Muddy Green

Copenhagen - between promises and failure

A series of political events from the last days darkened the perspectives of a significant outcome from the Copenhagen Climate Council (3C). This is very unfortunate because of the enormous amount of political and media energy thrown in the preparation for the event over the last few months. The need for a far-reaching and binding global agreement on climate-related targets is beyond doubt and this is not my point here. What I am really concerned with, is that after the dramatic failure to which the Climate Council is ever more surely going, it will be even harder to get world leaders on the same wavelength about climate change again. Even the desire to meet may not be there, let alone the minutest climate packages and legislation they have to work out at home.

A Greener Life

Environmental awareness campaigns have brought to citizens’ attention a big number of issues of concern as well as ideas how to green our lives. Reuse economy, energy efficiency and using less are only a few bits and pieces of what we can do. Eco-nomy and environmentality are broader concepts of living naturally and sustainably thus putting the Earth’s carrying capacity as a foundation to our thinking and business.

Here are 16 steps from Planetgreen how to make a difference in our lives and the lives of others through making action out of the awareness we already have.

To start with:

Reuse Economy

Communities organized around keeping products in the consumer stream are a vital way to reduce waste, slow manufacturing of unnecessary items, and shift our concept of “need.” Services that help us accomplish this and that we love include thrift stores, swap parties, garage sales, Craigslist, and similar systems. They’re all part of the eco-nomics of sustainability.

Freeganism

Like a reuse economy, we’re also thankful for an economy that doesn’t require money – or even the exchange of products or services. Freeganism means zero waste, and that’s an equation we love. Freeganism covers everything from keeping perfectly good food from going to landfill, all the way to the service of tool libraries where members can utilize whatever is in the shed when they need it for free. Craigslist and Freecycle are two of our favorite community-oriented websites that help facilitate freeganism, as well as larger events such as Really Really Free Market.

Farmers Markets

Speaking of markets, farmers’ markets are of course on our list of big ideas we’re thankful for. In a way, a farmer’s market is such an old idea that it feels a little odd it would need to be included. But as we’ve moved away from buying food from local farmers and on to buying processed edible products from the agro-industrial complex, we’ve been lucky enough to realize just how incredibly valuable farmers’ markets actually are for our health, and the health of the planet. Getting to know our farmers’ markets again and creating our meals from the seasonal, sustainably grown foods found there is again a great big green idea.

Find more suggestions here

Taxing the Planet

There are many examples of introducing extra charges for producers and consumers for environmental reasons. The money is usually used for proper disposal, recycling funding eco-research and buying green equipment to mitigate the effect of pollution. These charges are likely to increase with time and may soon take the form of tax for everyone. Great news, eh! Taxes are never considered a good thing, unless deemed fair. How to make eco-taxation fair?

Let’s consider the following example – suppose you have a choice what electricity to use at home – the one coming from the nearby coal electric plant, or the one from the newly built hydrogen-fuelled or solar station.

If the clean energy comes to your house at the same price perhaps people would prefer it to the dirty one. The thing is that clean energy projects are very expensive and the produced electricity is much more costly, unless subsidised by the state. So you would have paid for it with your taxes beforehand. The same for many people, who do not use the clean electricity but pay taxes – is this fair? Well, it is, because the effect (or the lack of effect in this case) is not for the consumer only, but for everyone. Therefore, everyone should pay for the public good – clean environment. So rule N1 in environmental taxation should be “if you do not pollute everybody should pay”.

Now let’s say that Nico van den Hoorst uses more electricity (and would pollute more) than Janos Kovacs who uses very little. They still pay equal for the green electricity through their taxes – is this fair? I do not think so. People who pollute more should pay more for it. So we cannot have the same tax burden for everyone, rather we should introduce taxes according to energy consumption (and maybe income), regardless of whether one uses dirty electricity or not. Like this it looks like VAT, or better PAT – Pollution Added Tax. The difference is that everyone pays for clean energy even though they do not use it. They still can use the planet –this is what the tax is really for. So in a way we are taxing consumption even if it eco-friendly.

Another type of eco-tax is increasing the price of certain products so they are used less and pollution decreases. You travel by car or plane – you pay extra for the environmental damage of the burned fuel. If you buy chemical products or electronics produced at a cost for the environment, you pay for it. Like this the more one consumes (beyond electricity) the more he/she pays. This is the classical indirect consumption tax. It is easier to collect, so the chance that states decides to use it is quite high. To certain extend it exists today in many forms, e.g. 3-5% recycling charge for all new electronic equipment. This is the second rule for environmental taxation “if you pollute you pay for it”. I wonder if this is OK.

But is it fair for the consumer to pay for the pollution he causes through the service/products he uses. He has not invented the service, has not made it bad for the environment, and does not make profits – why should he be responsible?! On the other hand, the company profits from the service it offers, does not make it clean (enough) and on top of that uses all kids of PR techniques and marketing tricks to tempt customers and show itself as a saint dedicated to “creating opportunities” and “guaranteeing comfort” and “clean coal” and what have you. This entails some responsibility, I believe. It is undoubted fact that we do not consum as much as we need (or even as much as we want) but as much as the companies and their PR & marketing departments tell us. So if there is a green tax in whatever form, it should be regulated in a way that it is shared between customer and company. They both benefit from their relationship and both contribute to the pollution. The problem is that pollution is no good for man and there is hope that we eventually develop some form of environmentality. For a company though, all that matters is the profit and there is no such chance. So it will never understand – that’s why we have to make companies act as if they understood. And take their share of the burden through decreasing profits and investing more in green processes. So: extra charges for consumption – YES. Paid entirely by consumers – NO.

Eventually the question becomes how to create a reliable system of reporting the environmental footprint for each and every product and each and every sector? Shall we have some eco-tax-free human activities such as medical care or environmental research. And shall we tax everything or shall we impose limits on emissions? Or both? A lot of questions! Please, help. Help save the planet.

Criticae on Facebook

Hydrogen-based Electricity Kicks Off

This month may mark a turning point in electricity production on the Planet. The reason I say this is the recent launch of the first industrial-sized hydrogen-fuelled electric power plant. The facility is located near Venice and has been built by the Italian energy giant Enel. With a capacity of 12 MW, the power plant can meet the needs of 20 000 households. Furthermore, as the hydrogen production is emission free, the Venetians who will first see the benefits of this new technology, will save 17 000 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Enel's hydrogen electricity power plant. Photo:www.mecforum.it

Isn’t this great?  I think it is! The turbines in the power plant are especially designed by the GE and burning hydrogen in them has only two by-products – heat and water vapour – no CO2 or any other green house gas. It is really a good start for clean electricity production (power stations currently account for 21% of the global CO2 emissions), but there are a lot of problems ahead. First of all, Enel’s power plant is a drop in the ocean considering the mass burning of coal and the little use of renewables for electricity production. Secondly, I have the feeling that such initiatives are inescapably entangled in the tentacles of the existing anti-environmental status quo. For instance, the hydrogen for the power plant comes from the chemical plants in the Porto Marghera industrial area nearby, thus making the clean facility dependent on the life of the dirty ones. Besides, the by products of hydrogen burning (vapour and heat) are used to produce steam for the adjacent coal-burning power plant. In other words, we increase the use of clean or renewable sources over time, but the amount of the dirty ones increase too.

It is certainly better that we have this breakthrough in zero-emission electricity production. My hopes are that there will be specially allocated funds on national and EU-level for more projects of such scale. However, I remain cautious as to what extent creating such facilities is used as a cover, while the existing (dirty) concepts about business, profit and environment are reinforced. It is these concepts, I think, that are the enemy in the garden of every true environmentalist.

!Criticae on Facebook!

Democratic, Security, Environment

!Criticae on Facebook!

In previous posts I talked about the possibility of environmental- and geo-engineering. Now I want to link this with two other important issues: global security and global democracy. My point is that without proper global environmental governance, climate change management can turn into security issue itself.

First of all, any middle-sized nation can geoengineer because we have plenty of technology, which is surprisingly cheap. We do not have proper environmental governance in areas such as global warming and climate change that have been known for some time. What is then left for decisions about geoengeneering? Who takes them?

Second, we have global democratic deficit. Some examples: the democratic reversal http://www.freedomhouse.hu/images/nit2009/overview.pdf in the Former Soviet Union, the undemocratic global powers like China and Russia, the presence of authoritarian regimes in the UN Security Council. To add to this, even advocates of democracy such as the EU and the US experience undermine democracy in supranational decision-making (EU) and neglect of traditional consultation and approval mechanisms (US). Unaccountable and undemocratic governance tend to be less efficient and to overlook important problems.

Who takes decisions about tackling climate change is an important problem. And we may soon be in the situation to take quick decisions with absolutely no preparation or mechanisms how to do it.

Humanity has become increasingly efficient in making global harm from local undertakings. The increase of CO2 emissions by the developed countries, China and India is good example. But with improved geoengeneering technologies, many countries will be able to ‘try and stop climate change’ by means they consider appropriate. Given the grave economic and even social problems that environmental degradation and climate change carry along, different measures to stop them or mitigate their effects have really high stakes. It is then not difficult to imagine how different attempts to stop climate change through geoengeneering will have crucial consequences and therefore differences in the approach and goals would gain security status. Then an act of geoengeneering by the US that does not align with Chinese undertakings may be considered an act of war!

In other words – it is a problem when local harm to environment has global consequences. But we have even greater problem when there is local geoengeneering efforts with global effect without proper decision making on international level! Who will decide it, and how decisions will be made? Scientifically? Politically? We saw in the last 50 years how global governance of the UN type is totally inefficient in solving security issues. We have had security problems as long as civilization existed and we still do not know how to solve them at international and global scale. What is left then for the environmental issues that we realised only a few decades ago? Can we really hope that UN or a similar structure can handle them properly? And can we leave these issues and their resolution to individual international players such as countries, country clubs like the EU and G8 or even big companies with global corporate interests?

These are easy questions. The answer is “NO”. The harder one lies ahead and it is how to create effective Global Environmental Governance. So far I do not see sensible efforts to address this issue. As long as world’s leaders act ad hoc as they do and do not build sustainable and reliable governance mechanism for tackling environmental threats, we may soon find ourselves in the middle of environmental disaster coupled with security chaos. This is a grim prospect, but also one worth considering. We should therefore put more pressure on our governments to fund more research on geoengeneering and to think about global mechanisms for environmental management. Otherwise we may not be ready to take resolute measures if it is necessary. Moreover, we would not know why we should not take these measures. And we would not be able to agree on how we should deal with a global environmental emergency. Important, eh?

!Criticae on Facebook!

A modest proposal

Criticae on Facebook

It is not Jonathan Swift, but it sounds equally scary to me. Scary, but  maybe necessary.

David Keith is a professor at the Univerity of Calgary; pronounced for the best environmental researcher in Canada in 2006

Can we find a way to stop climate change other than cutting CO2 emissions? Can we apply geo-engineering and change the way the planet lives instead thus cutting the negative effects of the CO2 in the atmosphere? Here is a proposal by David Keith.

Cutting greenhouse gases is what we really need to do if we want to reduce our negative influence over the planet, but there are problems with it:

1) there are winners and losers, so it is politically difficult

2) It is technically difficult- we have the technology, but do not have the hardware to implement it.

3) Even if we stop producing any greenhouse gases now, the concentrations in the atmosphere will still be at the same level for some 50-80 years, thus continuing to change the climate.

David Keith suggests “Albedo modicication” is such solution.

In short it is levitating sulphuric or other particles above the atmosphere to shield us from some of the sunlight. One-two percent less sunlight will neutralize the greenhouse gas   effect. It is cheap, it is theoretically possible, and it has been done by nature. It is also very  quick. The thing we need is to tame this process and enhance it so we can shield the poles   from extra sunlight in case of a global emergency I think I have seen this in Highlander 2   and in the Matrix, and in other sci-fi movies.

I shivered when I heard this from a real scientist. Why?

First, because it is philosophically unacceptable. Instead of reducing our influence over the biosphere and the planet, we increase it. As if you introduce mandatory voting because there is widespread political apathy. It may get some results, but it will not get the sustainable conditions for these results. And what we should talk about is not how to change our planet. What we should talk about is “environmentality” – how to make sustainable lifestyle and reduce our influence over the planet, not how to influence it in a way that we like. Environment first!

Second, as long as we pump the atmosphere with CO2 we will have ocean acidification. This is deadly for the majority of the populations and the global food chain. We will probably understand that too late, as we are on the top of that food chain.

Third, as David Keith admits – his strategy of “Albedo modification” is Risk control, not action. Although we agree that this should be used in case of global emergency, there are people who will get discouraged to cut CO2 emissions once they realize we have this option. In other words, this is a Moral Hazard:

So shall we develop this technology and the idea to use it? Can it help us in case of a global emergency? Yes Are we going towards a global emergency? Certainly Is it risky? Very much Do we know enough about it? No I think we will soon have to ask ourselves how to use quick measures to save the planet from total destruction. By that time, we’d better know what the effects of these measures are. I think we need more debate on such measures, including this particular one. What about you ?

Yes I care – US goes green

At one point last year when the financial crisis transformed into an economic one I was discussing with my environmentalist friends the possible effects over the environment. We split between the following three – the drop of industrial production will have a beneficial effect; the lack of resources will discourage scientific research and this will damage the pro-green efforts in the long run; politicians will be preoccupied with bailing out companies and saving jobs and will lack the time and will to deal with climate change. What is unfolding now is a combination of the three, but the recent news make me think the efforts to reverse climate change are still on top of the agenda.

Yesterday president Obama announced an ambitions plan for car emission cuts in the US. The plan will make car-manufacturers produce vehicles that run at least 35 miles per gallon  on average with current standards being 25 miles per gallon. This means that all SUVs, ATVs, cars and motorbikes will run at an average cost of around 6,7 liters per km. This is indeed a major step in the US legislation, especially considering that it took 30 years for the US to adopt its first car efficiency bill 18 months ago. Only half a year later we see a significant improvement in standards and also a requirement for increase of car efficiency by 5% annually.  This is good for three reasons

1. Manufacturers have clear standards and know what their limitations are in the long run
2. Drivers will use more efficient cars and spend less on oil, which they certainly look forward to after the record prices of 4 USD per gallon from 2007
3. Less fuel will be spent and the car emissions will be cut by 1/3 by 2016.

The so called California standards introduced long ago by the Governor Schwarzenegger are now embraced by the biggest economy in the world. As we can see the new American president keeps the environment high on the agenda, as he pledged in his election campaign So far car manufacturers such as Ford have been producing energy efficient cars for Europe and Japan but still have not applied green standards for the US market. Now such companies will have the opportunity to be leaders, while others will start new investment programs. In fact it is the US government that starts these programs, as it already has a lot of control over the car-manufacturing industry in the US because of the crisis.

The US president was really quick to announce this plan only 4 months after he entered office.It is indeed a step that we should all welcome, but it is still far from what the biggest economy in the world can do for the planet. I think the US needs a strategic paper that outlines its goals in energy efficiency, green house gas emissions, conservation and other measures tackling environmental degradation. In this respect the Americans have a lot to learn from the EU which has extensive legislation and is at the lead lead of fighting climate change.

Consider last year’s strategy EU 2020 It exceeds the ambitions of the US administration by a large margin and sets a high goal to achieve formore than a decade ahead. In short it does the following:

1. cuts the greenhouse gases with 20% from their level in 1990
2. increases the renewables’ share in the  EU economy to 20% of all energy used
3. Cuts energy consumption by 20% by 2020

I will be really happy to see a similar plan in the US. What is more in the case of the EU is that neighboring countries have also joined the EU-led efforts. The US can also learn from the Emission Trading System  (ETS) of the EU, which apushes companies to seek ways of low-carbon production and stimulates those ones who have efficient investments in green technologies.

Thus the positive effects are both on the environment and the economy. This is hugely important as it shows the link between green thinking and profit thinking. In traditional terms these are two opposing concepts, but the ETS is a good example that it is not longer so. It even created its own carbon market with carbon auditing and a huge turnover, which at the end of 2008 reached over 4 bil. Euro per month. The psychological element here also should not be underestimated. Paying for CO2 emissions really brings it close to mind that the air is not for free and it is also a resource you should pay for if you pollute it. Just like other resources like coal, water, gas and so on. Such measures, I believe, have very far-reaching effects for the new school of thinking about the environment and making it part of our daily business. A positive part.

More about the new school of thinking you can see here .A dramatic story about the world we live in.