The pressure is on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. The way proposed by most people is to switch away from fossil fuels to alternatives such as wind, solar, tidal and geothermal. Such alternative energy sources are often described as ‘renewable’ or ‘sustainable’. This terminology implies to most people that such alternatives can meet our energy demands in perpetuity, without polluting the environment. This is wrong, and will lead to serious errors in policy making.

Energy generated for human use cannot be ‘green’, ‘clean’, ‘renewable’ or ‘sustainable’. These words are all part of the ‘greenwashing’ or ‘sugar-coating’ vocabulary used for the benefit of corporate or political interests, or simply words of misunderstanding. They have no foundation in rigorous scientific language or thought.

Put simply the Earth can be considered as an open thermodynamic system in terms of energy but a closed system as far as matter is concerned. The sun continues to radiate energy to the Earth, and energy is re-radiated to space, more-or-less at the same rate. Over a very long period of time (many millions of years) there is a progressive increase in entropy and a net loss of energy from the Earth to the rest of the universe but this natural process is not significant on time scales relevant to humans.

However, humans increasingly wish to convert solar radiation into different forms of energy such as electricity or fuel, that can do work. This can only be achieved by creating devices or machines to convert one form of energy into another and the resources for those devices come from the Earth’s crust. Those devices have a finite life span and depend on yet further infrastructure (transport, cities, factories, universities, police, etc.) to maintain and operate them, which in turn has a finite life span. Continued mining, refining and manufacturing is required.

The amount of energy captured from the sun by such devices can never be enough to restore the Earth to its original condition. This is determined by the second law of thermodynamics. So the process of mining, building and manufacturing, to convert and use energy, inexorably depletes and degrades the Earth’s mineral resources. It is irreversible and unsustainable. It makes no difference whether we consider solar, wind, hydro, coal, bio, nuclear or geothermal energy. They are all unsustainable according to the laws of physics.

The second law of thermodynamics also tells us that we cannot completely recycle resources that have been extracted from the Earth and refined for use (such as metals, helium or phosphate fertiliser). The greater the percentage we try to recycle, so the energy cost increases disproportionately. So whether the resources that we want to use are still in the ground or are in circulation above ground, human industry will inevitably dissipate and lose those resources.

The more people we have on the planet, and the more energy we use, the faster and more extensive is the degradation of Earth’s resources. Humanity is like a huge organic machine, using energy to mine and deplete minerals. The more energy that is put into the system, the faster the degradation occurs. Nuclear fusion energy, if it comes to be, might be particularly efficient at degrading our resources and environment (one effect of such technology may be to convert our lithium reserves into helium which will escape the Earths atmosphere and be lost forever).

Energy for human use is as unsustainable and non-renewable as mining. So to talk about ‘renewable energy’ or ‘sustainable energy’ is an oxymoron, as is ‘sustainable mining’ or ‘sustainable development’. The more energy we use, the less sustainable is humanity.   The sooner that people realise this, the sooner we can embark on the process of reducing energy consumption, rather than clutching at the straws of alternative energy sources to perpetuate the unsustainable.

In subsequent posts I will show that resource limitations are just decades away, not centuries, and that the scramble for resources will increase demand for fossil fuel energy.

Further reading

Johnston P, Everard M, Santillo D, Robèrt KH. (2007). Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 14(1):60-6.

Kleidon A and Lorenz R (2004). Entropy Production by Earth Systems Processes. In: Kleidon A and Lorenz R.D. (eds.) Non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the production of entropy: life, Earth, and beyond. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg. ISBN 3-540-22495-5

Our Common Future:

Brundtland Report

The Natural Step

Our planet is finite. We have 510,072,000 km² of surface area to sustain all human economic and social activity.  We have 510,072,000 km² to support all of life. Nothing will change this physical limit. Our economy is based on growth. A fundamental tenet of capitalism is a continually growing economy that produces more and more goods. Indeed, per capita world economic output (GDP) has increased nearly 20-fold since 1960. During the same period, the world’s population has increased from 3 billion to nearly 7 billion.

The figure below shows those two variables together: The explosive growth of wealth (in red) has outpaced the growth of population (in blue), thus permitting us to be wealthier now than our parents and grandparents ever were.

Figure 1

So far so good.

So where is the problem?

The problem is that a widely accepted model of population growth (e.g., Berryman, 1992), the so-called Malthus-Verhulst theory, proposes that populations do not grow indefinitely; instead, population growth typically follows a “logistic” function. This function is illustrated in the figure below, which implements the Malthus-Verhulst model (for a population of 10 animals initially across 700 time steps).

Figure 2

Note the similarity between the left-hand part of this curve (below time step 250) and the growth functions shown in the earlier figure: until such time as resources are beginning to be depleted, animal populations can enjoy increasingly fast growth, much like our economy has been enjoying near-continuous growth for the last century at least.

This gives rise to an obvious question: can we be sure that the world economy and the world population can continue to grow unabated? Do the trajectories in Figure 1 promise ever increasing wealth for ever more people? Or are we riding on the lower end of the type of trajectory shown in Figure 2, which retrospectively appears very promising at any of the first 250 time steps, but which need not hold for the future? And if our world is evolving along the path in Figure 2, how close are we to the inflection point beyond which things slowly grind to a halt?

There is evidence to suggest that we are right at or just past that inflection point, and that the world is facing multiple crises simultaneously that arise from our economic activities or expansion of human population.

Johan Rockström and colleagues recently presented an analysis in Nature (Rockström et al., 2009) that identified what they called a “safe operating space for humanity.” In a nutshell, this team of nearly 30 researchers made a first attempt at estimating boundaries for the biological and physical processes that underpin our welfare as a species. The team considered 8 global environmental parameters: (1) climate change, (2) ocean acidification, (3) stratospheric ozone depletion, (4) freshwater use, (5) biodiversity loss, (6) the nitrogen cycle, (7) the phosphorus cycle, and (8) land-use change.

Those particular parameters were chosen because they map into the principal large-scale systems that determine our global environment; namely, biogeochemical cycles (nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, and water), the major physical circulation systems (climate, stratosphere, oceans), and biophysical features of Earth that contribute to the resilience of its self-regulatory capacity (biodiversity, land systems).

Their analyses and main conclusions are summarized in their beautiful figure, which I reproduce below:

Figure 3

Each sector in the figure represents one of the 8 indicator variables considered by Rockström and colleagues, plus two others that are highly relevant but which have escaped quantification so far (chemical pollution and aerosol loading). The safe operating space for humanity is represented by the green polygon in the center. Within each individual sector, the dotted black lines represent the measured trajectory since the 1950’s of the relevant driver variable. For example, atmospheric CO2 levels, which drive climate change, have continually increased in an outward trajectory, whereas ozone depletion has recently been reversed owing to global action on replacing CFC’s with other, more benign chemicals. The extent of the red wedge within each sector indicates the estimated current location of the underlying driver variable.

Without going into the specifics of each instance, it is clear that at least three of those crucial variables have exceeded their safe operating value—namely climate change, the rate of biodiversity loss, and the Nitrogen cycle. Given that Rockström and colleagues suggest that crossing even one of these boundaries would risk triggering abrupt or irreversible environmental change, the preceding figure does not present a reassuring pattern. To compound the problem, transgression of one boundary increases the likelihood of another one being breached—as is most readily apparent if one considers the fact that both climate change and ocean acidification are correlated consequences of increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Further interesting expert commentary on the article by Rockström and colleagues can be found on the Nature website. For present purposes, I accept that to a first approximation, their analysis is qualitatively correct.

Houston, we have a problem.

Except that there is no Houston that can help us with sage advice: There is only us, and it is upon us alone to rise to the enormous challenge of returning the state of the planet to its safe operating environment.

This, then, is the context for www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org : how do we prepare for, and how do we shape, a healthy and prosperous tomorrow in a finite world?

This requires new and creative thinking at many levels. It requires analysis of physical as well as psychological variables. Most of all, it requires acceptance of the fact that “business as usual” is no longer a safe option.

We look forward to exploring all those issues with you here on www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org.

References

Berryman, A. A. (1992). The origins and evolution of predator-prey theory. Ecology, 74, 1530-1535.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472-475.

We recently examined how Australia can meet 100% of its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020.  Here we will examine how that goal can be scaled up for the rest of the world.

Energy consulting firm Ecofys produced a report detailing how we can meet nearly 100% of global energy needs with renewable sources by 2050.  Approximately half of the goal is met through increased energy efficiency to first reduce energy demands, and the other half is achieved by switching to renewable energy sources for electricity production (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Ecofys projected global energy consumption between 2000 and 2050

To achieve the goal of 100% renewable energy production, Ecofys forsees that global energy demand in 2050 will be 15% lower than in 2005, despite a growing population and continued economic development in countries like India and China.  In their scenario:

“Industry uses more recycled and energy-efficient materials, buildings are constructed or upgraded to need minimal energy for heating and cooling, and there is a shift to more efficient forms of transport.

As far as possible, we use electrical energy rather than solid and liquid fuels. Wind, solar, biomass and hydropower are the main sources of electricity, with solar and geothermal sources, as well as heat pumps providing a large share of heat for buildings and industry. Because supplies of wind and solar power vary, “smart” electricity grids have been developed to store and deliver energy more efficiently.  Bioenergy (liquid biofuels and solid biomass) is used as a last resort where other renewable energy sources are not viable.”

To achieve the necessary renewable energy production, Ecofys envisions that solar energy supplies about half of our electricity, half of our building heating, and 15% of our industrial heat and fuel by 2050.  This requires an average annual solar energy growth rate much lower than we’re currently achieving – an encouraging finding.

The report notes that wind could meet one-quarter of the world’s electricity needs by 2050 if current growth rates continue, and sets that as its goal.  Ecofys also envisions more than one-third of building heat coming from geothermal sources by 2050.  If we double current geothermal electricity production growth rates, it can provide 4% of our total electricity needs by that date.  Ocean power, through both waves and tides, accounts for about 1% of global electricity needs in 2050.  Hydropower, which currently supplies 15% of global electricity, ultimately supplies 12% in the Ecofys scenario.  As you can see in Figure 2, global renewable energy use ramps up gradually between now and 2050.

Figure 2: Energy use by source between 2000 and 2050

Burning biomass (such as plant and animal waste) will supply 60% of industrial fuels and heat, 13% of building heat, and 13% of electricity needs.  Much of the proposed biomass use comes from plant residues from agriculture and food processing, sawdust and residues from forestry and wood processing, manure, and municipal waste.  All of these renewable energy technologies currently exist, and it’s just a matter of implementing them on a sufficiently large scale.

Ecofys also envisions using currently existing technology and expertise to “create buildings that require almost no conventional energy for heating or cooling, through airtight construction, heat pumps and sunlight.  The Ecofys scenario foresees all new buildings achieving these standards by 2030.”  2–3% of existing buildings will also need to be retrofitted per year to improve energy efficiency.  Ecofys notes that Germany is already retrofitting buildings at this rate.  Transportation must become more efficient, using more fuel efficient vehicles like electric cars, and increasing use of mass public transportation.

Accomplishing all of this will require a major effort, but Ecofys has a number of suggestions how we can start:

• Introduce minimum efficiency standards worldwide for all products that consume energy, including buildings
• Build energy conservation into every stage of product design
• Introduce strict energy efficiency criteria for all new buildings
• Introduce an energy tax, or perhaps a carbon emissions price
• Help developing countries pursue alternatives to inefficient biomass burning, such as such as improved biomass cooking stoves, solar cookers and small-scale biogas digesters
• Substantial investment in public transportation
• Make individuals, businesses, and communities more aware of their energy consumption, and encourage increased efficiency

Undoubtedly you’re wondering how much this will all cost.  Ecofys finds that we will need to divert up to 3% of global gross domestic product (GDP) to investments in materials and energy efficiency, renewable energy, and necessary infrastructure.  However, we also save money in terms of reduced fossil fuel use.

The report finds that we can save nearly 4 trillion Euros ($5.7 trillion) per year by 2050 based on energy efficiency savings and reduced fuel costs, as compared to business-as-usual.  The up-front investments are expensive, but savings will begin to exceed those costs by 2040, and even sooner if oil prices rise faster than expected, or if we factor in the costs of climate change and the impact of burning fossil fuels on public health.  The plan will reduce energy-related greenhouse-gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, which will give us a fighting chance to avoid the 2°C global warming “danger limit”.

There’s a saying, “where there’s a will, there’s a way”.  In this case we have a way to fully transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy by 2050.  The question is, do we have the will?

Climate change displacement refers to population migration caused by the effects of climate change, which include rising sea levels, heavier floods, more frequent and severe storms, drought and desertification.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Bank and many other organisations warn that the effects of climate change will cause large-scale population movements. Climate displacement presents an urgent problem for the international community.

The existence and scope of such displacement are often established by reference to the likely numbers of displaced people. The most cited estimate is 200 million climate change migrants by 2050 or one person in every forty-five.

There is a broad consensus among lawyers considering the issue of climate change migration that current protections at international law do not adequately provide for a number of the categories of persons likely to be displaced by climate change.  International refugee lawyers generally agree that persons displaced by climate change would not be the subject of protection under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the ‘Refugee Convention’) and its 1967 Protocol. 

Further, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) does not contemplate or address the issue of displacement; the UNFCCC provides a framework for future action and cooperation by states on climate change; its Kyoto Protocol places quantifiable obligations upon states to decrease their levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Displacement is not a focus of the UNFCCC; its concerns lie elsewhere. Its structure and institutions are not designed to address displacement and the issues associated with it. Moreover, as the Copenhagen and Cancun climate change conferences reveal, the UNFCCC cannot easily be altered in order to accommodate climate change displaced persons; dealing with existing provisions is already problematic.

Finally, there has been no coordinated response by governments to address human displacement, whether domestic or international, temporary or permanent, due to climate change. Given the nature and magnitude of the problem which climate change displacement presents, ad hoc measures based on existing domestic regimes are likely to lead to inconsistency, confusion and conflict. We believe the international community has an obvious interest in resolving the problem of human displacement in an orderly and coordinated fashion before climate change displacement becomes a problem.

Our proposal

We propose a multilateral Convention to address climate change displacement – an issue which is global in its causes, scope and consequences. The Convention would provide a general framework for assistance to climate change displaced persons (what we call CCDPs), and would address gaps in current human rights, refugee and humanitarian law protections for CCDPs.

Our proposal is based on the following principles and deals with the following matters, all of which are more fully set out at our project website, www.ccdpconvention.com:

• Most people made homeless by climate change are expected to stay within their home countries. The Convention would encompass those displaced within states and those who cross international borders.
• Persons displaced within state borders would be subject to a framework of protection and assistance in which obligations would be shared between the home state and the international community. In the case of CCDPs who have migrated across state borders, the Convention would outline the rights and obligations of the CCDP and the home and host states.
• The poorest countries in the world are likely to experience the most severe impacts of global warming. The Convention would provide for contributions to a fund for climate change displacement by developed state parties based upon the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’.
• We recognise that current levels of scientific knowledge create causality issues regarding the extent to which climate change contributes to a particular weather event or population movement. The Convention would adopt a ‘very likely’ standard (greater than 90% probability) to identify certain phenomena and trends as consistent with climate change and human contribution. In addition, the Convention would address the causality issues associated with the multi-factorial nature of population movements by adopting an objective rather than a subjective approach to determining the influence of climate change on relocation patterns.
• Instead of assigning rights and protections on the basis of the individual satisfaction of definitional criteria, as in the Refugee Convention, we believe that en masse designation of CCDP status is more appropriate to the characteristics of climate change migration.
• Because of the necessity of integrating complex issues of causality and evolving science into decision-making in respect of climate change migration, our proposal involves the creation of a sophisticated institutional architecture for designating a particular population as CCDPs.
• The very real prospect of entire states becoming uninhabitable differentiates the plight of small island nations from other regions in which there is likely to be large-scale displacement, and requires specific consideration. We propose that the principles of proximity, self-determination and the safe-guarding of intangible culture should be applicable to bilateral displacement agreements between threatened island nations and host states, such agreements to be negotiated under the aegis of the Climate Change Displacement Organisation (CCDO), the organisation established under the Convention.

The Convention would largely operate prospectively; assistance to CCDPs would be based on an assessment of whether their environment was likely to become uninhabitable due to events consistent with anthropogenic climate change such that resettlement measures and assistance were necessary.  In other words, we view displacement as a form of adaptation that creates particular vulnerabilities requiring protection as well as assistance through international cooperation. Our Convention contemplates the provision of pre-emptive resettlement to those most at risk in terms of the impacts of climate change.

Small island nations

Rising sea levels and the possibility of small island nations becoming uninhabitable are perhaps the most publicly recognisable consequences of climate change. As one author notes, ‘their small physical size, exposure to natural disasters and climate extremes, very open economies and low adaptive capacity make them particularly susceptible and less resilient to climate change.’ The populations of such small island nations may not only be displaced but may see the effective disappearance of their homelands. As a result, although they will amount only to a fraction of the total number of likely CCDPs, the interests and expectations of the populations of these threatened island nations have a high profile.

The possibility of effective loss of homelands differentiates the plight of small island nations from other regions in which there is likely to be large-scale displacement, and requires specific consideration. Loss of a physical territory may signal the practical end of those states’ national sovereignty and the particular protections and rights of their people. More broadly, it may signify the end of unique ways of life which are intimately connected to precarious physical landscapes. Such a scenario is unprecedented, and existing legal regimes do not adequately articulate the rights that should be accorded to CCDPs from small island nations in order to recognise this loss. We propose the principles of proximity, self-determination and the safe-guarding of intangible culture should be applicable to bilateral displacement agreements between such island nations and host states, such agreements to be negotiated under the aegis of the CCDO.

Conclusion: ‘Will the tiger get me?’

It has been suggested that Australia should take the lead in international efforts to develop a framework for responding to climate change displacement. The broader region in which Australia is situated accounts for 60% of the world’s population; it is also a region that will be significantly affected by the effects of climate change. And, as has been noted, planning for a future of mass displacement due to climate change gives us the opportunity – before millions of people are on the move throughout the world because of climate change – … to develop frameworks and institutions that might not only be politically realistic, but also based on principles that promote human rights and dignity.

Our Convention is, again, in many ways prospective. It would establish a framework within which adaptive assistance to those vulnerable to climate change impacts could be provided. The protection of CCDPs requires large-scale, long-term planning.  This in itself presents challenges because, as has been noted with reference to one particular country perhaps most at risk from the effects of climate change, Bangladeshis think mainly of tomorrow. Will there be enough rice? Enough clean drinking water? Will the tiger get me? All of us have the same human tendency to plan for the next day, next week, next year. Projecting … developments 10, 20, 50 years into the future is a chancy business, as imprecise a science in its way as the modelling of climate change. But those are undoubtedly the terms, and the timescales, on which we now have to think.

For more information on the CCDP convention project please contact David Hodgkinson on +61 402 824 832 or at david@ccdpconvention.com. The project website is www.ccdpconvention.com. 

Scientists and science communicators have a responsibility to report new research in a balanced and objective way. Exaggerated claims of the importance of fundamental discoveries and technological developments in areas such as alternative energy and carbon capture, lead to false expectations and poor policy. The message that should be conveyed is that science and technology is important to pursue, but it does not have the answers to deliver cheap clean energy in the amount that societies have come to expect from fossil fuels.

Until this message is conveyed accurately and responsibly, people will continue to live their lives of consumption in the belief that science and technology will provide for them. Policy makers will continue to avoid the realities of confronting climate change and energy provision because they have a convenient get-out clause provided by scientists who exaggerate the potential of their favourite new energy technology. The idea that scientists are going to provide technology that will give us all the energy we demand without emitting carbon dioxide is an aspiration, not a reality. By over-promoting a particular discovery or technology scientists are potentially doing more harm than good to the public interest and to the environment. It is time to call to account, those scientists and media outlets that do society this disservice.  It is time for energy researchers to act with the same sense of responsibility as if they were conducting cancer research.

At times when we face challenges and adversity, we welcome good news to give us hope and encouragement. Equally in good times we welcome more good news to reassure us that the good times are here to stay.  Good news sells newspapers, attracts audiences and generates income.  It provides our leaders with credibility and endorsements of their policies.

Good news from the science lab raises the profile of particular scientists, helps them to attract new research funding, new research students, tenure or promotion. Scientists have mortgages to pay and school uniforms to buy just like everyone else.

So what’s wrong with this?

When I read ‘good news stories’ in areas in which I can legitimately claim to be a specialist, all too often I see exaggerated claims for a new piece of information or new technology. Scientist and reporter working in tandem are responsible for this ‘hype’.

This exaggeration provides false hope and expectations in the minds of those looking for solutions to our energy or climate problems. It is misleading. Potentially dangerously so.

It also provides policy-makers, when confronted with a challenging question, a very convenient get-out clause such as: “Oh the scientists have made a breakthrough in X [technology] that will enable us to meet that particular challenge“, or “We have invested in a promising new technology to meet that challenge”.

It is time for us to stand up and say: “Science and technology does not have all the answers. Society as a whole must take collective responsibility and bring about change in our demands”.

Let me give you an example. In 2009 I published a paper in the Journal of Biological Chemistry describing some features of energy metabolism in an alga (Chlamydomonas reinhardtii) that can convert sunshine into hydrogen (that was not our discovery, we just described some details).

What!? Sunshine into hydrogen? Simply add algae, water and mix. Surely this is the holy grail of bioenergy?

My university information office saw this publication and immediately wanted to write a ‘good news story’ for media release. My first reaction was yes of course; good publicity for us all.  ‘Scientists at UWA unlock secrets of hydrogen produced from sunshine’ or some such banner.

I contacted my co-author Ben Hankamer, at the University of Queensland to ask for his opinion and agreement, and these are the comments that came back: 

“there are so many [media] releases being made and unless they stand up truly as a breakthrough, people will become increasingly jaded with unrealistic claims.”

“the impression is one of this being ‘the solution’, when we all know there are many technical hurdles to overcome.”

I only had to reflect on this for a few moments to realise that he was absolutely correct, and that we scientists had to report our research far more responsibly. In other words, to go along with the hype of the media circus would have been irresponsible. I pulled the draft media release and my office was upset at ‘a lost opportunity’.

In 2010 I attended an international conference in Melbourne at which there was an evening public debate on the promise of biofuels and bioenergy. The meeting was chaired by the eminent and widely respected ABC science communicator Robyn Williams, and the author Tim Flannery (the new chair of Australia’s Climate Change Commission) was one of the contributors.

I am afraid that I found the whole tone unrealistically optimistic and not sufficiently critical of the opportunities that bioenergy can provide. In particular Robyn Williams cited the example of hydrogen production from algae as an example of a new breakthrough clean technology that can help to meet our future energy demands. My own view is that hydrogen production from algae is so limited that it could only ever provide us with a very expensive source of energy in small amounts.  But since I did not have the opportunity to state this, 100 people went away feeling good about the future of hydrogen from algae.

I subsequently found that Robyn Williams had interviewed Ben Hankamer in 2008, so possibly this one source of Robyn’s information and enthusiasm. The interview reveals that Ben was trying to be cautious with his answers, while Robyn was looking for something newsworthy.  Even Ben, who professes caution, was drawn into being overly optimistic.

Let’s be enthusiastic, but only when it is justified. Science communicators please take note. Offering false hope is a disservice to society.

Even when I venture outside my area of professional expertise, I can see obvious examples of exaggerated claims that give people false hope and policy-makers convenient escape routes. “Scientists discover new form of energy” proclaimed a headline in the Guardian newspaper. I looked at the original research paper and it became immediately obvious that scientists had discovered no such thing.

We must stop this hype.

Of course, the biomedical research sector has had to deal for decades with the issue of raising false hope. ‘New drug to beat cancer’, has given way to more responsible reporting, because for some people reading these reports it is literally a life-or-death outcome.  False hope in climate and energy research is just as serious as that in health, and reporting in these areas should adopt equally strict codes. Making mistakes and poor decisions in relation to the climate change, is a matter of life-or-death for ecosystems and species, including humans.

We should all monitor the outputs from such media offices and hold them to account if they make exaggerated claims that could lead to false hope, unrealistic expectations, and worst-of-all bad policy in the areas of climate, energy and resources.  Academic institutions must set an ethical example.

This is one area in which scientists can have a real impact on policy for climate change and new energy sources. Stop exaggerating in order to advance your own research field, and adopt a more objective and responsible approach. If you review papers or grant applications that make exaggerated claims, call them to account! Let us make responsible and realistic research that which attracts the funding and kudos, not the over-egged research.

Shelby Lin Erdman, CNN, March 16, 2010.

MIT researchers discover new energy source

 http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/12/mit.research.electricity/index.html?hpt=T2

Choi W, Hong S, Abrahamson JT, Han JH, Song C, Nair N, Baik S, Strano MS. (2010) Chemically driven carbon-nanotube-guided thermopower waves. Nat Mater. 9: 423-9.

Matthew T, Zhou W, Rupprecht J, Lim L, Thomas-Hall SR, Doebbe A, Kruse O, Hankamer B, Marx UC, Smith SM, Schenk PM. (2009) The metabolome of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii following induction of anaerobic H₂ production by sulfur depletion. J. Biol. Chem. 284: 23415-25.

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/blog/cnn-reports-new-energy-source-discovered

There is a fundamental fault line that runs through the heart of the climate change issue in Australia.  Privately, we take it seriously while publicly we do almost nothing. The horrendous floods that we have witnessed in many states in recent months provide a glimpse of the social, environmental and economic impact that climate change is having on the Australian economy and a foretaste of perhaps even worse things to come. And yet organisations, including governments and corporate businesses, seem incapable of developing an adequate response to the problem.  The Gillard government’s extraordinary proposal of reducing climate change funding to pay for flood damage is an example of the fickle nature of government views on this issue.  The lack of any substantive alternative policies concerning climate change issues from the conservative opposition speaks of their completely inadequate understanding of the level of scientific knowledge on the topic. 

Even though the threat of climate change and the potential costs of carbon reduction schemes have been known for well over a decade, the private sector has largely ignored the imperative for proactive action and has shown no concerted leadership for tackling the significant changes that organisations must make now or in the very near future.  To quote a recent editorial in Fairfax’s The National Times, “This country is regarded as a policy laggard”.  And yet, despite the national organisational inaction, privately most Australians clearly want something to be done to address climate change and they would like it done sooner rather than later.

Three quarters of Australians acknowledge that climate change is happening and that it is caused by human activity (Newspoll 2010).  While there has been a slight decline in this figure in recent years, over a significant period of time the public view has been that human induced climate change (HICC) is real and that governments and private organisations should take steps to mitigate carbon pollution and to adapt to the changes that are occurring.  A recent report from the Climate Institute (Climate Institute 2010) reports that, from a random sample of over 2,000 Australians, 85% said they would support a party that had a “detailed plan to change Australia to using cleaner energy sources” and 82% said that “Australia should make “medium” to “very large” changes to address climate change” (Climate Institute 2010, p. 4).  So while there appear to be strong personal views about the need to take decisive action, at the organisational, state and national level prevarication and inaction rules.  Inaction at the collective level is clearly having an impact on individuals’ confidence in political and community leaders.  The Climate Institute’s report states that:

A key finding of the research is the link between climate change inaction and an erosion of belief in political leadership, trust and credibility.

So, why is there such a disparity between private attitudes and public inaction?  Aren’t governments supposed to be sensitive to longstanding and broad-based public opinion?  Aren’t organisations much more responsive now to consumer and community concerns?  The misalignment seems mystifying, even paradoxical.  It could be, as the historian Naomi Oreskes (2010) has recently shown, that the influential efforts of some conservative ideologues and think tanks have bolstered scepticism towards climate science through the deliberate manufacturing of doubt. But this still does not account for the massive gap between private opinion and the lack of organisational response. 

There are, of course, many challenges that accompany an adequate response to the climate change imperative.  Real change requires resources, time and energy.  There’s also the need for new ways of thinking that makes transition difficult.  On the other hand, organisations stand to gain many benefits from addressing the crisis – greater economic efficiencies, the creation of news skills, and the development of values that support innovation.  To give but one example of the economic benefits of addressing climate change, Europe has managed to cut emissions by more than 16 per cent since 1990, while its economy grew over 40 per cent during that same period.

Paradox, conflict and stuckness

Given the level of personal support, risks involved in inaction and the potential benefits of acting decisively and quickly, the difficulties with countering the deniers or implementing climate policy or managing organisational change seem rather minor.  So again, why the ongoing prevarication and inaction?  It seems that, for various reasons, our private concerns about the climate crisis are being compartmentalised into those that we express at home as concerned citizens and those that we express (or not) at work as workers.  Our personal values are separated from the values expressed by the organisations we belong to and the businesses we work for.  The values that we hold at home are not being expressed publicly in the decisions we make and the conversations we have at work.  The paradox and ambiguity of this duality results in a state of inaction and “stuckness” (Browne & Bishop 2011, p. 358).  In their paper on the role of paradox in climate change and sustainability policy in Australia, Browne and Bishop argue that there are numerous paradoxes built into modern societies that cause both internal and interpersonal conflict and which result in a kind of avoidance of action on complex and conflict-ridden issues like climate policy. 

Identifying solutions for climate change involves addressing fundamental paradoxes at multiple scales, and recognising the way in which individual and organisation stuckness is embedded in the contexts of, and intersections between, economy, nature, and democracy. (Browne & Bishop 2011, p. 360)

Browne and Bishop point out that one resolution to this problem of oppositional paradox resulting in inaction is to “reflect on the values”, “worldviews” and “ethical understanding” that led to the stalemate in the first place.  This avenue for extracting ourselves from the “stuckness” that characterises climate policy in Australia requires us to reflect on and critically question how we express our personal values on environmental and climate issues in public spaces and, in particular, in the crucial realm of organisational life and the workplace. 

Voicing Values

We know from research on the relationship between values and climate change that people can be aware of the risks and broader implications of climate change but feel inhibited from, or even incapable of, acting in a manner that is consistent with these views and the values that underlie them (O’Brien & Wolf 2010). In an American study of the relationship between “climate change risk perceptions, affective images, values, and policy preferences” Leiserowitz (2006, p. 45) found that: “… risk perceptions and policy support are strongly influenced by experiential factors, including affect, imagery, and values, and demonstrates that public responses to climate change are influenced by both psychological and socio-cultural factors”

We know from ethics research that, where values and opinions are not expressed, people will rationalise the direction of their response in ways that correspond to, what some researchers have called, “moral muteness” (Drumwright & Murphy 2004).  The result of this is inaction.  On the other hand, employees can also find compelling reasons for expressing their values in ways that actively deal with the difficult moral issues they face in the workplace (Samuelson & Gentile 2005). 

A new approach to business ethics called “Giving Voice to Values” (GVV) (Gentile 2010) offers an interesting way to view the compartmentalisation of values and the inhibiting and enabling factors that accompany conflict and ethical dilemmas.  Looking at these issues can help us to better understand and overcome the barriers to acting on and voicing values as they relate to organisational responses to moral challenges like climate change.  GVV assumes that changes in organisational behaviour require at least one person to express values that support such changes. There are, however, many inhibiting barriers that stymie the expression of values in the workplace.  These can come from many different sources but they generally fall into a small number of categorises of justification and rationalisations (Ashforth & Anand 2003; Heath 2008), for example locus of responsibility (“it’s not my job to address climate change issue at work”), immateriality (“no one is going to be hurt by inaction”) or legality (“we just need to follow the minimum legal requirements on this”).  Organisational climates that reinforce such inhibiting arguments and which do not provide open forums for the expressions of values are difficult to counter and yet, if organisations don’t change, nothing will change (other than the increasing environmental and social costs of escalating climate change).     

We need to start holding these conversations and begin to voice our values and opinions in the workplace and in decision-making forums at all levels.  Climate change is a public, not a private issue.  Above all it is an organisational issue.  If governments and businesses and their employees and stakeholders don’t tackle this issue with the intensity and seriousness it deserves, then the climate crisis will continue to accelerate and the droughts and extreme events like those we have recently experienced will occur with greater frequently and severity.  The cultural climates of organisations will need to change if we are to meet the challenge of global atmospheric pollution. One crucial way that will occur is through ordinary people expressing their concerns about climate change in the conversations they hold, the decisions they contribute to, the feedback they give, the policies and strategies they implement and the views they express in the workplace.

References

Ashforth, BE & Anand, V 2003, ‘The normalization of corruption in organizations’, Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 25, pp. 1-52.

Browne, A & Bishop, B 2011, ‘Chasing Our Tails: Psychological, Institutional and Societal Paradoxes in Natural Resource Management, Sustainability, and Climate Change in Australia’, American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 354-361.

Climate Institute 2010, Climate of the Nation: Australians’ Attitudes towards Climate Change and its Solutions, Climate Institute, Sydney.

Editorial March 29, 2011, ‘Australia lags as the rest of the world acts’, The National Times.

Gentile, M 2010, Giving Voice to Values: How to Speak Your Mind When You Know What’s Right, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Heath, J 2008, ‘ Business Ethics and Moral Motivation: A Criminological Perspective’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 595-614.

Leiserowitz, A 2006, ‘Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values’, Climatic Change, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 45-72.

Newspoll 2010, Public attitudes towards climate change  

O’Brien, KL & Wolf, J 2010, ‘A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 232-242.

Oreskes, NCEM 2010, Merchants of doubt : how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming, 1st U.S. edn, Bloomsbury Press, New York. Available from: WorldCat.

Samuelson, J & Gentile, M 2005, ‘Get Aggressive About Passivity’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 83, no. 11, pp. 18-20.

We recently examined how Australia can meet 100% of its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020, and the Ecofys plan to meet nearly 100% of global energy needs with renewable sources by 2050.  Here we will look at another similar, but perhaps even more ambitious plan.

Stanford’s Mark Jacobsen and UC Davis’ Mark Delucchi (J&D) recently published a study in the journal Energy Policy examining the possibility of meeting all global energy needs with wind, water, and solar (WWS) power.  They find that it would be plausible to produce all new energy from WWS in 2030, and replace all pre-existing energy with WWS by 2050. 

In Part I of their study, J&D examine the technologies, energy resources, infrastructure, and materials necessary to provide all energy from WWS sources.  They use the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates of global power consumption.  The EIA projects that by 2030, global power demand will increase to 17 trillion watts from the current consumption of 12.5 trillion watts, or an increase of about 36%.  This is the global energy demand that the J&D plan must meet by 2030.  J&D describe how they chose WWS technologies in their study:

“we consider only options that have been demonstrated in at least pilot projects and that can be scaled up as part of a global energy system without further major technology development.  We avoid options that require substantial further technological development and that will not be ready to begin the scale-up process for several decades.”

“In order to ensure that our energy system remains clean even with large increases in population and economic activity in the long run, we consider only those technologies that have essentially zero emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants per unit of output over the whole ‘‘lifecycle’’ of the system.  Similarly, we consider only those technologies that have low impacts on wildlife, water pollution, and land, do not have significant waste-disposal or terrorism risks associated with them, and are based on primary resources that are indefinitely renewable or recyclable.”

J&D note that these criteria exclude nuclear power from their study for two primary reasons.  Firstly, expansion of nuclear power to additional countries also increases the number of nations which are able to obtain enriched uranium for potential nuclear weapons.  Secondly, nuclear energy results in 9–25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, due to the mining, refinement, and transportation of nuclear fuel; the much longer time involved in building a nuclear facility (approximately 4 times longer than WWS facilities); and larger building footprint.  Additionally, the long planning-to-operation times for new nuclear power plants (11 to 19 years) make it an infeasible technology to rely on for a significant amount of new energy production by 2030.

For auto transportation, J&D propose a combination of battery electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell cars, and battery-hydrogen hybrids.  For ships, they propose the use of hybrid hydrogen fuel cell-battery systems, and for aircraft, liquefied hydrogen combustion.  The hydrogen fuel is produced through electrolysis using WWS energy.  J&D note that electric cars are 5 times more efficient than internal combustion engine vehicles, so less energy is needed to fuel them.

For building water and air heating and cooling, J&D propose using air-and ground-source heat-pump water and air heaters and electric resistance water and air heaters.  These technologies are in existence today.

In terms of electricity generation, J&D find that the available supply could more than meet the global demand.

“Wind in developable locations can power the world about 3–5 times over and solar, about 15–20 times over.”

J&D find that water will be a relatively small contribution to overall energy production, since wave power is only practical near coastlines, and most areas suitable for hydroelectric power generation are already in use.  Overall in 2030, J&D envision 50% of global power demand will be met by wind, 20% by concentrated solar thermal power, 14% by solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants, 6% by solar PV on rooftops, 4% each by geothermal and hydroelectric, and 1% each from waves and tides.  This will require a major construction effort – nearly 4 million 5-megawatt wind turbines, and nearly 90,000 300-megawatt solar PV plus thermal power plants, for example.  J&D note that we have all of the necessary resources and materials to meet these construction goals.

J&D also note that by transitioning to more efficient technologies (for example, battery electric vehicles over the internal combustion engine, electric heat pumps for homes, and solar thermal energy with storage to provide baseload power rather than fossil fuels and nuclear) we can actually reduce global power production by 30% compared to business-as-usual.  Even though global energy demand is the same in either case, effectively we will need to produce less energy because less is wasted through inefficient fossil fuel burning. 

In Part II of the study, J&D examine the variability of WWS energy, and the costs of their proposal.  On the positive side, J&D note that WWS technologies suffer less downtime than traditional power sources.  For example, the average US coal power plant was down 12.5% of the time for maintenance between 2000 and 2004, while wind turbines have a downtime of 0 to 5%, and commercial solar in the ballpark of 1%.  The downside is that sunlight and windspeed aren’t very reliable.  J&D offer 7 suggestions for solving this problem:

1. Interconnect the grid so that areas can be supplied with a mix of wind, solar, and water energy (often when the sun isn’t shining, the wind is blowing, and water power is consistently available)
2. Use a consistent source, like hydroelectric or geothermal, to fill the solar and wind gaps
3. Create a smart grid to use energy most efficiently
4. Use energy storage technologies
5. Build more WWS than needed, so that there’s still supply when wind and sunlight are low
6. Use electric vehicle batteries as a storage medium
7. Utilize weather forecasts to anticipate energy demands

J&D envision that a combination of most of these strategies will be used to ensure that there is always enough energy production to meet local and global demands.

As for costs, J&D project that when accounting for the costs associated with air pollution and climate change, all the WWS technologies they consider will be cheaper than conventional energy sources (including coal) by 2020 or 2030, and in fact onshore wind is already cheaper.  U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently agreed with this assessment.

To accomplish this major conversion to WWS energy, J&D note that it will require that governments implement policies to mobilize infrastructure changes more rapidly than would occur if development were left mainly to the free market, but that we have all the manpower, materials, technology, and resources necessary to make it happen.

“With sensible broad-based policies and social changes, it may be possible to convert 25% of the current energy system to WWS in 10–15 years and 85% in 20–30 years, and 100% by 2050”

As with the Ecofys plan, we are given a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewables in a timely fashion.  Again the question remains whether we have the will to make it happen.

As the physical understanding of climate change within the scientific community has become more and more robust, paradoxically the public debate has become progressively more disconnected from the scientific literature.

It’s unsurprising, then, that Hans Schellnhuber, climate advisor to the German government and himself a natural scientist, recently argued that 90% of all research on global change ought to be conducted by social scientists. Indeed, it requires social science to understand this growing disconnect between scientific reality and public perception.

Many factors can be cited to explain this disconnect: Among them are the media’s misplaced attempts to “balance” scientific knowledge with the mere words of contrarian bloggers and political operatives, and the well-documented efforts by vested interests and political groups to sow doubts about climate science.

But in addition to such political or sociological factors, climate change also challenges our basic cognitive abilities.

In particular, people have considerable difficulty understanding the notion of accumulation, and how changes to one variable affect the accumulation of another.

Understanding emissions

To illustrate, consider first the relationship between total atmospheric CO2 (currently around 390 ppm) and global temperatures.

Atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures are coupled, such that any increase in CO2 will lead to further temperature rises in the long run. Stabilization of atmospheric CO2 is therefore a precondition for limiting warming.

But what about the relationship between annual CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

If we want to stabilize CO2 in order to stabilize the climate, how much do we have to reduce annual emissions?

In an elegant series of studies, MIT’s John Sterman has shown that even highly-educated people, such as engineering graduates, are unlikely to answer this question correctly without further specialized training (e.g., Sterman & Sweeney, 2007).

When shown the trajectory of annual CO2 emissions, which to date has exhibited an ever-accelerating increase, the majority of people will propose that stabilization of emissions, or a slight decrease, will be sufficient to stabilize atmospheric CO2.

This is completely and inescapably false.

Filling the global bathtub

In actual fact, to stabilize atmospheric CO2, emissions must be cut drastically, and the longer action is delayed, the more steeply emissions must be cut.

This is because CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere in the same way as the water level in a bathtub rises while the tap is on. Absent any leakage, the only way to stabilize the water level is to shut off the tap completely.

Similarly, we must eventually reduce emissions to zero if we wish CO2 levels to stabilise and then, by natural absorption, to ever so gradually reduce over time.

In a recent radio interview, Professor Tim Flannery (the chief of Australia’s national Climate Change Commission) mentioned the fact that a reduction in global temperatures will take hundreds of years to materialize even if CO2 emissions were to cease completely and instantly.

In a rapid-fire display of ignorance, several national media figures and politicians, including the leader of the Federal opposition, mistook this statement to imply that cutting emissions was a useless and unnecessary endeavour. Of course it isn’t.

Quite to the contrary, before we can even think about a reduction in temperatures we must cut emissions to prevent a further, potentially devastating rise in global temperatures.

The data by Sterman and colleagues show that people have difficulty with these essential physical relationships.

Because this cognitive limitation has until now translated into policy inaction, the climate problem gets bigger every day.

Any further delay of action translates into the need for ever-greater emission cuts: the fuller the bathtub, the more rapidly the tap must be shut to avoid an overflow.

The figure below, taken from Allison et al. (2009), illustrates this problem and compares the global emissions paths required to have any chance to limit warming to 2C, depending on when they peak. The longer we wait, the harsher the cuts.

Where we go wrong

Why do people have difficulty understanding the notion of accumulation, despite it being readily explainable with the bathtub analogy?

People often process information about dynamic variables on the presumption that the output of a complex system “looks like” the input.

So, if emissions are reduced, atmospheric CO2 levels are correspondingly assumed to fall, when in fact they continue to increase, albeit at a reduced rate.

And this cognitive strategy bites us a second time; namely, when it comes to mitigation efforts. One plausible reason that fear campaigns arguing emission cuts will decrease our wealth have gained traction is that in the past, wealth accumulation has paralleled the increase of CO2 emissions.

By again applying the strategy that variables in a complex system “look alike”, people can easily be convinced that reducing emissions will also reduce wealth.

This presumption is as false as the presumption that cutting emissions will reduce atmospheric CO2.

According to most economic modelling, cutting emissions will not cut wealth. Emission cuts will not even abolish economic growth; they will merely slow the rate at which our society accumulates wealth.

According to the Australian Treasury, cutting emissions by 90% by 2050 would still see per capita GNP rise from the current $50,000 to around $80,000.

In light of this clear path forward towards increasing wealth in a safe climate, the current state of public debate in Australia and other western countries is indeed sadly misguided.

(A variant of this article first appeared on The Conversation on 5 April 2011. It has been modified and updated slightly for posting here)

References

Allison, I.; Bindoff, N. L.; Bindschadler, R. A.; Cox, P. M.; de Noblet, N.; England, M. H.; Francis, J. E.; Gruber, N.; Haywood, A. M.; Karoly, D. J.; Kaser, G.; Le Quéré, C.; Lenton, T. M.; Mann, M. E.; McNeil, B. I.; Pitman, A. J.; Rahmstorf, S.; Rignot, E.; Schellnhuber, H. J.; Schneider, S. H.; Sherwood, S. C.; Somerville, R. C. J.; Steffen, K.; Steig, E. J.; Visbeck, M. & Weaver, A. J. (2009).
The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science. Technical Report, University of New South Wales.

Sterman, J. D. & Sweeney, L. B. (2007). Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change, 80, 213-238.

The key obstacle to the implementation of carbon pricing in the USA is the fairly widespread myth that it will result in ballooning energy bills and cripple the economy.  These myths perservere despite the fact that as we have previously explored, economic studies consistently conclude that the costs of carbon pricing proposals are very minimal, and the benefits consistently outweigh the costs several times over.

The flaw with these studies is that they’re generally based on hypothetical legislation which has not been implemented.  So it’s easy for “skeptics” to claim that they contain flawed assumptions and thus dispute their conclusions.  However, in 2008, ten northeastern states in the USA (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont) implemented a carbon cap and trade system which will reduce their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power sector by 10% by 2018 in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).  The RGGI recently commissioned a study to examine the impacts of the system, and the results are broadly consistent with the economic studies discussed above.

Funds Generated and Invested

All in all, through the first two years of the system, the ten states generated $789 million through the auctioning and direct sale of CO2 emissions allowances.  Each state developed its own plan for investing those funds, but overall, 52% was used for energy efficiency programs, 14% for energy bill payment assistance, including assistance to low-income ratepayers, and 11% to accelerate deployment of renewable energy technologies.  New York, New Hampshire, and New Jersey also diverted some of the funds to reduce their state budget deficits. 

Table 1: Percent of RGGI State Investments By Category

Considering that energy efficiency is by far the most cost-effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, at about 2.5 cents to save a kilawatt-hour (kWh), whereas it costs at least 6 cents per kWh to generate electricity from conventional sources (ACEEE 2009), it’s not surprising that the RGGI states chose to invest the majority of the carbon allocation funds on energy efficiency programs.

Benefits Exceeded Costs

A key finding in the report involved the comparison of the RGGI state costs and savings from their carbon fund investments:

“Evaluations of several energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the RGGI participating states indicate that these programs provide $3-$4 in savings for every dollar invested. When macroeconomic benefits are considered, the benefits are even greater.”

Note that this analysis does not include the benefits associated with averting climate change, reducing emissions of co-pollutants, reducing ocean acidification, etc.  Despite this narrow focus, the carbon pricing system resulted in direct benefits exceeding costs several times over.

Job Creation

The RGGI report also found that the program has created jobs.

“A 2010 analysis by Environment Northeast estimates that energy efficiency programs funded with CO2 allowance proceeds through December 2010 are projected to create nearly 18,000 job years – that is, the equivalent of 18,000 full-time jobs that last one year.  Employment benefits result from state program investments and from the reinvestment of consumer energy bill savings in the wider economy. While there has not yet been a similar analysis of RGGI-funded renewable energy programs, data from the Renewable Energy Policy Project shows every $1 million invested in renewable energy systems creates about six full-time manufacturing jobs, as well as additional jobs in construction and facility maintenance.”

Reduced Energy Bills

One of the most frequently-used arguments about carbon pricing is that it will result in much higher energy bills, as utilities pass on the price of carbon emissions to consumers.  However, this assumption fails to account for the re-investment of the funds generated through carbon pricing.  For example, as discussed above, the RGGI states invested the majority of the carbon funds (66% combined) into energy efficiency and energy bill payment assistance programs. 

“At the household and business level, energy efficiency investments enhance consumers’ control over their energy use, typically reducing energy bills by 15 to 30 percent.”

Unfortunately, while it concluded that individuals who took advantage of energy efficiency programs reduced their energy bills significantly, the RGGI report did not evaluate the impact on residents’ average energy bills.

Carbon Pricing Success Story and Step Backwards

Overall, the RGGI program has provided us with a real world example that carbon pricing can be successfully implemented at a minimal cost, and that its benefits can exceed its costs several times over.

Unfortunately, the New Hampshire House of Representatives recently voted to withdraw the state from RGGI.  This despite the fact that New Hampshire used $3.1 million of their carbon allocation funds to reduce their state deficit, and invested another $24.4 million in energy efficency programs.  The state had used those funds to help businesses and schools become more energy efficient, weatherize low-income homes, provide energy efficiency job training for more than 170 workers, and so on.  New Hampshire Speaker William O’Brien justified the state’s RGGI withdrawal:

“Eliminating RGGI sends a clear signal to the business community that we are reversing the direction that the state is taking in terms of creating a regulatory environment that is pro-business. That’s critical in terms of sending a strong message that we are open for business and ready to work with employers to help grow our economy and create good, new jobs here.”

Apparently O’Brien considers it “pro-business” to eliminate a system which had created loans to help New Hampshire businesses lower energy expenses, and provided energy efficiency job training for hundreds of workers in the state.  Unfortunately, New Hampshire serves as a reminder that myths about the effects of carbon pricing tend to have more impact than reality.