Carlos Rymer

Sustainability, Life, and More…

Archive for the tag “climate neutrality”

Transportation in a Climate Neutral World

Originally published in It’s Getting Hot In Here.

traffic.jpg

So we all want the world to be climate neutral, right? Yea, some people spit out numbers like 50% and 80%, but in the end we just want to get rid of fossil fuels for good. Those that claim that fossil fuels are going to be an important part of the energy mix for the world in the future are either ignorant, are not aware of what global warming is already doing, or are simply obsessed with fossil fuels. Sorry if it annoys anybody, but this is true. So, assuming we want a climate neutral world (with no net greenhouse gases coming from humans) or perhaps a climate positive world, we need to address sectors like electricity and transportation, among others. In the transportation sector, there has been a huge push for different fuels (biofuels) and for increased fuel mileage. Unfortunately, proponents of these seem to also be obsessed with fossil fuels and, particularly, cars.

Let’s start with biofuels. Ethanol and biodiesel are the big ones today. Ethanol from corn, sugar cane, and cellulose (which is far away into the future anyways), and biodiesel from vegetable oil from any source. Ethanol from corn is simply an extremely bad choice. First of all, there isn’t even consensus on whether corn ethanol is energy positive. The numbers range from slightly energy positive to slightly energy negative. The energy positive folks are simply supported more widely because people want to jump into the lucrative corn ethanol bandwagon. If positive, the small gains are extremely small and are largely outweighed by the fact that we’re depleting more farmland to do this. At the same time, it’s taking a huge amount of corn agriculture and shooting up prices like crazy, which may be good for the big food companies, but bad for people in Mexico and elsewhere. So those people investing in corn ethanol are investing in something that will come to an end. At best, they’ll cash out of the boom, but many will be left severely hurt.

Sugarcane ethanol is a different deal. It is clearly energy positive. It is helping create lots of jobs in Brazil (though it enslaves and removes others). Brazil is vying to become the Middle East for ethanol. The country requires that all gasoline is blended with 25% ethanol, and 40% of the gasoline-type fuel is ethanol. They are also exporting a lot of ethanol. The businesses doing this are making returns on their investments of up to 40%. And now, they’re looking into how to get into the U.S. market without the 50 cent tax that is currently imposed on ethanol imports. The Caribbean, of course, is a key player.

But what folks don’t say is that ethanol only meets about 8% of all fuels in Brazil. That’s right, only 8%. Diesel use is huge in Brazil. Regardless of this, it is a great thing to export for Brazil. It is also better than fossil-derived fuel. And the claim that it is taking away rainforest is not well founded, as sugarcane is only about 4-6% of total agricultural land in Brazil. Before blaming sugarcane, soybeans have to be blamed. But ethanol does not deal with the real problem, and that is mobility. We don’t just want to get rid of fossil fuels. We want to end the car obsession that is sprawling cities everywhere. Brazil, for example, continues to sprawl because of cars. Regardless of what fuel we use, the solution at hand should be ending high car use and making sustainable mobility mainstream. Sustainable city development is therefore a key to reducing emissions. Sprawled out cities increase emissions, regardless of whether people use an electric car or not.

Biodiesel is another one of those stories. First of all, biodiesel reduces emissions by about 70% in combustion. In the European Union, a lot of it comes from palm oil in Indonesia. The recent stories have all been the same. Palm oil is destroying Indonesian rainforests at the expense of “being green”. No biofuel that promotes car use can be called “green”, just like no car that is more efficient should be called “green”. Norway was right on making sure this was the case. Biodiesel is converting large tracts of rainforest into palm oil monocultures, sending countless species into threatened or extinct status. All of this to meet less than 5% of the EU’s fuel use. Biodiesel may be a good thing for some poor countries with depleted soils where drought-resistant plants like Jatropha can grow, but it’s only temporary because high car use cannot continue under a climate neutral world.

sprawl.jpg

Leaving biofuels behind, we enter the Prius world. Toyota came out with its very “successful” Prius, a hybrid vehicle that achieves very high fuel efficiency compared to other vehicles in the U.S. market. What nobody talks about is how much congestion or road costs increase when these new vehicles (any vehicle, really) is sold in the market. In New Jersey, where I’m from, congestion is an endless problem. We keep building more and more roads, and the cars just keep coming. Because of that, we are one of the most sprawled out states in the country, and soon enough, by 2015, we are set to have no more developable land. All because of cars!

If you go to any car-obsessed city, you’ll see something weird. Cars taking up more space in the city than people (outside of homes). It’s incredible; there are more parking spaces and parking lots than what you can imagine, and more are on the way. And all of this is because of cars. We are wasting so much city space that could be used for open space or business all because we can’t think of anything else to move ourselves other than cars. So, those of you who gave a “yes” vote to the piece in the Energy Bill that boosts CAFE standards are supporting congestion. If you support more fuel efficient cars as a solution (the hybridists and such), you are supporting unsustainable development, costly congestion, and high individualism. Bill McKibben and others have emphasized the fact that global warming will not be solved without a comeback of “community”. Cars don’t promote “community”. They promote sprawl and more sprawl and the waste of space and money. The U.S. bill for congestion is more than $200 billion a year! That’s enough money a year to change the world’s transportation system to one of new mobility!

jpod_thumbnail.jpg

New mobility! That’s what we need. Instead of cars, why not spend on light rail and personal rapid transit (an overhead, modernized, on-demand rail system). Personal rapid transit (PRT), in particular, has the huge potential of eliminating congestion and making our cities way more livable. These systems are automated and on-demand, taking you from location to location within a large city at the fastest mobility rate possible. Theoretically, studies have confirmed that it saves time, money, and it is cheaper. The plus is that it uses electricity, not fuels! It can thus be electrified with solar, wind, whatever renewables we use to electrify the world. I say theoretically because PRTs have not been deployed, though a lot of R&D has gone on since the 80’s. The theoretical cost is about $10 million per mile, with prospects of much lower costs as economies of scale take effect. These systems need right of ways, and with a car- and road-obsessed society, right of ways are not easy to get. A couple of examples will come around in Europe, and there is work to hopefully get one for Ithaca, NY, Seattle, the Mall of America in MN, and other places. Nevertheless, PRT-type systems will need to be larger to accomodate people in a community setting and will need to deal with any of the real issues the theoretical models don’t take into account. In any case, on-demand mobility is promising.

affordable_light_rail.jpg

A climate neutral world can’t keep counting on cars. Cities without cars have so much more space for walking, biking, green space, more businesses, and a higher quality of life, not to mention the elimination of smog (one of the types of pollution recently blamed for 40% of all world deaths). People in the climate movement cannot keep talking about CAFE standards without talking as seriously and as much about light rail and PRTs. People need to start attacking cars and promoting the true, sustainable solutions to sprawl- and congestion-causing transportation. I don’t care if you’re from some lowly densely populated state and congestion is not a problem for you. It is a problem for the 50%+ people who live in cities. So don’t promote higher CAFE standards. Promote NEW MOBILITY!

Advertisements

Tipping Points Call for a Climate Neutral World

Originally published in It’s Getting Hot In Here.

Suppose you’re a business major attending a great business school. Your chances of being wealthy are pretty high. Ten years later, you decide to live near a poor neighborhood, but your standard of living is high (i.e. you have more than what you need and you produce lots of wastes). There are no services to pick up waste, so you decide to dump it in the area where the poor people live. They, on the other hand, don’t produce as much waste, and probably can’t do more than complain because you’ve got the big bucks and you can get them into trouble if you wanted to. You try to calm them by explaining that there’s no harm and that they should go on their daily lives as usual. But eventually, some scientists get together and show this waste is killing these people, and morally it is clear to the judge that you’ve gotta clean up your act. Not only do you have to take out their stuff, but you gotta figure out where your waste is going (or you gotta stop producing it) and you gotta compensate them for their loss. Or did you think you were playing some game on X-Box where you do whatever the hell you wanted at no cost?

Today, a report was released concluding that world agriculture will drop by 16% by the year 2080. By then, our population will probably have grown by 30-50%. Most of the drop will be in developing nations, many of which will be developed by then, unless global warming says otherwise. This will mean absolute chaos.

Another report mentioned that dirty energy was affecting the health of 2 billion people worldwide. This doesn’t include those people whose health is being affected by simply thinking about the fact that we’re still heavily based on fossil fuels! And just today, the price of oil hit $80/barrel. Italy also came out with a report saying that they were warming faster than anywhere else, and that climate change would take off 30-50 of their GDP with business-as-usual. Then came a security report saying that global warming will be equivalent to a global nuclear war!

So, on one hand we’ve got rich nations that have dumped 75% of all greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, on another we’ve got billions of people being victims of waste the developed nations dumped on them, and on some other magical hand we have tons of evidence saying we’re guaranteed a flight to hell if we don’t do something serious.

We are at a tipping point. It is time to get rid of barriers to a complete elimination of fossil fuels. And it is time to get serious about this. There is one thing we really need, and that is to show this nation and the rest of the developed world that climate neutrality needs to be reached within 20 years and that making the world climate neutral will involve EQUITY. Equity because we’re that rich guy dumping the trash on those poor guys. If we are to achieve something that will extend our lives on this planet, it is the complete control of what happens at the post-Kyoto treaty. This international agreement needs to make sure this happens:

1) Binding commitment to a climate neutral world within 20 years, with no make-it-easy-for-the-rich junk like CDM, JI, or cap-and-trade on certain industries. The commitment needs a complete transformation of the electrical grid, the transportation system, etc.

2) The pumping of at least 3/4 of all the money developing nations will need to shut down their power plants, pay those plant owners and transform their transport system equitably, and get fully powered by renewables.

3) Pay for developing nations at least 75% of the expenses that will go into adapting to the crazy climate they’ll continue to have.

If the language isn’t the same everywhere, if the urgency about how serious this stuff is getting isn’t there, if people aren’t thinking beyond “leadership” and understanding equity, and if a movement isn’t calling for a climate neutral world, then we can say that the only tipping point we’ll see will be the one that will plunge us into climate hell.


If you still think this is radical, not feasible, not strategic, a different issue, situation, scale, or whatever else, put yourself in the position of the poor people who could do nothing or knew nothing about the waste the rich guy was dumping on them. If you’re a human, what you want is a complete elimination of what’s happening and compensation for what you lost, not just removal of a bit of trash. Reality is not what the politicians or the business people are telling us they can do; reality is what needs to happen if the world where the poor people and the rich guy live is truly just.

If it isn’t, then recognize that the Earth will roast us like chicken within our lifetime. If it isn’t, then why do we allow it? If it isn’t, then why don’t we make it? The only tipping point that will save us is a global commitment to climate neutrality and climate equality! The path: frame the message!

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: