Cascajun

I’ve always thought it was egotistical to believe climate change is anthropogenic. This presentation by Professor Ian Plimer affirms it for me.

Human-induced Climate Change: A Load of Hot Air

Was Earth Headed for the Mother of All Ice Ages Before Global Warming?

Before we humans came along with our Industrial Revolution and our greenhouse gases, the earth was hurtling towards an intense ice age that could have covered much of the northern hemisphere with deep ice sheets as soon as 10,000 years from now, according to a tentative new study.

There’s quite a bit of commentary about climate change and ice ages on the NYT science blog.

Robert Bryce writes an excellent essay on the global warming debate in which he disregards the scientific and political arguments over the issue and simply asks, “If more CO2 is bad…then what?”

That is, if political leaders agree with Gore and others who believe too much carbon dioxide is bad, then what are we going to do? Fossil fuels now provide about 85% of the world’s total energy needs. Even more important is this corollary: Increasing energy consumption equals higher living standards. Always. Everywhere. Given that fact, how can we expect the people of the world–all 6.6 billion of them–to use less energy? The short answer: we can’t.

[…]

I no longer care about the left-right/liberal-conservative distinction. I’m tired of the political correctness game. When it comes to energy issues, I’m a liberal who’s been mugged by the laws of thermodynamics. And those laws have turned me into a realist about energy issues. For years, I ignored the immutable laws of thermodynamics. But in the course of writing my upcoming book, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of “Energy Independence,” I had to pay attention. And in doing so, I was forced to accept the fact that there are no silver bullets, no easy answers, when it comes to energy.

Thus, when it comes to global warming and energy consumption, there are three main issues to be addressed: technology, morality, and the scale of global energy use.

Bryce then goes on to detailed discussion of those three issues.

Technology – (1) we can’t simply rely on energy efficiency, as the Jevons Paradox states, “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuels is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.” This paradox is illustrated by recent energy-consumption trends in the U.S. Since 1950, the amount of gross domestic product produced per unit of energy consumed has doubled–and yet during that same time span, energy consumption in the U.S. has risen threefold. (2) Alternative fuels will not be a vialble candidate to meet global energy demands in the foreseeable future. Additionally, biofuels like corn-ethanol and biodiesel may be more harmful for the environment than fossil fuels.

Morality – Today, 1.6 billion people do not have access to electricity in their homes. Some 2.5 billion people use wood, dung, or other biomass to meet their cooking energy needs. According to the World Health Organization, about 1.3 million people per year, most of them women and children, die because of the pollution caused by indoor biomass stoves. Only HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, and lack of clean drinking water and sanitation are greater health threats than the problems of polluted indoor air. What the energy-poor need most are common fuels like kerosene, propane, and gasoline. And just like us, they want reliable electricity. The people in the industrialized countries have a moral obligation to help the energy-poor get cheap, reliable energy. And it is undeniable that the cheapest and most reliable forms of energy, for now, and for the foreseeable future, are fossil fuels.

The Scale of Global Energy Use - Energy consumption in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan (the Big Five, in terms of the worlds most populous contries) is soaring and will double over the next decade or two. The belief that the world can drastically cut global carbon-dioxide emissions at a time when about half of the people on the planet are still living in relative energy poverty borders on fantasy. Moreover, the industrialized countries in general, and the U.S. in particular, have no moral standing from which to tell the developing countries that they should slow the growth of their energy consumption.

Back to Robert’s question, ““If more CO2 is bad…then what?” Humans must adapt.

Bringing hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty–and, thus, into higher standards of living–means providing them with access to cheap, plentiful energy. Like it or not, that largely means fossil fuels, and increased use of fossil fuels will mean further increases in carbon-dioxide emissions. And the hard truth is that the people of the world are going to have to adapt to whatever happens next with regard to the world’s climate–regardless of the causes of those changes.

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal ran an article about two studies recently published in Science:

Greenhouse Affect

The ink is still moist on Capitol Hill’s latest energy bill and, as if on cue, a scientific avalanche is demolishing its assumptions. To wit, trendy climate-change policies like ethanol and other biofuels are actually worse for the environment than fossil fuels. Then again, Washington’s energy neuroses are more political than practical, so it’s easy for the Solons and greens to ignore what would usually be called evidence.

[…]

The researchers break new ground by exposing a kind of mega-accounting error: Prior studies had never credited the carbon-dioxide emissions that arise when virgin forests, grasslands and the like are cleared to grow biofuel feedstocks. About 2.7 times more carbon is stored in terrestrial soils and plant material than in the atmosphere, and this carbon is released when these areas are cleared (often by burning) and the soil is tilled. Compounding problems is the loss of “carbon sinks” that absorb atmospheric CO2 in the bargain. Previous projections had also ignored the second-order effects of transferring normal farm land to biofuels, which exerts world-wide pressure on land use.

So, incredibly, when the hidden costs of conversion are included, greenhouse-gas emissions from corn ethanol over the next 30 years will be twice as high as from regular gasoline. In the long term, it will take 167 years before the reduction in carbon emissions from using ethanol “pays back” the carbon released by land-use change. As they say, it’s not easy being green.

I’m not strictly opposed to biofuels, however it is becoming increasingly apparent that they are not the panacea that environmentalists or ‘green-thinking’ people make them out to be. We do need to reduce our dependency on imported petroleum. Burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment. However, we need to recognize the true costs of alternatives that, according to this research, may actually be worse than fossil fuels.

Recently published research in Science states that, by displacing corn and soybeans grown for food, biofuels are doing more harm than good.

Converting corn to ethanol in Iowa not only leads to clearing more of the Amazonian rainforest, researchers report in a pair of new studies in Science, but also would do little to slow global warming—and often make it worse.

I’ve suspected as much. While biofuels may reduce our dependence on imported oil, they have many negative externalities their proponents don’t acknowledge.

I’ve written about the doubts surrounding biofuels before. Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published this story: Ethanol Craze Cools As Doubts Multiply

In the span of one growing season, ethanol has gone from panacea to pariah in the eyes of some. The critics, which include industries hurt when the price of corn rises, blame ethanol for pushing up food prices, question its environmental bona fides and dispute how much it really helps reduce the need for oil.

A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded that biofuels “offer a cure [for oil dependence] that is worse than the disease.” A National Academy of Sciences study said corn-based ethanol could strain water supplies. The American Lung Association expressed concern about a form of air pollution from burning ethanol in gasoline. Political cartoonists have taken to skewering the fuel for raising the price of food to the world’s poor.

What’s driving the continuing production? Big agribusiness corporations who fund the political campaigns of both parties whose politicians, once elected, write the regulations mandating more biofuel consumption and production.

From Bloomberg.com: Hurricane Scientists Flubbed Forecasts for Two Years (Update1)

Sept. 10 (Bloomberg) — Hurricane researchers, who forecast seven more storms this season, have flubbed the past two annual estimates because of unusual El Nino and La Nina weather phenomena in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

The predictions reflect variables that make this kind of weather forecasting “more art than science,” said Eric Blake, a hurricane specialist at the National Hurricane Center in Miami. Two of the nine Atlantic hurricanes predicted already have occurred for the season that ends Nov 30. Last year, five storms emerged after nine were anticipated.

More art than science? I thought “the science was settled” when it came to climate models. Weren’t we told after Katrina that hurricanes were only going to get stronger and more frequent due to global warming? As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, if we can’t accurately model hurricane seasons in the Atlantic Basin 12-months in advance, how accurate are the models predicting the global climate decades in the future?

According to this 2006 report on the economics of biofuels from the USDA, ethanol and biodiesel production have increased significantly in recent years and are expected to continue increasing substantially.

About 14 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol in 2005/06 and USDA projects nearly 20 percent of U.S. corn production will be converted into ethanol in 2006/07.

[…]

In 2000, about 1.6 billion gallons of ethanol was produced in the United States. By 2005, about 4 billion gallons of ethanol was produced, a 150 percent increase in 5 years. In 2006, nearly 5 billion gallons of ethanol is expected to be produced, a one-year increase of 20 percent. There are now 101 ethanol plants with total capacity of 4.8 billion gallons operating in 20 states. The Renewable Fuels Association reports that there are 39 ethanol plants under construction and another 7 facilities expanding with total capacity of 2.6 billion gallons per year. When that construction and expansion is completed, ethanol capacity in the United States will be 7.4 billion gallons per year.

A number of factors have contributed to the rapid increase in production, including the 51 cent per gallon tax credit provided to blenders, high and volatile oil prices, low corn prices, the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the elimination of ethanol’s main oxygenate competitor, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).

[…]

Various industry analysts suggest that there are another 60 or more ethanol plants under different stages of planning, and these plants are in addition to those currently under or approved for construction. The expectation is that production capacity could rise well above the current 7.4 billion gallons level of plants that are now operating or are under expansion or construction. New facilities under construction or in development tend to be large, with production capacity in the range of 50 to 100 million gallons per year. Ethanol production capacity could increase to 7.5 billion gallons by 2008-9 and more than 10 billion gallons by 2012.

[…]

U.S. biodiesel production remained very small and flat until USDA created the Bioenergy Program in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 that encouraged biodiesel production through cash payments to producers. Mostly as a result of this program, biodiesel production jumped from 500,000 gallons in 1999 to 28 million gallons in 2004. In 2005, 91 million gallons of biodiesel were funded by this program. However, the Bioenergy Program authorization ends in FY 2006. Even so, with high diesel prices and new tax incentives, USDA forecasts biodiesel production will reach 245 million gallons in 2006, a 170 percent increase year over year and a 490-fold increase since 1999.

[…]

Judging from the capacity that is currently being built by investors, biodiesel production is expected to continue growing rapidly over the next few years. With over 100 plants expected to be on-line by the end of 2007, the biodiesel industry is well on its way to becoming a major provider of renewable fuels. Data on production reported for 2006 through June indicate that about 90 million gallons of biodiesel have already been produced, about equal to 2005’s total production. If monthly production were to continue at about the same level achieved in June, total annual production would reach about 200 million gallons by the end of 2006. Thus, compared to 2005, biodiesel production could more than double in calendar year 2006. Growth seems likely to decline as base production reaches a higher level, so biodiesel production is expected to be sharply higher but below 400 million gallons in 2007.

What are the environmental impacts of the increases in corn and soybean production necessary to supply biofuel energy sources? According to this Science Daily article, Researchers Identify Energy Gains And Environmental Impacts Of Corn Ethanol And Soybean Biodiesel (emphasis mine) there are environmental costs. However, they are not easily quantified.

Science Daily — The first comprehensive analysis of the full life cycles of soybean biodiesel and corn grain ethanol shows that biodiesel has much less of an impact on the environment and a much higher net energy benefit than corn ethanol, but that neither can do much to meet U.S. energy demand.

[…]

The study showed that both corn grain ethanol and soybean biodiesel produce more energy than is needed to grow the crops and convert them into biofuels. This finding refutes other studies claiming that these biofuels require more energy to produce than they provide. The amount of energy each returns differs greatly, however. Soybean biodiesel returns 93 percent more energy than is used to produce it, while corn grain ethanol currently provides only 25 percent more energy.

Still, the researchers caution that neither biofuel can come close to meeting the growing demand for alternatives to petroleum. Dedicating all current U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12 percent of gasoline demand and 6 percent of diesel demand. Meanwhile, global population growth and increasingly affluent societies will increase demand for corn and soybeans for food.

The authors showed that the environmental impacts of the two biofuels also differ. Soybean biodiesel produces 41 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel fuel whereas corn grain ethanol produces 12 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. Soybeans have another environmental advantage over corn because they require much less nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides, which get into groundwater, streams, rivers and oceans. These agricultural chemicals pollute drinking water, and nitrogen decreases biodiversity in global ecosystems. Nitrogen fertilizer, mainly from corn, causes the ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico.

Thus, while biofuels may reduce our dependance on imported oil and produce less greenhouse gases; do we really understand their overall impact on the environment and our economy? What are the true costs?

• Increased food prices.
• Loss of waterfowl nesting habitat.
• Larger, more persistant ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico.

I’m not opposed to biofuels, however I don’t believe they are the panacea that many environmentalists or ‘green-thinking’ people make them out to be. We do need to reduce our dependancy on imported petroleum. Buring fossil fuels is bad for the environment. However, we need to recognize the true costs of alternatives that, according to researchers, will never meet our energy needs.

Gasoline prices are back over $3 and are expected to “hold those gains for a while.”

So, what about the greatest source of energy known to man? The NY Times has an article on the current state of solar power.”

But for all the enthusiasm about harvesting sunlight, some of the most ardent experts and investors say that moving this energy source from niche to mainstream — last year it provided less than 0.01 percent of the country’s electricity supply — is unlikely without significant technological breakthroughs. And given the current scale of research in private and government laboratories, that is not expected to happen anytime soon.

Even a quarter century from now, says the Energy Department official in charge of renewable energy, solar power might account for, at best, 2 or 3 percent of the grid electricity in the United States.

What about the oil companies? Surely they must be investing in some alternative. Isn’t petroleum a finite resource? BP is investing in natural gas. This is their new source of energy?

In the meantime, coal-burning power plants, the main source of smokestack emissions linked to global warming, are being built around the world at a rate of more than one a week.

What of the cleanest, cheapest source of energy available given mankind’s current level of technological advancement?

Recently a taboo against mentioning nuclear energy has developed among scientists - especially those specializing in energy. None of the articles in the recent special issue of Science devoted to energy mentioned nuclear energy - pro or con - even though nuclear energy provides 17 percent of American electricity. Perhaps energy scientists feel that mentioning nuclear energy will have an adverse effect on their grants. Perhaps there is some other reason. To some extent “hydrogen” in the energy literature is a code word for nuclear energy, since many articles promoting hydrogen don’t say how else it can be generated economically in the quantities required to run an economy. Recent waves of ideology are strongly involved.

As the NYT article points out, there is a lack of basic R&D funding for solar energy. Most money for solar is being directed at subsidising usage of and conversion to solar, rather than improving the technology or solving the storage problems.

More alternative energy research dollars should be directed at solar energy and the associated storage problems. That’s our long term energy solution. We already have a viable short term solution, its nuclear energy. If the developed world want’s to improve the global environment and foster sustanable development, we should be promoting and subsidizing the use of nuclear power in developing nations.

In today’s Financial Post:

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling.

[…]

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

I thought climate science was settled and mankind’s CO2 emissions were the driving force behind global climate change. Apparently the sun has some influence…go figure!