Bush's plan to solve global warming

In an interview with People Bush says:

I think we have a problem on global warming. I think there is a debate about whether it's caused by mankind or whether it's caused naturally, but it's a worthy debate. It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline.

He's solving the "debate" about whether it's caused by mankind by advancing new technologies? Maybe he meant to say that he's solving the problem by advancing new technologies. But that would only solve the problem if warming is caused by mankind. And the technologies he suggested aren't going to solve the problem. Burning coal cleanly doesn't make any difference to the amount of CO2 produced. Hydrogen powered cars won't make any difference to CO2 emissions if the hydrogen is produced with energy obtained by fossil fuels. Ethanol could make a small difference, but it's not going to make a big difference to CO2 emissions.

Hat tip: Think Progress.

More like this

Well, in his defence (defending Bush? weird day I guess), there are possible technologies to sequest CO2.

The other two solutions only deal with CO2 from automobiles. If we could find a way to create hydrogen without CO2 (e.g. nucleur) and/or run cars on ethanol, we could lower car CO2 emission to near zero.

However, facing up to the need to invest more in renewables technology (especially solar power that is probably far behind other technologies), and a new generation of nuclear power stations, is probably not on his cards.

By Meyrick Kirby (not verified) on 07 Jul 2006 #permalink

However, facing up to the need to invest more in renewables technology (especially solar power that is probably far behind other technologies), and a new generation of nuclear power stations, is probably not on his cards.

Probably? Here in the United States?

No probably about it, where's he going to get the money?

Surely the money could be got; but not under this guy's "rules", we'd need a trifecta of catastrophes.

Biofuels like ethanol have are CO2-neutral; the CO2 emission that results from burning them was the same amount of CO2 extracted from the atmosphere by photosynthesis to make the original plant material. I believe that you're saying that more widespread use of ethanol won't be sufficient to significantly affect overall global CO2 emissions; that depends on how efficiently ethanol can be produced and distributed. A large number of hybrid vehicles running on ethanol could substantially alter the fleet emissions profile.

Jack,

that depends on how efficiently ethanol can be produced and distributed

I'd rather say it depends on how much of total anthropomorphic emissions are made up of automobile emissions, and that projected ratio. Given air travel is continuing to grow, and India & China are growing fast, I wonder how much impact eliminating automobile emissions alone will have.

By Meyrick Kirby (not verified) on 07 Jul 2006 #permalink

Kyoto Shmyoto:

Stephane Dion, Canada's minister for the environment, made a grand show of condemning America's recalcitrance, yet greenhouse emissions in Canada are growing faster than in the United States. Canada is now 25 percent above 1990 levels, while the U.S. is up only 10 percent. Japan and Italy are up the same amount and Spain is over by 40 percent.

Kyoto is bogus, the signatory's can't keep up, so think of something better. If the USA had signed on, I'm sure they'd be hounding us to keep in line, but they don't seem to be doing a good job of it themselves. The motives of Kyoto are looking a little suspicious to me.

Baby steps. Getting him to understand that oil has something to do with it is a big advance. Now we can work on coal.

Once you get beyond his ignorance of the issue and his bad grammar, I think the most interesting thning about the statement is his colossal arrogance: "I'm in the process of solving" the problem.

Canada is now 25 percent above 1990 levels, while the U.S. is up only 10 percent. Japan and Italy are up the same amount and Spain is over by 40 percent.

Hands up all those who can spot the cherry-picking!

By Meyrick Kirby (not verified) on 07 Jul 2006 #permalink

Cherry picking? That's not the point. The point is I don't see major media giving a crap, and I also don't see any enforcement. What a bunch of baloney.

Bush's reference to clean coal was probably meant to be a reference to the FutureGen project, which as Meyrick mentions, does include a plan to sequester CO2 emissions.

As it happens, though, it is a strange thing to boast about. He first announced it over 3 years ago, and they have made very little progress so far.

Leaving aside Futuregen, integrated gasification combined cycle coal plants and so-called oxyfuel technology (which can be retrofitted to existing coal plants) can drastically reduce
the CO2 emitted per unit of energy generated from coal.

There's also a lot of potential for co-firing coal plants with 5 or 10% of wood or other biofuels and for hybrid systems (e.g. a solar trough system to preheat the water goign into a coal-fired powerplant to increase the total power output).

There've also been recent demonstrations of biolfuels used in aircraft. Aeroplane fuel needs to be specially reformulated to overcome freezing problems. Biofuels actually have a lower freezing point than conventional av-gas and consequently are potentially cost-competitive even leaving aside global warming concerns.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 07 Jul 2006 #permalink

Ben, yes Spain is over its 1990 emissions - that's because the EU agreed to a single overall target for emission reductions.

The poorer countries in the EU (like Spain and Greece) and the countries which already had relatively low per capita emissions becuase they used a lot of nuclear power (like Italy and France)were allowed to increase their emissions or make relatively small reductions, the high-income countries with high emissions - basically Britain and Germany - agreed to make bigger reductions.

In any case - under Kyoto no single country has to achieve a specified reduction they have the alternative of purchasing emission reduction credits from elsewhere.

THe principal means of doin that is the clean Development Mechanism in which companies in the devloped owrld voluntarily invest in projects in the developing world which reduce CO2 emissions. These are entirely voluntary and the companeis only do them if the resulting reduction credits are cheaper thsn cuttign their own emissions.

so far, $4 billion has been invested under the CDM to abate 1 billion tonnes of CO2 and deals in the pipeline will be several times greater than those totals.

CDM projects include plantation forestry; wind power; coal seam methane; landfill gas and replacing deisel-powered generators with coal or gas-powered electricity plants.

These aren't hand-outs or grants, most of the investments will actually make a commercial return.

So Kyoto's only "failing" if you're opposed to free markets; free trade, foreign investment and improving living standards in the developing world.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 07 Jul 2006 #permalink

Hello,

There's a new website on global warming, animal rights and environmental issues.

One of the articles there ends like this: "FYI: If you put "George W. Bush" and "lies" into the Google search engine, you get 250,000 references in nine-tenths of a second."

If you'd like contribute or just visit the website here's the link:
http://www.speakupforgood.com/

For the article you can visit: http://www.speakupforgood.com/global9.html

Thanks

Blogger

Umm I think you will find that Bush is merely reiterating the scientific consensu if you like..

Namely -Plan for the massive infrastructure investments, and lead times required for a transition to clean, affordable and sustainable energy systems;
-Promote by appropriate policies and economic instruments the development and implementation of cost-competitive, environmentally beneficial, and market acceptable clean fossil, nuclear, and renewable technologies;
- Address the serious inadequacy of R&D funding and provide incentives to accelerate advanced energy-related R&D, also in partnership with private companies;
- Focus governmental research and technology efforts on energy efficiency, non-conventional hydrocarbons and clean coal with CO2 sequestration, innovative nuclear power, distributed power systems, renewable energy sources, biomass production, biomass and gas conversion for fuels.

By maksimovich (not verified) on 07 Jul 2006 #permalink

Personally, I'm flabbergasted by "the decider's" claim that "It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving", quite apart from the fact that the U.S. is doing next to nothing.

I never imagined that despair would be so leavened by laughter.

I haven't checked your arithmetic yet Tim but you are talking about the gross cost. If you accept that msot of these projects willgenerate a return then even if the returen is below the normal hurdle rate the net cost is the foregoen earnings not the total cost of the investment.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 07 Jul 2006 #permalink

Ian: the issues are 1st whether the CDMs you refer to have been the most cost-effective available, and 2nd whether the CDM will produce the required net reduction in CO2. On my maths however shaky it would seem we have some way to go. My maths was based on 7.8 bn tonnes of CO2 per 1 ppm of atmospheric and your CDM cost figure. My sum excluded the cost of offsetting by CDM the BAU incremental emissions from the 2005 level. Kyoto excludes nuclear as an eligible CDM; but it would cost only US$350 bn to replace all China's current coal generated power by nuclear, for a real dent in emissions. China has made a start by its own efforts, how ironic that the sermonisers of Kyoto refuse to help.

Okay, TimC I just checked your arithmetic.

If I've made an error, feel free to point it out.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/data_tables/cli1_2005.pdf

The Earthwatch Institute gives total anthropogenic GHG emissions for 2000 of 33.3 billion tonnes.

On a fairly heroic assumption of 4% per annum growth in emissions, current emissions woudl be around 44 billion tonnes. Projecting forward at that same heroic rate of growth we arrive at a baseline business-as-usual emission figure of around 108 billion tonnes by 2030.

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=131984

This article from the financial Express quotes a cost of $2.5 billion to abate 347 million tonnes of emissions.

The CDM official website http://cdm.unfccc.int/CDMNews/issues/issues/I_108JDWZY7X9GPSFEPRP6Y8KR6…
gives a figure of one billion tonnes of emissiosn certified to date but not an associated cost.

Based on the FE figures I'm assuming a cost per tonne of abatement of between $4 and $7.23.

Stabilising emissions at current levels would require abatement of around 1.7 billion tonnes in 2007 rising to around 4 billion tonnes per annum in 2030.

That gives an annual cost of $6.7-12.1 billion rising to approximately $16.6 billion to $30 billion in 2030.

Now let's look at reducing emissions from current levels. Let's assume not a reduction to 1990 levels but a more ambitious target of reducing emissions by 30% from 2000 levels by 2030. That's roughly 23.3 billion tonnes or an additional 780 million tonnes per year.

The abatement goal then rises to around 2.5 billion tonnes in 2007 increasing to 4.8 billion tonnes in 2030.

Associated costs would be $19.7 - $35.7 billion per annum.

Total nondiscounted cost would be between $260 and $480 billion for stabilisation at current levels and between $338 and $611 billion for a 70% reduction from 2000 levels. (The top figure represents slightly more over 24 years than the Iraq War has cost of 3 years.)

If we discount to net present value at 2% per annum, total cost falls to roughly $205-370 billion for stabilisation and $265-480 billion for a 70% reduction.

Of course, this is all still based on the headline cost.

Let's assume that the average CDM project will lose money, providing a negative return of -2% per annum. Let's also assuem that CDM spending displaces private investment with an average return of 8%.

In that case, the real cost will be closer to 10% of the above figures.

Although this figure is arguably still an overestimate since it makes no provision for any net costs avoided.

All this assumes, of course, that there's a very large pool of emission reductions feasible at current prices. But given that assumption, Tim, I'm at a loss to see how you arrive at your figures.

As I said at the beginning, if there's an error in my calculations feel free to point them out.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 07 Jul 2006 #permalink

Ian: Your first link showed 23.9 bn tonnes of CO2 in 2000. The extra 10 bn tonnes for all GHG stated by your source seem doubtful, especially the methane. Your second link actually cites firm CO2 abatement of just 346 mn tonnes over the past 2 years. Your third link on CDM revealed that emissions saved by CDM only reach 1 bn tonnes by 2012; I had assumed it was p.a. According to IPCC 1 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere equals 7.8 Gt of CO2. Thus the CDM has so far accounted for just 1.4% of annual NET emissions of 2 ppmv CO2. Some way to go!

Early days Tim and on the more recent figures - which I can dig out if necessary - the cost has already almost halved.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 08 Jul 2006 #permalink

Tim, do some reading on wind power (which is just one small example) current turbine designs shut down to avoid damage if the wind-speed exceeds 25-30 MPH. Pushing the furling speed up by even a couple of MPH significantly increases the availability factor and thereby reduces the output cost per KwH.

It looks like it'd be a snap compared with a new reactor design, for example.

I'm skeptical about the claims of the nuclear power industry to the exact same extent I'm skeptical about any interested party. The solution obviously is to get the pricing mechanism for environmental externalities right and let the market sort it out.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 08 Jul 2006 #permalink

Ian: I have, but have you read Greg Price in the AFR July 1-2, pointing out that we would need 150,000 wind turbines in the eastern states of Australia. Tim Lambert would be the first Nimby if that was proposed. Where I live in N.W Canberra, the average windspeed in June was all of 2 kph, meaning zilch power from even 5 million turbines on the hills surrounding us. My data on capex for new nuclear is from IEA who you would have to agree are neutral. Note that the Canadian design does not need enrichment.

Did "parts per million" ever get understood? I think agreeing on standard definitions is basic, before trusting any other calculations.

CO2 isn't described by Gresham's Law -- bad gases don't drive good gases out of the atmospheric circulation. It's described by atmospheric physics -- mixing and dilution, not replacement, occur as fossil fuels are burned and excess CO2 added.

See the unfinished difference of opinion here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h…

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 08 Jul 2006 #permalink

Ben, yes Spain is over its 1990 emissions - that's because the EU agreed to a single overall target for emission reductions.

I was referring to Canada in the quote actually. Spain was just a tag along for my point.

If a Greenland glacier calves into the ocean and George Bush is not there to witness it, does it make a splash?

Ethanol won't make much of a difference, because growing and distilling it takes a lot of fossil fuels, at least when using sugars. It would also require an immense amount of farmland to make a dent in US vehicle emissions. There is slight hope for celluosic ethanol, but even that would need a lot of farmland, and possibly new crop types.

Harald, US production of ethanol is highly inefficient and economically unsustainable.

Sugar production costs and energy inputs to agriculture are considerably lower elsewhere - Brazil and Australia being two examples.

You probably couldn't simply repalce current petrol use with ethanol but if you use plug-in hybrids you can reduce liquid fuel demand by 50% or more. Using a 50-50 ethanol petrol blend for the remaining demand would reduce petrol use by 75% or more - in line with what climatologists says is needed long term.

Biodeisel makes much better sense than ethanol in terms of net energy yield since you don't need to boil and distill vegetable oil in order to convert it to deisel.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 10 Jul 2006 #permalink

"The solution obviously is to get the pricing mechanism for environmental externalities right and let the market sort it out."

Not really a factor in the history of the nuclear power industry: Lowball an estimated cost, then once they've sunk umpteen billion into it, they can't afford to back out when you up the estimate manyfold.

As I posted a while back with appropriate citations, the only folks who are saying now that new nuke construction will give power at a rate similar to wind, etc. are industry apologists who are probably consciously or uncosciously biasing the numbers.

Refurbishing and extending the life of old plants is the nuke strategy to be competitive in price.

My grandfather used to power his vehicle with renewable biofuels. I believe it was called a "Horse".

Ethanol has a few major problems associated with it. There is the land requirements in producing the crops and the use of water for irrigation. Mono-cultures are very susceptible to disease and pests. Further the actual process of making the ethanol requires huge amounts of water (google it...). There is already an issue in water shortages in many areas. ethanol will not be the solutions. Light weight cars with more efficient engines, trains rather than flights on shorter distances, solar power, wind power, those will have to be massively deployed. Nuclear could help, however the production of uranium is very CO2 intensive and supplies would only last for 50-100 years.

There's something a little creepy about us growing corn or coconuts or sugar or whatever and then feeding it to our cars while a large chunk of the world remains hungry or starving.

Z - but vitually no-one is starvign because of a global shortage of food. They're starving because of poverty and misgovernment.

We should be doing much more to solve the problem of mass malnutrition but let's start by characterising it correctly.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 11 Jul 2006 #permalink

Fusion is still the way of the future. All those other technologies are pretty lame in comparison.

"no-one is starvign because of a global shortage of food."

Certainly. That's the Lomborg hypothesis; people are starving because we are wasting money on environmental causes that would otherwise feed them. etc. I'm just saying it's guilt-inducing. Kind of like the 'eat your squid, children are starving in africa" thing.

No, Z, people are starving because we spend too much on arms and noy enough on development and because we deny the people of the developing world the opportunity to sell into our markets.

Peopel are also starving because of incompetent and corrupt governments and because of the lack of democratic processes to remove said governments. There has never been a mass famine in a functioning democracy - look it up. (Yes there can be chronic malnutitrion - see Brazil - but that's a different matter.)

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 13 Jul 2006 #permalink