Blair Drops Kyoto?

British Prime Minister Tony Blair appears to be stepping away from Kyoto Protocol style limits on greenhouse gas emissions as the way to address global warming concerns. According to the Environmental News Service, Blair told participants in a climate meeting in London yesterday that:

"People fear some external force is going to impose some internal target on you which is going to restrict your economic growth," said Blair, referring to the Kyoto Protocol, under which industrialized countries must reduced greenhouse gases an average of 5.2 percent by 2012 compared to 1990 levels. "The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge," Blair said. "But all economies know that the only sensible, long-term way to develop is to do it on a sustainable basis."

Blair now appears to be favoring a technical fix for the problem. Perhaps he'd be interested in pursuing a new Zero Emissions Technology Treaty? As I said earlier, the Kyoto Protocol is dead; ideological environmentalists just don't know it yet.

Comments

Akira MacKenzie | November 2, 2005, 1:49pm | #

Of course, you know what the environmentalists will say: "Blair is Bush's lapdog! He'll only following orders from Dubbya, who isgetting his orders from Evil Inc."

JonBuck | November 2, 2005, 1:59pm | #

I really think that biofuels are the future. Biodiesel produced from algal oil and cellulose ethanol, both nearly carbon-neutral technologies that have the potential to replace fossil fuels in the long term.

And with oil becoming more expensive, biofuels 1) become more economically viable on a smaller scale, and 2) this expension allows for increasing economies of scale. We have 45 biodiesel refineries in the United States. 50 more are either proposed or under construction, and a lot of existing facilities are doubling or tripling their capacity.

I see that this kills two birds with one stone. It encourages economic growth using domestic resources, and it cuts those greenhouse gases.

Eric the .5b | November 2, 2005, 2:14pm | #

How is biodiesel "carbon-neutral"? You're still burning it and producing carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere. Is there evidence to suggest that the CO absorbed by the plants used to produce it would even be near the amount produced by burning? It certainly couldn't equal that amount - we'd be talking about a perfect cycle.

M1EK | November 2, 2005, 2:15pm | #

The problem is that if you read between the lines of articles written by people like Ronald, they're saying "technology and the market will save us" when what they MEAN is "don't do anything".

See, even taxing emissions is some level of centralized statism, so it's bad.

But if you can't even do THAT, then what incentive to people have to use zero-emissions technology? Since the cost of emitting is zero, and the cost of building stuff that emits nothing is non-zero, why would people use it, beyond a few self-sacrificing greenies?

Oh, and biofuel is baloney - it can't do more than shave a few points off the oil demand. Energy return on investment is poor even compared to solar panels, much less to oil. (Many biodiesel crops are negative EROI; a few claim to be positive but even those are BARELY positive).

MikeP | November 2, 2005, 2:27pm | #

It certainly couldn't equal that amount - we'd be talking about a perfect cycle.

It is a perfect cycle. The carbon in plants comes from the plants' taking CO2 out of the air and turning it into carbon compounds with which they grow plus oxygen.

6CO2 + 12H2O + energy -----> C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O

Ron Bailey | November 2, 2005, 2:27pm | #

M1EK: I always say what I mean so you don't have to read between the lines. What I do say is that in trying to solve a problem one should not do things are ineffective and expensive.

However, you are generally right about biofuels.

M1EK | November 2, 2005, 2:35pm | #

MikeP,

Yes, and the amount of energy we can capture out of that cycle is incredibly small. The reason oil is so great is that it's effectively millions of years worth of photosynthesis which we can burn all at once.

MikeP | November 2, 2005, 2:42pm | #

See, even taxing emissions is some level of centralized statism, so it's bad.

No. Taxing emissions is bad because it (1) only indirectly addresses the actual problem and (2) it provides awful incentives to governments which look to depend on that revenue.

The way I see the future going here -- provided, of course, that global warming proves to be an actual problem -- is a zero emissions standard placed on a producer by producer level. Each producer of atmospheric CO2 or of a product which produces atmospheric CO2 will need to be CO2 neutral on the books.

To comply they then can either change their product, scrub their emissions, or pay someone else to reduce the atomospheric CO2 by the equivalent amount. Some independent body officiates to make sure that the producers and reducers are doing what they say they're doing.

No taxes. No government involvement except to administer the independent body. Very broad requirements which promote the development of technologies on both the production and reduction side and thus maximize the economic powers of comparative advantage and specialization.

R C Dean | November 2, 2005, 2:43pm | #

But all economies know that the only sensible, long-term way to develop is to do it on a sustainable basis.

WTF does this mean? Who are these "economies" that "know" things?

Isn't this just code for "me and my buddies in the ministries around Europe think that "sustainability" is a buzzword that can get help us slip in some more centralized controls", or am I just imagining things?

Don't forget that growing plants and turning them into biofuels requires energy and other inputs. That tractor runs on something, and so does that tanker truck, plus the fertilizer comes from somewhere, too.

The problem is that if you read between the lines of articles written by people like Ronald, they're saying "technology and the market will save us" when what they MEAN is "don't do anything".

Ron speaks for himself. When I say "technology and the market will save us", what I mean is "for God's sake, government, don't do anything." I'm not sure why M thinks that technology and the market are the equivalent of nothing happening, unless he has that blind spot that so many have, where nothing is going on unless the state is doing it.

M1EK | November 2, 2005, 2:51pm | #

"for God's sake, government, don't do anything."

which means that nothing will get done. The market won't deliver zero-emissions technologies if there's no incentive to do so, and without a tax or regulatory scheme, there won't be.

Twba | November 2, 2005, 2:56pm | #

M1EK is the whingiest whinger who ever whinged.

RA | November 2, 2005, 2:57pm | #

70% of all CO2 is produced naturally (volcano, termites, etal). If the whole world would cut their CO2 output by 10%, twice Kyoto, it would throw the world into an economic depression.

So what would we get for our pain and misery? A total drop of 3% in CO2. Environmental wackos are not called wackos for nothing.

There are no "new" technologies ready to be developed. Nuclear Power is the most feasable but try and get that past the Democratic wackos who want $8/gallon gas.

For the forseeable future (30-50 years), oil and coal is our only real option.

The question is, how high will the price of gas have to go before the idiots who complain about gas prices stop voting for Democrats who are directly responsible for the high prices?

P.T. Barnum said "there is a sucker born every minute". Old P.T. severly understated the case.

Twba | November 2, 2005, 3:05pm | #

How high will the price of oil have to go before jihad is fully funded?

Paul | November 2, 2005, 3:06pm | #

Oh, and biofuel is baloney - it can't do more than shave a few points off the oil demand. Energy return on investment is poor even compared to solar panels, much less to oil. (Many biodiesel crops are negative EROI; a few claim to be positive but even those are BARELY positive).

Bottom line, if Biodiesel can't be produced using only biodiesel, it's negative EROI. Just like wind turbines. They're baloney. We use a wind turbine, but then we need men in large trucks, factories using conventional electricity, and all of this 'traditional' infrastructure to support it. To prove biofuel positive, you must make a large batch of biofuel, equip everything you need to produce biofuel to run on biofuel- the tractors, the trucks, the processing plant. Then, if you can produce more biofuel than you use in processing it... it's positive- otherwise you're pulling something else from the system to make it work. You're dampening the rate of fossil fuel consumption.

Paul

M1EK | November 2, 2005, 3:06pm | #

RA, you're lying.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160

Try again.

Paul | November 2, 2005, 3:08pm | #

but try and get that past the Democratic wackos who want $8/gallon gas.

Ra:

There are no Democratic wackos who want $8/gallon gas. Oh, they SAY they want $8/gallon gas when they think they're talking to the Environmental wackjobs and no one's listening. But they immediately stop wanting $8 a gallon gas when their constituents are preparing a hangin' rope when gas gets to be $3/gallon.

Paul

M1EK | November 2, 2005, 3:11pm | #

The EROEI on wind is actually quite good - 30:1 or thereabouts. You could build an entire economy around it if you could solve some tricky energy storage problems.

Viking Moose | November 2, 2005, 3:13pm | #

sure - since there's a lot of crap flying around, oftentimes you can see which pocket the "scientific reports" are from, don't forget that it does make sense to take care of your environment.

while those who oppose government solutions to environmental problems, then we individuals have to do what we can. it's like people being against welfare but not donating time, energy, and money to charity. voluntary, of course. someone should do something.

and that someone, then, should be the actions of individuals. that's us. taking care of the environment makes sense.

Eric the .5b | November 2, 2005, 3:14pm | #

It is a perfect cycle.

Then, in this imperfect universe, it obviously won't work.

JonBuck | November 2, 2005, 3:15pm | #

For some reason the server ate my reply earlier. So I'm going to make a shorter one.

Biodiesel production using soybeans has a positive energy return. You get 3.2 units of biodiesel for every 1 unit of fossil fuels you use. If you use canola, it's about 4:1.

Notice in my first post that I mentioned specifically biodiesel produced from algae, and ethanol from cellulose. Both of these technologies have the potential of large enough volumes to act as a total fossil fuel replacement. (Look up Green Fuel Technologies and Iogen, two companies who are working on this).

Biodiesel production has been snowballing in this nation since 1998, when we only produced 500,000 gallons. Last year we produced 25 million gallons. This year could end up over 100 million. There are 45 biodiesel facilities and 50 under constuction in the United States. If we have 100 of them producing on average 15 million gallons per year, that's 1.5 billion gallons. We currently use 40 billion gallons of petrodiesel per year.

Technology and the marketplace will solve these problems.

Phil | November 2, 2005, 3:18pm | #

The market won't deliver zero-emissions technologies if there's no incentive to do so

Would you buy zero-emissions technologies for your family's transportation? Would you be more willing to buy, say, electricity from a zero-emissions provider?

If the answers to those two questions are both "Yes," do you think you're the only person in the world for whom that is true?

If the answer to that question is "No," do you suppose that you and all the others who answer "yes" comprise a potential profit center?

Ron Bailey | November 2, 2005, 3:36pm | #

M1EK: I'm intrigued by your assertion of a 30:1 EROEI on windpower--gotta link? And those windpower energy storage problems are indeed pesky--but that doesn't mean they won't get solved.

In any case I haven't looked closely at windpower economics for a several years--have there been technical breakthroughs that actually make it competitive with conventional power without subsidies?

Lowdog | November 2, 2005, 3:41pm | #

There are also other problems with wind power.

JonBuck | November 2, 2005, 3:43pm | #

The server seems to eat anything I try to post with a URL in it. So I'm just going to post the names of companies that are working on alternative energy. You'll just have to Google them.

Stirling Energy Systems just contracted to build up to 2000MW of solar thermal generating capacity. They use solar dishes focusing on stirling engines to produce electricity with twice the efficiency as other solar methods.

Iogen is at the forefront of cellulose ethanol. I don't really like ethanol very much because of its low energy density, but this could work.

The UNH Biodiesel Group and Green Fuel Technologies are developing biodiesel produced from algae. Green Fuel Technologies connects their bioreactors to coal-fired powerplants and uses the CO2 to accelerate growth. This results in a net reduction in the amount of carbon that ends up in the atmosphere, because it will displace oil.

Revolutions start small. Even oil started with just one well.

M1EK | November 2, 2005, 3:50pm | #

"Would you buy zero-emissions technologies for your family's transportation? Would you be more willing to buy, say, electricity from a zero-emissions provider?"

Any question like this which doesn't include the magic words "at price X" is pointless, and shows why you just don't get the problem here.

MikeP | November 2, 2005, 3:50pm | #

There are also other problems with wind power.

Total lack of imagination. Burning the dead birds for energy is a clear positive as well as carbon neutral.

JonBuck | November 2, 2005, 3:51pm | #

Ron:

I don't know about subsidies. But I do know that the wind turbine technology is growing by leaps and bounds in efficiency. Here in the San Diego area there are 25 turbines due to start producing power this December. They're 3 megawatts each, and have blade diameters of several hundred feet. The biggest in the United States. I imagine there are economies of scale in play here, so the cost per kw/hr is coming down.

Hakluyt | November 2, 2005, 3:57pm | #

Phil,

Don't worry, M1EK will soon mention maek some vague, uninformed comment about Western Europe in an effort to save his ass.

M1EK | November 2, 2005, 3:58pm | #

You'll have to google "wind power" and "eroei" since the hamster just rejected my set of links. And the modern turbines which are getting competitive even with coal power don't kill many birds compared to the old monsters.

Phil | November 2, 2005, 4:03pm | #

Any question like this which doesn't include the magic words "at price X" is pointless, and shows why you just don't get the problem here.

Sorry, I'm not going to toss out price points just so you can sanctimoniously rejecct them in an attempt to prove your point. Of course it's going to be expensive for the early adopters. So what? So is everything else.

downstater | November 2, 2005, 4:13pm | #

JonBuck,

The Green Fuel approach to growing algae as a fuel source from the CO2 emissions of powerplants is an interesting one. I believe I saw their process on an episode of Scientific American. The approach made simple sense to me: instead of burning carbon and letting the emissions escape into the atmosphere, why not capture those emissions and use them again! Of course, I don't think this lasts forever, but the amount of new carbon introduced into the system would be reduced since the current carbon gets used more than once. I also believe that some of the harvested algae was sold as feed and to health food stores as well.

In my opinion, if you really want to reduce emissions, get those factories which produce them to stop viewing them as a dirty by-product, but literally as potential revenue going up in smoke.

joe | November 2, 2005, 4:15pm | #

Lowdog,

The turbines in that example are obsolete. Modern wind turbines move much more slowly, and the dead bird problem is close to nil.

MikeP | November 2, 2005, 4:16pm | #

The price point of TerraPass appears to be around 7 cents per gallon of gasoline. Presumably that's low because they're probably going after the low hanging fruit.

These folks claim a carbon elmination cost around 20 cents per gallon. But of course as more reducers enter the CO2 extraction market, newer and cheaper technologies will be brought to bear on the problem.

M1EK | November 2, 2005, 4:19pm | #

Trying one, to see if serverhamster will let it through:

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=981

"It is probably safe to say that EROEI of modern wind turbines in class 4 wind areas in America, with an assumed 20 year life is at least 20 to 25x. With one nacelle/rotor replacement this would go to 26 to 33x. With optimized blade design and winglets, the future expectation can be > 40x. If expected working life can be extended to 30 years then an EROEI >50x is a realistic goal. This is much better than we can ever expect from fossil fuels."

Cynical Bastard | November 2, 2005, 4:19pm | #

.5b: biodiesel is not just carbon-neutral, it's carbon-negative. The truth is, ALL carbon in biodiesel comes from the (today's) atmosphere in the first place - so when it burns, you are not putting anything into the atmosphere that you haven't removed from it in the first place. And then there is soot, which is pure carbon (like charcoal), which - for all the practical purposes - is permanently removed from the C cycle. Not a huge percentage, I grant that, but "a gigaton here and a gigaton there"...

Ron: I don't have much faith in ethanol or algae, either (the latter because I was unimpressed by Aquatic Species program results at DOE). I do, however, have back-of-the-envelope figs right on my desk sugesting - perhaps optimistically - that daily production of biomass carbon equivalent of 4 barrels of oil per acre is possible. Compare it to 28 barrels per capita annual demand and draw your own conclusions. What EROI might be, I don't know, but it'll be fun to find out, ain't it?

M1EK | November 2, 2005, 4:24pm | #

Phil,

You're missing the point. Of course if there's no price difference, most people would choose the product or service that pollutes the least. That's not the way it works in the real world. Emissions control technologies cost money.

Paul | November 2, 2005, 4:28pm | #

M1EK: I'm intrigued by your assertion of a 30:1 EROEI on windpower--gotta link? And those windpower energy storage problems are indeed pesky--but that doesn't mean they won't get solved.

I'm not just intrigued, I'm highly skeptical, but I did catch his response about googling wind power and eroei which I will do post haste.

Oh, and for the record, I don't find the 'bird' problem to be major- Ie, I think it's eminently solvable. What I don't believe, is that wind power can ever be efficiently harvested, without building THE most ridiculous and impossibly ludicrous machines that aren't 9,000 feet high, require HUGE expanses of land- making it unusable for anything else (well, ok, grazing- I'll give you that) and that can run itself. Ie, build a factory- run it on wind power- build turbines using windpower etc. etc. I will be reading what I can find, though.

I'll begin to believe it if I can find a link that isn't from a heavily government subsidized business trying to make it in the wind power business.

Paul

downstater | November 2, 2005, 4:30pm | #

I don't have a link, but National Geographic had some coverage of a prototype wind turbine being built to be installed off the coast of Germany. It is 600' tall and has 200' blades and generates 5MW of electricity. That's a lot. The article does, however, mention the existence of EU subsidies. I believe Denmark currently produces nearly 20% of it's electricity from wind.

MP | November 2, 2005, 4:30pm | #

Hakluyt,

As much as we may all like to pile on M1EK at times, his points in this thread about the need for regulatory processes to drive the tragedy of the commons issue related to pollution are valid. Simply relying on the free market ignores the lack of incentives required for people to adopt the necessary pollution limiting technologies.

Note that I'm not stating that CO2 is an issue to be dealt with, I'm just saying that if it was, the free market is no panacea.

Hakluyt | November 2, 2005, 4:54pm | #

MP,

...his points in this thread about the need for regulatory processes to drive the tragedy of the commons issue related to pollution are valid.

How so?

Simply relying on the free market ignores the lack of incentives required for people to adopt the necessary pollution limiting technologies.

If indeed there is a problem, the incentives will be there.

MP | November 2, 2005, 5:09pm | #

How so?

Is there a specific Tragedy of the Commons issue you are looking for me to address, or are you simply discounting the entire concept?

MikeP | November 2, 2005, 5:22pm | #

Is there a specific Tragedy of the Commons issue you are looking for me to address, or are you simply discounting the entire concept?

I don't think this is a case of tragedy of the commons. Unless there is a massive disruption of weather patterns, the majority of Americans will be unbothered by global warming. The majority of Canadians will probably find it a net positive. On the other hand, people in low-lying regions, e.g. Pacific atolls, will likely see severe disruptions in their lives.

"Tragedy of the commons" means that everybody behaves according to their individual interests yet everybody is damaged by that behavior. This is more of a case of unaccounted for externalities.

If indeed there is a problem, the incentives will be there.

Indeed, the Coase theorem predicts exactly that.

R C Dean | November 2, 2005, 5:35pm | #

I say:

I'm not sure why M thinks that technology and the market are the equivalent of nothing happening, unless he has that blind spot that so many have, where nothing is going on unless the state is doing it.

"for God's sake, government, don't do anything."

which means that nothing will get done.

Blind spot, confirmed.

Apparently, in M1EK's world, the Wright brothers, Henry Ford, and James Watt were all government employees.

Paul | November 2, 2005, 5:36pm | #

If expected working life can be extended to 30 years then an EROEI >50x is a realistic goal. This is much better than we can ever expect from fossil fuels."

Hmm... getting varying results from the very web page you cite. Oh, and 50:1 is NOT greatly exceeding fossil fuels. From here:

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/replacing_fossil_fuels.htm#variation_of_supply

I get a good run down on all different form of energy, including but not limited to wind. An excerpt:

For example, if it took more energy to build and to run a windmill than the energy that can be extracted during its lifetime, then clearly the windmill is not worth making in energy terms.[2] (This is not the case with windmills.) However, it is the case with some projects, such as producing oil additives from corn. The energy required to produce the oil is approximately 1.4 times the energy that can be extracted from the resulting oil.

Putting a straw down and sucking up oil in the Middle East, and then refining and transporting that oil to market, can give ratios of power output/input of up to 50:1. This makes oil an exceedingly cheap source of energy.

Now the watchword here is of course... up TO 50:1. But this still isn't out of whack from my other readings over the years. We also want to be very careful not to confuse power GENERATION with power STORAGE. A gallon of gas is not power generation, it's a battery-- it's storage. The STORAGE problem with wind generation should not be underestimated. And the environmental effects of creating a storage system should also not be underestimated- my guess is it will require elements built from...wait for it...fossil fuels to be efficient. The problem with 'wind power' is it's ONLY a power plant, nothing more.

Now, from the very web site you linked to:

A 1998 U. of Wisconsin study (5) gives energy return results for 3 windfarms as 17x, 23x and 39x. The 17x is for a 2 turbine location with an exceptionally high tower, heavy nacelle and low economy of scale and should be discarded. The 23x is from measured Eout. The 39x is theoretical for 143 750 kW turbines, based on a designed capacity factor of 33 and a 25 year expected life. If the capacity factor is discounted 20% and a 20 year life is assumed (as in the Danish paper) the payback becomes 25x. This study didn?t account for embedded energy or energy to mine and transport coal, so this number should be adjusted down another 10% to about 22x which seems consistent with the corrected Danish result.

Now, I'm the first to admit that this is 1: an old study, and 2: wind power is still relatively new so that we don't yet have a full cycle on the newest wind turbines to see how much energy (usable) they produce over their lifetime which produces that EROEI. However, note the three figures, two of which are real, the third 'theoretical'. Just to 'keep it real' as they say, we're going to toss out the theoretical figure. However, I'm still relatively impressed that they achieved 17x and 23x. But this still seems highly simplified. It's hard to judge every study- some studies don't count pieces of the infrastructure to support an energy source. Probably because it gets infinitely complex.

Interesting reading, though.

Paul

Paul | November 2, 2005, 5:39pm | #

Another excerpt:

Electricity generation using wind is not controllable, it depends on the vagaries of when the wind blows. On average, this is about 35% of the time.

Wind power is unsuitable as the main energy source for the national grid because it is intermittent. Wind power at 100% load is still uneconomic, not only because three times as many windmills are necessary, but also because considerable storage capacity would be required for when the windmills are unable to generate power, because no wind is blowing in that region.

Paul

JonBuck | November 2, 2005, 5:39pm | #

Cynical Bastard:

One of the Aquatic Species Program's major flaws was that it used open ponds. This not only invited contaminiation by other species of algae, but it left the ponds open to wide temperature fluctuations. The majority of research into algae these days is with closed-loop "bioreactor" systems, like Green Fuel Technologies. These don't suffer from the same problems. However, development is continuing and they haven't yet been commerciall proven.

But I think that if we'll never know if it'll work or not if we don't try.

lona | November 2, 2005, 5:39pm | #

MP:

"Simply relying on the free market ignores the lack of incentives required for people to adopt the necessary pollution limiting technologies."

Substitiute:
... poverty limiting technologies.
... disease limiting technologies.
... etc...

MP | November 2, 2005, 5:43pm | #

Unless there is a massive disruption of weather patterns, the majority of Americans will be unbothered by global warming.

If you assume that global warming is an issue of some significance, then the fact that some might benefit while others might not still, IMHO, makes this a commons issue. No different then acid rain, where the midwest energy consumers benefited and the northeasterners didn't.

Indeed, the Coase theorem predicts exactly that.

The definition of property rights under the Coase theorem still requires a regulatory body to structure and enforce these rights. A market based tradeable rights solution requires a regulatory oversight body, particularly when these property rights are somewhat arbitrarily defined (such as pollution quotas).

Larry A | November 2, 2005, 5:54pm | #

JonBuck: I see that this kills two birds with one stone.

Uh. Not the way to sell something to an environmentalist.

MikeP | November 2, 2005, 6:06pm | #

The definition of property rights under the Coase theorem still requires a regulatory body to structure and enforce these rights.

Not really. The pure Coase theorem presumes that property rights will be defined in the transaction itself. If the the transaction costs are nonzero -- as they certainly are with global warming -- then a regulatory body can provide an initial definition and allocation of property rights to avoid the situation's being stuck in a local minimum. But after that, there need be little government involvement except standard contract enforcement.

A market based tradeable rights solution requires a regulatory oversight body, particularly when these property rights are somewhat arbitrarily defined (such as pollution quotas).

I'm not talking about a tradeable pollution quota solution. I'm saying that, if a lot of people are suffering a lot of economic damage from excess CO2 in the atmosphere, those people themselves will pay to get the CO2 out of the atmosphere. They will either pay CO2 producers to stop producing it or, if they can't afford that, they will pay CO2 reducers to eliminate it. If they can't afford either, then the CO2 production is more valuable to the world than whatever economic damages they are suffering. That's the Coase theorem in a nutshell, starting with the worst case scenario where no one at all cares about the ills caused by global warming.

Cynical Bastard | November 2, 2005, 6:09pm | #

JonBuck - I respectfully disagree. In my view - and I just drifted into the field from microbial ecology background, so if anything, I am biased towards their approach - their chief flaw was using algae, period. Not only they had to deal with contamination issues (OK, bioreactor IS a solution, but you throw in extra capital costs AND you still can't get the thing 100% sterile), but biomass densities were kinda low to my taste (extra harvesting costs) and the photosynthetic rates were ridiculous - 50 mgC per meter squared per day or so on a good day, IIRC. Heck, I can top that under suboptimal conditions and without employing supercharging tricks. How - ain't tellin'. If I get filthy rich, you'll know it, if not - the idea probably wasn't worth considering in the first place. Why am I talking about it at all? I guess, to make the point that there is some effort going into it - if not me, somebody else will get the biofuel thing right. If not this decade, then possibly next - I am not entirely convinced that the biofuel time has truly come yet, but when it does, it would be nice to have the technology tested and ready for scaleup.

JonBuck | November 2, 2005, 6:50pm | #

Cynical Bastard:

I'm glad your skepticism is based on fact and not ideology. There are a lot of problems that need solving, but I don't think they're insurmountable. Optimistically, we're five years away from a commercial algae facility. In the meantime there are more traditional crops, such as canola/rapeseed, which has about 3x the oil yield of soybeans. I imagine we're going to use all the resources at our disposal, in any case.

Paul | November 2, 2005, 7:23pm | #

Ok, there's one thing I wanna bring up here, and I admit I'm picking nits. Unless you're talking about... wind power- isn't it all 'biofuel'? I mean, Diesel, methane and oil come from decayed plants.

Paul

JonBuck | November 2, 2005, 8:35pm | #

Paul:

The difference is that oil and coal come from millions of years ago. It's basically carbon that was pulled out of the atmosphere and would only have gone back in due to, say, a natural coal seam fire. "Biofuels" are made from presently living plant and organic matter. I mean, there are cogeneration facilities using the methane produced from sewage, or livestock waste. But that carbon generally came out of the atmosphere this year instead of 60 million years ago.

M1EK | November 2, 2005, 8:47pm | #

"Oh, and 50:1 is NOT greatly exceeding fossil fuels"

The point of that statement was, I think, that fossil fuels EROEI is clearly going down. The Middle East is the only place left where you can still just stick a straw down, as you put it; most of the rest of our oil is a lot more difficult to get out of the ground.

M1EK | November 2, 2005, 8:50pm | #

"There are a lot of problems that need solving, but I don't think they're insurmountable."

You can't beat physics no matter how much economics you got. Sorry. Biofuels are going to make wind look pretty damn good, once people figure out how expensive they are when they're not being processed out of the agricultural waste stream.

M1EK | November 2, 2005, 8:54pm | #

"Blind spot, confirmed.

Apparently, in M1EK's world, the Wright brothers, Henry Ford, and James Watt were all government employees."

No, you asshat, if there's no MARKET INCENTIVE to do something, it won't get done, at least not in amounts big enough to make any real difference.

And without the government getting involved in some way, shape, or form; there won't be any market incentive to buy/produce zero emissions products. Either through regulation or through taxation, the big bad statists have to get involved if you want to nontrivially reduce emissions - period.

Phil | November 2, 2005, 9:33pm | #

You're missing the point. Of course if there's no price difference, most people would choose the product or service that pollutes the least. That's not the way it works in the real world. Emissions control technologies cost money.

You say these things as if you're telling me things I don't know or don't understand. Instead of being pedantic, let's just answer a question: Is there, or is there not, a potentially significant group of buyers for zero-emissions technology, even at an elevated price point, such that the early adopters would carve out a path for the technology to become cheaper to manufacture?

Phil | November 2, 2005, 9:35pm | #

Shorter me: If they can sell enough Hummers to wealthy testerone addicts such that Hummers became affordable for the middle class; surely they can develop and sell enough zero-emissions to enough wealthy enviros to make them eventually affordable for the middle class.

tarran | November 2, 2005, 11:17pm | #

M1EK,

You puzzle me: you, on the one hand claim that zero emission technologies are not in demand, and so will not be produced under a free market and require government regulation to make it happen.

However, for this to be implemented by the U.S. government it would imply
a) politically powerful people would have to benefit and would lobby Congress, or
b) it would have to be wildly popular with voters.

Well, if there is no profit, then a is out, yet Congress keeps voting fudns for research and regulation designed to produce these incentives.

Quickly googling, I came across this article: http://www.awea.org/faq/surveys/survey5.html which indicated something on the order 70% of those polled were concerned about global climate change. Now, the survey is old, and only one survey, so it may or may not accurately represent the actual percentage today.

However, if 70% of a population wants a new technology, that means that there is a significant potential market for that new technology.

Now, I assume that you would predict that most people who were concerned about global warming would still buy a SUV when given the choice between a cheap powerful vehicle and an expensive and comparably underpowered vehicle, and I would agree.

But that is not what is required to develop a new technology. So long as a sufficient number of people are willing to spend money on research on a matter they care passionately about, the research will happen.

And, if the proponents of the technology do a good job of convincing people to value zero/low emissions more highly than they currently do relative to the other qualities of vehicles/power sources it will be adopted.

To me it seems that the last bit is the sticking point. It is always difficult to convince millions of consumers of hundreds of thousand of manufacturers to do something, when it is easier to lobby a few hundred people to pass laws and threaten people with violence if they don't comply.

Even if we stipulate that the continued use of fossil fuel based technologies by the growing population and manufacturing base of the human race were to lead to an uninhabitable Earth and extinction (a notion that I am very skeptical of BTW), I don't see government interference being required to prevent the crisis:

1) Lots of people are aware of the potential catastrophe and want to see research done. They can support the research through donations of money, time or expertise.

2) Similarly lots of people will monitor the climate for signs of things getting worse. If the doomsday scenario is playing out, the match between their predictions and data will allow them to sway more people to increase the value they assign to emissions in their purchasing choices.

3) Regardless of items one and two, research continues simply because people want to reduce the costs of energy consumption, either by changing efficiency or suppliers. These improvements commonly result in less pollution even when that is not the intent.

Frankly, I think your claim that without government interference that things would be pretty bad is more a function of your laziness than anything else. Rather than taking the effort to convince people to care, you just want proxies to point a gun at them and force them to care, to force them to give you money, to force them to buy what you want them to buy.

In fact your arguments sound suspiciously like the sort of arguments were used by those arguing for the U.S. government to build the interstate system.

MP | November 2, 2005, 11:34pm | #

tarran,

That 70% figure does not reveal what people actually are willing to do. A recent article in The Economist showed that only 1 in 200 passengers voluntarily paid an extra fee to British Airways for green related expenses. People claim to want a lot of things, but when push comes to shove, they'll make choices based on what is most likely to impact them directly. If a major change in CO2 emissions is required to prevent GW issues, then voluntary free market initiatives are not up to the task.

I don't buy into GW as a critical issue. But if it was, dealing with it effectively will only happen by force. What keeps smokestacks clean? Well, it is not the free market, because the incentive for a manufacturer (particularly in a poor economic area where jobs are more important to people than niceties such as the environment) to minimize pollution is minimal at best. Commons issues (over fishing, pollution, litter) are rarely solved by voluntary cooperation, because there is limited incentives to do so.

Jon H | November 3, 2005, 12:19am | #

"As I said earlier, the Kyoto Protocol is dead; ideological environmentalists just don't know it yet."

Unfortunately, the ideological anti-environmentalists are only putting brakes on technological advancement, meaning that nations (and businesses) which take the environment more seriously will eat the lunches of the lazy, wasteful slackers.

The Big Three's resistance of environmental regulation is really just a cry for help.

Jon H | November 3, 2005, 12:31am | #

MP writes: "A recent article in The Economist showed that only 1 in 200 passengers voluntarily paid an extra fee to British Airways for green related expenses"

Well, realistically, most people would read that and assume it's a crock of shit, and that their money will go into the executives' bonuses.

Furthermore, it isn't actually market oriented. What exactly is the capitalist rationale for optimizing processes and technology to be more green, when green initiatives are funded by handouts?

What you're describing is actually a cop out. They can take that information and use it to justify lazy business decisions and short-term thinking, on the basis that supposedly being green 'failed in the market' in that only 1 in 200 people were willing to 'pay for' it.

The rationale for green initiatives is that it helps you bring your costs down. Considering how airlines are being hammered by fuel costs, they'd be in better shape if they were saving on fuel, or saving on other costs through improved efficiency, letting them better absorb rising fuel costs.

When you're getting hammered by costs you have little control over, it makes sense to control things like the cost of running company vehicles, computers, lights, A/C and heating, etc (those being some easy ways to go, but some companies have been way more innovative and gone well beyond compact fluorescents and weatherstripping.)

MikeP | November 3, 2005, 2:39am | #

Either through regulation or through taxation, the big bad statists have to get involved if you want to nontrivially reduce emissions - period.

If my next door neighbor's house looks like crap and makes my neighborhood look bad, and he doesn't want to pay to paint it, I can pay to paint it. No big bad statist required.

All that's required is recognizing that he's better off if I pay to paint it, I'm better off if I pay to paint it, and it is easier to just go ahead and pay to paint it than it is to get the big bad statists to pass an ordinance against crappy looking houses, schedule a visit from their enforcement agency, and then go through all the proceedings and disputes that just might in the end result in his paying for some minimal painting of his own house.

Jon H | November 3, 2005, 7:58am | #

"All that's required is recognizing that he's better off if I pay to paint it, I'm better off if I pay to paint it, and it is easier to just go ahead and pay to paint it than it is to get the big bad statists to pass an ordinance against crappy looking houses, schedule a visit from their enforcement agency, and then go through all the proceedings and disputes that just might in the end result in his paying for some minimal painting of his own house."

You underestimate the importance of inertia. He may say the price is the issue, but the real reason he won't paint his house is simply that he doesn't give a crap, he's perfectly happy as it is, and he just can't be bothered to make the minimal effort required to hire painters.

Also, I suspect a lot of the time it isn't so much the cost that keeps the 'neighbor' from 'painting', but the expected cost, which may be higher than the actual cost if the 'neighbor' hasn't been keeping up with the market for such things.

MP | November 3, 2005, 8:04am | #

If my next door neighbor's house looks like crap and makes my neighborhood look bad, and he doesn't want to pay to paint it, I can pay to paint it. No big bad statist required.

If you live on a river (a river that is considered public property), and your neighbor pumps his septic tank into the river, you're saying that in a just world you should be paying your neighbor to not do that? You have a very unrealistic view about the issues regarding community property management.

tarran | November 3, 2005, 8:54am | #

Oddly enough, back in the 19th century, if a factory dumped polution (including) soot on your land you could sue for damages and expect to win.

Around the middle of the 19th century, however, U.S. courts began to rule that the public interest served by factories trumped the right of the factory's neighbors to not have their property damaged.

So as far as massive point source pllution is concerned, there is no market failure: it's the product of govt interference in property rights.

As far as distributed sources (cars for example), ideally speaking one would sue the owners jointly for the harm they do (kind of like an inverted class action suit). Presumably (since being sued is a pain in the ass) customers would begin to show an interest in liability protection, whomever provides the liability would then offer lower rates for less emissive cars making them more attractive by price. This, in turn, would make emissions a criteria for the desirability of a car, leading to car manufacturers competing on that point as well as plush interiors, acceleration, cup holders, number of interior climate zones etc.

The beauty of the free market is that a wide vareity of solutions are formulated and tested. The number of solutions far exceeds what some small group of planners can come up with. Thus, while I am probably wrong in the details, there is no doubt in my mind that what would actually happen would be far more elegant or efficient than what I have proposed here.

M1EK | November 3, 2005, 9:01am | #

"Oddly enough, back in the 19th century, if a factory dumped polution (including) soot on your land you could sue for damages and expect to win."

Ah jeez, not this crap again.

It doesn't work. If the overwhelming consensus of scientists can't convince you that anthropogenic global warming is real (as it clearly can't, since most posters on reason.com don't believe it for doubtlessly non-Republican reasons), they won't be able to convince you that CO2 (which you can't see, taste, or smell) is a pollutant.

M1EK | November 3, 2005, 9:03am | #

"However, if 70% of a population wants a new technology, that means that there is a significant potential market for that new technology."

70% of the population 'wants' that technology, but far fewer are willing to pay extra for it. What part of this are you not understanding?

This is Economics 201. (Unfortunately, libertarian school only goes up to 101). Externalities. Tragedy of the commons. Etc.

M1EK | November 3, 2005, 9:05am | #

"Is there, or is there not, a potentially significant group of buyers for zero-emissions technology, even at an elevated price point, such that the early adopters would carve out a path for the technology to become cheaper to manufacture?"

Yes, of course. There is a demand curve for green power, for instance. At the current (small) price premium here in Austin, a lot of people buy it, but it's still being subsidized even at that price premium. The problem is that you're acting as if the 'halo effect' can make up for the huge mass of people who just want to buy whatever's most cost-effective.

(and don't bring up hybrid cars - those work on BOTH the halo effect AND microeconomics - yes, you DO save money on gas despite what the Big Three want you to believe).

MikeP | November 3, 2005, 9:06am | #

Jon H, MP,

My simple example was in response to M1EK's "big bad statists have to get involved if you want to nontrivially reduce emissions - period." One does not present the most robust example in the world to counter such an absolute statement.

Jon H,

Of course he doesn't give a crap. But I do. In my example, I got what I want, and he could care less. And no statists were required. In the global warming scenario, if the people who cared about atmospheric CO2 could get the CO2 to zero and the people who needed energy could care less, the problem would be solved.

MP,

You are correct: the rights over polluting the river would have been determined long ago and would be a matter of settled, enforceable agreement. It wouldn't need to be renegotiated with every new pollution incident. However, I will hasten to add that "a river that is considered public property" presumptively and, in general, unnecessarily requires governments to be involved.

MikeP | November 3, 2005, 9:09am | #

...could get the added CO2 to zero...

...trees are nice things to keep around.

MikeP | November 3, 2005, 9:44am | #

For a more robust example pulled from the headlines, consider that, when birds, pigs, and humans densely congregate in markets in south China, they are liable to produce an influenza pandemic as an externality.

You don't see the United States running to the UN to force Chinese peasants to change how they acquire their food animals or even to pay for CDC operations. The US pays for the mitigation of this externality all by itself. You'll find the US cooperating with China, the WHO, et al., to get access to and local mitigation in the predicted hot spots. But the US doesn't suggest that the people of China pay for it.

The fact that attempts at global warming mitigation amount to a bunch of whining in the UN is almost prima facie evidence that global warming isn't a problem now and isn't certain enough to be a problem in the future for anyone to be willing to pay for it -- promises made on Kyoto notwithstanding.

M1EK | November 3, 2005, 10:37am | #

"The fact that attempts at global warming mitigation amount to a bunch of whining in the UN is almost prima facie evidence that global warming isn't a problem now and isn't certain enough to be a problem in the future for anyone to be willing to pay for it -- promises made on Kyoto notwithstanding."

I honestly don't know what I can possibly say to this. This must mean you've won. Good work.

MikeP | November 3, 2005, 12:11pm | #

I honestly don't know what I can possibly say to this. This must mean you've won. Good work.

I recognize this is merely a ploy to get me to magnanimously back down from my extended stance. Okay, I'll oblige.

Way upthread I predicted what I think will be the solution if global warming proves harmful: a zero emissions target for every CO2 producer. This would be enforced by government, perhaps under the ZETT discussed in the original posting. But guaranteeing that producers were on balance carbon-neutral should be the entirety of government involvement. Whether producers did it by changing energy sources or by paying reducers to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is not a government concern.

I recognize that transaction costs in global warming scenarios are high. I also recognize that international property rights on, e.g., a Canadian growing season or a Maldives coastline are very poorly defined.

Nonetheless, blanket statements that markets cannot solve externality problems are not well informed, and they should be challenged at every opportunity exactly because the gut reaction we were all raised to have is "Government needs to solve this problem."