Deron Lovaas's Blog: Solving Global Warming

The Air Force Gets It

2009-10-23T22:16:09Z

For a long time, the United States Air Force was keenly interested in liquid coal. But as time went on, the disadvantages became increasingly obvious. This week, we were pleased to discover that the Air Force was no longer pursuing this short sighted technology. We applaud its decision as one that is good for taxpayers, the environment, and national security.

The decision was a long time in the making as the technology's deep inherent flaws came under increasing scrutiny. Environmentally, these fuels are disastrous, emitting nearly double the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as conventional fuels. Thus, commercializing liquid coal would stymie our efforts to mitigate global warming. The ecological implications are equally severe. A commercialized liquid coal industry would require coal mining to increase by up to 50%. Mining is already responsible for numerous environmental problems such as mountaintop removal, habitat loss, groundwater contamination and loss of scenic beauty. For these reason, NRDC and other organizations have strenuously opposed liquid coal development in Congress and on the ground.

Liquid coal has also drawn criticism for its extravagant cost, running as high as $125,000 per barrel of daily production capacity. Understandably, private markets have roundly rejected these proposals and it is unlikely that any will move forward without substantial government intervention.

But perhaps most significantly, global warming has drawn the attention of military planners, veterans and security experts because of its profound impacts on national security. Climate change, they agree, will intensify resource competition, humanitarian crises, and tension in the world's most volatile regions. The National Intelligence Council notes that the "demands for potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations." Given the bleak outlook, it is easy to see why the Air Force would abandon a self defeating fuel technology that makes global warming worse. And it is highly reassuring to know that our leaders in the armed services are making the right decisions on energy policy. By dropping liquid coal, the Air Force can fully focus on sustainable energy resources that mitigate the security risks of climate change.

Moving Cooler: Solid Research, Right Direction

2009-07-30T20:33:42Z

As analysts review this new analysis of transportation measures that can save fuel and cut greenhouse gases, they will be pleased to see that it is truly comprehensive and even-handed.

Highway capacity expansion? It examined that. Freight strategies? That too. Operational strategies to improve traffic flow? Yes. Regulatory strategies? Yes. Car- and ride-sharing? Yes. Public transportation? Yes. Bicycle and pedestrian projects? Yes. Land use policy? Yes. Pricing strategies? Yes.

Almost 50 measures, assessed for their potential effects independently, in three different implementation scenarios varying according to geographic coverage, time frame and intensity.

And then the measures were combined in different strategically targeted strategies to determine how they might complement or conflict with one another:

One focused on achieving early results;
One on maximum results over the long-term (sort of an "everything but the kitchen sink" package);
One on a combination of land use policy changes and investments in transit and nonmotorized ways of traveling (bicycle and pedestrian or what Transportation Committee Chairman Oberstar half-jokingly calls "the carbohydrate economy");
One on System and driver efficiency, focused on improving traffic speeds and driver habits;
One on facility pricing to gauge the effect of those signals and the infrastructure investments the revenue would fund; and
One on low-cost means for reducing emissions.

In addition to assessments of fuel savings and greenhouse gas emission cuts, the authors - a team of analysts at Cambridge Systematics -- examined issues such as costs of implementation, consumer savings due to reduced vehicle operating costs as well as economic equity considerations.

The quality of the report has drawn praise from a number of quarters, including state officials:

"State and local air agencies are committed to cutting global warming pollution from transportation, and Moving Cooler should be a useful resource as they develop strategies for getting the job done." - S. William Becker, Executive Director, National Association of Clean Air Agencies

"This groundbreaking assessment of strategies for cutting heat‐trapping pollution from transportation is a great guide for state legislators as we hammer out plans to tackle climate change." - Maryland Delegate James Hubbard, President, National Caucus of Environmental Legislators

Unfortunately, one dissenting bloviator - Alan Pisarski -- blogged about the report yesterday in a heated entry that betrays a misreading (or not-reading) of the report. He builds a straw man, claiming the report is anti-car. And then, paradoxically, after casting himself as a defender of the car he shows appalling ignorance about vehicle technology, claiming the study understates the potential of energy-efficiency of the vehicle fleet. And yet the baseline of the study assumes a tripling of new light-duty vehicle fuel economy by 2050, a decent-sized jump by anyone's standards. He also takes aim at the land use measures analyzed, shoving aside the fact that this is but one of nine categories of strategies examined. Would he not look at them at all? He also claims that carpooling was overlooked, when in fact it was treated quite seriously. In sum, this particular critic singled out some items he disliked in the report and then blew them out of all proportion. This yearlong endeavor spanning 200 pages deserves better, more informed treatment.

But what's really galling is his ad hominem attack on the report authors, specifically regarding their interest in energy security and climate change. As someone on the Steering Committee for the report I take offense. Along with many colleagues and friends I have been working on energy and climate issues for the better part of a decade, and poured heart and soul into advocacy for the long-sought boost in fuel economy standards Congress finally enacted in 2007 (which will save millions of barrels of oil daily). I can't help but wonder what if anything Mr. Pisarski has ever done to benefit either the climate or the nation's energy security.

Cities Racing Against Global Warming

2008-05-29T14:03:21Z

We all love rankings. Who's up? Who's down? What would change the picture?

Today, the Brookings Institution -- a think tank -- released a first-of-a-kind ranking (full-disclosure, I was a reviewer): They rated the 100 largest U.S. regions based on their carbon footprints (since carbon dioxide is the most voluminous by far of the global warming pollutants). Media outlets across the country, as well as the AP, have reported on the study.

There are some surprising results. The top ten cities are:

Honolulu (HI)
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana (CA)
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton (OR-WA)
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-PA)
Boise City-Nampa (ID)
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue (WA)
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara (CA)
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont (CA)
El Paso (TX)
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos (CA)

And the bottom ten:

Knoxville (TN)
Harrisburg-Carlisle (PA)
Oklahoma City (OK)
St. Louis (MO-IL)
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro (TN)
Louisville (KY-IN)
Toledo (OH)
Cincinnati-Middletown (OH-KY-IN)
Indianapolis (IN)
Lexington-Fayette (KY)

The first thing that jumps out is that seven of the top ten are on the West Coast, with four from California alone. In the bottom ten, three are at least partly in Kentucky and two in Tennessee. My home region of Washington (D.C.), which is south of the Mason-Dixon line, ranks a sad 89th. So these lists seem to pit the West against the South. What's going on?

When getting under the hood of rankings, the first thing you look for is what was measured. In this case, the time span covered was 2000-2005 with focus on passenger and freight transportation and energy consumption from residential buildings. As the Brookings researchers candidly admit, this omits about half the picture: Commercial buildings, industry and other transportation modes (such as planes and transit). On the other hand, the rankings provide a fair indicator of energy use for transportation and electricity, energy-efficiency as well as dependence on fossil fuels (i.e., coal, oil, natural gas).

What are the overall findings?

Large regions stack up pretty well in terms of per capita emissions. These regions account for two-thirds of U.S. population but only 56 percent of emissions from highway transportation and residential buildings in 2005.
Carbon emissions from these sectors are also growing slower than the national average in these major metro areas: From 2000-2005, they grew 7.5 percent vs. the national rise of 9.1 percent.
There are big variations in per capita emissions among these areas. The biggest contrast is Lexington-Honolulu, where an average resident in the former is responsible for 2.5 times as much carbon emissions as the latter (in transportation alone). Notably, the biggest per capita emitters are for the most part east of the Mississippi (with many in the South, as noted above), with Oklahoma City (high-emitter) and New York City (low-emitter) standing out as exceptions.
Development patterns and rail transit access matter. Compact, smart-growth development and the existence of rail transit are decent predictors of a city's ranking.

The report ends with a host of policy recommendations. This is where the relevance to Congress becomes clear. Cities can't move up this ranking -- which I hope Brookings will revisit regularly to benchmark progress by cities -- without fundamental changes in federal policy.

The two big bills on the table are the Climate Security Act and the 2009 renewal of federal transportation policy. Presidents and legislators must shape those two policies, which will allocate hundreds of billions of public investment to various purposes, so that they help boost the efforts of cities to tackle global warming.

Connecting the Dots: Security and Climate Change

2008-04-25T18:07:07Z

Another analysis was just released, this time by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies in Britain, making the case that climate change would be a driver for serious conflict around the globe, describing among other events that as stress increases on energy and water resources nations would struggle to cope with the consequences. The author goes so far as to state that "If uncontrolled, climate change will have security implications of similar magnitude to the World Wars, but which will last for centuries..." and that Islamic extremism could be fueled by climate-exacerbated "economic failure in North Africa."

This new report joins others with similar theses, most notably "The Age of Consequences" using Churchill's quote about the danger of inaction in World War II) from the Center for Strategic and International Studies which includes scenarios for warming including a catastrophic one with Mad-Max-style effects, and the ongoing work from the Center for Naval Analysis which has described climate change as a likely "threat multiplier."

These connections between security and climate make sense when you consider a compelling new framework for understanding the way nations evolve to be more stable and open: The J curve (see below).

The idea is elegantly simple, and creator Ian Bremmer includes a number of case studies in his book showing that it works as a method for understanding how national political and economic systems develop: When a country is very autocratic, like North Korea, it is pretty stable. As it begins to open up, as in Saudi Arabia, it slides down the stability axis. And when it hits the depths, it could either push up the right side of the curve towards more openness and stability as happened with South Africa after apartheid or it could fall of the map entirely, disintegrating as Yugoslavia did. On the far right are very open, stable societies like the U.S.

The trough is a perilous place for nations, and climate change could help plunge already unstable ones into it.

This is a new and powerful link between security and climate, joining well-developed oil-specific ones that NRDC and the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security covered in our 2005 Securing America report. It underscores, yet again, the urgent need for strong policy to help get us off oil and stabilize the climate.

Reaching Out to Get the Job Done

2008-01-02T00:12:27Z

My New Year’s resolution for 2005 was the biggest one yet, and the one I’m proudest of keeping: I quit smoking, a habit I took up in college almost twenty years ago. It was REALLY hard, but unbelievably rewarding. Like tossing aside a huge burden on my body.

It was also a relief in another sense: I’m committed to natural resource protection as a career, and the contradiction haunted me: An environmentalist who couldn’t resist polluting himself.

It also meant that I supported companies and politicians with whom I disagreed. Big tobacco contributes a great deal to political campaigns, and I was pouring money directly into their coffers. Former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, a conservative firebrand, was rumored to greet smokers in the halls of Congress by shaking their hands and thanking them for their support. Some may remember that Helms was jokingly mentioned as one-half of a Presidential ticket in the funny-and-sadly-defunct comic strip Bloom County, along with liberal icon Jesse Jackson (“Let's Alienate Everybody! Jesse and Jesse in ’84!”).

Which brings me to the new year’s resolution I propose for all of us who labor to protect the environment: Reaching out beyond the choir in our work.

This is a challenging resolution to make on the eve of the most open Presidential election (i.e., where neither a current or former President or Vice President is on the ticket) since 1952. Partisan and ideological tempers will flare, no doubt.

But it’s necessary if we’re to win the race against such global threats as climate change and species extinction. First, because as I’ve written about before we need policy reform in order to respond in proportion to the scale of such problems. Second, because the reality is that when you aggregate up from state and local policymaking you find that the much-hyped division between political ideologies is not so new, and certainly not transient. A synthesis of findings from 2006 Harris Interactive polls found that

...the percentages of liberals and moderates have stayed very steady in the past four decades. Only the number of conservatives has changed, up from 32 percent in the 1970s, to 38 percent in the 1990s and down to 35 percent in this decade.

In order to win -- at least at the national level -- we must reach out to those who inhabit parts of the political spectrum besides our own. Fortunately, environmental protection offers one of the best opportunities to do just that. Another Harris poll found that 53 percent of adults agree that there is too little “government regulation or involvement in the area of environmental protection,” including 68 percent of Democrats, 51 percent of Independents and 36 percent of Republicans. Given traditional American suspicion of “big” forces in society – both government and corporate – this is a pretty strong signal of support for environmental safeguards. Harris also found that an overwhelming 81 percent of adults agree that America “needs to set the lead when it comes to controlling greenhouse gases and pollution.”

Outside of polls, we see signs of widespread support for the defense of natural resources, from well-known books by former Democratic Presidential candidates Gore and Kerry to Republican governor Whitman and House Speaker Gingrich. The consensus becomes even stronger when the subject is our reliance on one particular fossil source of energy: petroleum. Small wonder. As the World Resources Institute shows in a recent analysis, there is a lot of overlap in the means for breaking this habit, with 95 percent of the solutions helping to meet both security and climate objectives. We sweat the five percent that involves tradeoffs here at Switchboard, but it is still just five percent, which is why tackling this problem in particular resonates with greens, hawks as well as green hawks.

And this is the not-so-secret reason we broke the 30-year logjam on Federal fuel economy standards for autos in 2007: It resonated with a majority of lawmakers due to economic, security and environmental benefits.

The New Year’s resolution I propose for all of us working to protect the environment is to reach out to those with whom we may not agree, in both the physical and virtual worlds. Contribute to conversations in blogs we may not normally visit. Drop in on events we may not normally attend. Check out groups we tend to dismiss because they have a different viewpoint. In order for our outreach to bear fruit, we must remember a fundamental rule (according to the Harvard Negotiation Project, Dale Carnegie, Stephen Covey, and others): Listen and work to understand where others are coming from before making ourselves understood.

In 2007, we got started with several new environmental projects such as pushing energy-efficient technology into the marketplace with the new energy bill, and committing to putting caps on carbon dioxide pollution in place. But the job is far from finished. And it’s pretty clear we need more hands on deck to get it done.

Here’s to working together to build that critical mass in 2008!

Cities, Suburbs: Both Can Be Green

2007-10-19T18:24:22Z

I've been meaning to write about a ludicrous opinion piece that appeared in the Washington Post this past weekend. The authors claim that what will really help us address our energy and climate problems is land-development that is even more sprawling, as long as we plant some trees along the way.

The main thing that gets under my skin about articles like this is the false dichotomy they create: suburban sprawl vs. dense cities. This ignores the sheer variety of development types. In fact, the authors mention the leafy suburb of Reston, Virginia (where my parents live, coincidentally) as an ideal community. But evidently the authors have never visited Reston, which isn't exactly "sprawl" by today's standards. It is comparatively compact, and some neighborhoods are even walkable. In fact, a 2001 study by Synergy Planning found that if the D.C. region were to develop like Reston, 25 years of growth could be accommodated on vacant and underused land within a 20-mile radius of the center of D.C.

So it's simple-minded and deceptive to portray development as "city vs. suburbia."

Thankfully, my friend and colleague Kaid Benfield (who was recently profiled in an Ontario publication) submitted an excellent letter to the Post rebutting the piece. Don't know if the editors will have the good sense to publish it, but I certainly will:

The authors mislead readers about the causes of global warming.

While pavement does create "heat islands," that phenomenon is not confined to downtowns. Some of the worst offenders on a per-acre basis are the giant parking lots that surround suburban Wal-Marts and malls. For confirmation, walk across one on a July afternoon.

Moreover, the contribution of heat islands to global warming is dwarfed by that of vehicle traffic. Transportation contributes a third of US carbon emissions and its share is growing. We must strengthen cities and suburbs in ways that allow us to spend less time in our cars, but this won't happen if we continue to scatter the fragments of our community willy-nilly across what's left of our countryside.

Cities reduce warming emissions by using existing infrastructure, putting people, jobs, and services closer together, and facilitating walking and mass transit. In the suburbs, concentrating more growth around transit stations in walkable, green neighborhoods provides transportation choices and reduces traffic. In both, we can soften the effects of heat islands by integrating more trees, parks, and roof gardens into our downtowns, neighborhoods and, yes, even parking lots.

Both cities and suburbs will benefit - and so will the planet.

Going Green = Making $$$

2007-10-17T21:31:27Z

The University of Maryland just released a review of economic studies of climate change. Here are the five key findings:

Impacts will occur across the country;
Impacts will be unevenly distributed across regions, economic sectors (with ag, energy and transport as standouts) and society;
Negative impacts will outweigh benefits for most sectors that provide essential goods and services;
Impacts will strain public budgets (for example, replacement and maintenance of infrastructure in the face of sea level rises);
Secondary effects can include higher prices, lower income and job losses.

These are sobering conclusions, and presumably the costs will vary depending on the abruptness of the change. After all, there are points at which could tilt the system far enough to capsize the canoe.

On the other hand, there's the potential to create a plethora of investment opportunities and jobs when as a nation we tackle this issue head-on. The "CleanTech" field which would benefit from such a commitment is already growing by leaps and bounds. And a recent study found that additional investment in CleanTech will be $14-19 billion between 2007 and 2010, resulting in 400,000-500,000 new jobs.

Less strain on public budgets? More jobs? Sounds pretty good to me, and I imagine other parents would agree wholeheartedly.

Low-Carb(on) Air Travel

2007-10-16T20:09:32Z

Lord Richard Branson just made a exciting announcement: Virgin Atlantic plans to test a jet plane running on biofuels early next year. Frankly, this matters more than developments that we've seen in the vehicles market, where companies like GM are hyping the potential for ethanol-powered flex-fuel vehicles.

Why? Because aviation is a tougher nut to crack in terms of substitutes for petroleum-derived fuels. For starters, due to the lower energy content of ethanol as a contender, the range of a plane would take a hit. There are also other problems with ethanol-aviation compatibility. For a good overview of the challenges, check out this article.

But we need to figure this out, and bravo for Lord Branson for stepping up to the plate.

Unfortunately, while he is looking to next-generation clean fuels, the Pentagon is investigating the possibility of liquefying coal.

The contrast is remarkable. Liquefying coal relies on technology invented in Germany in the 1920s. It is tired technology from yesteryear. And if you want to bust our carbon dioxide pollution budget, saving oil by using coal for fuel instead is surely it.

In a world where we need our planes to join our cars on a low-carb(on) diet, to paraphrase former President Reagan, in this case government isn't the solution -- it's the problem. The Pentagon should change course, working with Lord Branson and other entrepreneurs to move the country forward to a clean future.

Cutting Pollution: It's About Efficient Land Development Too

2007-09-24T15:00:00Z

While the debate about fuel economy standards unfolds in Congress and across the country, a key tool for reducing global warming pollution is being ignored: Smart growth. Pollution from vehicles is, after all, the product of three factors: mpg X carbon intensity of fuel in the tank X miles driven.

"Growing Cooler," a new report from the Urban Land Insitute (full disclosure, I was a lead reviewer) makes the case that changing the last factor can play a big role in reducing pollution. It synthesizes scores of studies that measure the benefits of development which is compact, walkable and convenient to shopping and work opportunities. If you live in such a place, odds are the miles you drive will be cut 20-40 percent.

Just as compelling is the pent-up demand for such development, which is expected to zoom upward as the Baby Boom generation ages. According to Chris Nelson of Virginia Tech, "[m]ore than half of the built environment...we will see in 2025 did not exist in 2000..." providing a remarkable opportunity to offer more housing choices that require less daily driving.

Evidence of unmet demand includes a "...recent national survey of developers [which] found that more than 60 percent agreed with the following statement about compact, walkable development: 'In my region there is currently enough market interest to support significant expansion of these alternative developments'..."

Among those keen on better development are Boomers like my parents. After their nest emptied out of us kids, they sold their detached house with two-car garage and moved to a townhome located nearer to shops, restaurants and friends. According to Nelson, childfree households will account for 88 percent of the growth in households from 2000 to 2025 so that by "2025, only 28 percent of households will have children." That boom will drive up demand for compact, walkable development much, much further.

Better environmental performance, a better match with consumer demand. Good reasons that smart growth can be counted as a key part of the strategy to combat climate change.