Open Letter warning President Obama about a Global Cap-and-Trade Scheme

President Obama, please read this!

The energy and environmental policy that you have proposed for the U.S. is a patchwork of policies, ranging from higher fuel efficiency standards and subsidies for energy conservation and renewable energy, to "an economy-wide cap-and-trade program".

The problem is that the cap-and-trade program is not what it claims to be: it claims that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. However, a cap-and-trade program would not only be ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases, it would actually be counter-productive and lead to further pollution and environmental harm. Moreover, a cap-and-trade program would come at the detriment of other policies, the very policies that we need to implement, in order to reduce greenhouse gases.

President Obama, you have an important choice to make in the lead-up to C4, the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. Instead of supporting cap-and-trade, it makes more sense to work towards an agreement for all countries to commit to each reduce greenhouse gases by a set percentage per year. Each country can then work out how best to make their reductions, leaving them a wide range of policy instruments (such as standards, taxes, fees, subsidies and rebates) to choose from, each establishing the mix that best facilitates the shifts that need to take place in their area of the world. While I am convinced that feebates will work best in many cases, areas should each decide for themselves what policy instruments they prefer. The main goal now is to support the commitment that is there around the world to steadily reduce greenhouse gases, to use this as the basis for a global agreement and to work out sanctions (such as tariffs) to back up this commitment.

Yes, we should help developing nations, but we should reconsider how we want other countries to "develop". We don't want to pay India, Pakistan and other Asian and African nations to imitate the lifestyle of "developed" countries, i.e. people traveling by car or plane to work in polluting industries, to return home to feed on a diet of meat and ice cream. Current levels of meat production alone add nearly 6.5 billion tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases every year to the atmosphere, which constitutes some 18% of the worldwide annual production of 36 billion tons. Environmentally spoken, we need to ensure that "developing" nations do NOT develop into lookalikes of what we're now.

A global cap-and-trade scheme would not lead to reductions in greenhouse gases, instead would be counter-productive and would most likely make things a lot worse, for many reasons. But first, let's get one thing straight: a cap-and-trade scheme is NOT a "market" solution.

1. The cap is a regulatory monstrosity requiring extensive administration and policing, at substantial cost and risk of fraud and failure. It's a recipe for disputes, even war, about political decisions to prohibit one what another is allowed to do.

2. A cap-and-trade scheme may claim to give markets clarity by "putting a price on pollution", but it does not set a price, it only produces "permits to pollute", while floating the price. That may give speculators, lawyers and financial advisers opportunities to enrich themselves, but it doesn't give markets clarity about the cost of resources. Even in the unlikely case that the whole world would agree on a global cap-and-trade scheme, it's likely that politicians would keep changing the price, the number and the conditions of these permits -- there would be little or no clarity for investors, instead there are bound to be privileges for some and confusion for others, which all comes at the expense of giving markets the clarity they ask, in order to plan and develop the job and investment opportunities in the clean industries that we all need.

3. Apart from cost clarity, markets need investment confidence. Markets work better with some idea where best to invest and where to create job opportunities. Permits-to-pollute effectively constitute a tax on many products. It's the stick without the carrot -- it only targets pollution and protects polluters who want to keep polluting. Markets, by contrast, don't work well in the sole prospect of death and taxes. Instead, markets prosper in a healthy environment that promises opportunities for profits, investment and appreciation of brand name and assets, i.e. the carrot.

4. Markets are not calling for opportunities to trade in permits to spoil the environment. A small group of people may call for trading in permits, typically those who would feed on the profits of such trade. Indeed, those who advocate cap-and-trade most are likely to be the same lawyers, bureaucrats, speculators and financial advisers that have brought the world into the worst global crisis since the Great Depression. These are some of the very people that earlier sought to gain commission by propagating the myth that it was in the economic interest of the U.S. to become dependent on oil imports, to keep sending borrowed money to some of the politically most volatile regions in the world, while nurturing a perceived need for a U.S. military presence in those areas. All this has come at a terrible environmental and financial cost, at the cost of much human misery and at the expense of many good job and investment opportunities in local markets for clean and safe ways to produce energy.

5. While a cap-and-trade scheme is silent about what is to happen with the proceeds of the sale of permits, there should be no surprise as to what would happen if a cap-and-trade scheme would be imposed globally. A substantial part of the proceeds will flow from the rich and most polluting nations to the poorest places in the world, such as India, Pakistan and other Asian and African nations. A global cap-and-trade scheme would only allow the rich and polluting countries to keep polluting, while the people in these poor countries would be inclined to spend the money on things like polluting cars and eating meat, the very things that cause the worst pollution. Handing over money to government bureaucrats in poor countries makes them prone to accept bribes by industrialists who seek to sell more nuclear and coal-fired power plants. It's not markets that want this. Nobody benefits from this. It's a recipe for environmental disaster, corruption, terrorism and war, all resulting from policies that were ill-conceived and doomed to fail.

Should I go on describing why a global cap-and-trade scheme wouldn't work? Let's face it, cap-and-trade is a scheme designed by polluters to keep polluting - what both people and markets want is the opposite: Both people and markets want government to stop protecting the polluters and to instead support the safe and clean solutions that we all want and need. People want to live in a healthy environment. Markets want to invest in solutions that combine prosperity with a healthy environment.

Markets do not want to give "developing" nations the proceeds of such a cap-and-trade scheme. It isn't that markets are greedy, but the truth is that a global cap-and-trade scheme would be counter-productive and only lead to more people driving polluting cars and eating meat. I suggest that, if we are to impose a form of tax anyway, then let's simply impose fees on polluting practices, while using the proceeds where they were raised, in order to create better alternatives at the very places where such alternatives are needed most. Insisting that, to be applicable for rebates, alternatives should be clean and safe, that would genuinely allow market mechanisms to sort out what works best, while optimizing consumer choice and opportunities for jobs and for investment. That is what markets want and how they work best. Such a combination of fees and rebates (FeeBates) can be self-funding and budget-neutral, thus avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and political turmoil. Nonetheless, as I said earlier, each area should be allowed to decide on their preferred mix of policies.

In conclusion, we should reject a global cap-and-trade scheme and instead work on a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases, which should be assisted by information on how best to achieve afforestation, to make and use solar cookers, build pyrolysis ovens and bury biochar, build solar concentrators and wind turbines, build desalination plants, use carbon-negative building techniques, etc. All this can be done with technologies and resources that already are locally available all around the world. Ensuring that countries have access to such information will make that they can develop without being dependent on supervision and imports from other countries. To help other countries obtain this information is as much in their interest as in our own interest.

President Obama, I plead to you, don't let polluters misinform you. Please show the kind of leadership that we all expect from you and reject a global cap-and-trade scheme -- instead, unite the world into a commitment to come together annually to set a percentage by which each country should reduce greenhouse gases.

While the premise to unite the world may sound simple, we are aware that the challenges will be huge and exhausting. Please keep your strength in the confidence that the whole world, our children and our children's children will thank you for this!

Sam Carana


References:

Energy and the Environment
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/

UN Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, December 9 - 18, 2009
http://en.cop15.dk/

How Meat Contributes to Global Warming
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger

The Feebate Network
http://feebate.net

This article is licensed under Creative Commons License

Global warming calls for global commitment and local action

Emission trading will not work!

We should recognize that a global emission trading scheme will only sabotage real efforts to reduce emissions. It's a scheme designed by neocons and polluting industries, who aren't interested in reducing emissions, but who seek to exploit the situation in order to sell nuclear plants to developing countries, which will have to be paid for with emission credits that will in turn let polluters in developed countries off the hook. The neocons see this as an opportunity to send troops abroad to supervise operation of plants and shipments of uranium, nuclear waste, etc. It's a recipe for dictatorship and for global economic, social and environmental disaster.

Global commitment, local action

Instead, we should reach a international agreement that makes more sense, and we should reach this agreement soon, at the latest in Copenhagen in 2009. This agreement should merely set binding annual reduction targets that each country should meet. This agreement should let decisions how to achieve those targets be taken locally, while preparing for trade sanctions against those who fail to reach their targets.

It should be left to local communities to each decide on the technicalities of how to reduce their emissions. After all, conditions differ from place to place; some technologies will work better in one area than in another area. There are many ways to, say, produce clean and safe energy; wind turbines may be attractive in some areas, solar energy may become more prominent elsewhere, while yet another area may predominantly exploit geothermal power; many areas may also prefer to import electricity. Similarly, hydrogen may well become the dominant way to power ships, while cars will predominantly drive on battery power in future.

What policies work best?

Meanwhile, we should be discussing what are the most effective policy instruments to both discourage sales of products that cause emissions and encourage sales of better alternatives.

Feebates are most effective

A framework of feebates is in my view most effective, each with fees imposed on a specific type of product and with proceeds in each case used to fund rebates on local supply of better alternatives. Such a feebate policy only needs to insist that alternatives are clean and safe - market mechanisms can best sort out what works best where.

A framework of feebates is the most effective way to facilitate reductions, because feebates have a double impact, in that they impose a fee on whatever needs to be discouraged, while then using the proceeds of these fees to fund rebates on better alternatives. Market mechanisms can best sort out which products deserve to get rebates.

Different areas can implement feebates in different ways. This flexibility makes feebates attractive for areas with unique circumstances that make a universal policy less applicable. Feebates can target whatever product causes most emissions in the respective area and establish a shift to the better alternatives available in each area.

Feebates are budget-neutral - proceeds of fees can accumulate in a trust, thus creating a pool of money from where rebates can be paid on a first-come-first-go basis. If needed, the trust can take out loans to ensure early payment of rebates.

Implementing FeeBates

Feebates are most effective when applied locally, i.e. by using the proceeds of fees collected in an area to support the better alternatives that are supplied in that same area. That way, most money will be used to make changes where they are needed most.

Instead of prescribing a specific technology, a feebate policy should simply encourage better alternatives, e.g. by insisting that alternatives should be clean, safe and otherwise acceptable to the community. A good feebate policy will optimize market mechanisms and respect consumer choice, which will further increase the overall effectiveness of the policy and minimize bureaucratic overhead.

Fees are best calculated as a percentage added to the price of a product. Similarly, rebates are best calculated as a percentage of the sales price. This also increases the effectiveness of the policy by minimizing bureaucratic administrative overhead.

Fees can be initially low, say 10% of the sales price. Especially when alternatives still have little marketshare, such a 10% fee will create a huge pool of money from where rebates can be funded. Rebates can then be high, say 50% or even more, to facilitate a gradual but swift shift to better alternatives. Once the shift takes place, percentages could change, i.e. fees could be increased, while rebates could decrease. This way, the feebate will phase itself out as the shift eventuates.

Proposed FeeBates

Over the years, I have proposed a number of feebates, including:

- a 10% fee on sales of new gasoline cars, with rebates on local sales of zero emission vehicles;
- a 10% fee on sales of fossil fuel, with rebates on purchase and installation of local facilities that produce energy in safe and clean ways;
- a 10% fee on sales of building and construction work that uses polluting concrete (i.e. that contributes to global warming), with rebates on local purchases of clean concrete;
- a 10% fee on sales of fertilizers, with rebates on local sales of agrichar (or biochar); and
- a 10% fee on sales of meat, with rebates and vouchers on vegan-organic meals served in local restaurants.

The Distributed Grid

Electric vehicles can cut greenhouse gas emissions in two ways. They are clean and efficient. By acting as storage capacity, they can also make the electric grid more efficient.

Electric cars are also cheap to drive and to maintain, and they don't make much noise. They still are relatively expensive to buy, but automated production and economies of scale can overcome this hurdle and make electric vehicles cheaper than gasoline cars.

If the electricity came from coal-fired power plants, driving an electric car still causes less greenhouse emissions than driving a gasoline car. Electric cars have zero emissions and are also more efficient. Thermal efficiency of power plants is higher than the thermal efficiency of most gasoline cars. Much of the fuel burned in gasoline cars turns into heat. Electric cars use regenerative breaking and do not use their motors when waiting before traffic lights. Electric cars use energy more efficiently, especially in city traffic that causes most of the emissions.

Impact on the grid - Running our entire fleet of vehicles on electricity instead of oil would not put much stress on the electric grid. One study concludes that if we transformed our entire fleet of vehicles into electric vehicles, they would jointly consume only 20% of grid capacity.

We wouldn't even need much expansion of the grid in terms of extra capacity or transmission lines. The majority of vehicles could run on the idle capacity that is available in the existing grid. One study concludes that there is sufficient idle capacity in the grid to power 73% of light vehicles, i.e. cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans, without adding generation or transmission.

Moreover, such a move would benefit the grid. Car batteries can contain many times more power than what cars need for their average daily travel. Cheap off-peak rates would make it financially attractive to charge batteries at off-peak times, over and above what the individual user consumed during the day. The surplus can then be fed back into the grid to help out with high demand at peak times. Net-metering at good rates could make this attractive, while the grid becomes more efficient, more reliable and less prone to outages and glitches.

New batteries for electric cars are light, safe and do not harm the environment. Batteries are on the market now that allow electric cars to drive for hours without recharging. While these batteries are still expensive - they can cost over $10,000 - and are hard to get, mass production can overcome these hurdles.

Most cars only drive short distances. Recharging them at home and/or at work would suffice in most cases. In case they needed extra power to travel longer distances, their batteries could also be recharged at other locations with the required outlets, e.g. gas stations, parking buildings or parking meters. New batteries are now on the market that can be recharged in minutes, they can last for over a decade and can be recharged thousands of times without degeneration. This would make recharging convenient and safe, compared to filling a car with gas.

We don't all need to buy new cars. Many existing vehicles can be converted into electric vehicles. With some financial assistance, the conversion cost can pay itself back over time through savings on the cost of driving and maintenance. For those who cannot afford to buy a new electric car, there are also initiatives such as Project Better Place that plans to offer electric cars at a cheap price, while making profits on services such as car maintenance, battery upgrades and recharging the batteries. In an effort to offset the company's greenhouse gas footprint, employers may also contribute through leasing arrangements and by making recharging facilities available at work.

Renewable energy looks set to become the dominant supplier of energy. Wind turbines are being installed around the world. This will increase the amount of surplus energy in the grid at night. Storing this surplus energy in the batteries of electric cars will increase overall efficiencies.

Owners of electric cars will consume more electricity (but no gasoline) and are more likely to get solar panels, for the savings as well as to help the environment. Similarly, as more of their staff start driving electric cars, businesses will be more inclined to get solar panels on the roofs of their buildings and car parking facilities.

Solar facilities typically include a battery. Car batteries could be used instead. Most cars are parked at home when people switch on their lights, air-conditioners and TV-sets. Similarly, the power needs at work coincide with cars of staff being parked there. Using the batteries of electric cars to store electricity can reduce the need for batteries in solar facilities and will thus reduce the overall cost of solar facilities.

Cost of solar power has come down over the years. As an example, Nanasolar now offers thin film material at under $1 per watt. This promises clean and safe energy that is price-competitive with power plants. It also becomes increasingly attractive for households and businesses to install solar facilities. Recognising the market opportunities and the financial incentives made available at different levels of government, there now are numerous companies offering to help people adopt green energy at home without having to make large investments, sometimes even without any upfront payments.

A FeeBate Policy can help facilitate the switch to zero emission vehicles and to clean and safe ways to produce energy. A FeeBate policy can include fees on gasoline cars, with the proceeds used for rebates on zero emission vehicles. A FeeBate policy can also include fees on fossil fuel, with the proceeds used for rebates on clean and safe alternatives, such as wind and solar facilities.

In conclusion, all this will lead to a more distributed grid, with numerous suppliers and with numerous places where electricity is stored. The grid now draws electricity from a relatively small number of large power plants, to supply electricity in an area. Renewable energy supplies only a fraction of power, most of it through hydro facilities. The existing grid looks much like a broadcasting network, with a relatively small number of broadcasting stations sending content one-way to the public. In future, the grid looks set to become more distributed, with two-way connections to most users, much like a multitude of users can send and receive information over the Internet.

The FeeBate Debate

The best way to deal with global warming is a FeeBate policy. This works fast and effectively, is ideology- and budget-neutral and has the least risk of feeding a wasteful bureaucracy.

In essence, a Greenhouse Gases FeeBate policy will impose a fee on products that cause emissions of greenhouse gases, while the proceeds of these fees will in each case be used to help better alternatives, in the form of rebates.

In many respects, markets are best suited to work out which products and technologies should get support through rebates - the main criteria should be that they are replacements for the item that attracted the fee, that they are safe and that they cause little or no emissions of greenhouse gases, or - even better - that they are greenhouse gas negative.

The FeeBate policy should be adopted globally, but executed locally; levels of fees and rebates can be adjusted on an annual basis, depending on how successfully the shift takes place. Fees can be collected on items that are sold locally, or - if necessary - fees can be imposed on imported items.

The FeeBate policy that I propose includes:

• a fee of 10% on sales of new cars with internal combustion engines, with proceeds used to fund rebates for electric cars
• a fee of 10% on sales of gasoline, with proceeds used to fund rebates on purchases and installation of facilities that produce renewable energy
• a fee of 10% on sales of coal, with rebates given when electricity suppliers install facilities that produce electricity from renewable sources
• a fee of 10% on building and construction work using concrete that contributes to global warming, with proceeds used to fund rebates on buildings that used clean concrete
• a fee of 10% on sales of fertilizers, with rebates on sales of agrichar, which is produced by means of pyrolysis from various forms of biowaste
• a fee of 10% on sales of meat, with rebates and vouchers for alternative food (my personal favorite: vegan-organic food served in restaurants in communities without roads)

Wild Green Yonder

Boeing recently announced that it will have a hydrogen plane in the air later this year. The Boeing Fuel Cell Demonstrator Airplane is scheduled to fly at an altitude of about 2,000 feet (610 meters). The plane has a wing span of 16.3 meters (53.5 feet) and can fly at a speed of about 100 kilometers (62 miles) per hour.

The technology is identical to what is used in hydrogen cars such as the Ford HySeries, GM's HydroGen4 and Kia's 4×4 Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle, i.e. tanks holding hydrogen in the form of compressed gas, fuel cells, lithium-ion batteries and electric motors, in the case of this plane a single motor coupled to a conventional propeller.

Just like cars can (and already are) getting their electricity and hydrogen from the solar panels on top of parking lots, planes could similarly be powered from clean energy, such as from solar or wind power facilities in our backyards.

Boeing first announced the electric plane project in November 2001, when it said the first test flights could begin in early 2004. At the time, there was even speculation that the first flight would coincide with the celebrations of the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers first powered flight back in December 17th, 2003. Those plans have since been pushed back several times, but it now looks like it is finally going to happen.

Planes like this have the potential to reshape the face of the world. Imagine if we all used personal aircraft instead of cars. We no longer needed any roads, nor large, noisy airports. Instead we could use small airstrips to take off and land, perhaps in our backyards.

Communities without roads constitute a dramatic change in urban design. Houses could be smaller, as there's no need to put cars in garages. Without roads, houses could also be built much closer together - that in itself could reduce travel time. Simple pathways would be sufficient, connecting all such houses with a center comprising of shops, restaurants, medical specialists, lecture theaters, all within walking distance. Imagine the cost savings on cars, roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, railway tracks and railway stations, on gasoline and service stations. People could largely work from home and meet at facilities of the center closeby, resulting in further savings on office buildings and their car parking facilities.

There would also be huge time savings; given an abundance of small landing strips, planes could take us in a more direct line from one place to another, as opposed to the congested road system where cars line up for a multitude of traffic lights. GPS-navigation and radar technology could also result in a spectacular drop in traffic accidents; after all, there is much more space in the (three-dimensional) sky than on the (two-dimensional) ground.

To help such developments take off, we need to tax items that cause greenhouse gas emissions, such as fossil fuel, meat and fertilizers, with the tax proceeds going to local supply of better alternatives, such as solar and wind power, agrichar and vegan-organic food served in restaurants in communities without roads.

Please support our efforts to change the world and copy, post or email this article widely!

References:
Into the Wild Green Yonder - Boeing’s super-clean fuel-cell aircraft will create history this year with aviation’s first zero-emissions flight
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2007/july/ts_sf06.pdf

Boeing's fuel cell-powered electric demonstrator airplane - August 2003
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/august/i_atw.html

Boeing Announces Partners for Fuel Cell Demonstrator Airplane Project - July 11, 2003
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q3/nr_030711p.html

The Hydrogen Economy - articles featured in this group
http://www.gather.com/viewArticles.jsp?filter=feature&grpId=3659174697249995&nav=Groupspace

Change the World - articles featured in this group
http://www.gather.com/viewArticles.jsp?filter=feature&grpId=3659174697250134&nav=Groupspace

Solar-Hydrogen Demo Project in Sacramento - by Steve B.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977163811

Tax the sale of meat! - by Sam Carana
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977123673

Agrichar - by Sam Carana
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977155102

Communities without roads - by Sam Carana
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977128488

Agrichar

Most households only use one or at most two different rubbish bins, one for recyclables (paper & packaging) and one for general waste. It makes a lot of sense to add a third type of rubbish bin, for biowaste, i.e. kitchen waste, soil and garden waste.

Many people already compost such biowaste in the garden, but all too often such biowaste disappears along with the general waste in the rubbish bin. As displayed on the picture below, analysis in Waikato, New Zealand, shows that about half of household waste can consist of kitchen waste, soil and garden waste. Such waste ends up on rubbish tips, where the decomposing process leads to greenhouse gases, such as methane. And all too often, farmers burn crop residues on the land, resulting in huge emissions of greenhouse gases.

All such biowaste could deliver affordable energy by using the slow burning process of pyrolysis to produce agrichar or bio-char, a form of charcoal that is totally black. Organic material, when burnt with air, will normally turn into white ash, while the carbon contained in the biowaste goes up into the air as carbon dioxide (CO2). In case of pyrolysis, by contrast, biowaste is heated up while starved of oxygen, resulting in this black form of charcoal.

This agrichar was at first glance regarded as a useless byproduct when producing hydrogen from biowaste, but it is increasingly recognized for its qualities as a soil supplement. Agrichar makes the soil better retain water and nutrients for plants, thus reducing losses of nutrients and reducing the CO2 that goes out of the soil, while enhancing soil productivity and making it store more carbon.

When biowaste is normally added to soil, the carbon contained in crop residue, mulch and compost is likely to stay there for only two or three years. By contrast, the more stable carbon in agrichar can stay in the soil for hundreds of years. Adding agrichar just once could be equivalent to composting the same weight every year for decades.

Agrichar appears to be the best way to bury carbon in topsoil, resulting in soil restoration and improved agriculture. Agrichar has the potential to remove substantial amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, as it both buries carbon in the soil and gets more CO2 out of the atmosphere through better growth of vegetation. Agrichar restores soils and increases fertility. It results in plants taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere, which ends up in the soil and in the vegetation. Agrichar feeds new life in the soil and increases respiration, leading to improvements in soil structure, specifically its capacity to retain water and nutrients. Agrichar makes the soil structure more porous, with lots of surface area for water and nutrients to hold onto, so that both water and nutrients are better retained in the soil.

In conclusion, recycling biowaste in the above way is an excellent method to produce hydrogen (e.g. for cars) and to bury carbon in the soil and improve production of food. Agrichar is now produced for soil enrichment at a growing number of places. The top photo shows agrichar in pellet form from Eprida. Australian-based BEST Energies has built a demonstration pyrolysis plant with a capacity to process 300 kilograms of biowaste per hour. It accepts biowaste such as dry green waste, wood waste, rice hulls, cow and poultry manure or paper mill waste. The plant cooks the biomass without oxygen, producing syngas, a flammable mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The agrichar thus produced retains about half the carbon of the original biowaste (the other half was burned in the process of producing the syngas).

Also important is to compare different farming practices. Carbon is important for holding the soil together. Farmers now typically plough the soil to plant the seeds and add fertilizers. This ploughing causes oxygen to mix with the carbon in the soil, resulting in oxidation, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Ploughing leads to a looser soil structure, prone to erosion under the destructive impact of heavy rains, flooding, thunderstorms, wind and animal traffic. Given the more extreme weather that can be expected due to global warming, we should reconsider practices such as ploughing.

Furthermore, the huge monocultures of modern farming have become dependent on fertilizers and pesticides. The separation of farming and urban areas has in part become necessary due to the practice of spraying chemicals and pesticides. Instead, we should consider growing more food on smaller-scale farms, in gardens and greenhouses within areas currently designated for urban usage. Vegan-organic farming can increase bio-diversity; by carefully selecting complementary vegetation to grow close together, diseases and pests can be minimized while the nutritial value, taste and other qualities of the food can be increased.

An issue of growing concern is nitrous oxide (N2O), which is 310 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas when released in the atmosphere. Much release of N2O is related to the practices of ploughing and adding fertilizers to the soil. Microbes subsequently convert the nitrogen in these fertilisers into N2O. A recent study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen indicates that the current ways of growing and burning biofuel actually raise rather than lower greenhouse gas emissions. The study concludes that growing some of the most commonly used biofuel crops (rapeseed biodiesel and corn bioethanol) releases twice the amount of N2O, compared to what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates for farming. The findings follow a recent OECD report that concluded that growing biofuel crops threatens to cause food shortages and damage biodiversity, with only limted benefits in terms of global warming.

All this is no trivial matter. Soils contain more carbon than all vegetation and the atmosphere combined. Therefore, soil is the obvious place to look at when trying to solve problems associated with global warming. By changing agricultural practices, we can add carbon to the soil and can minimize release of greenhouse gases.

References:
- Soils offer new hope as carbon sink
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/updates/issues/may-2007/soils-offer-new-hope/

- Surprise: less oxygen could be just the trick
http://tinyurl.com/ywalt4

- What we throw away
http://www.waikato.govt.nz/enviroinfo/waste/whatwethrowaway.htm

- The Carbon Farmers
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/soilcarbon/

- Living Soil
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/

- BEST Pyrolysis, Inc.
http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html

- Eprida, Inc.
http://eprida.com/hydro/

- Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/21090701.asp

- Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease?
http://tinyurl.com/yq9t8o

More Wind Power!

Globally, wind power generation more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2006. But while wind power is making steady progress in Europe, the U.S. gets less than 1% of its electricity from wind power,

Spain now gets 9% percent of its electricity from wind power, with turbines generating 44% of electricity in the province of Navarra. In Germany turbines generate 7% of electricity, 36% in the coastal state of Sleswig-Holstein. In Denmark, wind turbines produced an average of 18.5% of electricity in 2004. Denmark aims to have 50% of its electricity demand supplied by wind turbines in 2025.

So, are the Danes wrong, or is the US public being fed the wrong ideas? Those with vested interests in the status quo have gone to extraordinary lengths to fabricate arguments against clean technologies such as hydrogen and wind power. They claim that wind power was unreliable as the wind does not blow continuously. Indeed, the contribution of wind power fluctuates with the wind, so when it is windy, the contribution of wind power can increase. On September 15th, a particularly windy day, wind turbines accounted for 70% of Denmark's electricity measured around midday. On windy nights, Denmark transfers excess electricity along interconnected grids into Germany and Sweden.

Wind power works best in combination with other technologies, such as solar and hydro-power. Furthermore, electricity can be stored in many ways, such as by pumping water back uphill. Do wind turbines make too much noise? Virtually noiseless systems can be installed in your backyard. Storage of water, heat and electricity can result in huge savings. For household hot water usage, there are low-tech thermal solar systems that heat up domestic water tanks, requiring no electricity. Many other 'low-tech' alternatives are being tested for use in developing countries, such as flywheels, springs and weights. Mobile phone and other electronic devices can be powered by hand cranks.

Using more advanced technologies, electricity from wind turbines can be stored by compressing or heating substances in tanks. One of the most promising ways to store surplus wind power is by producing hydrogen. Hydrogen can be stored under pressure in tanks, to provide fuel for industrial or domestic use or in cars, all without creating pollution. As discussed in more detail in an earlier article, electric vehicles can also run on Lithium-ion batteries that can be recharged from the solar panels on top of the roofs under which they are parked.

Anyway, more electric cars means that we need to generate more electricity, and wind power is one of the easiest and cleanest ways to do so. We can choose the times when best to recharge the batteries or produce the necessary hydrogen, so we can do so when it's windy and when there's little further demand, so it will take little or no electricity away from other usage. Look at it this way and claims that wind power was unreliable and that hydrogen was inefficient do not hold.

Once you look at the wider picture of a mix of technologies, the 'problems' that opponents of wind energy and hydrogen like to bring up will quickly evaporate. Similarly, many perceived problems are purely the result of the way the power grid is currently organized. A more distributed and intelligent system will allow a multitude of points to act as suppliers, with net-metering allowing households to earn money for feeding surplus electricity from their wind turbines back into the grid.

Oh, and do wind turbines kill birds? Does nuclear radiation kill birds? A recently completed Danish study using infrared monitoring found that seabirds steer clear of offshore wind turbines and are remarkably adept at avoiding the rotors.

Wind power does deserve more attention and should get more marketshare, while the share of fossil fuel should be reduced. The quickest and most effective way to achieve this is by taxing fossil fuel and using the proceeds to subsidize supply of wind power and other clean and renewable alternatives.

References:

- Wind power in Denmark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

- 50% Wind Power in Denmark in 2025

http://www.windpower.org/

- On a windy night, Denmark exports elctricity

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22500426-23850,00.html

- European wind power companies grow in U.S.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18310987/

- Wind power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

- Massive Offshore Wind Turbines Safe for Birds

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18167/

- Solar power and electric cars, a winning combination!

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977115548

- Tax greenhouse gas emissions!

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977030740

Communities without Roads

Communities without roads is an exciting concept that allows people to live within walking distances of colleages, customers, friends, medical and educational facilities, shops, restaurants, etc. The sedentary lifestyle of many people is a result of the way cities are currently designed. Instead, we should facilitate the opposite, i.e. people coming out of their houses, offices, and especially their cars, in order to meet other people, getting better food and becoming more healthy in the process.

The car has come to dominate the urban landscape, resulting in a metropolitan conglomeration of suburbs, stringed together along highways. Our most fertile land is now used for roads and cars, and the industries needed to support them. About half the urban area is for buildings, mainly three-bedroom homes on small blocks of land. The other half is used for roads, parks and grassland between roads. A large part of roads, buildings and gardens is also used to park cars.

Ever less fertile land is available food. Global warming forces us to rethink all this. As prices of oil skyrocket, more land is being dedicated to grow bio-fuel, resulting in less land available for food. Also, more extreme weather conditions can be expected, resulting in increasing crop loss.

We need more land to grow fruit and vegetables, in ways as was once the case in traditional gardens and on smaller farms. One place to find such land is by converting roads and office blocks into gardens. This doesn't mean a return to those ‘good-old-days’ of small towns and villages. Instead, we should consider an entirely new type of urban design: communities without roads. Technological progress is not the enemy here. Better security and communication systems can help get such communities off the ground. Electric vehicles can be instrumental in getting such communities off the ground.

What I propose are communities with footpaths and bike-paths instead of roads. Houses would be built close together, around a local center of shops and restaurants. In communities without roads, houses could be smaller, since there's no need to park cars in front or in garages. Building houses close together itself reduces travel distances between them. Pathways to a nearby center could suffice for further daily travel, leading to shops, markets, restaurants, lecture and meeting rooms.

In such a center, people would conveniently eat in restaurants, without traffic and parking hassle and noise - just a short stroll by foot or ride on a bike or in an electric scooter. Eating out means less shopping, since food makes up most of our shopping. It also saves a lot of time - no more shopping, cooking, dishwashing and cleaning, no rubbish to get rid of. Walking more would be good for our health as well.

Living closer together means people could see each other more often, both at home or at such a nearby restaurant. Why travel to an office or University, when you can work or follow courses online? Homeschooling has long proven to be much more effective than school. Why should people be institutionalized, kids packed away into school, the elderly people into ‘homes’ and the sick in hospitals? Instead, we should encourage families to stay together as much as possible and as long as possible in communities without roads.

This would result in huge savings on the current cost of cars, roads, office buildings, car parks, garages, gasoline stations, etc. How much time and money could we save by reducing our daily travel between home and work? And how many lives would be saved if we had less car-accidents? Because of the shared walls between them, townhouses save on the cost of heating in winter and cooling in summer.

To start it off, a University campus could be transformed into a community without roads, where people live and come to learn and work. Anyone who would like to nominate one?

Tax the sale of meat!

There are many ethical objections one can have against slaughtering animals and eating them. Vegetarian lifestyles have been around for ages, just like animal rights activists have long and very publicly protested against animals being used in tests of new cosmetics in laboratoria.

Consumption of red meat from cattle, sheep, goats and other ruminants has long been linked to heart disease, colorectal cancer and further diseases.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf
The link between meat and obesity has only recently received much media attention, with a focus on the fat and sugar content of fast food.

Similarly, environmentalists have long protested against the loss of biodiversity, as rainforests are cleared to make room for cattle or for soy plantations to feed cattle, all to satisfy global demand for meat.

Now meat has also been linked to global warming in various ways. As the impact of global warming starts to bite, many crops are at risk, due to more extreme weather conditions such as floods, drouhts, storms, heavy rain and moisture. It takes a lot of fertile land to put meat on the table, land that could otherwise be used to grow crops top feed the poor and hungry. At the same time, energy suppliers are increasingly looking at using bio-mass as a replacement for fossil fuel, so food is increasingly competing with energy in agriculture.

Finally, animals like cows and pigs release huge amounts of methane gas, which is twenty times more potent than greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. A recent study led by Anthony McMichael, professor at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University, Canberra, provides some figures. It points out that 22 per cent of the world's total greenhouse gases emissions come from agriculture, as much as industry and more than what transport emits. Production and transport of livestock and their feed accounts for nearly 80 per cent of these agricultural emissions, through release of gases such as nitro-oxide and carbon dioxide, but mainly in the form of methane. A cow can belch up to 300 pounds of methane per day. The study was published by the Lancet, at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673600025642/abstract

Before you try and find more details, note that the Lancet has an elaborate registration process demanding that you name your medical specialty and probably at somepoint your blood type, so if you prefer to bypass such things, you can try BugMeNot, at:
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.thelancet.com

In conclusion, a tax on the sale of meat therefore makes most sense. We could leave it up to politics to work out how high such a tax should be, but a flat 10% tax on all sales of meat looks like a good start. The tax could be higher the more methane was released, which would go hand in hand with compulsory disclosure on products of the amount of greenhouse gases that was needed to produce and ship them. Once we've got a good system in place that displays how many greenhouse gases were released in production, we could tax accordingly. There could be different tax rates, even a gliding scale proportional to the emissions. This would encourage research into different diets for cows or somehow replacing the methane-producing bacteria inside a cow's gut.

If the proceeds of such a tax merely used to help the poor pay rising prices for food, then little will be achieved for the environment. Instead, the proceeds of such a tax should be used to create communities without roads, where people can have vegetable gardens close to their homes. We should start building such communities without roads on university campuses, designing small houses for staff and students to live around shops and restaurants. Small houses need less heating and air-conditioning. If we leave out roads, garages and other car-parking spaces, they can be built closely together, so anyone can easily walk or bike their way around. That would be more healthy as well!

Anyway, it makes a lot of sense to turn vegetarian, or even better vegan. Even if you didn't have ethical problems with eating meat and if you lacked compassion for the poor and hungry, you still would help the environment by becoming a vegetarian and thus yourself!

The Hydrogen Economy

Hydrogen fuel cells constitute an efficient way to store energy and as such they form an important component in our struggle to contain global warming. Hydrogen fuel cells are a convenient and clean way to power cars and supply electricity on demand virtually everywhere. The importance of hydrogen as a technology is huge, as it constitutes the clean and renewable storage compliment to clean and renewable ways to capture energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, wave and hydro-power.

The Hydrogen Economy is much more than that; it promises to change the fabric of our society. Hydrogen, holds the promise to break up the current cartel of energy suppliers that works hand-in-glove with a military-industrial complex that holds the entire world in a suffocating stranglehold. Hydrogen can clean things up and set the economy free. Hydrogen is the elixer that can remedy our polluting habits to create a better society, without the monopolies, the pollution, the taxes, regulations and the military controls that come with the current ways of supplying energy. Currently, energy is largely obtained from sources that centralize the economy around a single supplier, such as a huge nuclear plant or coal-powered plant. Similarly, oil is pumped up under monopoly conditions and transported in huge tankers, which has created these allmighty oil companies that extend their grip over society through services stations and political lobbying to keep cars polluting the world.

We should look forward to a world in which anyone can capture energy for free in their backyards, from renewable power sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydro-power. This energy can be directly stored in fuel cells that are built into heating and cooling systems of buildings, lights, TV-sets, stereo equipment, computers, cars, mowers, scooters, power tools, etc. Wherever you now see rechargeable Lithion batteries used, such as in mobile phones, think hydrogen and you'll get a preview of the bright future that awaits us. Hydrogen fuel cells will enable us to cut the wires through which the puppetmaster controls us now. Hydrogen fuel cells hold the promise to set us free. Let's take a serious effort to give this technology a chance!

The Future is Electric Cars!

Who killed the electric car? It's an excellent documentary video, a must see! It was released on DVD to the home video market on November 14, 2006.
http://earthissues.multiply.com/video/item/16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

There's more great footage at the Earth Issues website, such as a race between an electric car called the X1 against a Ferrari and a Porsche, and underwater recharging of an GM EV1 battery. http://earthissues.multiply.com/video/item/14
http://earthissues.multiply.com/video/item/15

The electric car dates back to the 1830s, when Robert Anderson of Scotland invented the first crude electric carriage. Around 1900, electric cars outsold all other types of cars in America. Why? Because they did not have the vibration, smell and noise of gasoline cars and required neither gear changes to drive nor much manual effort to start (as with the hand crank on gasoline cars). The only good roads then were downtown and most car travel was local, perfect for slow electric vehicles with a limited range.

Now it's time to reinvent the electric car, for its convenience and for the positive contribution it can make in terms of the environment and global warming. Solar power and electric cars is a winning combination. Let me explain. Wind and solar power is not continuous, and this is where car batteries can help out, by storing electricity at times of high supply, to feed electricity back into the grid when supply is low. I can well imagine car batteries both drawing and feeding power to/from the grid at night. Intelligent net metering will assist with this.

How much solar power is needed for all this electricity? How much surface does it take to supply solar energy? The following URL displays an image with red squares showing how much surface needs to be covered in theory by solar power facilities to generate enough electricity to meet the entire demand of respectively the World, Europe (EU-25) and Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fullneed.jpg
In fact, "how much surface" should be rephrased into "how little surface". Solar power alone could well provide enough energy for both our current electricity needs and can supply the additional energy needs to run our cars as well. Indeed, cars need not be bad from an environmental perspective. In fact, the combination of cars and solar power can be a winner for both. Again, let me explain.

Electricity can be stored in car batteries during the day, when cars are parked under roofs that are covered with solar panels that recharge the batteries. That could easily recharge the car battery enough for the owners to drive home and still leave sufficient power in the battery for other use. Note that 70% of Americans drive less than 33 miles per day. Late afternoon, when most people return home, they can plug their cars in at home for their own power use in the evening. Many will even have sufficient energy left to feed power back into the grid, selling electricity at top rates due to peak demand for power in the evening. Even if the battery became fully discharged in the evening, this still makes economic sense, as one can recharge later from the grid (during the night or early in the morning) when rates should be cheaper. Imagine there's a lot of wind during one part of the night. The meter will indicate that this is a good time for empty batteries to recharge. Conversely, when there is no wind in the evening, one will be able to get top dollars for feeding electricity back into the grid, pre-setting the battery to keep enough charge to get to work in the morning. As discussed, the car can then fully recharge from the solar panels on the roof of the parking place at work.

Sounds far-fetched? I'm very impressed with the Tesla Roadster, which has specs that many don't expect from electric cars, specifically an acceleration from 0 to 60 in about 4 seconds and a top speed of over 130 mph. It also looks great! You can recharge the battery at night in your garage and it will cost you as little a $2.50 in electricity for a full recharge.

With the Tesla, you'll be able to drive up to 250 miles on one single charge. This radius is achieved partly with regenerative braking that stores energy produced when braking. Recharging an empty battery with an EVSE system (operating at 70 amps) takes as little as 3.5 hours, but it also comes with a mobile-charging kit that lets you charge from any standard electrical outlet, e.g. in case you get stranded with an empty battery. Anyway, this short recharge time allows one to feed power back into the grid in the evening (when demand is high and supply from solar power sources is low) and still recharge later at night or early in the morning. Indeed, later at night rates are low, so it makes sense to recharge then. If sufficient wind is blowing, supply from wind turbines may be abundant in your area.

Electric cars requires less maintenance, since there are very few moving parts; you don't need to change engine oil, filters, gaskets, hoses, plugs, belts, there's no catalytic converter or exhaust pipe to replace. However, cost still is an issue, the Tesla Roadster 2008 model has a pricetag of $92,000 and the battery pack warrenty is limited (I think it's only warrented for 100,000 miles, while it does cost thousands of dollars to replace). But battery cost is expected to come down in future, while at the same time battery capacity and performance is expected to increase over time.
http://teslamotors.com/

Also have a look at Google's initiative on plug-in cars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDjSbWTJbdo
Google still uses plug-in hybrids, but it sets a trend away from using fossil fuel. There are also ethanol-electric hybrid cars; more than a year ago, Saab (General Motors Swedish car unit) already showcased such a car, combining an electric motor with an E85 Ethanol engine.
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/03/23/afx2616065.html
Google.org has issued a request for proposals to the tune of $10 million in order to advance sustainable transportation solutions.
http://blog.google.org/2007/09/drivers-start-your-batteries.html

Let me also pass on some links to the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado, at:
https://www.rmi.org/
They envisage a "Hypercar," made of ultralight, super-strong, carbon composite material, which is 12x as strong as steel on impact. Manufacturing cars and trucks using these materials would dramatically increast the range of electrical cars.
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid191.php
http://www.fiberforge.com/
Hydrogen is another way to store energy and is also promising in expanding the range of electric cars.
https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/U02-02_CleanerGreener.pdf (1.59 MB)

In conclusion: Just like we shouldn't rely on any single source of power (we should use wind, hydro, solar power and more), we shouldn't rely on a single way of storing power either. Apart from using car batteries for storage, we could use the Great Lakes as a reservoir not only of water, but also of power. At times of peak supply of wind and solar power, surplus power could be used to pump water back from a lower to a higher lake, in order to use hydro-power at times when supply of other types of power is low. Free markets are good in sorting out which technology works best where and when. I have no doubts that the nuclear alternative will be prohibitively expensive once risk factors are better taken into account (accidents, waste management, terrorism, etc).

Cheers!
Sam Carana

Why both capitalism and socialism are dead!

Many politicians claim to act in the interest of the public, yet they act in the interest of a narrow group. The nature of the electoral system (one election every three or four years) makes that politicians are typically seeking only short term benefits for a select groups of voters that will help them get elected. Similarly, politics often focuses on local issues and this makes politicians inclined to blame outsiders for any problems.

So, how much can we trust politicians to be able to take adequate action on an issue like global warming? If we handed the task of dealing with global warming to right-wing politicians, they would propose buying off those who wanted action, resulting in no effective action at all. They are keen to establish carbon trading schemes. The danger of such schemes is that the rich will use such schemes to continue their polluting lifestyle, paying the poor under the pretence that this will solve the problem, but the result is that the problem only increases as the rich don't stop polluting while the poor will use this money to imitate the polluting lifestyle of the rich.

On the other hand, if we handed the task to left-wing politicians, they would increasingly tax the rich for their polluting lifestyle and use the proceeds partly to increase an inefficient government bureaucracy, in which case nothing effective would be achieved either. Since no alternative is made available, the rich will simply continue with polluting activities (because they can afford to do so), while the poor have no alternatives either, so - in line with socialist doctrine - they will be given the other part of the tax proceeds with the argument that they needed help with the increased cost of energy and food, which will only lead to them to continue with or take up further polluting activities.

As said, we should not wait for those who seek to advance a specific political ideology, to articulate the necessary action for us. No, we should all take responsibility ourselves and both take action regarding our own lifestyle, as well as regarding our logic. Because the answer as to what should be done is so simple and straightforward. The best way to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is to tax emissions of greenhouse gases and subsidize alternatives. In case of carbon dioxide, fossil fuel should be taxed and the proceeds should be used to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy, which will make the policy doubly effective. Similarly, the best way to decrease emissions of methane is to tax what's responsible for that, e.g. by introducing a tax on the sale of meat. Again, to make such a policy doubly effective, the proceeds should be used to subsidize local supply of alternative food, e.g. in vegetarian restaurants.

These are only two out of my ten recommendations to deal with global warming, but it goes to show that one can reach conclusions without waiting for answers from politicians. The importance of global warming as an issue is also that it so clearly shows what happens when good debate on such an issue is neglected in society. Indeed, it is precisely because we have failed to think matters through that we're in such big problems with climate change. As many say, it's hard to trust politicians to come up with effective policies - global warming is one of the issues that demonstrates that both capitalism and socialism are dead. It's up to us to articulate the action plan. Global warming as an issue urges us all to think matters through and make sense of why so many politicians have let us down for so long.

Global Warming - Tax or Standards?

As global warming becomes an increasingly urgent issue, there are many calls for action. Many call for standards to be set, to achieve a reduction in pollution. In some cases, it seems to make sense to set a standard or to simply prohibit a product or service that causes too much pollution. However, there are several arguments that make tax more attractive compared to standards and outright prohibition. Taxing supply of energy that was generated by burning fossil fuel can often be a better alternative to achieve reductions in pollution. As such taxes make pollution more expensive, markets could work out what was the least polluting alternative.

How well do standards work? The inevitable practicalities of standards are that some rather polluting behavior will be permitted, while other behavior that was far less polluting will be prohibited. Standards are often popular as they seem to come at no direct cost for consumers, whereas taxes only seems to cost us money. But in reality, the cost of compliance with standards can be huge and it may not always make sense, i.e. people do not often see how a standard helps reducing pollution. A tax has a direct relationship with the pollution and therefore makes more sense, especially if the proceeds of tax are used to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy.

There is popular support for outlawing cars that are too polluting, but does that justify standards rather than tax? Perhaps someone only drives a rather polluting car for a very small distance once in a while, producing far less pollution than someone who drives a clean car for long distances daily. With tax there's no such judgement call to be made. Taxing emissions constitutes a straitforward and effective instrument to reduce global warming, whereas standards could lead to all kinds of complications.

There's not just an economic argument in there, it's also a moral issue. The reality of global warming urges us to reduce all pollution, rather than to prohibit only some forms of pollution while legalizing and protecting other forms of pollution, as if some were justified in polluting since they complied with an arbitrary standard or were exempt from complying. Indeed, will the army be expected to comply, will police in persuit of subject stick to the limit or will the burglars, for that matter? Tax can simply apply across the board, to all supply of energy resulting from burning fossil fuel. All users pay the tax and they will pay more, the more they use such energy. Such a tax makes sense and is also fair - it penalises all pollution and it penalises the bigger polluter more than the smaller polluter, at a flat rate or under a scale that can be gliding or exponential and that is under control of the legislator and can be adjusted as needed. Standards, by contrast, set arbitrary limits - rather than to prohibit all pollution, they approve some pollution and prohibit other pollution. Standards operate in a framework that only allows one option, i.e. one has to comply with the standard.

Standards put legislators in charge of running the economy. Where standards produce only one correct outcome (i.e. one has to comply with the prescriptions), tax is much more flexible and leaves more choice in the hands of suppliers to come up with products that respond to market demand. These market mechanisms make tax a much more effective instrument, both economically and in terms of reducing global warming. Standards lead to a single product, designed by legislators and administrators, with all the associated risks of bureaucratic waste, little innovation, favoratism and collusion.

Standards give suppliers an economic incentive to operate on the edges of what the standard permits, seeking loopholes and ways to slip through the mazes. A standard forces all suppliers to produce a product that is just as polluting as their competitors, thus maximising (permittable) pollution. By contrast, tax doesn't prescribe product details other than that the more one pollutes, the more tax is paid. Tax thus leaves it up to suppliers to design a product, while creating incentives to produce a product that reduces pollution more than their competitors.

Also, standards can come not only with a high cost of compliance, but also a high cost of administering the standard. Who pays for the cost of setting the standard, administering it, the technical testing and the testing of the dicisions in court? Who pays for the cost of enforcement? What will happen if one does not comply? Who pays for imprisonment of offenders?

By contrast, tax raises money in a rather simple and straitforward manner, without the need for a battery of trained technical staff and experts to test things. As said, the proceeds of tax could be used to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy, making the policy more effective, whereas there's less clarity what the impact will be of the cost of standards.

Standards cost a lot of money. Should penalties paid by offenders perhaps pay for that cost? Designing a policy on that basis would only lead to administrators becoming dependent on revenue from fines and give them an incentive to chase fines instead of reducing global warming. It's often hard to get rid of such administrators. Tax, by contrast, will simply go away by itself. If no more energy is sold that resulted from burning of fossil fuel, then no tax will be levied on the supply of such energy.

In conclusion, taxes work better to combat global warming than standards. Mind you, I'm not arguing to abolish all standards. There's a place for standards and I surely wouldn't want to abolish safety standards for vehicles. But what we need to look at here is what is the most effective framework. Note that we have progressive income taxes (i.e. the more you earn, the higher the scale at which you're taxed). Yet, Warren Buffett, the world's third-richest, was last year taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million, while his receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html
This because there are so many deductions and loopholes in the tax system. If we're to introduce a progressive tax on fossil fuel (one that increases as one pollutes more), then we have to be very cautious about possible exemptions and deductions. Also, taxes run the risk of being consumed by administrators who seek to perpetuate their bureauracy.

The framework I propose is a combination of tax and subsidies. The proceeds of the proposed tax on fossil fuel should be spent to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy, rather than end up in the consolidated government funds. If we taxed the rich polluters and spent the money to help the poor polluters (as in the old socialist motto), then pollution will only increase, as the rich can afford to continue to pollute, while the poor will pollute even more if they get paid to do so. the rich can afford the higher energy prices (being rich) while the poor get compensated (either directly from the proceeds of the carbon tax or because the proceeds will be used to lower income and payroll taxes), then there will be little or no change to people's patterns of energy use. As said, the rich can afford to continue with their current lifestyle while the poor get financial support, so there's little or no incentive for either to change.

I don't want to see the proceeds of emissions tax added to the consolidated government funds, because of the risk that it will then be used to assist people buying fossil fuel or simply to feed a wasteful bureaucracy. Instead, I want all proceeds to be used directly to subsidize clean and renewable energy. It should be a local dollar for dollar exchange, to assure people that their money will be used to lower the price of clean energy in their area. That way, the combined policy will be most effective and most easily accepted.

I propose a new emissions tax to be introduced and the proceeds to be used to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy. An emissions tax introduced as a new tax doesn't require budget changes and makes it easier to raise extra money to subsidize alternative energy, which will reduce the local price of alternative energy and which in turn will help people cope with higher energy prices. A new tax could be justified on those grounds, and also on the need to become energy independent and since the urgency of global warming warrents compensation for cost to be more directly included in the price of fossil fuel.

My feeling is that a new tax at a mere 10% would be acceptable to the public and (given the proportion of energy now generated from fossil fuel) such a tax would result in a huge amount of money. If (as I propose) all that money was used to subsidize clean and renewable energy, it would probably be more than the alternative energy industry could handle at this time. Instead, we need a framework of policies that work together to establish a shift away from burning fossil fuel. We need to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy, but where should we get the money for such subsidies? Doesn't it make a lot of sense to get those who pollute most to pay for it?

Tax greenhouse gas emissions!

The quickest and most effective way to deal with global warming is to tax greenhouse gas emissions and to spend the proceeds to encourage the use of renewable energy locally.

Tax puts a price on pollution and, in combination with a reward for those who avoid pollution, it establishes market mechanisms that encourage efficiency, innovation and technological progress.

It is also the quickest way to combat global warming - a tax will immediately discourage pollution, whereas other policies may allow the rich to continue polluting, e.g. by paying the poor in developing and over-populated countries where people will be inclined to use that money to mimic the lifestyle of the rich, leading only to more pollution.

Instead of taxing the rich and handing the money over to the poor, as in the old socialist motto, we should adopt a new motto, i.e. tax energy suppliers who pollute and give it to suppliers who don't.

By taxing pollution and spending the proceeds on rewards for clean and renewable energy, the policy is doubly effective.

Spending the proceeds locally ensures that they are used where they have the most impact, as the biggest markets for energy will receive the biggest incentives to shift away from pollution.

Should greenhouse gas emissions be taxed and should those tax proceeds be used to encourage the use of renewable energy locally?

Ten Recommendations to deal with global warming

There are many things we can all do to reduce our contributions to global warming. Here are ten things politians can do now to make a difference:

1. Tax energy supply that adds extra heat to global warming and use the money to subsidize energy supply that doesn't.

2. Stop supporting conventional power plants. Don't give them research grants or subsidies. Don't give them regulatory privileges or allow them to monopolize a market. If they go broke under the new regime of taxes, then good riddance. Instead, support renewables such as wind farms, solar power, hydro-electricity and wave power.

3. Sign the Kyoto Treaty and make a firm commitment to reduce emissions by a lot more. Work on a new global Treaty beyond Kyoto, using these ten points as a basis.

4. Support lifestyles that are more environmentally-friendly. Encourage use of the Internet as an alternative to travel and commuting. Encourage homeschooling and working from home. Deregulate taxi services.

5. Ban incandescent light bulbs. Set a date for a national ban. Actively promote a global ban.

6. Support energy that doesn't add extra heat more actively in regulations and government policy. Encourage competition and diversity among suppliers of such energy. Encourage interconnection and overlap of electricity grids, so that households can choose which grid to sell electricity to, if they generate a surplus in their backyard.

7. Plan communities without roads and with footpaths and bikepaths instead. Plan houses close together, around a local center of shops and restaurants. Redesign existing cities so that people have to travel less.

8. Tax the sale of meat and use the money to support vegetarian restaurants, bicycle shops and other environmentally-friendly outlets in communities without roads.

9. Make government act more environmentally responsible. Ask for ideas. Have more staff work from home. Look at ways to offer services over the phone, over the Net, etc.

10. Disclosure. Make that government departments and large companies publicly disclose their emissions of greenhouse gases. Make products display on their packaging the amounts of greenhouse gases needed to produce it.

Global Warming - cap and trade or tax?

The US Supreme Court ruled on April 2nd that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must limit greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide.

Four Bills are now under discussion in the Senate that would instruct the EPA to set caps on greenhouse gas emissions and allow for trading of permits, so that those who do better than their allocated target can sell their "surplus" to those who fail to do so.

The problem with permits is that, if they are given away for free to existing polluters, that would be like rewarding them for the pollution they make. Alternatively, permits could be auctioned off, or there could be a mix. e.g. with a progressively larger proportion of permits to be auctioned off.

There remains a problem with trading in that it mainly seems to benefit polluters. Polluters who reduce their emissions will benefit, so there's a clear incentive for them to do so, but a wind farm that didn't generate greenhouse gases to start with will not get or need any permits, and it therefore wouldn't benefit from selling any "surplus" - it didn't get anything to sell, nor will it need to buy any permits. Trading in permits appears to leave the profits of such trade in the hands of a group of polluters and those feeding on them.

Instead, emissions could simply be taxed. Whether permits are auctioned or emissions are taxed, the key question is who will get the revenues. One thing that should be avoided is that such revenues will merely be used to assist the poor with paying their higher energy bills. If that would be the case, then no gain would be achieved at all. If the rich can afford to pay higher prices, and the poor get subsidies, then nothing will change in terms of pollution. Instead of taxing the rich and handing the money over to the poor, as in the old socialist motto, we should adopt a new motto, i.e. tax energy suppliers who pollute and give it to suppliers who don't. Indeed, it makes sense to reward suppliers of energy most who pollute least. A more blunt position would be that only suppliers of energy should get subsidized that do not add extra heat, i.e. those who don't add extra heat should get all the subsidies, while those who do should not be subsidized at all.

Such a combination of tax and subsidies would result in a shift away from supply of energy that contributes to global warming on the one hand, towards supply in energy that doesn't contribute to global warming on the other hand. Tax the first group and give the money to the second group! Because money is merely passed from one group to the other, there is no risk of a budget blow-out. The money is all accounted for, if the money that's raised is simply passed on in the form of subsidies.

Taxes could be set at rates to achieve certain aims. If taxes are too low and buying polluting energy is still relatively cheaper than non-polluting energy, then the tax rate will simply have to be raised to cause a quicker shift.

What characterizes our Times?

What characterizes our Times? I recently asked friends to name things that were most characteristic of the times we live in now. Here's the top ten answers I got.

1. Global Warming

Global warming and climate change loom large as challenges faced by everyone on Earth. Will this unite the world into taking a joint approach to combat the problems? Or will it divide the world? We seem to have moved beyond an earlier split between those who acknowledged and those who denied the need for action. The issue now is how to implement action.

2. Terrorism

The US has troops all over the world, but who is the enemy? Wars used to be fought between countries. Nowadays. conflicts are fought out between groups within a country. The question is whether such conflicts can be contained within a country. Fears are that terrorists will increasingly strike globally to make their point.

3. Globalisation

McDonalds restaurants are everywhere, all over the world. You can walk through shopping malls anywhere in the world and there's little difference. Shoe shops in such malls were made in China, designed in the US, carry an Italian brand name, while the profits go to a bank account on the Bermudas. Trade has more and more global aspects and there's no indication that this trend is reversing.

4. Air travel

Not only is trade going global, people are becoming mobile globetrotters, backpackers holding multiple passports. In the old days, only travelers, sailors and pilgrims had stories to tell about distant countries (migrants don't count, they traveled one way only!) Nowadays, tourists, diplomats, business people and students all fly happily abroad, to return within weeks, sometimes days. People love to fly. Despite the threat of terrorism and despite the concerns for global warming, airlines keep moving more people between cities, countries and continents. As airports become the hub of modern society, entire cities start emerging around them.

5. Competition

It's the economy, stupid! It's some politicians’ favorite phrase. Finance, free trade, deregulation and competition policy seem to dominate the agenda in many newspapers. Demographic changes, immigration and changes in lifestyle have huge impacts on the economy, making many people call for political action. Are we now living in the Economic Society? With communism in retreat, has economics and competition policy become the dominant ideology?

6. Urbanization

In what must count as the biggest population moves in history, a large part of China's rural population has moved to settle in cities along the coastline. Urbanization is happening all over the world. Big cities keep on growing, while rural areas become less-densely populated. Does the city skyline most symbolize modern times?

7. Drug-resistant diseases

AIDS, Avian influenza, TB and other bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics. Some pretty scary pictures emerge on TV from time to time, as diseases break out in one part of the world. In today's global society with growing international air-travel, it seems ever harder to stop new diseases from crossing borders and spreading globally.

8. Science and Technology

All over the world, science and technology changes people's lives at ever more rapid pace. New diseases call for new medical technology. With more old people than ever populating most countries, the market for new drugs and cures seems insatiable. Old people seek to extend their lives, while young people may face the challenge of infertility. Genetic engineering and bio-technology promise plants to cope with climate change and yield higher crops for food and bio-fuel. Nowhere is the impact of technology more apparent than in the merging areas of computers and communications. Smart people now carry smartphones, complete with camera, Internet access and GPS. Will the Internet turn all of us into scientists?

9. Power of the individual

In the old days, people felt part of their family, of the place where they worked, of a trade union and the same people they met every day. They had the same friends since they went to school together. Nowadays, people move more frequently, out of these traditional networks. Families have become small, rather than extended. One person can run a company from home. All this empowers the individual. The challenge is for people to find things to identify with and ways to interconnect and have a social life.

10. Decreasing relevance of the Nation-State

Are international treaties making the nation-state irrelevant? Given that all the above points reflect global issues that seem to cross national borders with increasing ease, does this mean the end of the nation-state?

Indeed, I wonder if others who compiled a list of ten issues that most characterized our times would come up with many different issues. Seen in this light, is the nation-state the best instrument to tackle the challenges posed by all these issues?

Can we rely on political systems that were designed to put the interest of the nation first, to adequately deal with problems of a global nature? Can we rely on national politics to solve global problems? Worse, is the rise in prominence of all these global issues perhaps the result of an over-reliance on national politics?

If national politics is indeed in decline, what will replace it? Localism? World Government? Chaos and anarchy? Dog-eat-dog? Global politics? The latter is an oxymoron as long as politics remains inherently national. Perhaps the biggest challenge of our times is to find coherent ways of dealing with global problems, without delegating that task to national politicians and without relying too much on the Nation-State model of politics to solve those problems. We need to come up with modern responses to modern problems. How can we claim to promote competition in the light of a declining bio-diversity? How can the Internet create new ways of politics, such as digital voting, opinion polling and lodging protests? We need all the imagination of webdesigners, writers, film producers, artists and product designers to visualize, articulate and otherwise express ideas, using the media of our times to point at solutions that fit our times. Let's redesign politics to fit our modern times.

Sam Carana

Ten Dangers of Global Warming

Let's have a look at the many concerns and dangers associated with global warming and the resulting changes in climate around the world. I've tentatively grouped them into ten points.

1. Flooding.

We've all seen the pictures of disappearing glaciers and the predictions of rising sea levels. Most people live close to the sea, but many are in denial about the impact of global warming. They falsely believe that the only change that will affect them will be a few centimeter rise of sea level over many decades. Without government action to move them away into newly-built cities, they will continue to live on land most prone to flooding and most exposed to hurricanes, tornadoes and thunderstorms, until a disaster hits them like we've seen happen in New Orleans. The task ahead is many scales larger than the evacuation of New Orleans, which after all occurred in the richest nation on earth while all other infrastructure in the US was in good working order. Ironically, global warming comes with increased risks not only of flooding, but also of shortage of water.

2. Shortage of water.

Many areas could be hit by droughts, especially once glaciers that previously fed rivers have disappeared. As the weather becomes more turbulent, we can expect more extreme droughts, while the occasional heavy storm wouldn't give much relief, but instead cause landslides and run-off of top-soil. Shortage of potable water causes dehydration in people and livestock, making them more vulnerable to diseases. Lack of irrigation results in loss of stock and crop in many areas. As people and animals move to more fertile grounds, overgrazing of land and clearing land of trees could cause desertification there as well. All this, combined with the increased risk of flooding should increase concerns for famine and disease.

3. Famine and disease.

Higher temperatures will increase the risk of tropical diseases, such as malaria, in previously temperate zones. Starvation is one of the biggest unconscious human fears that may well become a reality that is daily displayed on TV. The most fertile land is typically located just above sea level, where rivers enter the sea. Due to climate change, many areas will need to switch to other crops. This will take time, further contributing to transitionary if not permanent shortages of food everywhere. Food storage and distribution will be hit by rising cost of cooling, while stored food will become exposed to pests and diseases in the face of increased humidity and in the absence of adequate refridgeration. Cost of transport will rise, while many roads may become inaccessable due to flooding and storm damage.

4. Migration and refugees.

Migration will stress the infrastructure of many cities, even if they weren't affected much directly by climate change in terms of famine, droughts, epidemics, flooding or storm damage. Apart from this, people will also be driven away from many areas by pollution, heat, pests, diseases, shortages of water and supplies, and collapse of infrastructure, medical care and security. Many people will seek new habitats, while at the same time many countries will seek to stop refugees from crossing borders. Refugee camps are notorious for the outbreak of epidemics, such as cholera. Without proper planning and action, this could result in human tragedy at unprecedented scale, while refugee camps could become breeding grounds for new diseases like avian influenza.

5. Collapse of the financial system.

The value of money used to be linked to gold, but now is based on economic growth, value of real estate and the value of stock (company shares) and the like. As such factors become increasingly exposed to the the above points, the entire global financial system risks collapse. Instead, a carbon-based system of currency may take over to some extent. Uncertainty about this increases the risk that governments will simply become more dictatorial. In the absence of market forces to guide developments, there will be increased risks that such dictatorial governments take actions that make things worse, resulting in total economic collapse.

6. Economic collapse.

Many countries face uncertain futures, as they are dependent on income from oil, coal, tourism or a single crop that cannot survive climate change. As an example, air travel could become too expense for tourists, taking away the single biggest revenue stream for many small countries. Entire industries, such as manufacturing of cars and airplanes, may collapse. Globalisation has made many industries dependent on access to resources and products that come from halfway around the world, while the cost of transport is likely to go up. Again, such economic collapse may set the scene for dictatorship in many areas, increasing the risk of war and of wrong decisions being taken in general.

7. War and civil unrest.

The above points should increase our concerns about the risk of wars and civil unrest. Production of weapons is one of the biggest industries worldwide, with the clout to influence governments. The oil industry is often regarded as the most powerful influence of global politics. Some countries will want quick and dramatic changes, while other countries may resist all calls for change or may want entirely different changes, setting up confrontation at a global scale and setting the scene for World War III. Within most countries, there will also be opposing groups. The smartest people, who we now need more than ever, may be killed, may end up in prison or may otherwise be silenced, while dictators seek to grab power without any intention of solving the problems.

8. Pollution, in particular as a result of nuclear war, fallout and waste.

As concerns about emissions of carbon and methane increase, industry may seek to abandon pollution standards in order to avoid emission of greenhouse gasses. The nuclear industry may present itself as a "green" alternative, but nuclear fallout and waste should count as one of the biggest dangers in this regard. As concerns about carbon emissions sink in, more countries are considering using nuclear power for electricity, which comes with increased risk of fallout and concerns about the care of and disposal of nuclear waste. Furthermore, many countries are seeking to develop nuclear weapons in response to increased risk of war in the light of the above points. The secrecy under which such development takes place gives cause to concern about global safety and security.

9. Tipping points.

One of the biggest dangers is that, without dramatic action, the atmosphere will reach certain tipping points beyond which sudden dramatic and catastrophic changes take place that are irreversable in the short term. Droughts and more turbulent wheather may cause earthquakes and associated tsunamis, which not only come with loss of lives, infrastructure and fertile land, but which will also make the greenhouse effect worse. So, instead of facing gradual changes that can be mitigated by planned action, we may suddenly face a future in which many if not most people will have little or no access to food, water, medicines, electricity and shelter, while diseases go rampant and gangs and warlords loot and devastate the few liveable areas left. Human beings as a species will face the risk of total extinction, particularly if many species of animals and plants that humans depend on will disappear.

10. Panic.

While each of the above points gives reason to be concerned, many people are still in denial about the severity of the problem of global warmimg. Once they do get the message, though, there's a risk of over-reaction edging into panic. This may result in people buying up all the food they can get hold of, trying to get their hands on weapons, etc. Unscrupulous companies may exploit the situation by deliberately creating scarcity of medicines, etc. This is another reason to be open about these concerns and to come up with planning that makes sense.

Feel free to comment, add and suggest changes to the above ten points, but please note that there is some degree of progression in the above ten points. Next step is to go over the recommendations that should follow. That will be done in an upcoming article, tentatively given the title: Ten Recommendations to deal with Global Warming. Importantly, recommendations may not necessarily be of a political nature - in many cases, people and companies are already taking action without being enticed by government subsidies or compelled by regulations to do so.

Global Warming and the impact of Extra Heat

What are the basics of Global Warming, specifically the impact of extra heat? What is extra heat? What is its impact on global warming? Feel free to make comments if you see things differently!

1. Natural Heat versus Extra Heat

The sun heats up Earth during the day. This solar energy constitutes natural heat, as opposed to extra heat that is added by human activity such as burning of fossil fuels. Simply said, extra heat comes on top of heat that comes naturally.

Sunlight reaches Earth with a strength of 174 PW or about 1.7 billion times the amount of power produced by a large electric power plant (which is some 100 million watts of energy). That is indeed a huge amount of power compared to the total human energy production, which was only 13.5 TW in 2001.

However, all this sunlight is needed to lift Earth's temperature all the way from the minus 454 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Kelvin) of deep space to its current average temperature. In other words, it takes just a little bit of extra heat by comparison to increase the average temperature on Earth by a few degrees.

Also, we get a different impression if we look at the amount of energy deposited by the Sun per square meter. At the top of the atmosphere, the shortwave energy flux received from the Sun is about 1,368 watts per square meter. Because of its spherical shape, at any instant the Earth receives on average only half the incident solar flux, i.e. 684 W/m² . Due to the Earth's rotation, the average radiative flux received over a day-night cycle is half of this value, i.e. 342 W/m² .

Taking into account cloud coverage and the fact that the efficiency rate of capturing this energy with solar panels is rather low (say 10% to 15%), you can only expect an output of 19 to 56 W/m² or 0.45 - 1.35 (kW·h/m²)/day from solar panels.

How much extra heat is generated by human activity, compared to the heat resulting from sunlight? Firstly, the human body itself creates a lot of heat, but let not count that as "extra" heat for the time being. We're mainly looking at industrial activity, using electricity, cars and the like. A house will consume about 1kWe (kilowatt-electric) if measured as a continuous stream of electric power. If you keep the lights on in your office and your house, you may be using a few hundred watts of energy. A TV-set or a computer may use much more. If you drive home in your car, the engine generates a huge amount of heat. Vacuum cleaners, air-conditioners and refridgerators also use huge amounts, but they're not used continuously. On average, a typical person adds a few hundred watts of energy into the atmosphere, day and night, all year long. Currently, most of this demand is met by burning fossil fuel, which counts as extra heat that is added to the atmosphere.

As said, total human energy production was 13.5 TW in 2001. Since total Earth surface is 510,100,000 km2, the extra heat works out to be some 0.02 W/m², so it's rather insignificant when spread out over the entire globe.

2. The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming

The atmosphere works like a greenhouse, shielding us from too much sunshine during the day, while also keeping heat trapped so that we do not freeze at night. In other words, the greenhouse effect shields us from both extremely high and low temperatures.

Greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide, as well as water vapor, trap such heat in Earth's atmosphere. The more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, the stronger the greenhouse effect.

As said, activities such as burning of fossil fuels add extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, resulting in a stronger greenhouse effect. This will both result in both less sunshine getting through and less heat escaping the atmosphere, but the combined effect is a relatively higher overall temperature on Earth. Over the years, human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels, has substantially increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, resulting in a stronger greenhouse effect, causing global warming and climate change.

3. Positive Feedback

This global warming comes with positive feedback, i.e. the impact of global warming itself accelerates global warming and causes further increase of temperatures:

• Decreased reflection of sunlight results in increased retention of heat. The overall albedo (reflection rate) of Earth will decrease. Sunlight is reflected more by white surface (such as snow), compared to darker surface (such as rock and soil). As the albedo decreases (which is the case when snow melts), less light is reflected and more heat is absorbed by the soil. Albedos can be as high as 90% for snow and as low as 4% for charcoal. Most land areas have an albedo range of 10 to 40%. The average albedo of the Earth is about 30%. As the permafrost, the ice and snow in the polar regions melts, as the iceplates in the Arctic regions break loose and icebergs float away, as less snow falls in the mountains and as glaciers melt, all these areas change color from white to dark. All this causes a further rise in temperature, as the darker soil and sea absorb more sunlight and thus heat up, where previously the sunlight was reflected back into space by the white ice and snow.



• As the permafrost melts and disappears, thawing boreal forests, swamps and tundras will emerge that - as bogs heat up and peat thaws - will release huge amounts of methane gas, a twenty times more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.



• Global warming will come with more extreme weather conditions. Floods typically cause a huge loss of top-soil. Rotting and decomposing trees release methane, as do the termites that feed on them. Land clearing, over-grazing, droughts and fires further put entire regions at risk of desertification. The Amazon rainforest, the African tropics, the tropical rainforests in Indonesia, they all risk turning into savannah and deserts, releasing the carbon stored in trees as carbon dioxide into the air and releasing huge amounts of methane in the process, while also decreasing the capacity of soil to absorb carbon dioxide.



• As snow melts, more humidity gets into the air. This vapor constitutes another important greenhouse gas. As Earth heats up, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will increase, as more water evaporates at the surface, both on land and at sea. This causes a further increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in atmospheric temperature.



• The human factor also constitutes an important form of positive feedback that's often overlooked by climatologists. More extreme weather conditions can be expected, i.e. droughts followed by floods and storms, followed again by droughts, etc. This will result in larger run-off of fertile top-soil. Farmers may try to adapt to climate change, but it will take years before they will have found the best types of plants for the new conditions. The result will be higher food prices and demand for new agricultural areas. Rising sea levels, droughts, storms and floods will make people leave low-lying coastal areas and move to higher grounds, where they will start clearing trees for agriculture, industry, roads and housing. The overall result will be increased loss of forests. Thus, the human factor is expected to constitute another positive feedback, as discussed further in the Ten Dangers of Global Warming.

In other words, Global warming comes with 'positive feedback', which means that we're not only stuck with global warming for some time to come, but we can only expect things to get worse, even if we did decide to stop adding any further greenhouse gases and extra heat (i.e. on top of the heat and gases that come naturally).

4. Impact of Extra Heat

All extra heat that we release will add to global warming. As said, it seems rather insignificant compared to natural heat from the sun, from geysers and other natural geo-thermal sources. It also seems insignificant compared to the natural heat that remains trapped in the atmosphere due to the extra amounts of greenhouse gasses we produce. Neverthless, as more heat remains trapped in the atmosphere due to an accelerating greenhouse effect (since global warming comes with all kinds of positive feedback), its significance is increasing. Extra heat may become increasingly important in assessments, e.g. when subsidies are allocated to the type of energy that produce the least extra heat.

5. Nature versus Human Activity

In many respects, human activity is to blame for global warming. Burning of oil and coal are obvious human activities that result in global warming. While nuclear power plants may look better in terms of greenhouse gases compared to burning of fossil fuels, nuclear plants will also directly add extra heat into the atmosphere. In the light of the accelerated greenhouse effect, such extra heat remains - even more than before - trapped in the atmosphere, adding further acceleration to the already accelerating global warming. As said, extra heat may seem insignificant compared to natural heat, but it may just tip the balance when deciding how to allocate subsidies to combat global warming. Similarly, where geothermal schemes extract heat from the depths of Earth, this may also constitute extra heat that wouldn't be added naturally.

Agriculture can also add substantial amounts of extra heat: animals release methane gas, clearing land for agriculture by burning forests releases carbon dioxide, inefficient farming practices result in release of nitrous oxide, etc. In Australia, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture constituted 16% of total emissions in 2004 (source), while agriculture was largest source of nitrous oxide and methane emissions (source).

But that doesn't mean that all human activity was bad and that all farms needed to be transformed into forest overnight. Bad forestry practies also add extra greenhouse gases, due to composting and formation of swamps resulting in methane, and due to natural burning and firestorms. Many forests would burn naturally and this can be minimised with good forestry management. Similarly, termites release methane gasses, so it makes sense to avoid this.

Banning all human activity and letting nature go rampant is not the answer. The big challenge is to find ways in which we can live, work, travel and do things we want to do while minimising our contributions to further global warming. Capturing the heat of the sun and geysers, and capturing the turbulance of wind, waves and rivers is not only a way to use energy that is already present naturally, it can also flatten wild weather patterns that could do a lot of damage.

Welcome

This is the Sam Carana Blog, keeping you up to date on interesting issues, developments and ideas, with links to relevant groups, blogs, websites and comments!