Climate Policy

[kandrathe]

Since the Socialized Health Care thread descended into Cap & Trade and climate discussion, I thought it might be good for the topic to have it's own thread. I was reading in the BBC today that a group of academics have written a letter to the G8 nations calling for a new direction in Climate Change policy, since the current policies (Kyoto, EU Cap & trade) are not reducing carbon emissions. From the Institute on Science, Innovation, and Society from Oxford University, How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course. Which is the sequel to their prior paper called, The Wrong Trousers; Radically rethinking climate policy. <blockquote>"The Kaya Direct Approach improves efficiency and reduces costs. These are happy outcomes which reliably translate into greater profitability. These will therefore always be policies that will not be regretted, even if the relationship between CO2 and global warming turns out to be different from that which current politics assume."</blockquote>This is the type of societal thinking that examines the consequences of policy changes rather than setting emissions targets, which result in squishing the big global economic bag in one direction without heeding the net consequences.

[Jester]

So long as we're trading links, I'll throw this one onto the pile. It is decidedly not a cost-benefit analysis, but rather a physical look at what is possible and realistic, and what is not.

David McKay's "Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air"

-Jester

[Zenda]

Your second link starts with the phrase "We face a problem of anthropogenic climate change" and it deals with concerns regarding high CO2 emissions. This means you now think that human contribution to the global levels of CO2 is *not* minute in comparison to the entire global carbon cycle?

I can agree with some things in that piece. Instead of a 'silver bullet' approach, they suggest a 'silver buckshot'. In other words, try to deal with all problems at once, at all possible levels. Their explanation for the stated failure of Kyoto is a bit shaky, though. They basically say that measures that worked for the Ozone layer, or to restrict sulphur emissions, couldn't work for CO2 because climate change is a "wicked" problem. I think they are confusing complex economic cost-analysis calculations with the actual problem, there. They also refer to Zen architecture twice, for some reason. I read the book about motorcycle maintenance once, but fail to see the connection.

The sequel suddenly states that all effort should go into improving the efficiency of energy production and reducing economic costs. No more buckshots there, and back is the bullet, this time nicely polished. I wonder how that efficiency improvement will help, if it means that we will start wasting energy even more (Jevons Paradox). A mentality change is needed far more as any technological advancement, imo.

They also seem to think that governments should more freely use taxpayers money to cover the expenses, instead of burdening industries with it. I would have thought that to be socialist thinking, and not societal.

"Accordingly, a switch to public intervention in this area, where governments are well capable of directing public finance to stimulate research, development and deployment of innovations that work to reduce the costs of alternatives to fossil fuels, is prescribed."

[Concillian]

So long as we're trading links, I'll throw this one onto the pile. It is decidedly not a cost-benefit analysis, but rather a physical look at what is possible and realistic, and what is not.

David McKay's "Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air"

-Jester

Very interesting book. I haven't finished it, but I appreciate the approach of looking at things with a universal unit (in this case kW/h).

It also had some very interesting statistics which I had wondered a bit about. Like the 1800 kW/h to produce a computer... something I had wondered a bit about seeing things like our bank of (8) 30 kW power supplies x2 per production line and around 40 10kW supplies for powering the physical vapor deposition processes (per line)... for just one step of making a hard disc.

I went and looked at my last energy bill, and noticed my household's average daily usage for that period was 0.7 therms per day (natural gas) and 16.6 kW/h per day (electricity). The universal unit thought had me find a converter ( http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_conve...gy-ex.html ) and I found that 0.7 therms per day was roughly equivalent to 20.5 kW/h per day.

Most interesting is that my natural gas bill portion is larger in terms of net energy usage, but ~$20 vs. $60 for electricity. I guess part of that is because most of the electricity losses happen at the plant, and the natural gas losses happen on-site, but still interesting.

As I was reading, my wife asked what I was doing. After some explanation, I summarized with "it's pretty interesting stuff." This resulted in a very strange look and and a muttering of "Yeah... to you!" It's a long tough road ahead to illicit real change. I've made changes to household consumption that are showing consistent cuts of about 20-25% over last year on my bill, but as the author points out, that's only scratching the surface when considering all sources of energy usage. Additionally, doing more gets more and more difficult.

[--Pete]

Hi,

So long as we're trading links, I'll throw this one onto the pile.

Thanks for keeping me up past my bedtime:)

Read his first chapter, pretty good stuff. Scanned his nuclear chapter, specifically looking for something on recycling nuclear waste. He's got a little in there, but still doesn't tell the full story. I'll see if I can find a good article on that -- tomorrow.

--Pete

[eppie]

Since the Socialized Health Care thread descended into Cap & Trade and climate discussion, I thought it might be good for the topic to have it's own thread. I was reading in the BBC today that a group of academics have written a letter to the G8 nations calling for a new direction in Climate Change policy, since the current policies (Kyoto, EU Cap & trade) are not reducing carbon emissions. From the Institute on Science, Innovation, and Society from Oxford University, How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course. Which is the sequel to their prior paper called, The Wrong Trousers; Radically rethinking climate policy. <blockquote>"The Kaya Direct Approach improves efficiency and reduces costs. These are happy outcomes which reliably translate into greater profitability. These will therefore always be policies that will not be regretted, even if the relationship between CO2 and global warming turns out to be different from that which current politics assume."</blockquote>This is the type of societal thinking that examines the consequences of policy changes rather than setting emissions targets, which result in squishing the big global economic bag in one direction without heeding the net consequences.

Wow guys, that is a lot of reading material.

I think there are many ways of reducing energy consumption and using more sustainable energy for costs that are anyway much lower than other many other strange schemes that governments spend their money on.

But apart from all the technical and theoretical discussions, the most important is to get people to agree with these policies in order to support the politicians who want to change things. And not only because of global warming (true or not) but also because of an ending oil supply and problems feeding all the people on the globe.

Here I am actually very negative; I don't see how we can convince all Indians and Chinese to stop using so much energy, especially because we are still using many times per capita than what they are. In other words, if all chinese and indians agree upon using less energy....even when they would use 10 % per capita of what we would use, we would still be in big trouble (and the thought of them agreeing to using less energy while we just continue to use so much is just ridiculous).

[kandrathe]

Your second link starts with the phrase "We face a problem of anthropogenic climate change" and it deals with concerns regarding high CO2 emissions. This means you now think that human contribution to the global levels of CO2 is *not* minute in comparison to the entire global carbon cycle?

I believe that the human contribution to global warming is 0.28%, and if water vapor is taken into account then it is about 5.53%. But, as Pete pointed out, in a chaotic non-linear system, small changes in parameters might result in large changes in the system. My position is that humans need to take a "small footprint" approach to all human activity, and that includes how we build our houses, build our transportation systems, tend our farms, and manage our ecosystems. Whatever we do will have consequences in the future, and we tend not to consider those consequences. For example; over 100 years ago lumber barons mostly deforested my state resulting in permanent habitat alteration and destruction which eliminated many species from existence in my current ecosystem. I grieve that loss. I would like to see Elk, the aquatic mammals, raptors and other native species return to this ecosystem. So, I am one of those people who wish our great grandfathers would have had more foresight.

"Accordingly, a switch to public intervention in this area, where governments are well capable of directing public finance to stimulate research, development and deployment of innovations that work to reduce the costs of alternatives to fossil fuels, is prescribed."

When it comes to directing massive infrastructure change, the government is a good mechanism. If they had devoted 90% of the last stimulus bill towards building clean power plants, and power lines I would have been in full support (as long as they didn't abuse eminent domain to seize the land). Both papers advocate devoting much more funding toward research to resolve our problems. I think they recognize that we don't have all the answers, and that driving people off energy will only result in smaller GDP, and thus a poorer standard of living. I believe it is possible to have our cake, and eat it too. That is, we can work on replacing our infrastructure with cleaner, and more ecologically sensitive units while maintaining the status quo in the short term, and work on population reduction, and improved efficiencies for the longer term.

[Zenda]

I believe that the human contribution to global warming is 0.28%, and if water vapor is taken into account then it is about 5.53%.

That's quite a feat, being able to determine human contribution at such accuracy. Not so sure about the 5.53% for water vapor though.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/pag...ent/appd_d.html

"It is important to remember, however, that it is currently believed that the impact of water vapor produced from surface sources such as fuel combustion on the atmospheric water vapor concentrations is minimal."

For example; over 100 years ago lumber barons mostly deforested my state resulting in permanent habitat alteration and destruction which eliminated many species from existence in my current ecosystem.

I bet they thought they were doing what seemed best for themselves, at that time. Maybe they even thought of themselves as benefactors of society, providing for jobs and materials to build.

So, I am one of those people who wish our great grandfathers would have had more foresight.

It's a good thing then, that you are not seeing the USA they conceived 233 years ago. But it's not their fault, really. How could they know that the summers in Minnesota would become too hot to survive without airconditioning?

That is, we can work on replacing our infrastructure with cleaner, and more ecologically sensitive units while maintaining the status quo in the short term, and work on population reduction, and improved efficiencies for the longer term.

Let me guess. Nuclear power plants?

[Ashock]

Let me guess. Nuclear power plants?

We don't hear complaints about how France gets the bulk of their energy. Meanwhile, that is exactly how.

[kandrathe]

That's quite a feat, being able to determine human contribution at such accuracy. Not so sure about the 5.53% for water vapor though.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/pag...ent/appd_d.html

"It is important to remember, however, that it is currently believed that the impact of water vapor produced from surface sources such as fuel combustion on the atmospheric water vapor concentrations is minimal."

Interesting, but I think you might have taken that quote out of context. <blockquote>"However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor." from NOAA</blockquote>

I bet they thought they were doing what seemed best for themselves, at that time. Maybe they even thought of themselves as benefactors of society, providing for jobs and materials to build.

Sure. People needed houses, and businesses needed buildings.

It's a good thing then, that you are not seeing the USA they conceived 233 years ago. But it's not their fault, really. How could they know that the summers in Minnesota would become too hot to survive without air conditioning?

I'm not sure where you got that misinformation. The weather in Minnesota changes frequently, in winter and summer. So, it might be 55F one day, and warm up to 90F the next day. Most summer days require zero air conditioning, and in fact we've had the coldest summer this year in a long while.

Let me guess. Nuclear power plants?

I don't care what it is as long as it increases the GDP over time. I would think that nuclear would generate a higher KwH/investment dollar over time, but I'm not biased one way or another. Wind and solar are not ideal solutions in some areas (like New York).

[Zenda]

We don't hear complaints about how France gets the bulk of their energy.

Why would anyone complain to you about the French?

The 'better' reactor type used in France does not meet Kandrathe's "higher KwH/investment dollar" criterium, btw, so I wouldn't count on getting any of those. Also, there might be objections if countries like Iran would want some of that 'clean' energy.

Oh wait, there already are objections.

[Zenda]

<blockquote>"Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor."</blockquote>

Is that where the 5.53% comes from? Remarkable accuracy, considering how little is known.

I don't care what it is as long as it increases the GDP over time.

Wasn't the idea behind this all to fight climate change, instead of trying to make more profit as before?

[Zenda]

For those interested in the 'history' of Global Warming: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm

[kandrathe]

Is that where the 5.53% comes from? Remarkable accuracy, considering how little is known.

Some of the numbers are published by the DOE, here. Carbon Dioxide (with GWP=1) has a preindustrial concentration of 280 ppm, with a current concentration of 384 ppm, showing a net difference of 104 ppm. Of this 104 ppm, 15.3 ppm are from anthropogenic sources, and 88.7 ppm are from natural sources (e.g warming results in increased biologic activity which adds CO2 into the system.) So, even looking at it crudely, 15.3 / 384 = 3.98%, but the other gases while emitting in smaller amount have a higher GWP value. So, if you can accept (without counting water vapor) that CO2 accounts for about 55.33% of the warming potential, with CH4, N2O, O3, and all other trace gases contributing the other 44.67%. You can add the the column labeled "Increased radiative forcing" for yourself to see the relative ratios. According to research by S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, water vapor contributes roughly 95% of all global warming thus reducing the CO2 contribution to about .2%. Just by rough calculation from the published research at DOE, and NOAA. Here is another scientific viewpoint by Tim Patterson (oh, yes, another AGW scientist but as yet untarnished by oil money).

Wasn't the idea behind this all to fight climate change, instead of trying to make more profit as before?

Wow, do you really think we can stop climate change? No, my objective is to save lives and to do so while living more ecologically. While I agree that the world is over populated, I am not so heartless as to want to see the excess ones starve and freeze until we reach the new bearing population. You might have heard of the "Spaceship Earth" idea. I like earth sheltered homes, but I also think it is impractical to bull doze all the square boxy ones. We need to have a long term plan. Something better than decreasing our productivity, or increasing prices and taxes to see what breaks. The outcome of letting the system break is easy to predict, (which I have,) famine in SE Asia and Africa and a lack of heating oil for poor nations in cold climates. The two biggest factors to watch in the "index of pain" will be the price and availability of food and fuel.

[Jester]

Of this 104 ppm, 15.3 ppm are from anthropogenic sources, and 88.7 ppm are from natural sources (e.g warming results in increased biologic activity which adds CO2 into the system.)

Where are those numbers coming from? I can't find them on the page.

Wouldn't biological activity (presuming plant growth?) be a net reduction in CO2, not a net increase?

-Jester

[eppie]

Some of the numbers are published by the DOE, here. Carbon Dioxide (with GWP=1) has a preindustrial concentration of 280 ppm, with a current concentration of 384 ppm, showing a net difference of 104 ppm. Of this 104 ppm, 15.3 ppm are from anthropogenic sources, and 88.7 ppm are from natural sources (e.g warming results in increased biologic activity which adds CO2 into the system.)

I am not sure that is true. A plant would over his whole lifetime have a 0 contribution to the CO2 concentration, that is if its whole carbon based 'skeleton' would decompose, if it doesn't it has a negative impact on CO2 concentrations. And especially because we are definitely having less plant biomass now than we had a few 1000 years ago this seems a bit strange to me.

So, even looking at it crudely, 15.3 / 384 = 3.98%, but the other gases while emitting in smaller amount have a higher GWP value. So, if you can accept (without counting water vapor) that CO2 accounts for about 55.33% of the warming potential, with CH4, N2O, O3, and all other trace gases contributing the other 44.67%. You can add the the column labeled "Increased radiative forcing" for yourself to see the relative ratios. According to research by S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, water vapor contributes roughly 95% of all global warming thus reducing the CO2 contribution to about .2%. Just by rough calculation from the published research at DOE, and NOAA. Here is another scientific viewpoint by Tim Patterson (oh, yes, another AGW scientist but as yet untarnished by oil money).

Watr vapour is passive in this equation. Water vapour concentrations in air depend on temperature, after that it is positive or negative feedback. This is because it is in a physical equilibrium, while CO2 is in a chemical equilibrium (or maybe there are huge stockpiles of dry ice on antarctica).


In all the percentages and values you mention be sure that you all use the same base temperature, so 0 K, or better an average global temperature of say, 1850. So when you would take 0 K as base than the 0.28 % contribution of CO2 might be right, but has no practical sense or use.

[Concillian]

Wouldn't biological activity (presuming plant growth?) be a net reduction in CO2, not a net increase?

Plants consume CO2. Reduction in plants (deforestation) should be a net increase in CO2... and something that would be attributable to mankind.

I refuse to believe that historic CO2 PPM levels were static for thousands of years until the common steam engine was invented, then coincidentally saw exponential growth in the PPM starting right at that moment for natural reasons... almost parallel all the way with exponential growth curve of human population growth and fossil fuel usage... too coincidental to pin the majority of the CO2 increase on anything else, nature doesn't have conspiracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-te...e-plot.svg

Just ignore the temperature data. The current level of CO2 is a clear statistical anomoly when compared with any time in the last roughly million years (give or take). Now kandrathe is saying (if I read correctly) that the majority of the CO2 increase is natural due to the recent temperature increases. The Vostok ice core data does not support this conclusion at all. Temperatures are lower than historic maximums and CO2 levels are a huge statistical outlier higher than in the past 500,000 to 1 million years. You can't look at the data that exists and come to the logical conclusion that the recent CO2 increases since the birth of the industrial revolution are natural.

[kandrathe]

Where are those numbers coming from? I can't find them on the page.

Sorry. We can go by the preferred scenario by the IPCC (scenario C), which shows (in billions of metric tons (Gton)) humans 7.0, ( 50%), nature 7.0 (50%), for a total CO2 load of 14.0, with 10.5 (75%) absorbed leaving a net 3.5.

Wouldn't biological activity (presuming plant growth?) be a net reduction in CO2, not a net increase?

You'd think that, but plants exhale CO2 in the dark, release CO2 when they burn, and when they decompose. My understanding is that with warming comes less absorption by sea water, and more decomposition. Even then, there appears to be between 1.8 GT and 2 GT of carbon missing from the atmosphere. My take on this is that the carbon cycle is really very huge, and that their are billions and billions of tons of carbon involved in the cycle. I don't think we humans really have a very good understanding of it yet, and especially how carbon gets sequestered out of the atmosphere.

On a different note: I just read an interesting article on how fish poop releases available calcium into sea water which helps sequester CO2.

[kandrathe]

Plants consume CO2. Reduction in plants (deforestation) should be a net increase in CO2... and something that would be attributable to mankind.

There may be some other factors here to consider; 1) biomass density per acre might actually have increased in some areas, 2) carbon sequestration in soil through conservation tillage, 3) changes in photosynthesis due to increased CO2 levels, 4) changes in algae biomass due to increased "fertilizers".

I refuse to believe that historic CO2 PPM levels were static for thousands of years until the common steam engine was invented, then coincidentally saw exponential growth in the PPM starting right at that moment for natural reasons... almost parallel all the way with exponential growth curve of human population growth and fossil fuel usage... too coincidental to pin the majority of the CO2 increase on anything else, nature doesn't have conspiracies.

I would also note that nature is not all that predictable either.

It certainly seems that something is changing. People probably have had some level of impact, and maybe jostled the equilibrium. Or, maybe there is some other long wave explanation for an increase in temperature, which is also resulting in a proportional related decrease in CO2 fixation. That scenario also seems to have merit. It is easy to show statistical causal relationships, but this does not mean it is actually true. For example, chart the expansion of deserts over the past 300 years to populations. Are we the cause?

[Jester]

Sorry. We can go by the preferred scenario by the IPCC (scenario C), which shows (in billions of metric tons (Gton)) humans 7.0, ( 50%), nature 7.0 (50%), for a total CO2 load of 14.0, with 10.5 (75%) absorbed leaving a net 3.5.

Sorry, what are we measuring now?

I thought I was asking about the attribution of the 100-odd parts per million of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and how much was attributable to anthropogenic sources. You said about 15. I don't know where that number came from, and it certainly doesn't square with my (admittedly feeble) understanding of the issue.

I understand where the 104 PPM comes from. Where does the breakdown into 15.3 PPM and 88.7 PPM come from? And how does the 88.7 break down, if not into anthropogenic sources?

-Jester