Climate change legislation: barely enough commitment to make a difference

            Considering that the last administration treated global warming as a dubious, economy-killing figment of liberals’ imaginations, the climate change bill now winding through Congress (having been goaded into fruition by President Obama) is a welcome dose of reality to environmentalists.

            The ideal piece of legislation would find a way to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions—either by taxing a harmful activity or by making the price reflect the full market value once the amount of pollution on the globe is factored into production costs.  The incentive would be to invest in less harmful forms of energy, whereby doing the right thing would not be cost-inhibitive.  Mass producing renewable energy is more expensive in the short run simply because the technology is newer and more inefficient than it would be had we more extensively conducted research and development over the past few decades.

            But simply making fossil fuel energy suddenly more expensive because the social costs are being factored in for the first time is not an effective argument to make to a country that is suffering from a recession, treats higher taxes as political poison, and has deeply entrenched coal and oil interests.  That latter point has been made abundantly clear, as 85 percent of allowances to pollute that are supposed to be auctioned off under a cap-and-trade system (which reduced sulfur dioxide levels when enacted in the 1990s) will be given away to the energy industries.  Plus, the target of reduction has been moved to 17 percent of 2005 levels, versus 20 percent, to occur in 2020—a compromise that Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) helped bring about to assist the coal companies of Virginia.

            I do worry a little about the effect of carbon caps on industries, as companies could face higher operational costs that would cause worker layoffs.  However, I would hope that the same congressmen who are seeking to protect the employers/campaign contributors of their constituencies would be stumbling over themselves to pass policies that promote the creation of new R&D for and operation of renewable energy industries in their districts.  That is why I wonder if tax rebates to consumers to counter higher energy costs imposed on fossil-fuel based companies under new regulation would have any promotional effect for cleaner energy.  If companies can raise rates to pay the government, then the government compensates consumers, all that occurs is a meaningless transfer of wealth, no?

            The bill needs strict, funded mandates—governors should develop plans to derive at least 17 percent of their state’s energy from renewable sources by 2020, with the ability to apply for federal grants to in-state start-up firms.  Once sufficient alternatives to fossil fuel energy become available, consumers ought not to be shielded from the higher costs of pollution.  In fact, while the idea is not to harm poorer people by increasing their energy costs (if anything, rebates should only be handed out to those qualified for Medicaid, Medicare, or unemployment insurance), middle and upper-class people should be goaded into reducing their energy usage.  Advertising campaigns about turning off lights and using less water are cute, but they are also true.  Not all energy-saving methods are as grand as buying a hybrid; simply doing the little things, and doing them often, will add up.

            The excuse given for why high reductions cannot occur quickly is that it is questionable whether the growing industrial economies of India and China will also comply with global emissions requirements, giving them an unfair advantage in production if they do not.  Yet China has already has already asked the U.S. to make much more earnest requirements in order to take climate change proposals seriously, so why not engage them on the matter?  They are our vital negotiating partner on North Korea and economic stabilization, and as long as the world economy is retooling, their role should be defined as well.

            That something must be done to curb harmful greenhouse emissions is not only realistic, but it is also something this Congress has thankfully been willing to address.  Unfortunately, they have masked short term commitment by claiming to protect their constituents, but in reality handing over the keys to the fossil fuel industries.  True enough, by 2050 83 percent of emissions are supposed to have been cut.  But long term goals are useless if politicians aren’t willing to make short term commitments.  Perhaps once the renewable energy lobby gains enough clout, then serious change will occur.

Why driving a car can still be energy-efficient

            A crumbling auto industry, a growing environmental consciousness, congestion in major cities, the sociopolitical cost of importing foreign oil, and a progressive attitude towards land use policies are all converging to generate the expansive question: how should our lifestyles change in order to make the most efficient use of our resources?

            Last week, a report was published by the University of California-Berkeley that examined the environmental impact and energy use of different modes of transportation.  However, the study did not simply measure the emissions of singular vehicles, but rather computed the amount of energy required to build, maintain, and operate entire systems of transportation.  For example, in looking at the airline industry we can identify different sectors of energy use: active operation (cruising, taking off, landing), inactive operation (idling on the runway, taxiing), and non-operational components (construction, maintenance, airports, parking lots, jet fuel delivery).

            The data are important for establishing equivalency.  From the study: “an SUV (which is one of the worst energy performers) with 2 passengers…is equivalent to a bus with 8 passengers.  Similarly, CA HRT (heavy rail transit) with 120 passengers (27% occupancy…) is equivalent to a midsize aircraft with 105 passengers (75% occupancy).”  Now, these figures are averaged not only for a fixed period of operation (as in one day, or scheduled operation over an entire route) but are also averaged over the lifetime of the vehicle in question, including its support structure.

            So, given the energy use for an entire transportation system, we can deduce that while diesel-powered trains may have lower overall emissions per passenger-mile than jumbo jets, the construction of track and all aspects related to stations use significantly more energy than airport and runway construction (which makes sense, because planes have no infrastructure needs in the air).  The best way to reduce emissions for rail transit is to make stations more energy efficient or use less energy-intensive inputs in track construction.  However, the way to reduce emissions for automobiles and airplanes is to improve the combustion process of the vehicles themselves via biofuels or hybrids.

 

            That some modes of transit are not as “green” as one would expect is not particularly shocking—a less-fragmented energy comparison can be found here—but some questions are left unanswered.  For instance, when a community is built up around a light rail stop which ties together retail, housing, and human services (with the anticipation of minimizing vehicular traffic), would that not lower the overall energy usage of that particular geographic area?  In which case, how do we factor that into the lifetime emissions of light rail?

            Furthermore, if an SUV with two passengers equals a bus with eight passengers, it would make mathematical sense to cut bus routes with low-ridership and encourage carpooling.  However, would it make political sense if the bus route is providing a needed social service to poor neighborhoods where the residents cannot afford vehicles?

            The study also fails to mention that even though an equivalency may be found between a car and a train, it is always more energy efficient to take the train, simply because of the fact that the train will run regardless of whether you are on board; the aggregate of many people choosing to drive will drastically increase emissions.  However, the same logic can also apply to cars: it is better to ride with someone who would have driven regardless, rather than take a separate car.

            Finally, there is a tiny statistic buried within the greenhouse gas discussion: while San Francisco’s light rail system uses more energy than that of Boston, Boston’s light rail emits more greenhouse gases.  Why?  Because a greater portion of the San Francisco system’s energy comes from non-fossil fuel sources (51% versus Boston’s 18%).  The importance?  While the goal should be to use less energy, the source of energy rather than the quantity used could be as effective in cutting emissions.

            The lessons from this type of study are as follows: first, it is important to look at the biggest source of emissions in the entire support system for a mode of transportation in order to address inefficiencies.  Second, when the recession ends and oil use starts to increase again, overall emissions could still be decreased through targeted efforts to increase carpooling and off-peak transit use.  It may put greater strain on infrastructure to have more people crowding onto buses and train platforms during rush hour, but more evenly-spaced passenger loads would help improve longevity of the support system.  Lastly, there is no “green” form of transit when we look at the total inputs required to operate the various modes of transportation—there are simply least-harmful options.

            In a day or two, we’ll look at the other component of the energy agenda—the administration’s effort to lower emissions by cap-and-trade fiat.

Cycling: the hooptie revolution

            I want to ride my bicycle

            I want to ride my bike.

            I want to ride my bicycle.

            I want to ride it where I like.

            —Queen, 1978

Unless you are five years old, deliver newspapers, or are Lance Armstrong, most of us Americans do not make bicycling an integral part of our lives.  American urban planning lags behind in the creation of dedicated bike lanes and there has plainly been lack of public motivation to consider how cycling will factor into one’s lifestyle as long as gasoline was cheap—a halcyon era never to be seen again.  These issues, coupled with motorist antagonism, render bicycle use as a commuting method out of the mainstream—behind car pooling, walking, using public transportation, and even working from home.   

      Europeans, unsurprisingly live a more bike-centric existence.  In the flat country of Holland, for example, there are twenty million bicycles compared to sixteen million people.  Plus, there is a multilevel bicycle garage erected outside Amsterdam Central train station that houses 2,500 hogs while their owners are traveling, going to work, or, presumably, selling copious amounts of weed to backpacking American college students.

 

    But out of reaction to high gas prices, and recognition of the environmental and health benefits, bicycle and electric bicycle sales are up (by 9 percent in the U.S., 14.6 percent in Europe over the past five years) and Washington, D.C. has even implemented a “bike sharing” program (similar to car sharing), where trendy commuters or energetic tourists can rent one of 120 bikes at ten locations, ride it for an hour, and return it at another site.  While this pales in comparison to the European standard (Paris has 20,000 bikes at 1,450 sites), for the car-centric and transit-crowded District to be in line with progressive cities on the west coast will take more than this—a primarily psychological step towards eco-friendliness.

            Be forewarned, though, that bicycling is a still form of transportation with an oil dependency.  Humans have to burn energy to power the cycles, and agriculture (grown by fertilizers containing oil and natural gas, plowed by tractors burning diesel fuel, and transported by trucks also using diesel) still requires fossil fuels, despite the fact that you don’t have to personally pump it into a tank.  Not to mention that bike trails and roadways (made of asphalt) must be maintained with machines burning oil.  Still, cycling is good for the body and for the spirit, mitigates traffic congestion, and increases the air quality.  Cyclists can even be multimodal to travel greater distances: some transit buses have metal racks on the grille to carry bicycles; and Caltrain, the commuter railroad between San Francisco and San Jose, not only has bike storage at its stations but dedicates railcar space to transporting bicycles.  This is very generous, considering that cyclists do not pay extra to carry their bikes on board, yet seats for paying passengers are being sacrificed.  But in the end, it is just an illustration of how permeated bike use has become as a viable form of transportation in the Bay Area.

      If more communities were walkable/rideable, then the average American might be less intimidated on busy city streets.  Ironically though, it is not just the car that could scare prospective riders.  Hardcore cyclists often weave through traffic, disregard red lights and stop signs, cut off pedestrians, use the wrong side of the road, careen past slow and casual riders, and in general seem to own the road.  If cyclists observe traffic laws and courtesies and not pretend to be zipping along on the Tour de France during the ride home from work, it should be much easier to coexist with automobiles.  That being said, dedicated bike paths would be safer and smoother as well as reinforce a particular city/county’s dedication to greener transit.

      Bicycles are only part of the solution to wean our dependence on oil and deal with the cost of increasing development and an increasing population.  Much like mass transportation, there can be a psychological impediment to bike usage—the distances may seem too far, you might become too tired, it might be too dangerous, you may look ridiculous, a car is more comfortable, etc.  But there are very real physical limitations to bike usage as a result of sprawl and our dedication to personal vehicles; and like mass transportation, if bicycling becomes more accessible (either in crowded cities or in transit-oriented communities) and more trendy, Americans might start to use it in the way that our European counterparts have done for years.

Bubble Bubble, Oil in Trouble

            Americans are predictable creatures: they like their cars big, their Internet fast, their water clean, their popcorn buttered, their news sensational, their celebrities screwed up, and their fuel cheap.  Yep, when God put fossil fuels on this earth (as with ketchup, democracy, football, and everything else we worship), He did so with the presumption that we would grow our cities, lay down paved roads through the open hinterlands of the west, and maybe even make sport out of burning copious amounts of gasoline by driving in circles for hours on end in front of a mesmerized crowd.

            Except the great Bubba in the sky gave us a small caveat: we could not use fossil fuels forever (which is just absurd: it’s almost impossible to imagine our oil supply coming to an end any more than if Saturday Night Live were to end—it is an institution that transcends time).  Now that gas prices are skyrocketing, we begin to see how that could be problematic.  But really, who could have predicted that a finite resource which took millions of years to form and only a century-and-a-half to extract would become harder to access with diminishing supply and increasing demand?  Well, this guy for starters: M. King Hubbert.  In 1956, Hubbert, a geologist working for Shell Oil, theorized that our oil would be supplied according to a bell curve; upon reaching its peak, the easily-accessible oil would run out resulting in the diminished capability for recovery and lowering the supply.  He thought that the peak for the United States would occur in 1970 and the peak for the world would occur right about now.  He was laughed at in the industry.  But 1970 rolled around and we ended up hitting our peak, then the laughter stopped.  We are now extracting in this country about as much onshore oil as we were in 1940—the U.S. requires about 21 million barrels of oil per day, of which we only supply 8.5. 

            What should we do about this unfortunate inconvenience?  We could open up the Arctic for drilling or explore the oceans, as noted analyst Dr. Charles Norris has suggested.  But at the risk of receiving a roundhouse kick to the noggin, I would venture that this is too expensive a solution that would only last a couple of decades at most.  If it must be done, it should only be done out of necessity to keep our economy from collapsing while we rapidly invest in new sources of energy—and I’m not referring to coal.  Those who advocate for more drilling and more coal mining are thinking regressively and behaving stubbornly.  It is true that we have a coal supply that will last at least 250 years, however coal mining disfigures the countryside and accounts for 40 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  If we let the free market decide, we will be an oil-based economy until our doomsday, so it’s time that Mean Ol’ Big Government gives a push to finding a solution that will carry us into the next few decades without having to move from fuel crisis to fuel crisis.

            Development of renewable energy sources should be given an immediate boost in funding for research and implementation by the government, and if that means taxing oil and coal companies then so be it.  Remember: General Motors, Standard Oil, and Firestone Tire were the guys who, beginning in the 1920s, conspired to buy up rail transit systems in 45 cities and tear out the rails, replacing the trains with their own buses and electricity for oil.  That was the wave of the future half a century ago, now we need to look at not only repairing our mass transit infrastructure, but restructuring our energy supply.  Currently only one percent of our country’s energy is being supplied by solar, wind, geothermal, etc. sources (excluding hydroelectric). 

People become skeptical that clean energy can be applied on a large scale; they visualize Rube Goldberg-type fantasy machines that power entire cars, homes, and businesses.  That isn’t necessarily what is needed.  Take, for example, a building in Bahrain that has three windmills incorporated into the structure to provide fifteen percent of its energy.  Conservation can be classy as well as practical.  In fact, windmills alone currently provide enough energy to power 4.5 million homes.  Remember: any uptick in renewable energy usage means less dependence on coal and oil, and if the demand decreases so will the price.  As if high gas prices weren’t enough to increase demand for more fuel efficient cars and expansion of mass transportation, the government should look into providing more resources to expand mass transit (especially intercity rail travel—trains emit half the amount of carbon per passenger mile as an airplane and certainly less than a car) and perhaps providing tax incentives to foster the production and purchase of electric cars.

            Rebuilding an economy based on renewable energy is not just left-wing hippyism—coal and oil have, since the Industrial Revolution, been used to collapse distances and connect the world technologically and physically and to that we owe a round of applause.  But now the globe is getting warmer and the oil supply is running thinner.  It will hurt a little to usher in new forms of energy, but think of all the benefits.  It will encourage colleges in the U.S. to graduate more engineers (China graduates four times as many as we do, and two-thirds of our degrees go to foreign-born students) to design the technologies needed for clean energy, it will provide jobs to those who build, install, and maintain such devices as solar panels and windmills, and will free us from dependence on the turbulent Middle East for oil.  But we need to start planning now; we’re running out of dead dinosaurs to burn.

 

6/12