Category Archives: analysis

Time to tax the carbon dodgers

Some cheap diovan also trace the onset of their symptoms to a traumatic clindamycin gel sale incident or a stressful period in their life. If a viagra online sale person has any symptoms of hearing loss, they should contact certified serevent a doctor as soon as possible to find out the buy methotrexate without prescription cause and start any treatment. This article does not give buy generic bentyl a comprehensive list of potential conditions where a person should buy cheap artane online not take nitric oxide supplements. In such cases, a radiologist aldactone for order may try to view the prostate by placing the probe cafergot without prescription on the perineal skin, but the images it produces may zoloft without prescription not be as detailed as they would be with a purchase ampicillin online transrectal probe. They will likely slowly return to activities and quinine online require bracing and crutches during recovery for up to a buy griseofulvin no rx few weeks after surgery. Jemperli and Keytruda are both prescribed cheapest asacol to treat certain forms of endometrial cancer and other solid tumors..

John Hontelez, secretary general of the European Environmental Bureau, has written a great piece on Border Tax Adjustments (BTAs).  Essentially, goods from rich countries that haven’t ratified the Kyoto Protocol, like the US and Australia, would be taxed upon entry in the EU.  Why?  Complying with the Kyoto Protocol will raise operational costs for companies in the EU, and consequently the prices of the goods they manufacture – BTAs, would inflate the cost of goods from countries without such climate change legislation, and therefore create a more level playing field for the higher-cost European goods to compete in.  Whether or not such BTAs would violate the WTO has yet to be determined (they probably would be prohibited under the WTO – the question is whether a exception would be granted as climate change is such an important global problem):

With rapidly mounting signs that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming, how should we deal with countries which haven’t ratified the Kyoto Protocol and don’t impose a “carbon charge” on their exports?

These countries unfairly favour their own goods and discriminate against nations that do apply such a charge, as the European Union is doing with its Emissions Trading Scheme, and some of its members with carbon taxes.

Can we rebalance the economic burden of shifting to a low-carbon society?

Border Tax Adjustments (BTAs) might be the answer which allows the EU to develop responsible climate policies without having to wait for other countries.

They would result in products imported from the US being taxed to compensate for resulting differences in production costs. Thus EU firms would be protected against unfair, carbon-careless competition from outside.

[BBC]

Heavier, more Powerful Hybrids eroding fuel economy benefits

Unsurprisingly, new research has shown that the trend towards heavier, more powerful hybrid vehicles is eroding some of the fuel consumption advantage of hybrid technology.

Researches at the University of British Columbia compared hybrids for sale in the US in 2007 to equivalent conventionaol vehicles and found some interesting results:

From 2000 to 2006, the sales-weighted average hybrid-electric vehicle in the US fleet has changed significantly, driven largely by the introduction of new sports-utility and high-performance HEV models. The average curb weight has increased by 30%. Propelling this larger weight is a hybrid-electric system that delivers 60% more power. The gasoline engine component of this system is 43% larger in terms of engine displacement. Some of the observed net power increase is explained by the need to provide a larger vehicle with acceptable performance.

Over the same period, however, the manufacturer-reported acceleration times also increased: the average HEV in 2004 reaches 96.6 km h–1 (60 miles per hour) from a standing start in 20% less time than the average in 2003. Because vehicle weight and power both strongly influence fuel consumption, it is not surprising that average fuel consumption has gone up by 15% with the shift towards higher-performance HEVs.

[GreenCarCongress]

“If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuels”


George Monbiot, author of HEAT, has penned a new piece in the UK paper The Guardian, advocating a 5 year freeze on biofuel production:

It used to be a matter of good intentions gone awry. Now it is plain fraud. The governments using biofuel to tackle global warming know that it causes more harm than good. But they plough on regardless. In theory, fuels made from plants can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by cars and trucks. Plants absorb carbon as they grow – it is released again when the fuel is burned. By encouraging oil companies to switch from fossil plants to living ones, governments on both sides of the Atlantic claim to be “decarbonising” our transport networks.

First and foremost, Monibot warns, that biofuels will set up a “competition for food between cars and people. The people would necessarily lose.” Royal Dutch Shell agrees with such sentiments. An executive of theirs recently stated at a conference, “We think morally it is inappropriate because what we are doing here is using food and turning it into fuel. If you look at Africa, there are still countries that have a lack of food, people are starving, and because we are more wealthy, we use food and turn it into fuel. This is not what we would like to see.” Monbiot points to the recent events in Mexico as proof that such fears are indeed well founded:

Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns that “if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year”. According to the UN food and agriculture organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol

Monbiot also rails against biodiesel, specifically from palm oil:

But it gets worse. As the forests are burned, both the trees and the peat they sit on are turned into carbon dioxide. A report by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics shows that every tonne of palm oil results in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or 10 times as much as petroleum produces. I feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.

Monbiot fails, however, to address biodiesel from other feedstocks, which are far more sustainable, such as agricultural crops like soy and canola. By only speaking to what is widely known as the most unsustainable form of biodiesel production, one must wonder whether Monbiot is really trying to provide a balanced and objective assessment of biofuels. In fact, a recent study by the USDA and DOE shows that biodiesel production is quite better than fossil fuels, “Biodiesel yields around 3.2 units of fuel product for every unit of fossil energy consumed in the lifecycle. By contrast, petroleum diesel’s life cycle yields only 0.83 units of fuel product per unit of fossil energy consumed.” (DOE/USDA “Biodiesel Lifecycle Inventory Study”)

He goes on to address deforestation in Brazil. But again, he fails to state why policies cannot be enacted to ensure sustainable biofuels production, instead arguing for the most extreme option. Moreover, as carbon trading schemes continue to emerge, forests may be worth credits (as they consume CO2), creating economic incentives to combat deforestation.

Suffice it to say, we’re not convinced a moratorium is needed. Sorry George.
Read the article for yourself:

[Guardian]

Related:
-BiofuelsWatch (UK)

“Emissions soar from UK generators”


A new report shows that between 1999 and 2006, emissions from the power-generating sector have risen 30% in the UK. This is due in part to the fact that power companies have been increasingly using coal as oil prices have risen more dramatically. More on the WWF report at the link below:

“This is a disgrace for Britain, and shows that for the past decade the government has talked a good game on climate change while failing dismally to tackle emissions from this highly polluting sector,” said Keith Allott, head of climate change at WWF UK.

“If the government is serious about climate change, the power sector has to be brought to heel, either through incentives or legislation, so that coal burn is dramatically reduced.”

In the early 1990s, the opening up of North Sea reserves prompted a move to gas, which saw coal-fired power stations close and cleaner gas-fired plants spring up in their place.

Since 2002, coal prices have risen by about one-third and gas prices by two-thirds, with gas showing a lot more volatility.

[BBC]

NYTimes: Earth’s Climate Needs the Help of Incentives

Global warming, or climate change, sure seems to have hit the big stage. From emmys for Gore to a whole list of legislation moving through the beaurocratic process, we hear and read about this issue every day. But what should we actually do? The next issue to tackle is the immediacy and magnitude of the problem. Do we need a complete overhaul of our lifestyles, or should we baby-step our way to a solution with trial and error?

No wonder, then, that the political debate now revolves around what that action should be. In the current Congress, there are six bills to deal with climate change, and more are on the way.

This attention certainly qualifies as progress. But it is also creating the newest big obstacle to a climate solution, an obstacle that’s far less obvious than the efforts to deny scientific reality. The would-be reformers may be saying all the right things; every last one of them may even be pursuing the solution she or he honestly believes to be the best one.

The only reliable way to reduce carbon emissions is to make them more expensive. When you hear somebody talk first about doing this and only then about the wonderful innovations that will follow — and they will follow — you know that person is serious.

[NYTimes]

Why the sloppy love for nuclear?

The question to me has always been why alleged conservatives have so much time for nuclear when it doesn’t align with one of their cherished principles: If “big-government nanny-state market interference” had a poster child, the cooling towers of a nuclear plant would be it…

The mid-1970s were, as it turned out, the last best hope for a major nuclear expansion. With unprecedented spikes in the price of oil, France (as any nuclear advocate will endlessly tell you) embarked on a major expansion of its nuclear industry. How did France do this? With yet more nanny-state intervention, of course! Reactors were designed by the state, financed by the state, built by the state, and operated by the state. Permanent waste sites are similarly built and run by the state.

Often called the biggest single subsidy for the nuclear electric industry, the U.S. government insures every reactor built in the U.S. with taxpayers’ money. (No private insurer will ever, ever risk a nuclear investment.) The companies that make civilian reactors also just happen to be able to rely on contracts from the U.S. Navy, which powers all its large ships with nuclear reactors.

And now we have Yucca Mountain, a long-term (and I mean long-term!) storage site for nuclear waste being built at taxpayers’ expense in a location chosen for political expediency, not safety, efficiency, or even market logic. (Nevada apparently didn’t have the sway in Congress to dump in another state.)

[Grist]

Global boom in coal power – and emissions

Well TXU may have decided to scrap its plans for 8 new coal plants, but that doesn’t mean that others are following suit.

Worldwide, more than two coal-fired plants are brought online a week, according to a new analysis by the Christian Science Monitor. The paper writes that these plants have added 1 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Even more troubling, emissions from these coal-fired power plants now compose about 1/3 of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.

China, unsurprisingly, is a major contributor to this problem:

China accounted for two-thirds of the more than 560 coal-fired power units built in 26 nations between 2002 and 2006. The Chinese plants boosted annual world CO2 emissions by 740 million tons. But in the next five years, China is slated to slow its buildup by half, according to industry estimates, adding 333 million tons of new CO2 emissions every year. That’s still the largest increase of any nation. But other nations appear intent on catching up.

But, the US isn’t much better. In fact, 2.7GW of new coal-fired generation have been deployed in the last five years. The real problem though is future plans – another 37.7GW of coal power in the next five years, according to Platts, the research firm. Those new plants will add 247.8 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually.

Even European nations that are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol are hopping on the coal bandwagon:

China accounted for two-thirds of the more than 560 coal-fired power units built in 26 nations between 2002 and 2006. The Chinese plants boosted annual world CO2 emissions by 740 million tons. But in the next five years, China is slated to slow its buildup by half, according to industry estimates, adding 333 million tons of new CO2 emissions every year. That’s still the largest increase of any nation. But other nations appear intent on catching up.

[CSMonitor]

Group: NYTimes article on Gore contains falsehoods, bias

Media Matters has a long piece on a recent NYTimes article called, “From a Rapt Audience, A Call to Cool the Hype,” and the inaccuracies contained it:

In its article on global warming, The New York Times used a false comparison to suggest that Al Gore was incorrect about the rise in sea levels and baselessly suggested that Gore made a false claim about hurricanes. The Times also misidentified Don Easterbrook, calling him a “rank-and-file” scientist, when, in fact, he has expressed skeptical views about global warming that put him at odds with the scientific consensus on the issue.

The piece goes on to profile each of the so called ‘mainstream’ scientists whom were featured in the NYTimes article, and also examines the scientific assertions that are supposedly ‘in doubt.’

[MediaMatters]

Refining 101: Summer Gasoline

“Just what is summer gasoline? Twice a year, in the fall and in the spring, you hear about the seasonal gasoline transition. However, most people probably don’t understand what this actually means.” 

The Oil Drum explains, with a look at how summer temperatures, Reid vapor pressure (RVP), and ethanol affect fuel prices.  Interestingly, they note the blending of ethanol into the gasoline pool has been controversial because (among other things) it increases the vapor pressure of gasoline blends. This has resulted in the need for a 1 psi waiver in the Clean Air Act for ethanol-containing fuels. This of course means that ethanol will exacerbate smog at certain times of the year, and has resulted in a campaign by Senator Diane Feinstein to limit ethanol blending in California.

[TheOilDrum]

Euro Carmakers Build ‘Microhybrids’

European automakers don’t have time to wait for new batteries or complete engine redesigns to help them meet upcoming emissions standards. Instead, they are developing “microhybrid” systems that boost fuel efficiency by fine-tuning engines’ electrical systems.

“The beauty of this approach is that you don’t need to wait for a (major) battery breakthrough,” said Thomas Keim, assistant director of MIT’s Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic Systems.

For Ford, that’s where John Kessels of Eindhoven University in the Netherlands came in. He developed a software tweak that reduced fuel consumption by 2.6 percent when tested on a Ford Mondeo with a 2-liter gas engine and a five-speed manual transmission (“a normal car for the EU,” Kessels said).  That doesn’t sound like much, but company bosses say such modifications are possible without passing a high cost to customers and without sacrificing performance. It’s a small step that can add up over time, kind of like switching to diet soda.

The algorithm improves fuel efficiency by monitoring the vehicle’s fuel map and other data to strategically switch the generator off and on, thereby using less energy to charge the battery. Standard internal combustion engines use the generator continuously.

BMW is also using some foundational hybrid technologies — like stop-start and electricity regeneration — to boost the fuel efficiency of its gasoline-powered cars.

[WIRED]