President Obama’s Clean Power Plan to Reduce Emissions


The Administration’s Clean Power Plan will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electric power industry over the next fifteen years.
 
Global warming affects all humankind.  Changing weather patterns, consisting of greater and more frequent weather extremes have become more and more common in recent years and decades.  Around the world, extreme rains and floods, droughts and unprecedented sea level rise have occurred in ways that we are now accepting as being “new normals” of weather which humanity did not experience in earlier years.  While we cannot point to individual events as being caused by global warming, the frequency of occurrence and patterns around the world are all consistent with the predictions that global warming will worsen extremes of weather and climate going forward.  The warming arises because of humanity’s burning of fossil fuels for energy as well as from other human activities, not from any natural cycling of climate patterns.

Relative effectiveness of fossil fuels.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.  The fossil fuels used to produce energy yield different amounts of heat per weight of CO2 resulting from combustion.  This is a consequence of the intrinsic chemical properties of each fuel, and cannot be changed by engineering or ingenuity.  These differences are shown in this table: 

           Relative Emission Efficiency of Fuels  
 
 

 Fuel
Relative amount of CO2 released per unit of heat obtained, compared to natural gas

 Natural gas
1.00

 Petroleum (fuel oil,  gasoline)
1.55-1.61

 Coal
2.00-2.03
                     Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

The table shows that burning coal produces twice as much CO2 as does natural gas when burned for energy.  (Other references give slightly different numbers without affecting this overall conclusion.)  In other words, use of coal as a fuel, say, for generating electricity, releases twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as does burning natural gas to obtain the same amount of heat, i.e., to generate the same amount of electricity.  If humankind is concerned about minimizing the worsening of global warming, we would benefit greatly by reducing the use of all fossil fuels, and especially coal.
 
Coal demands of electric generation.  A typical coal-fired electricity generating plant has a power capacity in the megawatt (MW) range.  To have this capacity, it burns large amounts of coal.  The largest coal-fired plant in the U. S. is the Robert W. Scherer Power Plant in Juliette, Georgia .  When operating to capacity, the facility burns almost 1,300 tons of coal every hour, or 11 million tons a year.  The coal used at Scherer comes from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.  It is transported by train to the plant, a trip of 1,800 miles.  The coal arrives in trains 124 cars long; such a train can reach as long as two miles in length.  A picture of a coal train is shown here.


    http://tcktcktck.org/2014/02/coal-train-photo/

The Scherer facility consumes 3-5 such trainloads of coal every day.  When burned, this coal yields 27 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.  The facility has four separate generating units, each with a capacity of 880 MW.   So smaller facilities might use perhaps one-quarter, or one-half, for example, of the amount of coal that the Scherer plant uses. Overall, the U. S. has about 1,000 fossil fuel-fired generating plants, and, since many plants have more than one generator, a total of about 3,100 generating units that fall under the CPP.
 
The U. S. Clean Power Plan.  President Obama heralded the release of the Final Rule for the Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) on August 3, 2015.  The proposed rule was released over one year earlier and is described here.  The CPP addresses greenhouse gas emissions, primarily CO2, produced by electricity generation in the U. S.  Emissions from this sector of the energy economy are a main component of overall greenhouse gas emissions in the U. S.
 
Over 4.3 million comments from stakeholders and the public on the proposed rule were received by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), many of whose considerations were incorporated in the Final Rule. 
 
The CPP’s goal is to reduce emissions from electricity generation by 32% below the levels of 2005 by the year 2030.  Importantly, the plan does not dictate how these goals are to be met.  Rather, it recognizes that the features of each state’s generation infrastructure differ from one another.  As a result, the specific reduction goal for each state has been assigned differently to account for these distinctions.  In addition, each state is given the responsibility of devising its own specific plan for attaining its particular reduction goal.  Among the general paths to reducing emissions, the CPP names retrofitting existing power plants, eliminating noncompliant power plants, and installing renewable energy facilities.   Additionally, states can trade emission allowances among themselves to help attain their objectives.
 
Opposition to CPP.  Legislative and industrial opponents of the CPP began expressing their concerns as soon as the Final Rule was issued.  Here are some arguments being presented.
 
The CPP is illegal or even unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency and others (2007) interpreted the Clean Air Act, originally passed in 1970, as including the authority to regulate CO2 as an atmospheric pollutant if EPA found it to endanger the welfare of American citizens.  Following up on the Supreme Court’s decision, EPA did subsequently find that the gas threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and of our environment, in 2009.  As a result of this finding, EPA has the legal authority to regulate CO2 emissions.
 
To the knowledge of this writer the question of the constitutionality of this rulemaking power is not being considered by the courts at this time.
 
Opponents have called the CPP a “War on Coal”.  In doing so they seek to place the burden of reorganization of the electricity generating industry on President Obama and his administration.  Use of coal in generating electricity has been declining for more than a decade, as has been the number of working coal miners.  A graphic representing the decreasing use of coal is shown here:

Comparison of the use of coal (blue bars) and natural gas (red bars) from 2002 to 2012. 
Source: http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/nat-gas-takes-market-share-coal.jpg?00cfb7

 
The graphic shows that the percent share of use of coal in electricity generation has been declining since well before President Obama took office in January 2009.  Perhaps opponents may wish to call this finding “Bush’s War on Coal” (not appropriate) or “Capitalism’s War on Coal”.  In fact the principal factor underlying the diminishing role of coal, and the increasing percent share of use of natural gas, is the growing availability of gas in the U. S. due to the increased use of hydraulic fracturing to produce it.  This has resulted in higher gas production and a lowering of its cost.  The increased availability of natural gas began during the administration of President George W. Bush. 
 
In spite of the increasing layoffs among Appalachian coal miners, the Congressional delegations from these areas appear not have their interests high on their agendas.  Only Rep. David McKinley, Republican of West Virginia, teaming with Rep. Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont (not a coal mining state), offered a bill for assistance to miners, in Sept. 2014.  Additional searching does not show that this initiative progressed further in Congress.  President Obama’s administration, however, granted $7.5 million in June 2014 to Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program Inc. to help retrain out-of-work Kentucky miners.   This action is not consistent with a supposed Administration “War on Coal”.

Clearly market forces expected in a capitalist economy are responsible for the declining share in the use of coal.  The CPP does not institutionalize a “War on Coal”, but in view of the profoundly higher rate of emission of CO2 resulting from its use (see above), the Plan is likely to lead to further reductions in coal use.
 
The CPP will produce only an insignificant decrease in global emissions.  This writer heard this argument expressed on the National Public Radio program “Here & Now” on August 4, 2015.  Such statements are not supported by the facts.  The U. S. is a major global emitter of greenhouse gases, and the CPP alone has the potential of reducing U. S. emissions by almost 10%.  In addition, representatives from all United Nations members are convening in December 2015 to finalize a global agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions from all members.  A rigorous stand by the U. S. at the domestic level will enhance its ability to obtain meaningful reductions from other nations.  This is a very important factor going forward.

Conclusions
 
Coal is a major fossil fuel used in electric power generation, but results in twice the greenhouse gas emissions per amount of heat generated than the other major fossil fuel, natural gas.  The Obama administration has issued its CPP which would reduce emissions by 32% below 2005 levels by 2030.  This is a significant emission reduction program.  Coupled with the Administration’s regulation to increase transportation fuel efficiency by almost a factor of two by 2025 it will have a major effect on the energy economy of the U. S.

© 2015 Henry Auer
Read More

New Analysis Does Not Support a Warming “Hiatus”

The “Hiatus”.  Annual results for the global average temperature show a break from an earlier high rate of increase, beginning about 1998.  Compared with the preceding three decades, recently recorded global average temperatures have shown only a slight increase.  The reduction in the rate of warming of the globe may be termed a pause, and is generally referred to as a "hiatus".  This difference in warming trends was noted in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5; Summary for Policymakers and Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis Ch. 2, Observations) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  This break has been seized upon by those doubting or denying the reality of global warming as evidence that warming has effectively ceased since about 1998.

A new analysis of global temperature data extending from 1880 to the present was published by Thomas Karl and coworkers, from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Centers for Environmental Information, and LMI (McLean, VA), on June 4, 2015.  Climate scientists recognized problems in the ways temperature data have been collected.  Karl and coworkers sought to reevaluate historical data to account for these problems (see Details section at the end of this post).  The scientists conclude “based on our new analysis, the IPCC’s … statement of two years ago – that the global surface temperature ‘has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ – is no longer valid.”  Rather, the rate of warming of the world's atmosphere during 1998 to 2014, averaged over its entire surface, has continued unabated compared to the warming experienced in earlier decades (see Details).

Warming Skeptics.  Almost immediately upon the publication of this report organizations known to be skeptical about global warming, or to deny that it is occurring and/or that humanity is causing it, issued statements questioning the validity of the report.  However it is essentially impossible for these groups to draw such conclusions without actually taking the time to review the data and methods used in the reanalysis.  After all, the authors devoted many months or more to analyze the information available.  The data sets themselves are available to the public, and the report sets out in detail how the analysis was done.  Detractors can only question the validity of the conclusions reached by Karl and coworkers after critically reviewing this information and objectively pointing to any perceived faults in the analysis.  Anything short of such assessment is mere speculation.

Ocean Heat Content.  The reanalysis conducted by Karl and coworkers importantly shows that air temperatures averaged over the surface of the entire globe have continued to increase without any pause from about 1950 to the present.  In addition, the oceans absorb about 90% of the excess heat accumulated by the complete earth system.  Measurements collected over the past decades show that the heat content contained in the oceans has continued increasing without cease during this period.

Melting of Glacial Ice.  The excess heat added to the earth system, both air-based and ocean-based, has resulted in increased rates of loss of land-based ice in both the Arctic and Antarctica in recent years.  This is but one example of the effects of global warming on the Earth.  Ice masses will suffer net melting  if the temperature, averaged over the full year, is higher than the melting point and the water lost to melting is not replaced by new precipitation frozen into place. 
 
New reports published in April and May 2015 exemplify this.  Whereas melting of the Antarctic ice shelves was very low between 1994 and 2003, the rate of loss increased more than 12-fold over 2003-2012, especially in West Antarctica.  Loss of ice mass from glaciers in the Southern Antarctic Peninsula that end in ocean-floating ice shelves has rapidly increased from near none in the 2000s to high rates since 2009.  Adding this ice or its melted equivalent as liquid water to the oceans contributes significantly to rising sea levels around the world.  It is important that both these reports describe increased melting only in the recent years that coincide with the continued increase in global temperatures characterized by Karl and coworkers.

Since warming will continue for decades to come, land-based ice at the poles and in mountain glaciers will continue melting, indeed will do so at increasing rates.  So sea level will continue rising into the indefinite future.  This threatens coastal regions around the world, including many of the world’s cities.  Defensive measures needed to avert the damage wrought by flooding and ocean storm surges will require large investments of money, derived from public sources.

Global agreement is needed.  This post reports that global warming has continued unabated for at least the last fifty years, raising average temperatures of the atmosphere and the ocean.  Since this is truly a global problem it is necessary that all the nations of the world come together to implement meaningful reductions in annual rates of emission of greenhouse gases.  The United Nations-sponsored negotiations involving all nations of the world are under way now, with the goal of reaching agreement on the way forward at a meeting to be held at the end of 2015.  The harms from global warming already underway will only grow worse by 2100 and beyond if an agreement is not reached.  All nations need to agree on limiting emissions, with the goal of transitioning to a decarbonized energy economy by about 2050.  Major efforts by all nations will be needed to reach this goal.

Details

Karl and coworkers examined three sources by which temperature averages could have provided erroneous results in AR5.  An important feature of this reassessment is the use of new data sets for temperatures that were not available when AR5 was prepared.  First, by far the largest number of observation stations in the world is land-based.  But over the last one and one-half centuries their number has grown, and the physical settings of older stations have changed.  Karl and coworkers reassessed land-based measurements accordingly, including incorporating new data sets not previously used.  This process roughly doubled the number of reporting stations.  An important feature of this improvement is far more authoritative reporting from the Arctic, which has in fact undergone a high extent of warming that was not fully accounted for in AR5.

Additionally, the ways of gathering sea surface temperature have changed.  A second factor recognized that historically these data were obtained primarily by ocean-going vessels.  Their numbers likewise have grown, but more importantly, the way in which they routinely measured ocean temperature has changed.  A third factor has been that, over the last 15-20 years, buoys have been deployed across the ocean, one of whose capabilities is real time measurement of air temperature.  Karl and coworkers harmonized the old and new ship-based measurements, and applied a correction to all those values to make them consistent with the buoy-based observations.

The earlier data, such as those presented in AR5 as given by Karl and coworkers in their Supplementary Materials appendix, show a reduction in the rate of increase in global average temperature between 1950-1999 and the interval 1998-2012, from 0.101 ± 0.026 ºC/decade, to 0.039 ± 0.082 ºC/decade.  It is important to note, as climate scientists have recognized, that the single temperature value recorded for 1998 was exceptionally high (see second graphic below) because it was affected by an unusually intense El Nino event.  This has the effect of artificially elevating the starting point for the 1998-2012 data range, thus lowering the steepness of the trend line for this period.

The reevaluation of Karl and coworkers shows that these two temperature rates are now very similar, namely 0.113 ± 0.027 ºC/decade and 0.086 ± 0.075 ºC/decade, respectively.  Thus their reevaluation shows that for the recent interval thought to experience the “hiatus”, the rate of increase of global temperature is more than double than that found earlier in AR5. 

When temperature data extending to the most recent period, up to 2014, are considered, the rate of increase in temperature, instead of decreasing from 1950-1999 to 2000-2014 as AR5 shows up to 2012, actually increases slightly between these two time periods.  This is illustrated in the following graphic:
 
Comparison of the warming trends in ºF/decade for the old analysis (methods as used in AR5) but including data up to 2014, and the new analysis (data and methods used by Karl and coworkers).
Source: Los Angeles Times based on the report by Karl and coworkers;
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-no-global-warming-hiatus-noaa-20150603-story.html#page=1&lightbox=83703423
 
 
The near identity of temperature change rates before and after 1998 is seen in the following graphic showing annual temperatures from 1880 to 2014, with a single statistics-derived line drawn based on analysis of data from 1950 to 2014.
Global average temperature difference in ºF from 1880 to 2014, with the orange Trend line evaluated by Karl and coworkers.  The base line representing 0ºF is the average temperature over 1961 to 1990.
Source: Los Angeles Times based on the report by Karl and coworkers;
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-no-global-warming-hiatus-noaa-20150603-story.html#page=1&lightbox=83703423
  
These two graphics make clear that there has been no “hiatus” in warming after 1998.
 
 
© 2015 Henry Auer
 
Read More

President Obama Says Global Warming Harms U. S. National Security

President Barack Obama addressed the graduating class at the U. S. Coast Guard Academy on May 20, 2015.  A major theme in his remarks was that the worldwide effects of global warming negatively impact the security of the United States in its military preparedness and military operations.

The President unambiguously embraced the conclusions of the worldwide community of climate scientists that “climate change is happening….[t]the science is indisputable….The planet is getting warmer”.  He stated that humanity’s burning of fossil fuels to produce carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas, is a major contributing factor to this problem. 

As an example of its effects, the President cited the melting of polar ice and the resulting rise in sea levels worldwide.  By the end of this century, he said, the sea level could rise an additional one to four feet (between 0.31 and 1.2 m).  He pointed out “…the threat of a changing climate cuts to the very core of [the Coast Guard Cadets’] service.…[C]limate change is one of [the] most severe threats” that they will face.

Military Leaders Agree.  The President pointed out that military leaders in the various branches of the American armed forces agree on the reality of climate change.  He stated “climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security.  And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country.  And so we need to act -- and we need to act now.   Denying [climate change], or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security.  It undermines the readiness of our forces.”

The President summarized recent instances of “instability and conflict” around the world, made worse by climate change, that affect the national security of the U. S.  Rising seas impinge on lowlands around the world, “forcing people from their homes”.    In other locations aridity and drought will lead to food and water shortages, causing additional migration.  This and other factors are expected to cause an increase in climate change refugees, leading to conflicts as populations migrate in attempts to find sustenance elsewhere. 

The President stated

“we … know … that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram.  It’s now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East.  So, increasingly, our military … will need to factor climate change into plans and operations, because you need to be ready.”

A Threat Multiplier.  Because these damaging effects of climate change are already happening and are foreseen only to become worse with time, the Department of Defense calls this issue a “threat multiplier”.  The President pointed out that climate change, and especially the effects of rising sea levels, threaten “our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people.”  Already in Miami, Norfolk and Charleston fair weather flooding occurs routinely at high tide.  The Norfolk flooding already impacts the major naval base there.  Sea level in New York is about 1 foot higher than 100 years ago, which undoubtedly contributed to the flooding experienced from Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

Reducing Emissions.  The U. S. is already committing hundreds of billions of dollars to remedy damages incurred from these past events and to defend against potential harms that may occur in the future.  But President Obama pointed out that it is critical to lower future emissions of greenhouse gases to minimize future harms.  He summarized the steps his administration has already put in place to promote these goals: making homes more energy efficient, doubling the fuel efficiency of the nation’s autos, and enhancing the efficiency of electricity generation.

International Leadership.  Most significantly, President Obama is committed to having the U. S. serve as a leader to other nations of the world to reduce annual rates of greenhouse gas emissions.  He overtly admits that the political landscape for achieving progress in this regard within the U. S. is fraught with difficulty.  Furthermore, he understands the challenges involved internationally: “working with other nations, we have to achieve a strong global agreement this year to start reducing the total global emission -- because every nation must do its part.  Every nation.”

“The National Security Implications of a Changing Climate”, a summary of findings of several federal departments, was issued by President Obama’s White House in May 2015.  The underlying reports include the Third National Climate Assessment, the White House’s 2015 National Security Strategy, the Department of Defense’s 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, and the Department of Homeland Security’s 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.

The summary points out that the worsening effects of climate change impact both domestic U. S. security and global security.  Importantly, on the domestic front, coastal installations will be seriously impacted by rising sea level and by extreme events such as hurricanes and coastal flooding involving storm surges.  Highly populated urban areas are vulnerable to damages such as temporary and/or permanent flooding of major infrastructure facilities, as happened, for example, during Superstorm Sandy.  Federal emergency responses to Sandy involved the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Guard and other units from the Department of Defense.  More extended responses involved rebuilding programs from many agencies.  

In the American West, extended drought and long-term extremes of heat affect water resources, agriculture and wildfire numbers and severity.  This affects military bases and training of troops.  Opening of Arctic waters to navigation as ice cover diminishes adds responsibilities for the Coast Guard and the Navy.

Our national security is also impacted by the effects of global warming internationally.  Our geopolitical situation could be threatened as global warming affects access to resources and security of international trade.  Military operations are always affected by climate and weather.  Extremes will lead to more difficult environments for operation of equipment and the endurance and effectiveness of our forces.

Warmer temperatures will lead to greater aridity in many regions of the world, imposing new pressures on availability of water, agricultural productivity and potential scarcity of food.  This could lead to higher poverty, political instability and social insecurity, all conditions that increase the risk of conflict to which our defense forces might have to respond.  For example, these factors likely contributed to the instability that led to the outbreak of Syria’s civil war.  Warming is leading the Department of Defenseto rely more strongly on renewable energy sources in its operations as a hedge against geopolitical insecurity and potential constraints on availability of fossil fuels.
 
Discussion
 
President Obama rightly emphasizes the importance of man-made climate change as a major process under way that requires federal action to combat its progress and overcome its effects.  This post discusses its role in military planning and operations.

Global warming is disrupting long-term climate and weather patterns on an abrupt time scale and in extreme ways.  In considering droughts and floods, sea level rise and wildfires, global warming affects military operations within the U. S. and around the world.  Changing environmental conditions affect military training by placing new stresses on the operation and maintenance of equipment and on the physiological resilience of our troops.  New climatic stresses bring about new changes in the overall geopolitical landscape that impact the security interests of the U. S. in ways that place new and unconventional demands on our armed forces.

As with other aspects of humanity’s response to global warming, choices here too balance a) responding minimally at present, for example to keep expenditures low, incurring the need for more intense, expensive responses later, with b) a recognition that significant investment now will minimize the need for major expenditures later.  The better part of wisdom is to recognize the military’s needs in their efforts to prepare for the new climate-induced challenges they face, and so to grant them the resources they need to prepare for the future. 

Similar reasoning can be brought to bear on America’s response overall to the crisis of global warming.  Early action at the federal level is needed to address this important issue directly, and to maintain America’s leadership role in dealing with global warming.

© 2015 Henry Auer
Read More

President Obama Regrettably Approves Oil Drilling in the Arctic Ocean

The Obama administration granted conditional approval to Shell Oil Company to begin exploratory drilling in the Arctic Ocean off the North Slope of Alaska on May 11, 2015 .  In addition to generating grave misgivings about possible environmental damage from drilling accidents, this decision represents a major compromise with the President’s own policies directed toward limiting global warming.  Burning any fossil fuel, such as the oil sought in this project, will add still more carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, worsening the burden of greenhouse gases added to the earth’s air. 

In his second inaugural address of Jan. 21, 2013, the President committed to “respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations”.  Noting the recurrence of severe weather and climate events, he stated “none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms”.   In order to combat these trends, the President summoned the nation not to “resist this transition” to “sustainable energy sources”, but rather to “lead it” by developing the new “technology that will power new jobs and new industries”.

The President, in his State of the Union address the following year (January 28, 2014) pursued the same theme.  He stated a highly profound and basic motivation for attacking the problem of global warming: 

“Climate change is a fact.  And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.” 

Nevertheless, in spite of these lofty goals, President Obama also stated (March 15, 2012 )

“We can’t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future -– an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.”

The “all-of-the-above” energy strategy is intended to promote economic growth and job creation, enhance energy security, and develop a low-carbon energy economy.  To the extent that ensuring energy security relies on exactly those “last century” strategies based on fossil fuels, “all-of-the-above” pits continued exploitation of fossil fuels against much smaller, but rapidly growing, renewable energy industries.

The President, to his credit, has indeed set out policies that will reduce emissions of CO2 from U. S. sources.  Emissions from passenger vehicles will be much lower since the fuel efficiency standard for cars and light trucks is to reach an average level of 54.5 mpg by 2025.  New standards for heavy-duty trucks are to be issued in 2016.  The proposed Clean Power Plan, to be finalized later in 2015, will lower emissions from large electricity generating plants by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.  These policies are significant positive developments along a path to lowering emissions produced by the U. S.

On the other hand the Obama administration has made many decisions that could expand production of fossil fuels beyond their present extent.  Its approval of exploratory drilling in the Arctic Ocean by Shell is only the latest policy shift away from minimizing further emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  It is also authorizing extensive new coal mining operations in the Powder River basin in Wyoming and Montana.  And it has announced that leases for oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean off the U. S. east coast could be issued beginning in 2021.  Its decision whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring Canadian tar sands oil to the U. S. is still pending.

Expanded development of fossil fuels requires the investment of large amounts of capital.  When considering expansion of our energy economy an important question always is how to deploy new investments.  In order to minimize new emissions of greenhouse gases it is important to direct such investment toward renewable energy, not to the further expansion of fossil fuel resources.  Decisions to extract more fossil fuels have long-lasting consequences, since such projects will take several years to reach fruition, and will lock in new greenhouse gas emissions for decades thereafter.  This directly interferes with achieving our goal of lowering new greenhouse gas emission rates.  Instead, it would be best to allow existing fossil fuel-burning assets to exhaust their useful lifetimes, and to replace them with renewable energy resources.

Coal is the worst among the fossil fuels in terms of greenhouse gas efficiency: burning coal generates a little more than half as much heat as natural gas per ton of CO2 emitted.  Although the administration’s Clean Power Plan would have the effect of phasing out most coal-fired electric plants on the one hand, on the other the administration is opting to expand coal mining.  Since demand for coal will be reduced within the U. S., it is clear that newly mined coal would be destined for export.  The U. S. should not be contributing to expanded use of this inefficient fuel abroad at a time when international efforts are being directed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Cars powered by internal combustion engines are very inefficient in their use of the energy contained in the fuel they burn.  Approximately 80% of that energy is dissipated, mostly as waste heat, rather than used to propel the vehicle along the road.  This is illustrated in the graphic below.
 
Electric vehicles are far more efficient in their use of electrical energy.  Whereas various gasoline-fueled cars can generally get between 20 and 40 miles per gallon (11.8-5.88 L/100 km), electric vehicles are reported to get well over 100 miles per gallon equivalent (less than 2.35 liter equivalents/100 km)  as evaluated by the U. S. Dept. of Energy .  To the extent that this electrical energy is supplied to the vehicle by renewable sources instead of from fossil fuels this represents a vast reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
 
Conclusion
 
President Obama has made a serious environmental mistake by permitting Shell to explore for oil in the Arctic Ocean.  Actions that would lead to further extraction of fossil fuels, such as this project, would worsen the Earth’s burden of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere for several more decades, for the field being explored is thought to contain large supplies of oil.  The Shell Arctic project, as well as the Powder River coal development and exploration for new oil production off the eastern U. S. coast, run counter to the President’s pledge that the U. S. would lower its GHG emission rates by 26-28% from the levels emitted in 2005, by 2025.  This pledge was made during the President’s meeting with President Xi Jinping of China on Nov. 12, 2014.
 
The world faces a critical need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades.  Providing energy to support economic growth worldwide is a major component of the world’s economy.  Companies supplying fossil fuels provide a significant fraction of this energy need.  Most of these companies continue to expand production of the resources they control without heed for the welfare of our planet, and use their considerable influence to perpetuate the role that fossil fuels play in the energy economy.
 
Yet when opportunities arise for investments of new capital to supply energy to the economy, the decisions could just as well be made to develop renewable energy sources.  These industries, while presently much smaller than the fossil fuel industry, are expanding rapidly.  They provide jobs for our workers, and generate profits for the companies involved.  Now is the time for the great fossil fuel companies of the world to change their business models, resist the easy decisions to continue their usual ways of doing business, and invest in renewable energy sources instead.  Economic policies should be promoted that discourage continued development of fossil fuels and promote investment in renewable energy.
 
The nations of the world, through the United Nations, are currently involved in negotiating a worldwide climate agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  President Obama, by permitting expansion of fossil fuel extraction under his “all-of-the-above” energy policy, is compromising the leadership role that the U. S. should be playing in bringing this agreement to a successful conclusion. 
 
The President’s actions lead us to doubt whether, when “our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy”, we will “be able to say yes, we did.” 
 
© 2015 Henry Auer
Read More

Pope Francis’ Encyclical on Global Warming


[Updated May 7, 2015]

Encyclicals.  Pope Francis, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, will soon issue a papal encyclical on global warming.  An encyclical is a document transmitted through the church hierarchy to its 5,000 bishops, and from them to all 400,000 parish priests.  In this way its contents are presented to the parishioners of every Catholic church throughout the world, about 1.2 billion people.
 
Encyclicals, wrote Pope Pius XII in Humani generis, can resolve discussion or controversy on a particular topic.  He declared    
“…if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter… cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.” 

This statement indicates that an encyclical can resolve a controversy of doctrine by establishing the Church’s position from that time forward.

Climate Change, The Loss Of Biodiversity And Deforestation. Pope Francis has consistently been concerned with the less fortunate among the world’s people, including those adversely affected by climate change.  For example in October 2014, speaking to landless peasants and others, he stated

“An economic system centred on the god of money needs to plunder nature to sustain the frenetic rhythm of consumption that is inherent to it. The system [is based on] an economy … lacking in ethics…. Climate change, the loss of biodiversity and deforestation are already showing their devastating effects in the great cataclysms we witness.”

United Nations Climate Treaty.  According to Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, the Vatican’s Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Francis wants to exert a powerful influence on the convocation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris in December 2015, intended to finalize a worldwide climate treaty.  It is intended to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases and provide for assistance to impoverished nations to enhance sustainable energy production.  Bishop Sorondo stated

“Our academics supported the pope’s initiative to influence [upcoming] crucial decisions.  The idea is to convene a meeting with leaders of the main religions to make all people aware of the state of our climate and the tragedy of social exclusion.”

Elsewhere Bishop Sorondo ascribed global warming to humanity’s use of fossil fuels.

Nurturing Creation.  Pope Francis bases his concerns for the environment and global warming on the verses in Genesis dealing with creation.  In May 2014 he spoke in Rome, saying the “beauty of nature and the grandeur of the cosmos” are Christian virtues.  He urged his listeners to

“[s]afeguard Creation, [b]ecause if we destroy [it], Creation will destroy us! … Creation is not a property, which we can rule over at will; or, even less, is [it] the property of only a few: Creation is … a wonderful gift that God has given us, so that we care for it and we use it for the benefit of all, always with great respect and gratitude.”

With these words the Pope distinguishes our husbandry of creation from exploitation of nature, especially by a minority that has little regard for humanity as a whole.  In January 2015 he attributed global warming largely to manmade activities.

Vatican Symposium on Global Warming.  The Vatican convened a meeting of world leaders including the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, world religious leaders and leading climate scientists, on April 28, 2015.   Mr. Ban told the assembly “there is no divide whatsoever between religion and science on the issue of climate change.”

A report entitled “Climate Change and The Common Good”, prepared by clerical and lay scientists under the guidance of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences was released at the same time as the symposium.  It summarizes the historical context of global warming, ascribing it to human activity “involving the unsustainable exploitation of fossil fuels and other forms of natural capital”. It summarizes the detrimental effects already visited on human society as a result, and reviews the scientific projections of future warming and its further harmful consequences to our planet and human society. 

The Role of the World’s Religions.  The report emphasizes how the religions of the world can be instrumental in combating continued global warming and its harms:

“The Catholic Church, working with the leadership of other religions, could take a decisive role in helping to solve this problem. The Church could accomplish this by mobilizing public opinion and public funds to meet the energy needs of the poorest 3 billion in a way that does not contribute to global warming but would allow them to prepare better for the challenges of unavoidable climate change….[W]e have a responsibility not only towards those who are living in poverty today, but also to generations yet unborn.”

This moral imperative is expanded as follows:

“Generations to come will experience and will likely suffer from the environmental consequences of the fossil fuel consumption of the last two centuries. They are likely to wonder what took 21st century citizens of the world so long to respond to these frightening climate trends….

In addition to the issue of inter-generational equity, climate change from fossil-fuel burning poses a major problem of intra-generational equity….We have to solve both [these] problems.”

Deniers of Global Warming.  This Vatican meeting so captured the attention of global warming deniers that they journeyed to Rome to counter the Vatican’s stand.   The President of the Heartland Institute wrote “The world’s poor will suffer horribly if reliable energy—the engine of prosperity and a better life—is made more expensive and less reliable by the decree of global planners.”  The American Petroleum Institute wrote “fossil fuels are a vital tool for lifting people out of poverty around the world, which is something we’re committed to.” 

By such statements we see that these apologists for maintaining the status quo cynically seek to shift guilt for the use of fossil fuels onto the heads of those, including the leaders of the world’s great religions, who themselves advocate for the rights of the poor.  These cynics suggest that energy reformers are guilty of prolonging suffering of the poor by removing their access to fossil fuel-derived energy. The deniers critically fail to admit that alternative sources of energy that do not contribute to global warming can accomplish the required objectives.

The Papal Encyclical itself is expected to be issued in June 2015.  It is likely to reflect the themes identified here that have already been expressed by the Church.  Subsequently Pope Francis will address the United Nations General Assembly and the U. S. Congress in September 2015.  His energetic activities with respect to global warming are focused on bringing his considerable influence, indeed that of all the world’s major religions, to bear on the climate meeting in Paris in December 2015.  That gathering, under the UNFCCC, is intended to finalize ongoing climate negotiations. It should provide  a worldwide agreement to reduce annual rates of emission of greenhouse gases, undertake measures to improve land use practices, and set up a major financing program to assist poor countries to adapt to the effects of global warming.

 Discussion

Pope Francis is undertaking an unprecedented, energetic campaign as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church to convince the nations of the world to commit to meaningful measures to attack global warming, and to help them adapt to the changing climate.   While some detractors may question whether the Church has a role to play in this largely secular, scientific matter, he has grounded his message in several aspects of Christian doctrine. 

First, the Scriptures emphasize the role of humanity to serve as stewards of Creation.  This includes first, avoiding exploitation of resources (such as fossil fuels) that rewards only a portion of humanity; second, avoiding exploitation of those resources because they are irreplaceable; and third, shunning activities in the energy economy that exclude the poorest among us from its benefits.  The Pope is concerned with our “intra-generational” responsibility for alleviating the disparities brought about by fossil fuel use. About 3 billion of the world’s people currently do not benefit from the advanced lifestyle that fossil fuel-derived energy provides to the rest of us.

And second, moral doctrines embedded in the Scriptures emphasize our inter-generational responsibility for the welfare of future generations: our children, their children, and further progeny whom we as yet do not know.  This concern arises from Pope Francis’s accurate understanding that the effects of global warming, ascribed to our present burning of fossil fuels, will persist for centuries and affect future generations.  In view of the changes already wrought, and the worsening of those changes as our use of fossil fuels grows, we are directly responsible, in his view, for the wellbeing of our progeny. 

When issued, the message of the encyclical will reach all 1.2 billion Catholics in the world.  According to the ecclesiastical significance of encyclicals proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, we expect that all Catholics will regard its conclusions as laying to rest any prior controversy surrounding this issue.  To the world’s Catholics the question of global warming will not “any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.”

[Update: In a letter to the New York Times Maciej H. Grabowski, Poland’s environmental minister, writes that the Pope’s forthcoming encyclical will significantly influence the negotiations on a new global warming treaty that will take place at the end of this year.  He states “Pope Francis’s message will be greeted warmly in Poland.”]

In the United States, more than 160 representatives and senators in the Congress are Catholics.  This includes the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  Yet a significant portion of these congresspersons, including the Speaker, to date have not publicly accepted the reality of global warming caused by human actions.  To the extent that they consider themselves bound by their faith, we may expect that they will accept the forthcoming encyclical’s pronouncements as being beyond controversy.  A change of heart by these legislators could lead to progress toward a legislated national energy policy whose goal should be a decarbonized energy economy. 

Pope Francis envisions his encyclical and his promotion of sound energy policies as inspiring not only fellow Catholics around the world, but far more importantly as generating comparable actions in an ecumenical fashion among all the major faiths of the world.  He is reaching out to leaders of other religions with the intention of developing a faith-based consensus for action among followers of most religions.  This should lead to emboldened action by the world’s scientific and political leaders to reach early and meaningful agreement on a worldwide framework for the limitation of greenhouse gas emissions, appropriate changes in land use, and a well-funded resource to aid countries most in need of assistance in accommodating to climate change.

© 2015 Henry Auer
Read More
Mag-subscribe sa: Mga Post (Atom)