Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Offshoring Emissions, Historical Carbon and Climate Imperialism
Alex Steffen, WorldChanging
If we want to build a bright green future, we need to know the actual nature of the problems we face. In terms of climate change, this may be less simple than some might have us believe. In the past few weeks, I’ve come across three concepts that illuminate unexpected angles of the climate crisis (and thus perhaps open the way to unexpected thinking about solutions).
The first is the idea that the emissions for which we’re responsible — our personal carbon footprint, say, or our city’s progress towards climate neutrality — may not tell the whole story. That’s because globalization has tended to move heavy polluting industries offshore, away from Europe and North America, and to places like China and Brazil. We still consume the lion’s share of the goods these nations manufacture, but the carbon is emitted there, not here, while our exports are largely things — like blockbuster films and financial services — whose carbon footprints are comparatively small.
…Historic carbon demands attention. Historic carbon — the carbon already emitted, often long ago, not the carbon being produced today — has filled our atmosphere with the current concentration of roughly 383 ppm of CO2. Over the last century, the United States produced over 30% of all the CO2 emitted worldwide (because of our meat-focused diets, our share of all emissions would actually be higher). Our wealth, then, is a form of historically embedded carbon.
The implications here can get a little staggering. For one thing, it means that even if we’ve greened our lifestyles — eating our veggies, driving our hybrids, lighting our rooms with CFLs — these lifestyles are still made possible by using vast stores of embedded carbon. Everything around us is like a landscape of frozen emissions.
(14 August 2007)
Rocky Mountain Institute Turns 25: The Distributed Generation of Amory Lovins’ Brainpower
Warren Karlenzig, WorldChanging
One of the world’s leading energy and environment think (and do) tanks celebrated its 25th anniversary in characteristic style this past week. With numerous references to the looming risks of global climate change, peak oil and energy disruption, combined with developing nation social-political and national security challenges, the event took on the air of urgent practicality.
Besides the Rocky Mountain Institute’s stellar staff and its fearless founder/leader, Amory Lovins, the Aspen-based event attracted a jaw-dropping line-up. On-stage were former President Clinton, past CIA director R. James Woolsey, former New York Governor George Pataki, Sustainable South Bronx’s Majora Carter, Wal-Mart Chairman Rob Walton, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, technology luminary Bill Joy, Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard, and British Sky Broadcasting CEO James Murdoch.
…What was extraordinary at the two-day session of panels and parties was how much RMI’s iconic founder has altered the consciousness of those present. It was as if little bits of his brain were implanted into the words, plans and outlook of those at the dais and congregating in the beaux arts hallways of the venerable Hotel Jerome.
Lovins has developed many world-changing concepts over his 35-year career including “negawatts”-reducing the need to produce energy through conservation–and its economic cousin, “the soft path.” An Oxford-educated physicist, Lovins uses hard data as the basis for making the world’s economy radically more energy efficient through better planning, design and day-to-day use in both buildings and industry. More recently RMI has presented ideas on leapfrogging comatose American automotive innovation with superlight materials and hyper-efficient engine and drive train functionality.
“The demand side of energy efficiency is not as sexy as solar or wind energy, but it is much more effective,” said Joy.
(15 August 2007)
Climate change: From ‘know how’ to ‘do now’
Herman E. Daly, Gristmill
The Grist editor writes:
This guest essay comes from Herman E. Daly, an ecological economist and professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, College Park. He’s one of the experts featured in Leonardo DiCaprio’s new eco-documentary The 11th Hour, which opens in L.A. and New York on Aug. 17 and in other spots around North America on Aug. 24.
The recent increase in attention to climate change is very welcome. Most of the attention seems to be given to complex climate models and their predictions, however. It is useful to back up a bit and remember an observation by physicist John Wheeler: “We make the world by the questions we ask.” What are the questions asked by the climate models, and what kind of world are they making? What other questions might we ask that would make other worlds?
The climate models ask: Will CO2 emissions lead to atmospheric concentrations of 500 parts per million? And will that raise temperatures by 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, or more, by a certain date? And what will be the likely physical consequences in climate and geography, and in what sequence, and according to what probability distributions? And what will be the damages inflicted by such changes, as well as the costs of abating them? And what are the ratios of the present values of the damage costs compared to abatement expenditures at various discount rates, and which discount rate should we use, and how much new information we will learn in the meantime?
What kind of world is created by such questions? Surely a world of such enormous uncertainty and complexity as to paralyze policy. Scientists will disagree on the answers to every one of these empirical questions.
Could we ask a different question that creates a different world? Why not ask, can we systematically continue to emit increasing amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without eventually provoking unacceptable climate changes? Scientists will overwhelmingly agree that the answer is no. The basic science, first principles, and directions of causality are very clear. Focusing on them creates a world of relative certainty, at least as to basic thrust and direction of policy. Only the rates and sequences, timing, trajectories, and valuations are uncertain and subject to debate.
(15 August 2007)
Great argument by one of the founders of ecological economics. The same points hold true for peak oil. Whether peak oil comes in 2012 or 2017 is not that important in terms of what we have to do. -BA
Singing the nation electric, part 2: post-oil democracy
Jon Rynn, Sanders Research
Before fossil fuels and industrial machinery transformed the way goods and services were produced, all societies had an energy problem. Some wind power and hydropower was used, but the main energy sources were humans and animals. For the powers-that-were, slavery and serfdom were convenient ways to ensure an adequate supply of human-sourced energy. What will happen when fossil fuels are no longer available; will the global elite be in a position to reimpose serfdom and slavery?
(14 August 2007)
