generated by wind. However these small steps had little overall effect and emissions of greenhouse gases in the U.S. increased about 17% during the 1990s decade.

 

In 1998 the major industrial nations agreed in principle to the Kyoto Protocol, to reduce their greenhouse emissions by specific amounts below their 1990 levels. However President Clinton knew that our Senate would not agree and  did not submit this treaty  for ratification.  The Senate had voted 95-0 not to accept any agreement that did not include actions by the underdeveloped nations and these nations have refused on the grounds that the industrial nations have caused the problem and must be the first to act.

 

President George W. Bush’s position is that any actions to reduce our use of fossil fuels will seriously damage the economy.  He advocates  that action should be delayed while research is being done to seek technologies that would solve  the problem. 

 

Early in 2003, President Bush said he had a plan to cut CO₂ emissions. But it turned out that it was not to actually to reduce emissions, but only to reduce the rate of increase- we would still be expected to increase our emission rate by 25% in 2012 not the 5% reduction specified  at Kyoto. 

 

One line of research being funded by the government is to separate out the carbon dioxide in the stack gases at electricity generating stations, compress this, and then store it in one or more of several existing types of deep underground reservoirs.  Installing the equipment and pipelines for this would need huge capital investments. And the added steps would use up energy and be expensive to operate so at best this so-called “sequestration” process would be a major increase in the cost of generating electricity.   But at some time it may be seen as an essential step when we , after expanding the use of renewable energy sources such as windpower  solar power and biomass together with reducing our use of energy, .find that we still must continue get some of our energy by  burning fossil fuels   .

 

The Department of Energy is also sponsoring a $1 billion, 10 year demonstration power plant  (FutureGen) which would not only sequester its carbon dioxide generated by the usual production of electric power but would also produce hydrogen which would be used as a source of power for transportation and heating.  Several utilities have agreed to take a partnership in this plant and provide part of the funding.  Its location will be somewhere in the United States, where there is a suitable underground area for storage of the CO₂.  Coal will be the raw material.  It is expected to be in operation by 2012.  It will use IGCC technology which has been in operation at a Tampa utility for ten years.  It will include CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage technology) which has been used for a number of years to store CO₂ in oil fields but has not yet been used to store CO₂ at a power plant.                  

                                                                  

7. Why are our President and the Congress Doing Practically Nothing About Global Warming?

 

From the viewpoint of politicians, the actions to slow up global warming would be a risk to the continued growth on which our economy depends and plus the fact that some of these actions would handicap the life styles of some of our citizens. The gains from slowing up global warming will benefit only future generations of voters. So from the political viewpoint of both parties, especially of the party in power, this is a matter that it is best to ignore.  When he came into power, President Clinton proposed a 25 cent gasoline tax to reduce the use of fossil fuels but Congress cut this to 4.3 cents.  President Bush has changed his position from saying he would take action to now saying that any action must be avoided because it would damage the economy.  He has promoted long term research projects but waiting a decade or more for results from this research is seen by some as a political tactic to delay taking the immediately useful actions which need no further research.

 

The main objective of preventive actions must be to reduce our use of fossil fuels - coal oil and natural gas.  Business and industry depend on continued economic growth which requires increases in use of fossil fuels for energy and transportation, although some of this could be offset by increased efficiencies.  And politicians depend for their funding on contributions from business and industry. Labor unions join this opposition because they see a threat to jobs-what is bad for General Motors is bad for jobs. 

 

The petroleum and coal industries have funded million dollar campaigns opposing actions that would cut the use of fossil fuels. Gore would be President if it were not for the opposition of the West Virginia coal miners.         

 

The automotive industry fears regulations that would reduce the sale of SUVs and light trucks – their most profitable products by far. And the 12 million jobs connected to this industry represent a lot of votes.                                                                                 

 

Besides these two powerful industries, business in general has long had a basic opposition to all expansion of government regulations. To them, the wide variety of government actions needed to reduce our use of fossil fuels is viewed as unwarranted interference in free market principles.  

 

President Bush has tried to answer critics of his do-nothing policy by emphasizing that he is having research done to develop a hydrogen economy and a process for sequestering the CO₂ produced by utilities.  Hydrogen-fueled cars are appealing because they have no smog-forming emissions, but if the hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, CO₂ is generated at this step. His sequestration projects require separating out the CO₂ from stack gases, compressing it, and transporting it to areas where it can be stored deep underground- a concept that at best will be extremely expensive. This is worthwhile research but meanwhile practically nothing is being done to reduce the rate that we are adding CO₂  to the atmosphere- CO₂ that will be there for a hundred years.

                                               

 8.    Global Warming – What Should our Government Be Doing About It?                            

 

The broad principles of actions to slow global warming and reduce its eventual effects should be:

 

1. Of the various greenhouse gases, concentrate on reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide, the principle one, and the one we know how to control.

 

2.  Keep in mind that prompt action is crucial. While we are delaying,  the CO₂  we are putting into the atmosphere will be there for about 100 years. The longer we wait, the more drastic the actions that will be needed. 

 

 3. Recognize that as a practical matter, while voluntary actions by people and companies are helpful, only our government can bring about the big emission reductions that are essential. . The government must provide rules and subsidies that will give industries and individuals the incentives to make the essential big changes.

 

4. Recognize that our economic system depends on continual growth in production and consumption. In new regulations and taxes, a slowdown in action and employment in one activity must be balanced by increases in other activities.  Produce fewer SUVs and  more hybrids, smaller but better insulated houses.

 

5.  Higher taxes on some products and activities must be what economists call “revenue neutral”. For example, receipts from higher gasoline taxes could be used to reduce payroll taxes.

Some specific actions needed requiring government actions are:.

 

1. Encourage prompt expansion of electricity production by windmills, solar panels, tidal power, geothermal power and biomass burning.

 

2.   Replace old style electricity generation units with more efficient combined cycle units. Where possible obtain further efficiency by utilizing their waste heat by industries.  Use natural gas and petroleum as far as possible to replace coal.   Doubling and is a few cases tripling of efficiency is possible.

  

3. Get both industries and the public to put to use the technology we have already developed that enables us to use energy more efficiently. In most of these cases, this has not been done because the pay back in company profits or in savings by individuals is not short enough to encourage their use.  Hybrid auto engines and fluorescent light bulbs are examples.  

 

4.. By means of taxes and regulations, discourage both commercial and recreational activities that stand out as exceptional users of energy.  Imported fruits and vegetables are often cheaper than those grown in the US but need more energy for transportation. Ban recreational snowmobiles. Cross country skiing is healthy, snow making is an extravagant use of energy..

 

5. Subscribe to Kyoto Agreement and work to strengthen it.

Provide at low cost to undeveloped nations technologies that we have developed that achieve more efficient generation and use of energy.

Increase by massive amounts foreign aid targeted at reductions in population growth.

 

6. Promote the belief that simple living has merit and that extravagant energy-consuming life styles demonstrate selfishness.   Encourage government officials to set examples and extend this thinking to rules for all government institutions.    .   

Notes:

 

During the oil shortage in the 1970s, Congress instituted CAFE standards for auto manufacturers.  The average mileage of all cars sold by a manfacturer had to meet a miles- per-gallon standard that was to be increased each year.  But then Congress allowed pickup trucks and SUVs to be exempt from this requirement. The average mpg of cars and light trucks reached its best level in 1985 and has been declining since then. We should have new CAFÉ standards that would include non-essential light trucks and SUVs and have  steady annual increases in mpg to take advantage of known technologies. Auto manfacturers would then find it advantageous to lower the prices of high mpg cars and raise prices of gas guzzlers.  

 

Five northern European countries in the past 10 years have put taxes on carbon dioxide emissions and offset these with reduced taxes on wages and/or personal income. 

 

Wind turbines are said to be capable of providing ¼ of US electricity needs if installed on 1.5% of continental US land area.  Installations on grazing lands such as the western high plains do not interfere with their use for grazing cattle. With present technologies, wind turbines are the best alternative to fossil fuels for generating electricity.

 

The DOE has spent $24 million in developing technologies for a wide variety of electricity saving projects. It is estimated that these can save $8.9 billion if these technologies were all put to use. Electricity consumption of electric motors can be cut by 20% by use of adjustable speed drives. 40% of electricity for lighting can be saved by use of compact fluorescent bulbs.

 

 Most utilities generating electricity operate at about 35% efficiency. Replacement with a modern efficient design increases this to 60%. But the lifetime of these generators is 40-50 years so replacing them before this would be very expensive.   Transmission of the electricity from large central generators is very wasteful and smaller localized units offer substantial savings in transmission loss.

 

Efficiency in generation of electricity can be increased to 80-90% by locating generators where waste heat can be used by industries or residences. Denmark leads in this.

 

A growing forest absorbs 200-500 tons of CO2 per year.  An economical means of offsetting CO2 emissions  is to use  mature trees as fuel for heat or power generation.

 

                                                                                                                  

9. Global Warming – The US vs. the Rest of the World

 

We might best view a stable non-warming atmosphere to be a resource shared by all humans, some of whom have been polluting it by their emissions of greenhouse gases since the start of the industrial age. The peoples of the poorest nations have been polluting it the least and the wealthiest have been polluting it the most.

 

The need to take action to slow up global warming is common to all nations. But, in addition to the normal self-interested spirit of each nation, the wide differences between the past and present economies of nations means there are wide differences in the actions suitable for each, and also wide differences in the actions which each feels it has the responsibility to undertake.

 

A cooperative agreement by the industrial nations, the Kyoto Protocol, was signed by their representatives in 1997.   In 2005, Russia signed this agreement and it went into effect.  The United States and Australia are the only major powers that have not ratified it.  At this time, it appears that although all the European nations are making efforts to meet their requirements, it appears that several will not be able to do so.

 

Global Warming—The Rest of the World

 

1. The numerous badly undeveloped countries must give a higher priority to their immediate problems related to the poverty of their people. 

 

2. The developing counties, i.e. China and India, argue that the greenhouse gases now in the atmosphere were put there by the industrial nations and these are the principal polluters at the present time. So their view is that the industrial nations have the responsibility to take the first actions and meanwhile the developing nations have the right to continue to industrialize at least so long as their per capita emissions are less than those of the present industrial nations. So here we have a major conflict as shown by the US Senate having voted 95-3 for the US to take no action without participation by these developing nations.

 

3. The European nations as members of the EU have a ratified the Kyoto Protocol. But, being in competition with the US in international trade, will they live up to this commitment when its higher costs handicap them in this competition?  Kyoto has no enforcement provisions and the EU nations were among the nations that failed to live up to their 1992 promise to limit their year 2000 emissions to their 1990 level.  

 

4. Australia will not sign up to Kyoto because its economy is heavily dependent on coal which emits more CO2 per unity of energy than petroleum or natural gas so Australia would have difficulty in in reducing its CO2 emissions. Japan is reluctant because it has long since taken steps to improve its efficient use of petroleum and so would have difficulty in making further improvements. Russia is a holdout because it is a major exporter of petroleum.

 

Global Warming—The U.S.

 

Now we come to the United States which now plays, and can be expected to continue to play, the decisive role in this global dilemma. With 5 % of the world’s population, it emits 20-25 % of the world’s emission of greenhouse gases.  In the production of goods of all types as measured by GDP, we are far less efficient than most other industrialized nations and so would find it easier than them to cut our emissions. Being outstanding among the world’s nations in military power, economic power, and cultural influence, it is our example that in the long run can be expected to predominate.

 

On October 30, 2003 the US Senate voted down 55-43 a bill to restrict our output of greenhouse gases.  Compared to past voting this is seen by some as progress, but in a broader perspective this was only an attempt to put a band-aid on a deep wound.  The emission reductions in the bill were much less than Kyoto requirements.  And in order to get nations to agree at Kyoto, its specified modest reductions of greenhouse gases only slightly delay the predictable effects of global warming. 

 

What events could happen to change the US position?

 

With a Democrat as president and Democrats in control of Congress,  there is a slim possibility of going so far as to get agreement to Kyoto.  But this is only an unlikely possibility considering the financial influence of the campaign contributions by opposition industries and by labor unions and the lack of interest by the public. And Kyoto covers only the first small steps needed for effective countermeasures.    

 

In some future year, maybe in a decade or so.,  when the climate has changed enough so that we start to experience pain, the obvious need for action may overcome the present solid resistance. Unfortunately, the longer we wait, the greater the changes that will then be needed to compensate for this delay.

 

Possibly a leader may come into power in the U.S. with the ideology and the charisma to make a drastic change in Americans’ thinking.  Teddy Roosevelt upset the corporate powers in 1900 and FDR did this in the 1930s.   

 

A remote possibility is that a technology will be found that will provide our energy needs without the use of fossil fuels. But it would need a breakthrough more startling than the invention of the wheel, the steam engine, the telephone, the atom bomb or computers. 

 

New Developments as of Nov., 2005

 

The Kyoto Protocol has been accepted by enough countries so that it went into effect in February, 2005.  The United States and Australia (which is heavily dependent on coal) are the only major industrial states which did not sign it.  Our stated reasons for rejecting it are that adhering to it would seriously damage our economy and also we object to the fact that the developing nations such as India and China are not parties to Kyoto.  Kyoto obligates nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by varying degrees.  The overall average of nations is a 5% reduction by 2012 over the 1990 emission.

 

European countries are making progress in curtailing their GHG emissions but it looks like few of them will meet the objectives assigned to them by Kyoto. 

 

On April 13, 2005 the Canadian government released ‘A Plan for Honouring our Kyoto Agreement”. The plan includes a wide variety of  ways to reduce GHG emissions and to generate more energy from renewable sources with 4,000 megawatts to s come from wind turbines. 

 

Use of wind turbines to generate electricity is being extensively used and expansions planned in Europe and in China.  Projected wind farm projects in the United States are meeting NIMBY resistance.

 

World prices for petroleum have recently risen sharply and are now in the $60’s per barrel.  China’s booming economy has made it a big consumer of petroleum. In spite of the resulting high gasoline prices in the U.S., so far U.S. consumption has changed little.

 

Injection of CO2 into spent oil fields is increasing in Europe, Canada and in the United States.  BP ( British Petroleum) is planning a 350 megawatt power plant to go onstream in 2009.  It’s fuel will be natural gas.  The carbon dioxide in its exhaust will be buried in a spent oil field in the North Sea.

 

INSTALLED SOLAR CAPACITY JANUARY 1, ‘05

Japan 1100 megawatts

Germany 790 megawatts

United States 730 megawatts

 

The expected widespread warming in the Arctic regions has continued at an increasing pace and isbeing well publicized..

 

In June, 2005, the EIA (The Energy Information Agency) reported new data on U.S. emissions.  Our 2003 emissions of GHGs was 0.6% higher than in 2002 and 13% higher than in 1990.  The IEA report shows our rates of increase by sectors as follows:

 

Since 1990		Since 2000
Commercial	32% increase	Residential	5% increase
Residential	28% increase	Transportation	2% increase
Transportation	20% increase	Commercial	2% increase
Industrial	2% decrease	Industrial	5% decrease

 

I note that our industries are emitting less which is in sharp contrast to other sectors I presume this is due to our outsourcing much of our manufacturing, as well as gains from added efficiencies which are being taken in a number of industries.

Contrary to the position of the federal government, several states, with CA in the lead, have adopted plans to curtail their GHG emission within a few years.

 

A 2004 proposal to erect a 420 megawatt wind farm off the shore of Cape Cod is being held up by critics who claim this would be an eyesore.

 

In West Virginia, the DOE is studying the feasibility of injecting CO2 from an existing coal-fired power plant into an underground formation, using a 9100 foot hole drilled in 2003.  These studies are favorable but there is no definite plans to complete this project which would be the first commercial demonstration of sequestering CO2 from power plant exhaust and burying it in an underground formation.

 

The Aug, 2005 comprehensive national energy bill adopted by Congress and signed by the president has some provisions favorable to reducing our GHG emissions but on the other hand has provisions favoring more use of fossil fuels.   An effort to include mandated reduction of auto emissions, such as in the McCain-Lieberman bill, failed to pass.

 

Notes:

With its huge population and fast rising industrialization, China may soon be a major emitter of greenhouse gases, comparable to the US.  China is not just a major producer of coal but is now importing coal from Australia.  Cars are replacing bicycles but at least China has this month put in place MPG limits which are better than the CAFÉ rules in the US.

:

In his book “One World. The Ethics of Globalization”, Peter Singer discusses at length the many complex ethical aspects of international relations in respect to global warming. On an equal share basis for all people, each would be entitled to emit one ton carbon equivalent per year, equalizing Americans’ 5 tons, Europeans and Japanese 1.6 to 4.2 tons, China’s 0.8 tons and India’s 0.3 tons per person.  He favors an ethical concept that is a compromise. Industrial nations should not be responsible for the greenhouse gases they emitted before they became aware of the global warming situation, but they should be held responsible for what they have emitted since that time- the 1980s.