It’s here, it’s happening

Oxford and UNDP have teamed up to create detailed Climate Change Country Profiles which show the current observed climate along with the projected effects of climate change on each country.

The best thing is that these profiles include a ton of climate data, easily packaged for the layman such as myself to understand. This includes 40 year precipitation and temperature data. Enjoy!

http://country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk/

 

Competing Philosophies on Climate Change

I went to this energy debate at MIT last night. I don’t think there were huge revelations from either campaign; to be honest their specific policies were almost indistinguishable.  In fact, the only substantive difference was a deep philosophical one, central control vs. decentralization. The Obama guy went on and on about Obama’s extremely detailed plan (he also said the magic word ‘decoupling,’ which had him win by a hair in my book) and James Woolsey kept making the point about setting a generic goal and letting the states, localities and companies go at it. 

I’m still waffling, but I think I’m more on the side of decentralization. James Woolsey kept making the point that when the government tries to pick technologies, it usually picks wrong, which I agree with. Corn ethanol anyone? (Both campaigns were in favor of corn ethanol, which is a travesty I won’t discuss at the moment)

Setting a national carbon quota and then apportioning cap and trade credits and the quotas for each state and each industry is already a huge, daunting job. I don’t think the federal government should be doing anything past that except enforcing the rules and providing research/info and tax credits for all the different solutions that pass a certain threshold of efficiency (corn ethanol would not pass).  I hope Obama and his advisers will realize that if they get in office. Also, their ability to pay for much more than that might be constrained by the current situation.

 

Updates

Graduate school has turned out to be a little more busy that previous planned. (Doesn’t it always turn out that way?)

The future of this blog will be more of a study device for me. I will post updates on the research for the two research papers I will be completing this semester, as well as links to interesting articles. Hopefully, this will help me stay focused and also provide mildly engaging reading material for anyone who is interested in how climate change regulations and international conventions will interact or clash with the existing regulations and conventions on free trade.

 

Energy Revolution

IEA calls for energy revolution

You don’t usually hear a lot about the IEA. Sure, their statistics grace most articles and energy studies, but they don’t usually pull out a bullhorn like this.

Also:

Lieberman-Warner stalls

But I wanted a climate bill this year!!

 

More hiatus

This hiatus has lasted a lot longer than initially expected. My original hiatus was to concentrate on finishing up my graduate school applications. I’m happy to say that I have been accepted to the Fletcher School at Tufts University and will be studying International Environmental and Resource Policy with either Development or International Business as a second focus. I expect that when school starts, I will have plenty to blog about and I hope this blog will serve as a productive way to procrastinate (because procrastination is inevitable).

Until then, I think posting will be light. Here are a few links to what is going on around me in my little corner of the world:

The elusive negawatt — The Economist
This article mashes up a few things I’ve been hearing; I was lucky enough to be able to attend a presentation from the head of the McKinsey Global Institute where she presented the report cited in the second paragraph. This report is a cool thing; it identifies the huge investment opportunity that energy efficiency presents, correctly pointing out that energy efficiency up to a point (that almost no one is anywhere near reaching) is profitable. The article also mentions the goals process here in California, with a quote from one of our CPUC Commissioners.

BAAQMD to Fine Polluters- San Francisco Chronicle
So we kind of have a local carbon tax. Cool? I do agree with the head of the Petroleum Association, there are too many agencies to know who is doing what and who is responsible for what. We do have CARB (California Air Resources Board), who has not actually done anything yet, but if they ever get their act together, I assume they will trump the local Air Quality Management Board. And I know everyone thinks Lieberman-Warner is dead in the water, but just in case…some federal system could crop up at any point. So yay Bay Area, but I don’t see this as a great move.

 

Fueling a food crisis

I don’t want to hate on the new U.S. energy bill, which is a big step in the right direction, nor am I one of the ethanol haters, because I believe it has its place in the fuel hierarchy. However, this struck me very clearly as I was reading the news this week:

The energy bill, which also calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards, was approved by the House 314-100 after clearing the Senate last week, 86-8.

– “Congress approves auto fuel economy increase, more ethanol use,” IHT, 12/18/07

and

Ethanol is the dominant reason for this year’s increase in grain prices. It accounts for the rise in the price of maize because the federal government has in practice waded into the market to mop up about one-third of America’s corn harvest. A big expansion of the ethanol programme in 2005 explains why maize prices started rising in the first place.

– “Cheap no more,” The Economist, 12/6/07

But don’t forget:

Food prices have risen an unprecedented 40% in the last year and many nations may be unable to cope, the agency says.…International cereal prices have already sparked food riots in several countries, the FAO points out.

– “UN warns on soaring food prices,” BBC.co.uk, 12/17/07

I don’t think this is adding up correctly.

 

Hiatus

This blog has been on a de facto hiatus for a while now, but I ought to make it official. I have a number of personal and professional projects I’m working on that have kept me from writing properly.  Posting will be extremely sparse until January 15th.

In other news, there’s a draft resolution at the California Public Utilities Commission that may bring limited feed-in tariffs to California. It’s only for eligible renewable generation from other public facilities (public water and wastewater facilities) but it might be a crack in the net metering wall.

Beijing may actually start paying attention to the myriad environmental issues surrounding the Three Gorges Dam.

Emerson Climate Technologies is stepping in to help the Indian Bureau of Energy Efficiency.

The 4th IPCC report is not a happy one.

Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts. There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5oC (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5oC, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe.

 

Links — 10/4/07

October already? I am working on another entry on feed-in tariffs and net energy metering, complete with awkward flow charts made in MS Paint.

New math for utilities: Sell less, make more.
De-coupling is all kinds of awesome.

Economic growth in the face of resource scarcity and climate change
Bill Clinton talks up decoupling at his Clinton Global Initiative.

Combating climate change: China goes on the offensive
Nice of them to admit they are a major emitter. If followed through, this is a middlingly ambitious plan (15% renewables by 2050) although stringent considering where they are starting from. If China actually has as eco-friendly an Olympics as they say, perhaps the goals aren’t too far off.

 

The problem with (some) CFLs

 

I think CFLs (compact fluorescent lights) are amazing things; they save a ton of money as well as energy and are just as good looking as incandescents (although I may be biased, I can’t remember the last time I was around an incandescent for any long period of time). The benefits of CFLs are so obvious that some cities, states and countries are considering banning incandescents altogether.

However, spiral CFLs (the squiggly ones that last the longest) are handmade in China:

Making compact fluorescents is expensive and complicated, compared with incandescents, in part because of the electronic controls each bulb contains, and in part because swirls remain partly handcrafted. To make each spiral, a Chinese worker wearing gloves takes a tube of glass, holds it over an open flame, then wraps the heat-softened tube around a metal form. The job requires a deft touch so the tube doesn’t become flattened while getting its spiral shape.

I heard third-hand that the former head of Osram Sylvania said while they’d love to sell more bulbs, the incandescent bans don’t make a ton of sense as supply is still quite limited and can’t be ramped up with the speed necessary to comply with a ban. So while a ban on the competition seems like a great idea at first, it might cripple the industry. With luck, gradual (but quick) increased use will allow companies to expand operations and push down the cost curve.

 

The UN Foundation gets in the game

http://www.unfoundation.org/energyefficiency/

Seems like everyone is getting into the game of releasing ‘expert’ reports on climate change and energy, but the UN Foundation is actually looking to advise the G8 on energy efficiency, which is good. Energy efficiency is not the sexy answer to global warming, so it has been given, in my opinion, a somewhat short shrift in the media. While it features some smart writers and Ted Turner as a hypeman, the report does not break any new ground. It points out the economic benefits of energy efficiency and suggests more efficient power plants, changes in industrial and transportation standards and promotion of more efficient consumer goods. The report also addresses the concerns of developing nations and points out that a more energy efficient nation will probably suffer less blackouts and electricity shortages. The best thing about this report is that it is laid out very simply, without any jargon or too many charts.

I am slightly disappointed that the concept of ‘decoupling’ does not come in until the 61st page and is only mentioned once and in a 2 line paragraph. Decoupling revenue from amount of power sold enlists the utilites as allies, rather than stumbling blocks toward a more energy efficient economy.