Dateline: Copenhagen

India and Russia are forging ahead with their nuclear cooperation, despite the many environmental and financial concerns about nuclear power.  As part of an agreement signed last week during Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s visit to New Delhi, Russia is to construct a dozen nuclear power plants in India, in addition to the two it is already building in the town of Kudankulam in the southern state of Tamil Nadu.  While nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source that will help stem India’s growing greenhouse gas emissions, it is not without tradeoffs, including safety, the waste disposal question, and the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation.  A growing concern to add to this list is water.

All thermoelectric power generation requires large amounts of water for cooling, and nuclear power is particularly water-intensive.  According to a 2009 report by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory , nuclear power consumes around 720 gallons of water per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity generated, in addition to the large amount of water withdrawn for cooling but ultimately returned to the source.  In contrast, producing electricity from coal consumes 450 – 520 gallons per MWh, and natural gas uses a mere 190 gallons per MWh.  This makes nuclear power particularly vulnerable to the disruptions in water supply that will become inevitable with climate change in many regions of the world.  France, which gets most of its electricity from nuclear power, learned this the hard way during the heat wave of 2003 – it was forced to shut down 4000 MW of production capacity because water levels in some rivers dropped so low that there was not enough water for cooling; elsewhere, environmental regulations prevented operations in order to avoid damaging river ecosystems by releasing water that was too hot.

India is facing a severe water crisis, with unpredictable monsoon rains and rapidly depleting groundwater in many regions of the country compounded by leaky infrastructure.  Across the world, population growth and economic development are placing increasing demands on water resources, which are also being affected by changing precipitation patterns due to climate change.  While developing energy strategies going forward, it is essential for decision-makers to consider the water implications of their chosen path.  Nuclear may not be the best answer.  Luckily, low-carbon renewable energy sources also happen to be the least dependent on water.  Both wind and solar photovoltaic practically use no water to generate electricity, providing yet another reason for developing countries like India to look to these low-carbon sources to power their growing economies.

Even though some political leaders have talked about the growing importance of nuclear power, including an announcement by the Obama Administration of nuclear loan guarantees and a call for expanded nuclear power by the French government, nuclear energy only supplied some 5.5 percent of the world’s primary energy in 2008, down the seventh year in a row since a peak in 2001. Many of the currently operating 436 reactors worldwide are quickly aging, leading to a predicted round of accelerated shutdowns from 2020 onward. A global status report [PDF] commissioned by the German government estimates that all 52 reactors under construction as of mid-2009 plus an additional 42 reactors would have to be built and come online by 2015 to maintain the same number of operating reactors in the world over time. Another 192 reactors would need to come online by 2025—the equivalent of one new reactor coming online every 19 days for 10 years. Of the new generation, China is now the clear leader, accounting for 15 of the 21 nuclear reactor construction starts in the last two years and with plans to build more.

With the large number of aging reactors, huge price tags, an aging work force of nuclear experts, and problems with long-term waste storage, should we even consider nuclear as a potential energy solution? In Scotland, where 26 percent of the electricity currently comes from nuclear, the government has decided to shut down plants in the coming years. But in the process of phasing out nuclear, Scotland is now considering a new coal-fired power plant to replace the power supply. Which has me pondering, if I had to choose among two evils, which would be worse: billions in subsidies for nuclear or billions in subsidies for coal? Which would you choose?

For more nuclear statistics and numbers, read John Mulrow’s “World Nuclear Generation Stagnates.”

Map courtesy of Union of Concerned Scientists

A century ago, a New England winter averaged 24 degrees Fahrenheit. Now, New Englanders are about three degrees warmer during the cold season, and temperatures are likely to continue rising.

As a result, spring is arriving earlier, snowpack is melting faster, and rivers are flowing at peak levels sooner than ecologists have seen before.The growing season for New England forests has been extended.  Trees are now growing for 10 more days per year than foresters observed before 1970.

That may sound like good news for foresters, but it turns out foresters care about much more than just industrial numbers, or in forester-speak “timber volume.” And the climate change forecast for the rest of New England is not so chipper.  I found this out at the New England Society of American Foresters Winter Meeting last week in Nashua, New Hampshire.  There, a talk by Dave Orwig, forest ecologist at the Harvard Forest, revealed a shocking map of predicted climate change in New Hampshire under low and high emissions scenarios (pictured above).  If high emissions continue, cool New Hampshire could be feeling somewhat like the humid Washington DC area by mid-century!  With New Englanders deeply involved in the culture and seasonal activities of their region, this diagram did not excite many people.

Orwig reported that a warmer New England climate would put native habitats and wildlife at increasing risk and force many species to migrate north in order to survive – something trees can do over time, but not necessarily quick enough for forest ecosystems to remain healthy. Climate change could also threaten non-timber forest products such as maple syrup and ecosystem services such as clean water.

An increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is theoretically beneficial for tree growth, but such gains could be offset by expected increases in atmospheric concentrations of air pollutants, while more frequent drought conditions may increase fire risk.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserted in its Fourth Assessment Report that, “New studies suggest that direct CO2 effects on tree growth may be revised to lower values than previously assumed in forest growth models.”

The IPCC report does in fact show net gains in crop and forest growth due to climate change in certain parts of the world, mostly temperate northern latitudes. However, the New England foresters reminded me that as rapid climate change sends shocks through the region’s ecology, the shifts are not likely to benefit business or regional culture.

While U.S. legislators and journalists focus their attention on the safety and financial implications of Toyota’s recall—now expected to cost more than $5 billion over the next year—broader auto trends indicate that the industry as a whole is in trouble. Global production of cars and light trucks dropped 13 percent in 2009, marking the second year of declines in a row. Most of the traditional leading countries saw significant declines in domestic production, although a few markets saw noticeable jumps: China (45 percent increase), India (9.5 percent), and Brazil (3 percent). China is now the most dynamic force in vehicle production as it overtook Japan as the world’s largest automobile producer last year and now outpaces the United States as the world’s largest national motor vehicle market. The rapid growth in emerging markets has contributed to a 55 percent increase in the number of passenger cars on the world’s roads since 2009.

The effects on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change due to the reshuffling of vehicle production and use remain unknown. Current biofuels in use today are achieving only minimal, if any, emission reductions, and a more promising second generation of biofuels is still years away from commercial production.  With international calls to limit and reduce global emissions, will hybrid and electric car technologies be able to hold down the emissions of a growing fleet?

Learn more about the numbers and the latest vehicle trends in Michael Renner’s “Auto Industry in Turmoil, but Chinese Production Surges” from Vital Signs Online.

With the outcome of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 relatively positive with lower than expected jobs created but job losses slowing and GDP no longer shrinking and even growing again, attention is shifting to the federal budget proposed by President Obama which, in response to the activities of the past year, would offer more government support to economic stimulus efforts.

In light of the return to annual budget deficits beginning with $194 billion (2010 dollars) in 2002 and reaching $1.4 trillion in 2009, President Obama announced a federal budget that trims inefficient programs wherever possible, while he insisted that the government must continue to “lay a new foundation for lasting growth” and “build on the largest investment in clean energy history.”  Indeed, during today’s continued economic uncertainty, the federal government could perform a vital role in pushing the economy and investing in America – and that requires money.

“…energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.”  – President Obama, State of the Union 2010

The New York Times has a great visual for the federal budget in fiscal year 2010 (FY10) and FY11 for reference.  Take a look at the bottom right hand corner of that figure – energy.  One of those green areas refers to a modest increase (by 5 percent) of investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy.  Most of this money would fall under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) with increases in support, for example, in cutting edge clean energy technology R&D (solar, wind, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and hydrogen and fuel cell technologies), state clean energy and energy efficiency programs, and international coordination and best practice sharing.  The US Department of Agriculture is also looking for a minor increase (less than 2 percent) from FY10 to support mainly biomass for biofuels (see: Red, White, and Green: Transforming U.S. Biofuels) but also biopower, i.e. biomass used for electricity.

Appropriations for EERE increased from $2.16 billion in FY09 to $2.24 billion in FY10.  For the next fiscal year, starting in October of 2010, Obama proposed a $120 million increase for EERE to $2.36 billion for FY11.  For some perspective, the Recovery Act of 2009 pumped $16.8 billion into energy efficiency and renewable energy – that’s nearly 8-times the planned 2011 budget.  A portion of this FY11 increase would address the problems the DOE has had in dispersing Recovery Act money to states – hiring and training the manpower needed to administer the funds at both the federal and state level.  For more information on the obstacles impeding weatherization efforts, check out this DOE inspector general’s report.

Investing in a clean energy economy is about planting the seeds to spur on and support innovation.  And, as DOE Assistant Secretary Cathy Zoi said recently at a briefing in Washington, D.C., government investment is about encouraging high impact innovation – exploration of cutting edge technologies, many of which will probably fail, but the few that succeed could become true game-changers.

Is this budget enough to turn the economic tides and re-ignite a struggling economy based on clean energy?  I don’t know.  But it certainly is another step in the right direction.

Ecobuild is a green building trade fair happening in London this week

Surveying the acres of exhibits at the Ecobuild 2010 green building trade fair in London this week, not to mention the tens of thousands of people mobbing them, I surprised myself with the feeling I wanted to go shopping.

I traveled here to deliver a presentation on population and climate change. But by the time I’d spent a few hours here I felt like moving to England and building a modest little cottage equipped with rainwater harvesting, dimmable LEDs, insulation made from grass, and a furnace and water heater burning waste wood, not to mention a roof full of photovoltaic cells that blend almost seamlessly with Cambrian slate.

For unleashing innovation to deal with climate change, there’s nothing like a good policy environment. The United Kingdom has one. The United States doesn’t. So Ecobuild wouldn’t work in the U.S., not on this scale, anyway, and not with this level of excitement.

The UK launches the opening phase of its national Carbon Reduction Commitment next month, which introduces five-year emissions budgets aimed at an 80-percent reduction of all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. All the country’s political parties embrace the effort. David Cameron, who leads the Conservatives here, is famous for riding his bicycle to show voters how green he is. Many conservatives in my country, I had to admit to my British friends, see snow in February as proof that global warming is a leftist conspiracy and cling to their large vehicles with pride.

Can we “ecobuild” our way to true environmental sustainability? I asked the audience this question in the talk I delivered here. My own answer: probably not. But it’s a heck of a start, and the United Kingdom is moving ahead while, in the United States, we’re mired in politics and inaction. It rains too often in England for my taste, but other than that there’s a lot to like here.

Photo courtesy mrfink/Flickr. A 2007 IPCC report predicted a 100-percent disappearance of Himalayan glaciers by 2035 based, in part, on faulty news reports in the Indian and British press. While glaciers are declining significantly, the IPCC cited a study that in fact estimated total extrapolar glaciation of the Earth would shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2350.

My feature article in the March/April edition of World Watch argues that the news media is no longer a bystander in the climate change drama that has prevented profound low-carbon progress across the industrialized world. Some journalism organizations, hampered by all-time-low revenues and large-scale layoffs, still do not understand, and are often unwilling to explain, the complexities of climate science and related policy responses. Climate change has become such a politically charged topic that many news organizations have not treated it as a scientific theory with widespread, authoritative support. Climate change deniers continue to gain media attention, even though the world is becoming hotter, faster.

In the weeks since I wrote my article, several mainstream media organizations have blown out-of-proportion inaccuracies published in past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. The IPCC exaggerated Himalayan glacial retreat in its 2007 report, suggesting that the inaccuracies are indeed newsworthy and that the panel must do a better job of ensuring that all reports remain accurate, transparent, and credible. But the heated attack from mostly Western media also suggests that news organizations will continue to do what it does best: create drama. In my article, I said that many media providers lack the staff expertise needed to provide context and detail in complicated climate change stories. This continues to be true, but the recent IPCC criticism also suggests that editors need to understand that larger problems—catastrophic climate change—should not be discredited in favor of academic debates about the speed of glacial retreat.

After the article went to print, I’ve since come across some encouraging efforts to explain complex climate stories. The Guardian catalogued all of their stories about “Climategate”—the escapade related to climate science e-mails stolen from a University of East Anglia server—placing the stories on an easy-to-navigate Web page that demonstrates their reporting approach and allows visitors to read about the controversy from beginning to end. The conclusion: “Climate science emails cannot destroy argument that world is warming, and humans are responsible.” It will be a pity if media audiences worldwide, as a result of recent news coverage, are less convinced that the argument is spot on. Without serious, investigative, in-depth news reports, media audiences will continue to become more ill-informed, and efforts to avoid widespread environmental damage will falter.

Photo courtesy CPWF Basin Focal Project. A meter of sea level rise would pose serious economic damage to agricultural activities along the Nile Delta, such as aquaculture operations (pictured above).

Saudi Arabia, a long-time obstructionist at international climate negotiations, set aside differing opinions and supported the Copenhagen Accord that emerged from the United Nations summit in December.

“We feel that what we have here is actually a good product that shifts us from the level of negotiation where we are at to a slightly higher level that aims to focus our discussion and gives us a little bit of guidance,” lead negotiator Mohammed al-Sabban said to fellow delegates during the final plenary meeting. “We are still very far away, but it’s a positive step in the right direction.”

While the non-binding political deal does not commit Saudi Arabia to economy-wide emission reduction targets, it does state that developing countries “will implement [individual] mitigation actions.” The Saudi government has not, however, submitted targets to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change yet.

Most importantly, the Saudi support may suggest that Arab leaders are beginning to realize that Arab nations are seriously threatened by climate change. The hopeful perspective was suggested by Mohamed El-Ashry, a United Nations Foundation senior fellow, at a recent event hosted by the World Resources Institute.

El-Ashry, a former Global Environment Facility chairman, said that several Arab delegations arrived to Copenhagen with unique strategies, rather than “towing the line of the G77 and ExxonMobil.” Lebanon and Jordan, countries without oil reserves, have realized that a strong climate agreement is in their national interest. Oil-producing nations, meanwhile, are beginning to moderate their positions. “Saudi Arabia did not object to [the Accord] in the end. That’s something that needs to be built upon,” El-Ashry said.

Very little research about climate change impacts across the Arab world have been available for governments until recently. The Arab Forum for Environment and Development, a three-year old coalition of businesses, academics, environmentalists, and media representatives, produced the first Arab-led report on climate change last year and has since attracted the attention of several government leaders.

Among its findings, the report found that climate change would further diminish fresh water supplies—the Euphrates and Jordan Rivers may decrease by 30 and 80 percent, respectively, before 2100. Sea level rise of 1 meter would directly impact 41,500 square kilometers of Arab coastal lands—especially threatening the Nile Delta in Egypt. Food production would drop by half if temperatures increase 2-4 degrees Celsius. Malaria and dust storms would become more widespread.

The report concludes that “virtually no work is being carried out to make the Arab countries prepared for climate change challenges… [and] the economic impact seems to be totally ignored.”

While much progress among Arab leaders is still needed, “the report has affected the level of awareness to the point that [they] understand a strong climate agreement is in their best interests,” said El-Ashry, who helped coordinate the research.

Besides supporting the Copenhagen Accord, Saudi Arabia’s ruler King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud opened a research university last year with a focus on alternative energy. Solar water heating has become widespread in Morocco, Palestine, and Tunisia. The United Arab Emirates is currently seeking clean technology investments for their Masdar City initiative, and Abu Dhabi is hosting the new International Renewable Energy Agency. Jordan provides tax exemptions for energy efficiency and hybrid cars.

While there is change, it is not enough, El-Ashry noted. “While considerable, these [progressive efforts] are few and far in between, and there is no coordination of strategy to deal with the problem,” he said.

September 2007 photo of summer ice breaking up in the Northwest Passage. Courtesy New York Times

The security concerns around the Arctic are quickly becoming hot topics in Washington but it was still a little jarring to hear Dr. Robert Huebert, a professor at the University of Calgary in Canada, speak so bluntly about the military implications of melting ice in one of the few truly placid regions remaining on the planet.

“We are already in an Arctic arms race,” said Huebert, during a panel discussion at the Center for National Policy on February 2. “We’re just not aware of it.”

Even more ominously, Huebert compared the current situation in the Arctic to Europe in 1935, implying that it is a powder keg ready to explode with dire implications for the entire world.  “Everybody is preparing for the worst-case scenario,” Huebert says.

By “everybody,” Huebert is mainly referring to the nations ringing the Arctic—the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark. Norway and Denmark have focused their security efforts on the Arctic, Russia famously planted a flag on the North Pole seabed in 2007 and has been more assertive in its Arctic policy, the United States is increasing its presence in Alaska, and Canada, Huebert said, is “talking a lot, but not doing anything.”

China, Japan, and South Korea also have interests in the Arctic, though these nations do not border the region. China and Japan have their eyes on the Arctic’s resources while South Korea has recently emerged as the world’s leading developer of Arctic commercial vessels.

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Dr. Scott Borgerson, who moderated the panel, said the Arctic has been losing 1,000 kilometers in ice volume each year since 1995. The ocean could be ice free during the summer months at some point between 2016 and 2030 and this would open up many new shipping routes and increase the military significance of the region.

Gary Hart, the former Democratic senator from Colorado, echoed Huebert’s concern about security concerns in the Arctic. Hart compared the Northwest Passage, which could become a major shipping passage in the next decade or so, to some of the most militarized areas of the last 60 years. He likened the Passage to the Fulda Gap, which, during the Cold War, was a strategic corridor separating East and West Germany, and the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway between Iran and Oman, which today is a major choke point for the oil trade and a focus for the world’s military planners.

“Quite often geography symbolizes how we see our security,” said Hart.

One of the main issues surrounding the Northwest Passage and a strong point of contention between Canada and the U.S. is under whose jurisdiction does the waterway fall. Canada says it is their water, while the U.S. maintains that it is an international passage.

Still, United States Coast Guard Rear Admiral Gene Brooks, who has served in Alaska, said the Canadian and American militaries share intelligence in the Arctic and the forces have worked together seamlessly. The larger problem is simply getting the average American to realize that the U.S. is, indeed, an Arctic nation. This goes beyond military security, he said, and extends to issues of culture and economics.

“We need a national debate on what to do as an Arctic nation,” said Brooks.

 

Last week, Gazprom executives stated that the Russian gas giant might need to revise its investment strategy in light of the newfound abundance of North American shale gas.

Looking back on the October Revolution in 1917, Lenin famously remarked, “We found power lying in the streets and simply picked it up.” Just replace “power” with “a newfound abundance of domestic energy,” and you get the kind of gushing we’ve been hearing from the gas industry and policy makers since the United States’ so-called “shale gas revolution” began. Recent developments in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have dramatically increased the amount of technically recoverable shale gas in the U.S. As a result, the U.S., which a few short years ago was discussing major investments in new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals to support its growing gas imports, will be able to meet most – if not all – of its gas demand with domestic supply.   

The expected future backwash of LNG into the global market, along with new production of unconventional gas in North America, will force exporters of conventional gas to rethink their energy outlooks. Chief among those will be Russia, the world’s largest exporter of natural gas.  In a statement last week, Alexander Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russian energy giant Gazprom, said that America’s shale gas revolution “could fundamentally reshape the whole world gas market.” 

As long as natural gas means dependence on Russian supplies, European countries will be leery of making natural gas a larger component of their clean energy transition strategies. The European Union’s desire to improve its energy security by diversifying its energy portfolio will be a good argument for increased investment in renewables – but it will also be a good argument for increased investment in coal. Unfortunately, coal emits more than twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas when combusted in power plants. By freeing more LNG for Europe, and even potentially leading the way for Europe to identify and develop its own shale gas resources (French energy giant Total recently acquired a 25 percent stake in Chesapeake Energy’s Barnett Shale gas fields in North Texas), the U.S. shale gas revolution could change Europe’s energy security calculus, allowing it to wean itself off coal with more confidence.

In a briefing at the Center for American Progress last week, Ambassador Richard Morningstar, Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy, emphasized the United States’ commitment to improved European energy security, especially with gas pipelines that are not at the mercy of Russia’s political decision making. In addition, a U.S.-EU Energy Council will strengthen research collaboration on clean technology, energy efficiency, and energy diversification through LNG and renewables. Ambassador Morningstar noted that diversifying gas supplies – in Europe and elsewhere – will be critical in reducing climate forcing:

As the world looks to reduce carbon emissions and meet climate change goals, demand for clean burning gas will likely increase. Analysts speculate that gas will function as a “bridge fuel,” filling the gap until significant quantities of renewables and nuclear power can come on line.