Oil & Gas Spills in North America Since 2010

A question I sometimes ask of people who think that fossil fuels are here forever more and that electrification of everything will never happen... 

Has there ever been an oil spill in Yellowstone National Park? If so, how many?

Finally, a great GOP plan to address climate change. Who's Who

The unbelievable list of Who's-Who from the GOP world have joined together (Climate Leadership Council) to come up with a very workable, market-based, approach to address climate change. Schultz and Baker have been around since the Reagan era. One of their crowning achievements was related to getting the world to reduce all of fluorocarbons (like Freon) which was wiping out the protective ozone layer of our atmosphere. You rarely hear the discuss on the ozone layer, right? Schultz and Baker are a big part of the reason why. The world-wide agreement on fluorocarbons is know as the Montreal Protocol.

Here is a great article by Schultz and Baker, both from Ronald Reagan era Republicans. A Conservative Answer to Climate Change.

First, to address climate change, has some scary implications. It really is unnerving if there is no energy policy in the US. In this report, we may have the only energy policy forming since the attempt by President Carter to have an energy policy. Obama tried to use the EPA to regulate fossil fuels and more, which is no substitute for an actual energy policy that is congress/legislative based.

For decades, economists have linked a market based approach to address the non-sustainable use of energy in the US and globally. One approach is to build a more complicated approach for putting a price on carbon, cap and trade (Emissions trading). A simple tax is so much more straight forward. In this case, they want to take the carbon tax and rebate it back to the population in the form of dividend rebates. The estimate is that the bottom 70% of the population, income-wise, will have a net benefit from this plan. Revenue neutral.

From an international security issue, it reduces the money we send to other countries in order to use more fossil fuels ($1T over every couple years). The large producers of the world are not necessarily friendly to us: Russia, Venezuela, Saudi, Iran. Much of the terrorism of the world is also paid from from oil moneys (ISIS and the renegades in Nigeria).

The beauty of this approach -- above and beyond environmental benefits -- is that people can take that dividend money and pay even more for gas and gas-guzzling vehicles. Or, even better, use if for something they value more.

I've been very disappointed in the GOP; they have let the deniers drown out the engagement of addressing such the critical issue of the non-sustainability of fossil fuels. A smart market approach will work nicely and solve lots of problems simultaneously. This approach will apparently reduce carbon emissions by 2x from  Obama's EPA approach to "clean energy", and 3x what dumping the plan an reverting to business as usual (BAU).  As one of the authors and economist Greg Mankiw says, "this is pretty close to a panacea in the way that it solves lots of problems as once". No need to subsidize renewable; let the best solutions rise and the worst dwindle.

Consider this dividend-tax as insurance. You buy insurance to reduce future risks and costs. This plan starts to steadily reduce carbon emissions.

Everyone wins with this plan. Well, except maybe coal, oil and gas companies and countries.

Now these guys need to go convince Pres Trump and his merry band of fossil burners. Surprisingly, it might just work.

Also see Amy Harder Feb 8 blog on the topic in WSJ. She discusses the meeting of the Climate Leadership Council with Pres Trump where they voiced that they were "cautiously optimistic".

13 of 14 warmest years on record occurred in 21st century – UN | Environment

13 of 14 warmest years on record occurred in 21st century – UN | Environment | theguardian.com:

Ouch. As you look at the clock, you will see that we are only 14 years into the 21st Century. Yet we have 13 of the hottest 14 years in recorded history.

You do have to take the whole of the earth into account, obviously, not just the USA, where we were ?fortunate? enough to have a exceptionally cold and blizzardy Winter. (Polar Vortex is now in our daily vernacular.)

If you are interested in the science go here to look at the 11 or 12 major indicators (based on several data sources each) that would indicate global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

If you want a composite graphic that shows the robustness of the evidence, go here. There are several data sources overlaid in each graphic. Note that the stratosphere is decreasing (cooler), that is consistent with a depletion of the ozone layer.

The recent UN report talks about the trends in costs associated with climate effects, like typhoons. A draft report talks about $1.45T costs associated with climate change over the next decade. (See here http://www.livescience.com/43891-global-warming-economic-damage.html.)

The costs are expected to reach $70 to $100B per year for adaptation by 2050. (See here: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/03/31/will-the-uns-new-report-shift-the-global-warming-debate)

NASA has lots of interesting graphics, including time-series that will show the world temperature changes over the last couple hundred years. (Or just recently if you want since 1970).(The science visualization study at NASA is awesome, no mater what your interests: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/Gallery/index.html or if you want to draw your own graphs based on the underlying data, go here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/3/2/1880-2014).

As we come up on Earth Day (EarthDay.org or EarthDay in Wikipedia) the impacts of business as usual (BAS) really revolves around whether you think something should be done to be much more sustainable NOW!, in decades or in centuries to come.

The degree of urgency really depends on how much you believe in global warming, and how fast you think that warming may take place.

Look at the graphs and make your own call on this.

'via Blog this'

Next generation of biofuels is still years away | Hattiesburg American | hattiesburgamerican.com

Next generation of biofuels is still years away | Hattiesburg American | hattiesburgamerican.com:

Biofuel is a byline in the energy mix.

So biofuel is mandated. And because it is ordered to be true, it must be.

And because it is ordered to be true, the mandate must meet the expectations.

Thus is the problem with government subsidies... Burning food for fuel (corn to ethanol) is still a rather dumb idea, even though it is finally getting efficient enough that there is a small net gain gallon-equivalent per gallon of ethanol.

What would work perfectly well, from an economics point of view, is to raise taxes on non-renewable sources of fuel and energy. A simple carbon tax would do it. It could be progressive over time.

Then the more accurate costs of non-renewables would allow for the energy economy to shift and make its on path forward. The types of renewable fuel would decide themselves and the government would be out of the picture setting mandates in less-than-smart -- some might say foolish -- areas.

Of course the politicians who set the wheels in process for a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade (tax?) will soon find themselves out to pasture shoveling biowaste.

'via Blog this'

Social Good Summit 2013 - Social Good Summit

Social Good Summit 2013 - Social Good Summit:

Here's a video of the conference on United Nations Foundation, Gates Foundation and more. on Social Good Summit 2013... Conference runs from Sept 22 - 24, New York, NY.

Al Gore is in this too.

Hash tag I guess is #2030now

Check out the LP Recharge game, Kuuluu.com. Part of the UN movement to have affordable, renewable energy for all. 1.3B people do not have access to energy. Maybe 3B don't really have safe and affordable energy.

Very interesting.

Not quite the balance of the business and economic engine for development and wealth creation that we would like to see. But some very good stuff here.

'via Blog this'

Social Irresponsibility: Energy and the cost of carbon

These are all part of a dramatic change in the way that we view carbon emissions.


There are three things that are prominently in the news about carbon emissions and addressing them in June of 2012. These are all part of a dramatic change in the way that we view carbon emissions.

1. Australia is opening up a Carbon Tax at $23 per ton. They are adjusting from the mistakes of Europe when they started cap and trade at too low a price. Undermining the whole process.
2. In the meanwhile, Texas is opening a market for carbon. The Oil capital of the US is also the largest Wind producer of electricity.
3. California credit allowances jump in price dramatically.

Generally there are three ways to address the issues associated with externalities caused by carbon emission (and greenhouse gas emissions)

1. Voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR). Look at Shaklee corporation and Microsoft. Shaklee, a health and nutrition company, is the first company to be certified climate neutral in April 2010. In the meanwhile, Microsoft intends to be carbon neutral by the end of 2013.

2. Cap and Trade exchanges. Texas and California.

a.   Texas is opening a market for carbon. “Bad joke, or perhaps an oxymoron”, right?  Nope, it is the Texas Climate & Carbon Exchange. The Oil capital of the US that produces about 1m barrels of oil per year is also the largest Wind producer of electricity (producing about 6.5m GHw/hr in 2010, nearly twice as much as Kansas). This is one of several exchanges, with the most notable one in the us operating in California.

b.   This headline from Reuters: “California carbon allowances (CCAs) for delivery in 2013 closed at $16.75 per tonne on Thursday, up $1.10 from one week ago on a growing belief that the shutdown of a California nuclear power plant will boost carbon emissions due to higher fossil fuel use.” A 7% jump was followed by $20+ call options that anticipated future CCAs rising aggressively in the future.

3. Tax Mechanism.
“The carbon pricing scheme will impose costs on big polluters, which will result in higher end prices for certain products. Treasury estimates that an average family will pay $9.90 more per week in the first year of the scheme’s introduction.” But 9 out of 10 households will get some level of reimbursements “ through personal income tax cuts and increases in pensions and allowances, as well as other measures”. This will already take effect from May-June 2012. Check out the Household Carbon tax estimator for Australia:  

a.   What is the Carbon Tax? (Australia):  http://www.carbontax.net.au/category/what-is-the-carbon-tax/ A $23 per ton initial tax on heavy polluters.

b.   How will this Carbon Tax affect me? (Australia): http://www.carbontax.net.au/category/how-will-the-carbon-tax-affect-me/

c.   Discussion (Australia). Australia is one of the worst (developed countries) for carbon footprint per capita. Unlike Canada (cold) this is partially because of the sprawl of the country and the abundance of fossil fuels. The tax is directly on the producers of carbon (starting with coal) and this tax is applied directly to those impacted. Those households impacted can spend the money any way they want.  The more accurate costs of dirtier energy (coal and oil) will serve to shift prices to cleaner energy.

So, what does this mean? It means that in lots of places and within lots of organizations (and governments) there is a movement toward addressing carbon emissions. Even the glacial movements in the US are starting gain speed, much like the melting glaciers themselves are.


A market mechanism like Australia's seems like an good approach. There is not a massive initial gift of credits to the coal-burning companies. The government doesn't take all the money and run. The market is given an opportunity to improve the costing to accommodate the externalities of fossil fuels.


Let's see how that plays forward? 


Coming soon to an eBook store near you: Social Responsibility by the www.RefractiveThinker.com.