Contemplating what I have read and heard over the past few weeks, it seems that a consensus is developing on what can be done in the fight against global warming.
1. We must expect some temperature rise and it will likely be above 2 deg C. The question is how much can we limit it above this mark.
2. Cap and Trade of carbon emissions via main energy producers must be done to limit and put a price on carbon
3. We have to get carbon sequestration to work as we will keep on burning coal and therefore must limit the damage.
It is encouraging that some sort of consensus is developing so that we can focus on making it work.
Other lessons are that people will only change (me included) when it hits their pocket - hence the importance of Cap and Trade. Also we will not switch from polluting sources of power to renewables in any meaningful way especially it it will cost us more. Therefore we are dependant on finding ways to limit the damage of our profligate ways - hence the need for sequestration. This cannot be a long term solution but hopefully it will buy us time until we can develop and implement cleaner technologies.
So, not the best solution but hopefully a solution of sorts.
Monday 16 June 2008
Wednesday 11 June 2008
When to Dump Your Old Car
The argument that cradle to grave calculations points to old vehicles being used as long as possible (Guardian Letters, May 29th) is not so straight forward. The issue was researched for an article in the Observer (The end of the road? June 10th, 2007). Of the carbon emissions produced during the car’s lifecycle, 10% are linked to the vehicle’s manufacturing process while 90% are down to the provision and use of fuel by the car.
So when to replace an older car depends on your car and mileage. If you have an old small car that does 40mpg or better and you cover less than 4,000 miles a year, and you live in the country, then keep it. But if you are a high-mileage driver and live in a city centre, then trade up to a newer model with good fuel economy. If the car’s fuel efficiency is worse than this then the decision to change is even more compelling. The author of the article, Martin Love, chose to replace his ten year old car.
So when to replace an older car depends on your car and mileage. If you have an old small car that does 40mpg or better and you cover less than 4,000 miles a year, and you live in the country, then keep it. But if you are a high-mileage driver and live in a city centre, then trade up to a newer model with good fuel economy. If the car’s fuel efficiency is worse than this then the decision to change is even more compelling. The author of the article, Martin Love, chose to replace his ten year old car.
Personal Carbon Trading
Seminar- Cambridge University 4CMR 16th May 2008-05-17
Chaired by Prof. Terry Barker of 4CMR with introduction by Dr Philip Sargeant of Camb. Energy Forum
Main conclusion: Personal carbon allowances give responsibility to the individual and bring home to them the importance of their role in carbon reduction and an ability to track the effect and cost of their actions. However, is the cost of setting up such programmes (estimated at 10x that of top down Cap and Trade) justified by this extra utility?
Dr Richard Starkey; Univ. Manchester, Tyndall Institute
Gave overview of Domestic Tradable Quota programme where individuals given quota to meet average Home Energy and Travel needs. These are given us using a card system whenever such services are purchased. If you exceed quota then can purchase extra or can sell unused quotas at going rate.
Other goods – food, household goods, leisure – area not covered but carbon cost of these would be accounted for by a top down system of permits purchased by the energy companies and therefore reflected in their price. Otherwise would be too costly to calculate carbon value of all these other goods and include them in the DTQ scheme. MR comment: This may mean that the high energy user/traveller is paying more per kg Carbon than high use food/goods/leisure user since the former is paying twice – in extra DTQ’s plus higher energy costs.
Such a system would only be worthwhile if it provided some extra value over the simpler top down permit approach. It would cost 20x (£1-2 billion per year) more to set up and run. The question is would it offset these costs by giving people personal responsibility, awareness and control of their carbon usage. I am not convinced especially as it requires considerable public education and expertise to optimise their use of the system.
Dr Adrian Wrigley – Entrepreneur/researcher
He challenged the current tax system looking at the cost of collection and the opportunity cost arguing that above about a 45% tax rate it cost more to run than was brought in. He developed a triangle graphic showing three types of taxes: income at the top, land at bottom right and resources bottom left. The current mix is close to the top. He argued that we should progressively move down the triangle to achieve a position near the base (i.e. no income tax) but slightly towards the land tax. While politically contentious to achieve such a radical change it was economically appealing. It also addresses the issue of climate change since the resource component will influence individuals and companies decisions on resource and therefore carbon use.
Dr Douglas Crawford Brown – Univ’s North Carolina/Cambridge
He argued that we should be focused on total energy use and reduction rather than increased energy efficiency since the latter can lead to increased use because of the feel good factor and lower cost of use. He gave the example of his 3,500 sq ft US home which is far more energy efficient than homes of twenty years ago but because of its size consumes far more energy. His 1,600 sq ft UK home uses far less and adequately meets his needs but UK people should not feel so smug, the reason we have smaller homes is cost. This reinforces the fact that price is a key disincentive for energy use.
Note also that we sneer at people with large SUV’s but not at the large house behind which may well consume far more energy.
He also noted that in Charlotte N.C. he used the bus because it is free. In Cambridge, he does not because it is it costs so much. So he cycles. We should use the Cambridge congestion charges to make bus use free or certainly very low cost.
In the US moves to tele-working caused increase in car use as the kids then used the car to get to school rather than being dropped off, so beware of the consequences of change as people may not do what you think.
Chaired by Prof. Terry Barker of 4CMR with introduction by Dr Philip Sargeant of Camb. Energy Forum
Main conclusion: Personal carbon allowances give responsibility to the individual and bring home to them the importance of their role in carbon reduction and an ability to track the effect and cost of their actions. However, is the cost of setting up such programmes (estimated at 10x that of top down Cap and Trade) justified by this extra utility?
Dr Richard Starkey; Univ. Manchester, Tyndall Institute
Gave overview of Domestic Tradable Quota programme where individuals given quota to meet average Home Energy and Travel needs. These are given us using a card system whenever such services are purchased. If you exceed quota then can purchase extra or can sell unused quotas at going rate.
Other goods – food, household goods, leisure – area not covered but carbon cost of these would be accounted for by a top down system of permits purchased by the energy companies and therefore reflected in their price. Otherwise would be too costly to calculate carbon value of all these other goods and include them in the DTQ scheme. MR comment: This may mean that the high energy user/traveller is paying more per kg Carbon than high use food/goods/leisure user since the former is paying twice – in extra DTQ’s plus higher energy costs.
Such a system would only be worthwhile if it provided some extra value over the simpler top down permit approach. It would cost 20x (£1-2 billion per year) more to set up and run. The question is would it offset these costs by giving people personal responsibility, awareness and control of their carbon usage. I am not convinced especially as it requires considerable public education and expertise to optimise their use of the system.
Dr Adrian Wrigley – Entrepreneur/researcher
He challenged the current tax system looking at the cost of collection and the opportunity cost arguing that above about a 45% tax rate it cost more to run than was brought in. He developed a triangle graphic showing three types of taxes: income at the top, land at bottom right and resources bottom left. The current mix is close to the top. He argued that we should progressively move down the triangle to achieve a position near the base (i.e. no income tax) but slightly towards the land tax. While politically contentious to achieve such a radical change it was economically appealing. It also addresses the issue of climate change since the resource component will influence individuals and companies decisions on resource and therefore carbon use.
Dr Douglas Crawford Brown – Univ’s North Carolina/Cambridge
He argued that we should be focused on total energy use and reduction rather than increased energy efficiency since the latter can lead to increased use because of the feel good factor and lower cost of use. He gave the example of his 3,500 sq ft US home which is far more energy efficient than homes of twenty years ago but because of its size consumes far more energy. His 1,600 sq ft UK home uses far less and adequately meets his needs but UK people should not feel so smug, the reason we have smaller homes is cost. This reinforces the fact that price is a key disincentive for energy use.
Note also that we sneer at people with large SUV’s but not at the large house behind which may well consume far more energy.
He also noted that in Charlotte N.C. he used the bus because it is free. In Cambridge, he does not because it is it costs so much. So he cycles. We should use the Cambridge congestion charges to make bus use free or certainly very low cost.
In the US moves to tele-working caused increase in car use as the kids then used the car to get to school rather than being dropped off, so beware of the consequences of change as people may not do what you think.
Thursday 8 May 2008
How low-energy LEDs could soon be lighting our homes
Scientists have found a way to increase the light-output efficiency of LEDs through pioneering nanoelectronics
Michael Pollitt The Guardian, Thursday May 8 20008
Rahman's first LED devices are intended for use in backlights within LCD TVs, replacing cold cathode tubes and helping make thin TVs even thinner. As for those bright, money-saving LED lightbulbs for the home, there may not be a long wait. "You should be able to buy them in two to three years' time,"
Thursday 1 May 2008
Learning from Sweden
The following is cut from an article from today's Guardian on carbon reduction efforts in Sweden
"More broadly, is there anything Britain could learn from Sweden? "Homes have virtually no insulation in Britain. You could do a lot just by doing more of that," says Johansson. "When a building is renovated in Sweden, it can be properly insulated and renovated, cutting energy consumption by at least half."
"Impose a carbon tax," suggests Lindberg. "You would make it more attractive financially to go for green solutions than for carbon options."
"A carbon tax is the most cost-effective way to make carbon cuts and it does not prevent strong economic growth," adds Carlgren.
Cutting carbon emissions Swedish-style
• Swedes get a 10,000 kronor (£860) rebate when they buy a green car, ie a car that consumes less petrol, or runs on biofuels or natural gas.• Stockholm introduced congestion charging last year. Cars going into or out of the inner city zone pay 10, 15 or 20 kronor, depending on the time of the day (the busier it gets, the more you pay).
• The government hiked the carbon tax by 2.6% in January to 2.34 kronor per litre.
• A climate change bill will be presented in September, which could include measures to promote freight transport by rail at home and a possible increase to the green car rebate. "We will be focusing on the transport sector," says the Swedish environment minister, Andreas Carlgren. In Sweden, most oil and gas is used for transport.
• Sweden gets all its electricity either from hydroelectric power or nuclear plants."
Wednesday 30 April 2008
Is It Getting Warmer?
An article on Radio 4 yesterday addressed the fact raised by Nigel Lawson for his new 'sceptic' book - see below- that how come the world's average temperature has not increased since 1998? The argument was that if we use 20 years of rising temperatures to make a case for warming then surely ten years of no increase puts the hypothesis in severe doubt.
They interviewed the ex-BBC Science Editor (I think) who is also now in the sceptic camp. The scientist brought into the give the 'global warming' view said that this was just an analogy that was too be expected in such a complicated system and that there is much other evidence e.g. melting glacier to support the case.
In the end they made a bet, for £100, that there would be a year of significantly higher temperatures before 2011. We shall see.
They interviewed the ex-BBC Science Editor (I think) who is also now in the sceptic camp. The scientist brought into the give the 'global warming' view said that this was just an analogy that was too be expected in such a complicated system and that there is much other evidence e.g. melting glacier to support the case.
In the end they made a bet, for £100, that there would be a year of significantly higher temperatures before 2011. We shall see.
Cap and Trade - It's the Way
I went to two talks over the past week on carbon trading.
The first was in London hosted by E-Factor with the Key Note speaker was Peter Fusaro of Global-Change a New York based energy consultancy and hedge fund advisor. He was championing the cause of freeing up the markets to address climate change with governments first establishing a regulatory framework for carbon trading with challenging limits on carbon emissions, which can be ratcheted down over time, and a stringent monitoring and enforcement function.
This would provide a secure environment in which companies would be keen to invest in the application of current and development of new technologies to achieve rapid carbon reduction. I tend to agree with him. Appeals to individual conscience to reduce carbon emissions will only work with a small proportion of the populace, not because they are not moral, but they are busy just trying to manage their own lives and their families. Energy saving will comes further down their priority list and will reach he top only when it is too late for the climate and then they may well not know what to do.
By using the price mechanism through cap and trade you get industry involved, which will bring huge investment and then the consequent price signal will mean that people have to take notice.
The EU Emissions Trading System may have stumbled in its first faced but these are just set up issues and can be addressed in the next round which started this year. Mr F says that the US will set up their own scheme within 18 months to 2 years once the new administration is settled in. Bringing the US on board in the war on climate change is essential if anything meaningful is to be achieved. The Regulation and market combination is the most powerful mechanism we have to change things. We may wish we can appeal to people's better nature but we do not have the time and when it comes to the crunch it likely does not work.
The other presentation was in Cambridge by Ben Castle from the RSA. It was about Personal Tradable Carbon Allowances. While the project and discussion was quite illuminating in the issues involved and this may eventually be a useful way of ensuring worldwide equity on carbon emissions (e.g. one tonne each, it would be too complicated to establish and for individuals to manage their allowance. Far better to start with company cap and trade and perhaps move to individuals if this ever proves necessary.
My conclusion is that I will firmly put my foot in the cap and trade camp while working for local initiatives and national policy change to reduce carbon emissions and improve quality of life.
The first was in London hosted by E-Factor with the Key Note speaker was Peter Fusaro of Global-Change a New York based energy consultancy and hedge fund advisor. He was championing the cause of freeing up the markets to address climate change with governments first establishing a regulatory framework for carbon trading with challenging limits on carbon emissions, which can be ratcheted down over time, and a stringent monitoring and enforcement function.
This would provide a secure environment in which companies would be keen to invest in the application of current and development of new technologies to achieve rapid carbon reduction. I tend to agree with him. Appeals to individual conscience to reduce carbon emissions will only work with a small proportion of the populace, not because they are not moral, but they are busy just trying to manage their own lives and their families. Energy saving will comes further down their priority list and will reach he top only when it is too late for the climate and then they may well not know what to do.
By using the price mechanism through cap and trade you get industry involved, which will bring huge investment and then the consequent price signal will mean that people have to take notice.
The EU Emissions Trading System may have stumbled in its first faced but these are just set up issues and can be addressed in the next round which started this year. Mr F says that the US will set up their own scheme within 18 months to 2 years once the new administration is settled in. Bringing the US on board in the war on climate change is essential if anything meaningful is to be achieved. The Regulation and market combination is the most powerful mechanism we have to change things. We may wish we can appeal to people's better nature but we do not have the time and when it comes to the crunch it likely does not work.
The other presentation was in Cambridge by Ben Castle from the RSA. It was about Personal Tradable Carbon Allowances. While the project and discussion was quite illuminating in the issues involved and this may eventually be a useful way of ensuring worldwide equity on carbon emissions (e.g. one tonne each, it would be too complicated to establish and for individuals to manage their allowance. Far better to start with company cap and trade and perhaps move to individuals if this ever proves necessary.
My conclusion is that I will firmly put my foot in the cap and trade camp while working for local initiatives and national policy change to reduce carbon emissions and improve quality of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
