Dr. Jim Hansen advocates a carbon tax on raw fuel mined or drilled. Dot Earth commentator Ben opines, “The whole point of a fossil fuel is to release the energy contained in it. So it is at the point of combustion that all the economics of before and after coincide.”
Ben was responding to an opinion piece, wherein Andy Revkin asks, “When Coal Flows Between Countries, Who ‘Owns’ the CO2?” Note the parenthesis around own. Revkin implies accountability, a.k.a., who is stuck “holding the bag?”
No coal or corn zombies at the student activist blog, just battle with Chernobyl zombies and a phalanx from the Elite Press Corps of the Pickens Army.
So if the world moves toward a system for tracking emissions, who is responsible for a particular batch of carbon dioxide — the company that mine and sold the coal, the power plant that burned it, the consumer who buys the exported widget made with the electricity generated by that combustion, or…?
And, note the conditional if. Now no one wants to own their carbon footprint, not widget buyer, nor the widget maker, not the power company nor the mining company, and certainly not the governments taxing all participants.
In Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital, Jason W. Moore notes 2 recurrent themes: 1) an absolute exhaustion of those “organizational structures” specific to the accumulation regime, and 2) a relative exhaustion of the ecological spaces articulated with the old regime of accumulation. This blog said something similar about ownership in recent commentary after a post on (ostensibly) a student climate action weblog about Obama espousing “clean coal”.
“The assertion about nuclear, the “red herring” about storage, etc., I see as expressions of fear about traditional forms of ownership and not concerns about energy supply. One can own the ore for the nuclear power or the land for the geothermal or the hydraulic fracturing, but how to own the wind or the sun?”
Image via Greenpeace
The reason for heavily investing in a campaign of disinformation: profit.
“I would surmise that Exxon could own windmills and solar panels just as well as oil and gas,” responded an advocate for nuclear and natural gas.
And this blog replied, “Indeed, Exxon could. If they had begun investing the monies directed (and which they continue to direct) toward denial and delay into wind and solar, things would be much different now.
The dialog encompassed how quickly can our civilization get away from higher carbon fuels (i.e., coal, oil, natural gas).
These fuels represent about 80% of our energy infrastructure. In the next 20 years, you can (with an immense effort) greatly reduce fossil fuel use. However, you cannot get rid of carbon fuels AND nuclear. Despite the controversy, nuclear is the lowest carbon energy source that is both large-scale and 24/7 (the IPCC says so along with other scientific studies such as ExternE). For a 20 year time frame, you have efficiency, renewables, geothermal, pipeline natural gas, and nuclear. You will need ALL of these to make the time frame as each has limitations.
Echoing Dr. Jim Hansen who says we need to stop coal, this weblog stated that federal policymakers should cut fossil fuel subsidies and begin a carbon tax and not perpetuate the clean coal lie. Within the next 20 years federal energy policy should aim toward reducing coal-fired electric power generation from the current national average of 50% down to 20%.
Early in the thread, this blog defined “clean energy” as above ground sources of electric power, e.g., wind and solar, “which are combustion-free in the generation (if not in terms of construction and installation). These need rapid distribution and not politics as usual, because, for every kW that comes from a non-clean energy, we increase the CO2 in the atmosphere and negative consequences.
“We’ve lost at least two decades already, time is running out.”
Commentator nickengelfried said it rather eloquently:
In a more ideal world, we would have begun this transition 20-30 years ago, but that failed to happen thanks to political short-sightedness… We’ve lost at least two decades already, time is running out, and with the laws of physics there is no compromise. Transitioning completely away from fossil fuels, however difficult that may be, will be easier than bargaining with all the CO2 molecules we’re releasing into the atmosphere each day.
The nuclear advocate, well versed from lengthy previous discussions at other web sites, The Oil Drum and Brave New Climate, has the last say. “As for the concept of ‘clean energy’, I consider it a chimera along with perpetual motion machines. Energy technologies could be relatively cleaner than others, but you have impacts whichever way you go. Nuclear is lower (in GHG emissions) than fossil fuels and is 24/7.”
Related articles by Zemanta
- A Look Back on Climate Disinformation (desmogblog.com)
- Energy consumption and CO2 (robberthomburg.wordpress.com)
- Why There’s $54.5 Billion for Nuclear Power in Obama’s Budget (treehugger.com)
- Proud to be a Coal Zombie from the State of Kentucky (jcwinnie.biz)
- Current Energy Plans ‘Unsustainable,’ IEA Says in New Outlook (blogs.wsj.com)
7 Comments
Although perhaps not quite so eloquent as It’s Getting Hot in Here commentator Nick Engelfried, HuffPo contributor and Clean Water Action Director John DeCock sees something similar about the nexus of coal and our energy needs.
A recent Business Week story emphasizes how national energy policy issues are complex. When this blog recently did battle with nuclear energy advocates within commentary on It’s Getting Hot in Here, one advocate cited a study of cost and CO2 emissions projections for different electricity generation options for Australia to 2050. The study favored more nuclear power.
Yet, BW reportes Ben Sharples and Stuart Biggs tell us that “Australia, which holds the world’s biggest known uranium resources, has ruled out introducing nuclear power to the country.” Good news, you say?
Well, hold a mo’. Instead, Australian federal energy policy “will pursue other low-carbon energy options” (Wait for it)… “including ‘clean’ coal.” “Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told reporters that coal’s importance will remain “huge” until 2050 and carbon capture and storage can make it a cleaner power source.”
The Australian federal government is perpetuating the clean coal lie just as the American federal government does. This demonstrates the logic of Dr. Hansen’s position. If the price of exported coal at the port of entry has an “atmospheric degradation surcharge,” such a fee discourages purchase of coal for combustion. After the power plant burns the coal, it already has “a head of steam” (see explanation of idiom); more reason to steam roll over any objection to more unregulated coal ash impoundments or the globally rising CO2 level. The
hell bound trainfuels from Hell energy policy is on track for a global temperature rise of 6 degrees C.It’s Getting Hot in Here commentator Dan characterized the argument that favors current American hell bound energy policy.
Other commentators then attacked my objection: “Wind and solar are clean energy; nuclear and biomass are not.” Their contention, to which I agreed: “You cannot ignore the construction and installation costs of ‘renewables’ if you want to deploy them on a massive scale.” What remained debatable was the carbon footprint when constructing and installing wind or solar. Furthermore, due to boundary conditions, it was more of a challenge to expand the debate to environmental consequences instead of only CO2 or GHG emissions.
Lena Hansen and Amory Lovins write about the need for a fundamentally new paradigm of electricity generation.
The authors state their case better than this blog did with Invasion of the Nuclear Advocates on It’s Getting Hot in Here and their objection to clean energy promotion, which seemed in support of traditional forms of ownership. Existing investment discourages utilities from incorporating variable ‘renewables’.
The nuclear advocates evade radioactive waste concerns and instead compare construction costs. The RMI authors advocate reducing dependency upon fossil fuel or nuclear for variations in demand and instead emphasize that renewable sources use no fuel and are a cheaper way for utilities to manage capacity.
David Roberts recently interviewed Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo). In the interview Senator Udall contended that a price on carbon remains a crucial policy action.
“We must establish a price on carbon and make real progress toward lowering our greenhouse gas emissions. One of my priorities is passing legislation to help slow climate change. As the Senate debates a climate change bill, I have been working to improve the bill and ensure it is best for Colorado. I will continue to listen to views on all sides, striving to reach compromises that will result in a healthier environment, new jobs, and a stronger, more efficient economy. We must leave our planet in better shape for future generations. And in the coming months and years, Coloradans can count on me to do what is right for the state on issues involving climate change.”
Speaking of fracking, a.k.a., hydraulic fracturing, Lloyd Alter observes that this means of drilling for natural gas finally is receiving more attention from regulators.
Regulators want the companies to tag the “frac fluid” the material they use in hydraulic fracturing, so there can be accountability if substance begin appearing in water supplies.
The Treehugger editor begins his post with the observation, “One would think that a process that pumped all kinds of chemicals into the ground would be subject to environmental scrutiny, but it isn’t.” AG Readers know that this is because of the Halliburton Loophole.
Treehugger notes that things may be different the current Administration and Congress. Hydraulic Fracturing For Natural Gas Development Gets Added Regulatory Scrutiny.
According to the Globe and Mail:
Markey and Waxman note that the development of shale gas is
More Treehugger posts on the topic of Fracking:
Tracer In The Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid: Accountability For …
Truthout has more about the investigation. Sabrina Shankman and Abrahm Lustgarten report, “Two of the largest companies involved in natural gas drilling have acknowledged pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of diesel-based fluids into the ground in the process of hydraulic fracturing , raising further concerns that existing state and federal regulations don’t adequately protect drinking water from drilling.”
Waxman grabbed press with stories about the need for investigating war-profiteering. Nothing came of it.