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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
