Ex-Secretary of California EPA Argues for Poop Power
According to Tamminen, this is a valuable energy source. (image: personal.psu.edu)
One man’s trash is another’s treasure, so the saying goes. According to Terry Tamminen, former secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, one man’s poop may be another’s power supply. In an op-ed for CNBC this week, Tamminen argues for a sustainable energy policy that includes making use of waste products of many kinds—including human and animal ones. At issue is the question of renewable portfolio standards (RPS), which set legal thresholds for how much alternative energy—wind, solar, geothermal—must be included in the power supply. RPS systems are currently in place in 27 states and D.C, and California’s are the most comprehensive, calling for 33 percent of the state’s total energy consumption to be sustainably generated by 2020. To avoid creating a competitive market based in practices that should really be eliminated, as in energy derived from burning trash or even co-generation using heat from traditional power plants, RPS legislation does not currently allow for waste products of any kind to be included as “renewable” resources. Elimination isn’t going to be eliminated anytime soon, though, which leaves agricultural areas and municipalities overburdened with sewage and manure that currently isn’t worth….well, you know.
The average cow generates 18 gallons of waste per day—that’s just one cow, now think of all the hundreds of thousands of cows (and pigs, and sheep, and chickens) in farms and feedlots all across this country. Many such operations are so oversupplied with manure that they wind up funneling it into fetid ponds that stink up the surrounding countryside, contaminate groundwater, and release pounds of greenhouse gases. So, not only would repurposing all that poop create a steady stream of available energy, but it would also remove a fairly major contributor to climate change. Converting human sewage systems to a no-waste model would also save countless gallons of water every year, as well as the energy required to transport, treat and dispose of it.
Of course, entrepreneurs all over have already realized the potential of this unlikely market. There are scores of projects already underway across the country, many of which we’ve covered here on HeatingOil.com: Some of the most promising technologies include methane capture, fuel made from manure, and sewage used as a growth medium for algae that can be converted into biofuel. There is also the looming possibility of federal EPA regulation of methane from farming, under the EPA’s new endangerment finding that allows for greater policing of gases that contribute to global warming. Tamminen’s argument is that reclassifying human and animal waste as renewable would open up the possibility of tax credits to help develop existing programs, and to generate hundreds of others. Think of it as the fertilizer that will grow our new, greener, energy grid.
EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Challenged by Beef Industry
Cattle, a significant source of methane, could be affected by EPA regulation. (image: BugMan50 via flickr.com)
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) December announcement that it intends to regulate emissions greenhouse gases has received its first official challenge from special interests. Perhaps surprising to some, the challenge has not come from the usual or more predicable suspects such as big oil, gas, or refining industries. Rather, the first salvo in what could prove to be numerous battles was launched by the beef industry. On Friday, Edmunds.com reported that the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association became the first industry to legally challenge the EPA’s authority in regulating greenhouse gases. Filing their suit on December 24, the Beef Association claims that the science of global warming is weak and therefore the federal government has no right to regulate emissions based on such supposedly fragile claims.
The Beef Association’s concern with EPA regulation of greenhouse gases stems from the fact that cattle produce immense amounts of methane, one of the most dangerous of greenhouse gases and one that the EPA will likely attempt to regulate. Some scientists have asserted that, while carbon dioxide emissions have received the most attention by policymakers attempting to mitigate climate change, methane should be given even more attention. Evidently the Beef Association believes that any attempt to regulate methane emissions will seriously damage the beef industry.
Final Product of Copenhagen Conference is Informal, Non-Binding Agreement
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon at the Copenhagen conference. (image: deccanherald.com)
After a long two weeks in Copenhagen, an uneasy accord was reached early Saturday morning, after the official end of the conference. According to the New York Times, the final agreement came in the way of a 12-paragraph statement of intent, not the legally binding pledge many hoped to walk away with. Almost every country was said to have approved the final agreement, even though it was largely seen as a flawed compromise that left many bitterly disappointed.
Among the details missing from the accord were firm targets for emissions reductions and any kind of deadline for enacting a binding treaty. President Obama himself said the accord was only a “modest step” towards real progress. The deal does call for major emitters to curb greenhouse gases and help developing nations with much-needed aid. However, since it is non-binding, there is no telling how effective the pledge will be.
The process of tackling global warming using the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, recently seen to be the best way of handling the problem, seems to be falling apart. As seen in Copenhagen, it is increasingly difficult to reach a global consensus when so much bad blood and hostility exists between rich and poor nations. As the world moves forward, it may be time to try a new tactic.
For much of the world, the outcome of the Copenhagen talks was disappointing. However, if and when a deal is reached in the future, it will largely be due to the hard work that was done in Denmark. Here’s hoping next time is more fruitful.
This Week in Heating Oil: December 18
The second week of the UN climate conference in Copenhagen has wound down, and there’s not a lot to get excited about. Disorganization, conflict, and mistrust marred the conference from beginning to end. President Obama’s speech to the conference today failed to bring about any last-minute breakthroughs, and although some sort of eleventh-hour deal could come out of Copenhagen tonight or even tomorrow, it doesn’t appear very likely. For more details on what happened there over the last two weeks, take a look at Kristy Kershaw’s daily reports on the happenings in Denmark.
President Obama’s “Cash for Caulkers” program will not be implemented any time soon, if at all–last Friday, the House of Representatives passed a jobs-creation legislation that did not include Cash for Caulkers or any similar program. Hopefully, the program will get the support it needs some day, but it looks like that day is at least months away.
Some progress was made this week–also last Friday, the US House passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, which included limitations on how commodities contracts, including crude oil and heating oil, could be traded. The intended effect of the provisions is a reduction of oil price volatility to make budgeting easier on businesses and individuals who rely on heating oil and other energy products.
From Copenhagen: Sea Levels Could Rise Up to 29 Feet Over the Next Few Hundred Years
(image: dailymail.co.uk)
A new study emerged out of Copenhagen on Wednesday, claiming that global sea levels could rise by up to 9 meters (roughly 30 feet) in the next few hundred years, even if the world manages to stave off a temperature raise above 2 degrees Celsius. This new estimate is higher than any other that has been predicted so far, and would mean low-lying coastal areas like New Orleans, areas of Southern Florida, Bangladesh, and most of the Netherlands would be severely affected.
Perhaps ironically, the head of the African group of nations proposed a deal today that would cut aid to poor countries by more than half of what has been discussed thus far. Meles Zenawi, the prime minister of Ethiopia, called for $50 billion a year by 2015 and $100 billion per year by 2020, saying that they have more to lose, and therefore must be flexible. The amount of aid due to poor nations has been the subject of intense debate in Copenhagen, with the European Union pledging several billion in the short term, and the United States having yet to pledge anything at all.
While the aid will undoubtedly help poor nations as they attempt to deal with climate change, if no deal is struck at Copenhagen, the news for rising seas levels is not good. Hopefully as more world leaders make their way to Copenhagen over the next few days, negotiations will un-stall and begin to make some real progress forward.
Copenhagen Day 4: Island Nations Reject 2ºC Temperature Rise, and the U.S. Pushes For Emissions Cuts From China, Other Developing Nations
The tiny island nation of Tuvalu. (image: travel.nationalgeographic.com)
Tensions continued between the rich and poor nations of the world today at day 4 of the Copenhagen Climate Summit. According to the U.K. Guardian, the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis) formally rejected the proposed goal of limiting a global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. The grouping of 43 of the smallest world nations, and those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, said any rise more then 1.5 degrees Celsius is not acceptable coming out of these negotiations.
The group has the backing of 48 of the developed nations of the world, and includes Tuvalu, the nation that inspired a walkout at yesterday’s talks over their desire to come to a legally binding agreement with more ambitious targets for everyone.
The proposal to limit the rise in global average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius would require massive and near-immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as removal of CO2 already in the atmosphere. Technology for a large-scale removal of CO2 does not yet exist and according to the International Energy Agency, such cuts would require up to $10.5 trillion in investments in energy-related technology by 2030.
Copenhagen Day 2: Outrage From Developing Nations, The Warmest Decade on Record, and the Effects of the EPA Decision
(image: krakowpost.com)
It’s day 2 of the Copenhagen Climate Conference and things are really heating up (no pun intended). Negotiations hit a serious roadblock today, after a secret draft agreement, apparently coming from the U.S., U.K., and Denmark, was leaked.
According to the UK Guardian, developing nations are furious as the so-called Danish Text is calling for unequal emissions caps for rich and poor nations.
More specifically, the agreement suggests allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tons of carbon per person, while limiting poor countries to just 1.44 tons per person.
The agreement is a complete about-face from the Kyoto Protocol, which called for rich nations to shoulder much of the burden to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries have balked at the secret nature of the draft agreement, the unequal policies proposed, and the inherent weakened role of the U.N. suggested by the text.
Carbon Dioxide Injections Offer Hope of Carbon-Neutral Oil
Denbury’s pipelines bring naturally occurring carbon dioxide, but that could be supplanted by carbon capture and sequestration technology. (image: scientificamerican.com)
Denbury Resources has paid handsomely for a large oil field in Texas. Reporting on Denbury’s $420 million purchase of Wapiti Energy’s Conroe Field, Christopher Helman at Forbes said it initially looked like Denbury had overpaid for the patch of land. But, as Helman pointed out, that was before you took into account that Denbury is hoping to reinvigorate the field, and significantly up its output, by injecting it with heavy doses of carbon dioxide, a process Helman says has “big implications for the capture and sequestration of carbon emissions from power plants across the country.” If this approach works, Denbury could have a tenfold production jump in Conroe’s production in as little as five years.
Conroe Field, which is north of Houston and has been active since 1931, was once, as Helman put it, a “gusher,” producing nearly 60,000 barrels per day at its height. Although Wapiti Energy was able to increase the field’s output after purchasing it from ExxonMobil in 2006—under Exxon it was yielding only 1,200 barrels per day and Wapiti got it up to 2,500—Denbury thinks it can do much better with its new, high-tech approach.
EPA To Rule Greenhouse Gases a Danger, Open Door for Regulation
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced today that the EPA would regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. (image: nationalpost.com)
This afternoon, the Environmental Protection Agency released a landmark statement concerning climate change and the impact of carbon emissions on the environment. Signaling a major shift in the US stance on the issue brought about by the Obama administration, the statement, delivered by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, declared officially that: “the threat [of climate change] is real … Polar ice caps crumbling into the oceans, changing migratory patterns of animals and broader ranges for deadly diseases, historic droughts, more powerful storms, and disappearing coastlines.”
The agency has released an endangerment finding that declares greenhouse gases a threat to public and environmental health. As to the US government response to this crisis, she announced that “there are no more excuses for delay,” perhaps trying to sway the Senate’s recent debate about stripping funding for environmental protection, or prodding it into action on the climate bill. Said Jackson:
Copenhagen: Preparations and Expectations
The stage is set for historic progress on battling man-made climate change at the Copenhagen Conference. Will it be a success or a dud? (image: Associated Press via dailymail.co.uk)
Editor’s Note: After literally years planning and shifting expectations, the Copenhagen Conference begins today and runs through December 18th. With so much at stake for the world and the country, HeatingOil.com has taken on the duty of providing daily Copenhagen Conference updates. Our reporter Kristy Kershaw will be bringing you the highlights of the conference and breaking down what happens there into how it will affect us here.
The wait is finally over! The 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference kicked off in Denmark today, amid a flurry of recent speculation over what, if anything, this summit will accomplish. We begin with a look at some recent announcements and predictions, ranging from the hopeful to the pessimistic: Read More »
Prepare for Copenhagen with this Climate Change Reading List
There are libraries of books on climate change, but NPR offers a short list to get you started. (image: austinevan via flickr.com)
For laymen who are looking forward to next week’s climate change summit in Copenhagen, it is time to start cramming. On Thursday, National Public Radio presented listeners with a list of books that will give readers greater insight into the various ins and outs of climate change legislation and the overall global warming debate.
Although they all deal with climate change in some way, the books vary in approach. Some focus on the scientific aspects of global warming, while others take a step back and look at the debate itself. Another topic addressed is what individuals can do to limit energy use in their own households in order to save money and cut carbon emissions.
Though it is highly unlikely that the Copenhagen summit will settle all of the debates and problems surrounding climate change, with books like these at least individual readers and consumers can gain insight into the debates and perhaps do their part by becoming more energy conscious.
Copenhagen: The View From Space
(image: wikipedia.org)
The aliens are laughing at us. At least, that’s what Olivia Judson imagines in her equally delightful and sobering New York Times Opinionator piece Tuesday. In this wholly entertaining, completely educational post, Judson casts four well-to-do aliens as the voice of reason concerning the earth’s fate, and how much we ‘bipeds’ are willing (or not) to do to change.
Though the setting is lighthearted, a luxury space cruiser near the sun, the statistics are anything but. According to the “Intergalactic Council,” (aka NASA) the carbon dioxide levels in the earth’s atmosphere are up 107 parts per million from just 200 years ago, a drastic shift that will definitely affect the earth’s climate. And while the aliens do point out that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been higher than it is now, never has there been such a huge increase in such a short period of time. In a worst case scenario, that means disappearing islands, huge storms, an increase in disease, uninhabitable lands and mass starvation.
The aliens also point out, via Sciencedaily.com, that over the last decade, even as we made pledge after pledge to deal with global warming, carbon dioxide emissions have increased well over our own worst projected scenarios.
So yes, the aliens are laughing at us. But really…can you blame them?
2010 Midterm Elections Erode Congressional Support for Climate Bill
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Sen. John McCain are two politicians who have become increasingly resistant to climate change legislation. (image: boston.com)
The climate bill currently under debate in the U.S. Senate may be headed for yet another roadblock. On Wednesday, Lisa Lerer of Politico reported that the cap and trade bill that barely passed through the House of Representatives in June—and is in danger of going nowhere in the Senate—is now threatened by moderate Republicans who are trying to secure conservative votes in upcoming primary races and 2010 midterm elections.
According to Lerer, Republicans who have proven supportive of climate change legislation in the past (such as John McCain, Mark Kirk, Charlie Crist, Carly Fiorina, and Tim Pawlenty) are now distancing themselves from climate legislation in an effort to protect themselves from challenges by the far right. Democrats have tried to win over these Republicans, but they’ve now joined their more conservative counterparts in criticizing the bill’s bureaucratic messiness, questioning what impact the bill will have on an already beleaguered economy, and questioning the veracity of climate science. According to Lerer, these Republicans’ newfound concerns over the economy and science do not symbolize a shift in policy concerns but a shift in Republican politics.
Changes to Daily Life Under Cap and Trade Will be Gradual, Experts Say
Cap and trade would likely increases Americans’ electric bills, but could also lead to dividend checks from utilities to consumers. (image: t. magnum via flickr.com)
Experts believe that Americans’ day-to-day lives will not change noticeably as the U.S. works toward President Obama’s recently announced goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by one-sixth, an Associated Press article reported on Friday. At the U.N.-sponsored climate change summit next week in Copenhagen, the White House will commit the U.S. to a goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 to about 17 percent below 2005 levels. According to the Department of Energy, this goal would bring emissions to about 12.5 percent below 2008 levels. The president also set a goal of reducing emissions by 83 percent by 2050, which is what European countries want.
Experts say that although such cuts may mean higher energy bills, they might also mean fewer deaths from air pollution and a utility dividend check at the end of the year. But mostly, they say, the changes will be so small that the general public will not even notice.
Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton, likened the changes that would occur under Obama’s 2020 target with the changes in refrigerators over the past 30 years. Without consumers noticing, refrigerators have become about three times more energy efficient. Oppenheimer told the AP that the only time people really notice is when they buy a refrigerator, because they are more expensive, or when they notice the savings on their utility bill.
China to Cut Carbon Intensity, But Not Emissions
A cyclist fends off pollution during a commute in Lanzhou, China. 2006. (image: telegraph.co.uk)
In something of a resolution of the back-and-forth between China and the United States over carbon emissions, China has made a commitment. The Financial Times reported Monday that while China has staunchly refused to agree to an emissions cut, it has agreed to curb its carbon intensity 40–45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. As HeatingOil.com reported in our recent “China Report,” carbon intensity refers to the energy-efficiency of carbon-emitting facilities. In other words, China intends to reduce their carbon emissions per unit of GDP, rather than as a whole.
Both the U.S. and China have been reluctant to reveal any specific numbers when it comes to carbon commitments, so the fact that both have come to the table with some concrete proposals is seemingly progress. The United States is currently going forward with a 17 percent proposed reduction from 2005 levels, and the announcement undoubtedly spurred China to take some action of its own.
It is important to note, however, that carbon intensity and carbon emissions are not the same thing. While China’s commitment may seem aggressive, their carbon emission level is incredibly high to start. And even if they do reduce their intensity, their carbon emissions will still likely more than double by 2030, on account of their growing economy. Taking the full picture into account, perhaps it isn’t so much progress after all.
Obama Takes Climate Stand: Announces Emissions Target, Plans to Attend Copenhagen
President Obama is officially eyeing a U.S. emissions reduction target. (image: tdbimg.com and seedcapitalfunds.com)
Last week, President Obama ended months of speculation concerning his pre-holiday travel plans by announcing that he will personally attend the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen. The announcement is significant for two reasons, according to Darren Samuelson and Lisa Friedman in Wednesday’s New York Times.
First, Obama will be the first sitting president to attend the conference since George H.W. Bush in 1992, which lends the visit substantial symbolic value, even if Obama’s attendance doesn’t lead to an international pact. The fact that Obama is boarding a plane at all marks a break from the previous administration, whose public comments on climate change most often consisted of a wan shrug.
NJ Utility CEO Argues for Cap and Trade
Illustration of carbon cap-and-trade. (image: granitegeek.org)
On Sunday, the Washington Post published an opinion piece by Ralph Izzo, chief executive of New Jersey’s Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), in which he offered his support for a cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse emissions. Although many energy corporations are hesitant to throw their support behind cap-and-trade and climate legislation, Izzo pleads for Congress to pass a strong climate bill. While admitting that current climate change legislation requires changes Izzo asserts that the most important thing to do right now is to put a price on carbon via cap-and-trade. According to Izzo, the benefits of implementing a cap-and-trade system far outweigh the estimated costs of such a program.
Aside from the environmental benefits of limiting global warming, Izzo argues that Congressional approval of climate change legislation will allow the United States to keep up with the countries of Europe and Asia that have already made great strides in developing and implementing alternative energy sources. Furthermore, Izzo asserts that placing prices on carbon is the first step to making the United States less dependent on foreign energy and will promote the creation of green industries and jobs. Perhaps most important, Izzo notes that cap-and-trade should be thought of as “cap-and-innovate” as cap-and trade “will give companies an economic foundation for investments in energy efficiency and clean energy, unleashing the innovation that only a well-functioning market can provide.”
Study: Emissions-Reduction Efforts Better Spent on Renewables than Nuclear
Building more nuclear reactors may take too much time and do too little to reduce emissions. (image: amitojgautam.wordpress.com)
A new report has concluded that more nuclear power is not going to help reduce global warming, reports Tiffany Hsu in the Los Angeles Times. A citizen-based environmental advocacy organization, the Environment California Research & Policy Center, says that launching a nuclear power industry nearly from the ground up will take too long and cost too much. Researchers say energy efficiency standards and renewable energy options are better solutions.
The last time a nuclear power plant was built in the US was 1978 and there are no new nuclear reactors on the horizon. All orders for nuclear facilities after fall 1973 were eventually canceled, according to the report.
The study suggested that building a new reactor would take about a decade; it could be completed by 2016 at the earliest. Plus, due to the lack of trained personnel, it would be difficult to manufacture parts for the reactor.
Even if the nuclear industry managed to build 100 reactors by 2030, the power they produced would only reduce total US emissions by 12 percent over the next 20 years. For Environment California, that is “far too little, too late.”
This report comes on the heels of recent reports that nuclear energy is the key to winning bipartisan support for the climate bill in the Senate. So although nuclear energy might be the politically expedient choice, it may not be the wise one.
IEA Economist Birol Addresses Reactions to the World Energy Outlook
Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist and a key figure behind their recent World Energy Outlook. (image: evworld.com)
Last week, Fatih Birol, chief economist for the International Energy Agency, answered questions submitted to the Financial Times by curious readers. Many of the questions concerned the IEA’s most recent World Energy Outlook, which, among other things, outlined a global energy policy meant to stave off catastrophic climate change.
In his answers Birol described the details of the IEA’s “450 scenario,” the possibility of peak oil, and the rise of natural gas. Above all, Birol seemed interested in separating fact from fancy, and many of his responses—though only a paragraph in length—serve as clear and concise summaries of the IEA’s recent statistical findings and political recommendations.
Global Warming Will Not Go on Trial in Oil Drilling Protester Case
Tim DeChristopher. (image: Steve Griffen via Salt Lake Tribune)
Tim DeChristoper, an environmental activist who last year successfully bid on $1.8 million worth of federal and gas leases, will not be allowed to testify in court that he “acted out of necessity” in order to save the environment, according to an article in Monday’s New York Times.
DeChristopher had no intentions, nor the ability, to pay for the bids he won. As a result, he was charged with making false statements and interfering with an auction, crimes punishable by a five year prison sentence. The judge presiding over the case said that DeChristopher did not prove that “the harm that Mr. DeChristopher perceived from the lease sale was not imminent,” and that he could have pursued other means to block the leases. By ruling that the defense’s planned argument supporting DeChristopher’s actions did not meet legal requirements, the judge effectively banished the strategy from the courtroom.
In a post last month here on HeatingOil.com, Steven Zweig, an attorney, said that if DeChristopher’s legal team was allowed to debate the dangers of global warming in a federal court, it would be a major symbolic victory for the environmental movement.
