Hartwell

I feel it's about time I commented on the Hartwell Paper [pdf], a white paper written by 14 climate-energy experts who propose a new direction for climate policy.

The basic premise of the paper is that climate policy has been not only ineffective over the past 15 years, but a complete failure--the Kyoto Protocol achieved exactly none of its stated goals, perhaps because emissions reduction targets that are neither enforced nor really attempted are a poor method to fix the greenhouse gas problem. The proposed solution to this failure has become price on carbon, whether by cap-and-trade or carbon tax, that internalizes the cost of global warming pollution. Such market-based mechanisms for GHG reduction received support from influential economists like William Nordhaus and Nicholas Stern, as well as popular policy journalists like Thomas Friedman.

The Hartwell Paper, in short, argues that a price on carbon is insufficient to achieve the desirable climate goals that are implicitly and explicitly stated by climate activists the world over: energy security, an end to energy poverty, clean energy, etc. A modest carbon price that does not entirely internalize the cost of pollution would go mostly unnoticed by society, whereas a more comprehensive price in the $300/ton range that Stern recommended would too drastically disturb market conditions in every economic sector. The movement from dirty to clean energy must grow from a more holistic, positive and funcitonal base. From the Executive Summary:

The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our efforts should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.

The functionality of the respective approaches to climate policy differs, according to the authors, in the framing of each argument:

To reframe the climate issue around matters of human dignity is not just noble or necessary. It is also likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around human sinfulness -- which has failed and will continue to fail.

As Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus wrote in their essay "The Death of Environmentalism,"

Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech is famous because it put forward an inspiring, positive vision that carried a critique of the current moment within it. Imagine how history would have turned out had King given an "I have a nightmare" speech instead.

The strategy of scolding all human behavior has proved ineffective and not a tad condescending. We should aim for policy and behavior that appeals to our better angels, not actions and rhetoric that reprimand our perceived demons.

Quote of the Day

Teryn Norris, from his piece "The Collapse of Competitiveness Policy" at the Huffington Post:

At the end of the Second World War, President Roosevelt wrote a letter requesting recommendations from Vannevar Bush, the first presidential science advisor and co-leader of the Manhattan Project, for the creation of a new federal enterprise for science and technology. "New frontiers of the mind are before us," the president wrote, "and if they are pioneered with the same vision, boldness, and drive with which we have waged this war we can create a fuller and more fruitful life." Today, in the face of great national challenges, we must defend and strengthen the federal innovation system once more.

Energetics Cliff Notes - Tuesday Edition

• Kate Sheppard summarizes the last few weeks and the Administration's sluggish response to the oil spill.
• Senator Lindsay Graham criticizes the climate bill he had a heavy hand in creating.
• A recent poll shows deteriorating public support for offshore oil drilling.
• According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Western states could get 35% of their power from solar and wind technology within seven years.
• Michael Giberson discusses the smart grid and the advance of civilization.
• Current Cost, the largest global supplier of realtime power meters, is now compatible with Google PowerMeter.
• Jonathan Hiskes asks: In wake of Gulf spill, should this be the summer of energy reform?
• California Gubernatorial Candidate and current Attorney General Jerry Brown is demanding that the federal government not dismantle PACE, a financing program to reduce electricity use.
• Mother Jones calculates how many offshore wind turbines we could buy for the cost of one Deepwater Rig.
• Paul Krugman talks about regulation and comments lightly on bureaucratic responses to environmental disasters.

Break's Over*

So. My loyal followers have probably noticed an uncharacteristic silence on the gusher of energy news from the past few weeks (pun intended). My sincere apologies -- finals, championships [I row for Cal Lightweight Crew], etc. I promise I'll make my return worth reading.

_________________________

*Yes, that is a West Wing reference.

Energetics Cliff Notes - Tuesday Edition

• The Atlantic provides graphics that depict the frightening scale of the oil slick in the Gulf, courtesy of Google Earth.
• The California Public Utilities Commission has unveiled SASH, a program to help low-income households install solar systems to their rooftops.
• PG&E has acknowledged that thousands of its Smart Meters are providing inaccurate billing information.
• David Zetland at Aguanomics discusses the human right to water (spoiler: he's not a fan).
• The White House is cracking down on the Minerals Management Service, the government agency that was at least partly responsible for the Gulf Spill (industry capture!).
• The New York Times' Room for Debate is always illuminating, and this time they take on the Gulf Spill.
• Krugman lends his voice to the chorus on the Spill.
• Roger Pielke Jr. discusses the modus operandi of climate action in response to a letter from 255 scientists.
• Fred Palmer of Peabody Coal calls burning fossil fuels "the Lord's work."
• The House recently passed Home Star, a $6 billion rebate program for energy efficiency.

Quote of the Day

From Chris Eichler at 350.org:

"BP made $6 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year alone, and yet they didn't spend $500,000 on a safety valve that could have stopped the gusher almost as soon as it happened. Obama's Department of Interior approved the rig without demanding any proof that it would be safe -- BP's disaster preparedness plan was 'Don't have a disaster.'"

APA Summary

A 21-page summary of the American Power Act, with the full bill scheduled for release tomorrow and now lacking the outspoken support of Senator Lindsay Graham, has leaked online [pdf]. I've read it -- lots of words, few numbers. It places a good deal of legislative language behind CCS research and deployment, as well as nuclear power. If I had to guess, I'd say that the language on offshore oil exploration and drilling has been pulled back significantly. It does unfortunately preempt the states from engaging in cap-and-trade programs of their own design. Title IV defines and outlines a kind of green jobs strategy, and attention is paid to international climate-related activities.

Now, this is a climate and energy bill. At this point, judging from this admittedly rudimentary summary, I can't help but notice the language weighing heavily on the side of climate provisions. Much more is said about allowances, emissions audits and the dreaded carbon offsets than is spent strategizing a new energy infrastructure deployment, whether by clean or dirty tech. Climate advocates may be encouraged by the amount of legislation devoted to emissions reduction, but I'd consider that excitement premature if it does indeed arise. The language of the summary is spent on defining goals and aspirations more than mechanisms for accomplishment, and the architecture of the legislation seems fraught with opportunity for abusing loopholes. We'll see what the final bill enacts, but I'm not optimistic.

I'll be especially interested in the details of Section 1801:

Clean Energy Research and Development: Establishes a Clean Energy Technology Fund to support programs that enhance economic, energy, and environmental security of the U.S through the deployment of energy technologies and promotes U.S. leadership in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.

Going back to Philly

In Philadelphia. Posting may be sparse for a few days. Stay tuned.

Energetics Cliff Notes - Tuesday Edition

• Calitics gives us an update on Valero's mission to kill AB 32.
• Politifact fact-checks Bill Maher's and George Will's energy claims.
• The Oil Drum on decentralization, localization and scale-free self sufficiency of our energy infrastructure.
• ABC Australia lists 10 inventions for a climate-changed future.
• Robert Reich compares BP, Massey Energy and Goldman Sachs in 'The Rebirth of Regulation.'
• NRDC's Dan Lashoff joins the chorus of enviros condemning BP and advocating for emissions reductions.
• TIME reports of Obama's visit to the Gulf Coast.
• Here's the Energy Collective on the leaked tapes from Copenhagen.
• A few Senators are proposing increasing the liability of oil companies in cleaning up after themselves.
• Google is investing $38.8 million in North Dakota wind energy projects, totaling 170 MW of installed capacity.

Too Big to Fail

There has been a lot of commentary over the last few days on the causes and effects of the undersea volcano of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The Obama Administration has been criticized for not reacting quickly enough to the disaster (Katrina, anyone?); the Alabama AG is warning citizens not to rush into a settlement with BP; and still, no one knows how or why this happened in the first place. It is an environmental, political and civil catastrophe, and we are in the thick of Week 1. So we can expect a lot more coverage, anger, and political hedging in the coming weeks. But so far, as much as I can tell, there has been relatively little discussion of the systemic societal conditions that backed us into this corner. If this "spill" (it is far more than that) indicates anything, it is the deep and unfortunately requisite entanglement of energy companies with the federal government. BP is contracted, insured and aided by the government, yet the oil company raked in $6 billion in profits in Q1 2010.

Now, to turn a profit is no societal sin. Indeed, a competitive, entrepreneurial spirit is a key element of the American condition. And the main problem, as I see it, is not runaway capitalism either; this is less a case of unregulated institutional chaos than the banking crash of 2008. No, the problem here isn't too little government involvement--it's too much. Bill Maher put it best over the weekend:

Maher: Oil companies are worse than banks. They're also too big to fail. And their cost to society is also, just like the banks, too great for society to sustain it.

Despite the fact that BP finds itself on the hook for the billions in cleanup and remediation costs, the disaster is still being attended to by the Coast Guard, Homeland Security, Interior, and the President himself. Our national resources are being deployed to respond to a disaster caused by a for-profit company. All of a sudden, we start to notice that energy, the literal lifeblood of our American capitalist economic infrastructure, is helpless without the Invisible Hand of the Government. Here's Vaclav Smil on the subject:

But it would be naive to see these and virtually any other twentieth-century prices either as outcomes of free market competition--or as values closely reflecting the real cost of energy. Long history of governments manipulating energy prices has brought not only unnecessarily higher but also patently lower prices due to subsidies and special regulations affecting distribution, processing, and conversion of fossil fuels, and generating electricity. During the twentieth century governments provided direct financing, research funds, tax credits, and guarantees to advance and subsidize particular development and production activities, thus favoring one form of supply over other forms of energy (Smil, Energy at the Crossroads, 86).

Smil was specifically addressing price controls on energy conversion and extraction, but his point is applied with equal efficacy to global operations in the energy industry. If the heartbeat of the world economy remains linked to the availability of carbon fuels, we will see a rise in government protection, remediation and even acquisition of energy assets. Imagine the current Deepwater Rig explosion, followed by a continuous flood of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, but now add in an armed fight over the reservoir between the US and Venezuela, with Russia and Brazil on the sidelines. As they did in the Unocal affair, the US government will increasingly interrupt international private bidding contests for extraction contracts; as we have seen in the Middle East for half a century, armed conflicts over energy will increasingly exacerbate geopolitical tensions already fueled by poverty and religious zealotry. No matter the exact year of global peak oil production, the addition of 2 billion people to this planet by mid-century will precipitate a huge outstripping of demand over supply if we remain addicted to fossil fuels. This addiction will carry the cost of countless lives, as it already has.

We need an energy infrastructure fueled by clean technology, for which the failure of a single link in the chain does not precipitate a disaster like the one we're currently navigating through. We need technological innovation that fuels capitalist competition, not too-big-to-fail institutions like oil companies. We need energy production run by civilians, not armed soliders in the most culturally turbulent region of the world. Reduced terrestrial pollution; decentralized power production; an end to armed conflicts over energy--the greenhouse gas problem doesn't even have to be a variable in the equation to make this a no-brainer.

If we put our hearts into it...

The following is an excerpt from a spectacular history of offshore drilling in The Economist:

To give an idea of the difficulty of deepwater drilling, Mr. Walker uses an analogy. "Imagine a large offshore oil rig as a match box," he says. Next, imagine the matchbox on top of a two-storey building, with the upper floor filled with water and the lower floor filled with rock, sand and, in some cases, salt. Striking an oil reservoir with a drill pipe is then like hitting a coin at the base of the building with a strange of human hair. The penalties for getting it wrong are enormous. An industry rule of thumb puts the cost of drilling a deepwater "dry hole--a well that does not strike oil--at around $100m; BP says it can be as high as $200m.

What's my point? That we are capable of tremendous engineering achievements. The tragic loss of life, environmental devastation and economic disturbance caused by the BP oil spill in the Gulf are reminders of our need to refocus our efforts to similar engineering challenges in clean technology. The above analogy is a conceptually accurate metaphor that describes the degree of the challenge we face in decarbonizing the economy. The coin represents a civilization constructed on clean infrastructure and technology, and the human hair represents the human effort and skill required to achieve a clean energy future.