Glasgow Climate Meeting & Methane

In just three weeks the world will gather for the COP26 Climatesummit in Glasgow, Scotland. This meeting hopes to bring together representatives of more than 190 nations including all the parties of the Paris Agreement to increase their target carbon dioxide emissions towards reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Under the Paris Agreement, every country agreed to work together to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees and aim for 1.5 degrees, to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate and to make money available to countries not able to afford the costs of adapting to a changing climate. The parties to the agreement committed to create national plans setting out how much they would reduce their emissions called  Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). Furthermore, they agreed that every five years they would come back with an updated plan that would reflect their highest possible ambition at that time.

The meeting in Glasgow is that five year update delayed by a year due to the pandemic. This is truely necessary, because the commitments laid out in Paris did not even come close to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, and the window for achieving that goal is rapidly closing. As a matter of fact,  according to the IPCC’s Working Group I report issued in August:

Climate change is widespread and intensifying. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is at its highest level since the dawn of mankind. Before the COVID-19 pandemic when the data set used stops, emissions of carbon dioxide had been rising by about 1% per year on average for the past decade, not shrinking at all. Renewable energy use has been expanding rapidly, but much of the renewable energy is being deployed alongside existing fossil energy, not replacing it.  The planet has warmed 1.1 degrees C since the late 19th century and is expected to warm an additional 0.4 degrees C in the next 20 years.

“Limiting human-induced global warming to a specific level requires limiting cumulative CO2 emissions, reaching at least net zero CO2emissions, along with strong reductions in other greenhouse gas emissions. Strong, rapid and sustained reductions in CH4 emissions would also limit the warming effect resulting from declining aerosol pollution and would improve air quality.” 

So, in preparation for the Glasgow meeting, last month, the United States and European Union announced the Global Methane Pledge, an initiative to reduce global methane emissions to be launched at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP 26) in November in Glasgow.  President Biden and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen urged countries at the U.S.-led Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate to join the Pledge and welcomed those that have already signaled their support.  

Countries joining the Global Methane Pledge commit to a collective goal of reducing global methane emissions by at least 30% from 2020 levels by 2030 and moving towards using best available inventory methodologies to quantify methane emissions, with a particular focus on high emission sources. So far, 24 nations and the EU have joined the pledge (several members of the EU have pledged both with the EU and as individual nations). The four largest emitters of methane, China, India, Russia and Brazil, however, have not joined yet. If all nations join the Pledge, it would reduce climate warming by about 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2050. 

The United States is pursuing significant methane reductionson multiple fronts. In response to an Executive Order that President Biden issued on his first day a President, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating new regulations to curtail methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. In parallel, the EPA has taken steps to implement stronger pollution standards for landfills, and the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration is continuing to take steps that will reduce methane leakage from pipelines and related facilities. At the President’s urging and in partnership with U.S. farmers and ranchers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is working to significantly expand the voluntary adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices that will reduce methane emissions from key agriculture sources by incentivizing the deployment of improved manure management systems, anaerobic digesters, new livestock feeds, composting, and other practices. 

CO2 Emissions in the U.S. are Rising

As delegates gathered for the United Nations Climate Summit, both the U.S. Energy Information Agency and the Global Carbon Project released their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions data for the first half of 2014. The data from the Global Carbon Project projects that for 2014 37.0 ± 1.9 Giga metric tons of CO2 , will be released into the earth’s atmosphere. That is a 2.5% increase over last year and a 65% increase over 1990 CO2 emission levels. The top four emitters of CO2 in 2014 are expected to be the same as in 2013 when the share of emissions was: China at 28%, the United States at 14%, the European Union at 10% and India at 7%.

data from EIA

The EIA data shows that for the first half of 2014 carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere in the United States increased by 2.7% over last year continuing the upward trend in CO2 emissions which were at their lowest in 2012. As can be seen in the graph above and chart below, there has been a general downward trend in CO2 emissions since 2007 in all sectors of the economy. (Please note that both the residential sector and industrial sector include part of the electrical generation emissions so that the parts add up to more CO2 than the total emission from the economy. The chart includes the commercial sector and removes the mixed sector electrical category.) Though overall emissions of CO2 in the United States have fallen 10.4% since 2007 and that is generally true in all sectors of the economy; the largest share of reduction in CO2 emissions was from reduction in emissions from electrical generation which have fallen 15% over the period. Over the same period, CO2 emissions from burning coal in manufacturing, transportation, and industry are down 21%. However, CO2 emissions from burning coal are up 3.25% in the first 6 months of this year and emissions from burning natural gas are up 4.9%. The increase in natural gas appears to be divided fairly evenly among the commercial, industrial and residential sectors.

data from EIA

Electricity generation accounts for approximately 38% of the CO2 emission in 2013 down from 40% in 2007. In 1990 electricity generation accounted for only 36% of the total U.S CO2 emissions. In 2013 the industrial sector accounted for 28% of all CO2 emissions, but back in 1990 industry accounted for 34% of total CO2 emissions. Back in the days when I was a plant engineer, the industrial sector accounted for 40% of all CO2 emissions. Over this period the industrial output has not shrunk, but the labor and energy inputs to industry have shrunk and production has surged and fallen with  recessions as can be seen in the chart from the Federal Reserve.

US industrial production from the Federal Reserve

 As you can see in the chart to the left the CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity have fallen since 2005. A portion of the reduction in CO2 emissions was from the reduction in power generation, the rest was due to a change in the mix of fuels used to produce the electricity and the increase in power produced by renewable energy. As can be seen in the chart below power generation from renewable sources increased by 241% since 2007, but represent only 6% of the power generated in the united states. The big change was the move away from coal to natural gas. Coal fell from 48% of generation in 2007 to 39% of generation in 2013. While natural gas increased from producing  22% of  electricity in 2007 to 27% in 2013.

from EIA

The EPA, Supreme Court and Carbon Dioxide

On Monday, June 23, 2014 the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA finding that regulators are not fee to “revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.” The practical impact of this decision on current EPA regulations is limited, but the precedent is important.

Back in April 2007 in a decision in Massachusetts v EPA (2007), the Supreme Court had ruled that the Clean Air Act did authorize federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, and that the agency was required to issue them for automobiles unless it had a scientific basis for its refusal. That case was brought by several states to force the EPA to determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which endangers public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.

This decision was followed in December 2009 by EPA finding that “the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” These greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide (CO2) were thus pollutants under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act which deals entirely with mobile sources of pollution.

The EPA then took the next step and went on to address greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, from stationary sources. The problem in regulating CO2 from stationary sources is that the Clean Air Act imposes very specific permitting requirements on stationary sources, that are a “major emitting facility”. The Clean Air Act specifically defines a “major emitting facility” as a stationary source with the potential to emit 250 tons per year of “any air pollutant” (or 100 tons per year for certain types of sources). Facilities seeking to qualify for a permit must, demonstrate that they comply with emissions limitations that reflect the “best available control technology” for “each pollutant subject to regulation under” the Act. In addition, Title V of the Clean Air Act makes it unlawful to operate any “major source,” wherever located, without a permit. A “major source” is a stationary source with the potential to emit 100 tons per year of “any air pollutant.”

The obvious problem is that these thresholds would require virtually any commercial building, school, churches, farm, landfill and some residences to obtain a permit to operate under the Clean Air Act a process that according to the EPA could cost $20,000-$50,000 for each entity. So the EPA attempted to side step this issue by raising the permit triggering limits to 100,000 tons to qualify as a major emitting facility for greenhouse gases and 75,000 tons for a stationary source to require a permit under the law.

The Supreme Court found that the EPA lacked authority to “tailor” the Act’s unambiguous numerical thresholds of 100 or 250 tons per year to accommodate its greenhouse-gas-inclusive interpretation of the permitting triggers. This according to the decision would have been an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA’s authority, the ability determine carbon dioxide standards and enforcement without congressional authority. Stating that “Agencies must always give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”

The decision states that “the Clean Air Act neither compels nor permits EPA" to require a stationary source to obtain a “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” (PSD) or Title V permit only on the basis of its potential greenhouse-gas emissions. However, EPA can reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of conventional pollutants to comply with a “best available control technology” requirement for greenhouse gases.

So, EPA gets to require already regulated stationary sources of pollution to use the “best available control technology” to reduce greenhouse gases and determine the limits. This would cover according to the EPA 83% of the greenhouse gas emission from stationary sources. This decision does not address the recently proposed regulations to create national CO2 emissions standards for new and existing power plants with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions.

CO2 Emissions and Net Generation

Last week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the new regulations that the EPA is proposing under the Clean Air Act to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing electrical power plants. Power plants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, but still only account for about 32% of greenhouse gas released in 2012 (and slightly more of carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases are: carbon dioxide (CO2), fluorinated gases, nitrous oxide and methane (CH4). According to the EPA CO2 represents 84% of mass of greenhouse gas emissions and that the climate models indicate to be the cause of climate change.

The proposed regulations will require power plants to cut their CO2 emissions by 30% from 2005 levels or 18% from 2013 levels on average across the United States by using a combination of strategies. The proposed regulation will have a very limited if any impact on the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. If these regulations were implemented and in effect today, the effect would be to reduce overall CO2 emissions of all the nations on earth by about three quarters of a percentage point, and by the time they are actually implemented the impact will be far less as U.S. emissions shrink slightly as China and India grow rapidly. In 2012, the U.S. represented about 16% of world CO2 emissions. These proposed regulations for power plants will not change the fate of the planet.

The approach the EPA is taking is to allocate to each state a CO2 limit. The basic formula for the state limit is a rate:

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants) divided by (state electricity generation from fossil-fuel fired power plants plus certain low- or zero-emitting power sources).

Existing hydropower is excluded from the base calculation, but additional hydropower will be included in the denominator. However the goals for states are very different. For example, the final goal for Virginia is 810 pound of CO2 emitted per net megawatt hours of electricity produce in the state, for Maryland it is 1,187 and for West Virginia 1,620. You may wonder why the targets are different. The existing power plants in the electrical grid and their location determine the basic scale of the numerator. Power and commerce does not stop at state boarders, it moves across state lines. In addition, power plants are built to last generations so the ratio is determined by location of nuclear power plants, coal fired power plant, access to natural gas pipelines to supply natural gas to fire power plants, and history.

Below is data for March 2014 for a few states, the California, New York, and Massachusetts operate versions of cap and trade programs. Of these states only New York generated enough electricity within their borders during March 2014 to satisfy the needs are the state. Those states have become net buyers of electricity. They have outsourced the generation of power and its related CO2 emissions to other states. In addition, it appears that those states have also outsourced much of the industrial sector, importing products from other states and countries. Though I have only listed a few states you can see the pattern, Texas, South Carolina and Pennsylvania are net generators of electricity. Note that the actual capacity of the system is higher; March is a relatively modest demand month (no need for air conditioning).

All data from EIA

Washington DC besides not being a state has no goals from the EPA because it does not generate any power, though the waste water treatment plant at Blue Plaines is expanding its use of generated methane to power the plant as a renewable source of power and looking at the possibility of installing solar panels to supply power to the facility. You can take a look at the data on the U.S. Energy Information Agency, EIA, site to see which states and regions are net generators and which are net users of electricity. Also, you can see by the use of electricity for industry where in the United States we have the most industrial production.

As the  economics writer Robert J. Samuelson recently pointed out in an editorial in the Washington Post that thought we believe that climate change poses a threat to many of the earth’s citizens, we lack the technologies to stop it. The purpose of the EPA regulations seems to be to create the political and economic that fosters the development of technologies that will be needed for mankind to weather the storm and survive. “...But there is no assurance that this will happen, and much time and money may be invested in futile and wasteful efforts.” Both Mr. Samuelson and I are among the supporters of the idea of a carbon tax. Taxing the carbon content of products might be a more direct method to control CO2 generation and more effective method of reducing CO2 production without regulators taking control of a significant segment of the economy and could be applied to imports. Cap and trade schemes have a tendency to export manufacturing and generation. We should all remember when making purchase decisions that when we buy items manufactured in China or India that they were made using the dirtiest coal fired electric power plants on the planet. However, a direct tax must come from the legislature, not regulation. It would certainly generate badly needed revenue for our government that is running at a deficit.

With the CO2 limits imposed on states and management of how to cut them, the EPA is now taking control of the power generation sector of the economy to remake that industry in a less carbon intensive and more efficient vision. These regulations are likely to increase the cost and possibly limit the availability of electricity. These regulations will mark the end of the era of using coal to generate electricity in power plants with the EPA issuing CO2 “budgets” and tightening regulations on other coal burning emissions. Creating regional or national carbon trading market for “carbon credits” has the potential to prevent the reemergence of manufacturing in the United States that has been sparked by cheap natural gas and other favorable conditions. The EPA CO2 regulation for power plants may not be the right plan- my crystal ball is unclear. It is being proposed and will be implemented entirely by regulation without the support of congress as the elected representatives of the American People.

Supply and demand are more balanced on a regional basis, but Texas is still carrying the west

The Kemper Plant and Carbon Sequestration

from Mississippi Power

Last September the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised their proposed Clean Air Act standards to cut carbon pollution from new power plants. Under the revised proposal, new coal-fired electrical generation turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. Existing coal –fired electrical generation turbines emit about 2,080-2,180 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of power produced. All existing plants would be grandfathered and exempt from this rule for a period of time, but the EPA was expected to propose CO2 limitations for existing power plants next month. Increased regulation on existing plants was to occur after demonstration of the commercial use of a kind of carbons capture and sequestration (CCS) technology called Transport Integrated Gasification (TRIG™) technology at a newly built power plant in Kemper County, Mississippi. This TRIG technology was developed by Southern Company (the parent of Mississippi Power) and KBR in conjunction with the Department of Energy (DOE).

TRIG is a coal-gasification method designed to be cleaner (capturing 65% of CO2), cheaper and to work with lower rank coals like the Mississippi Lignite. However, the construction of this new technology plant has been besieged with problems and cost and timing overruns as details such as pipe thickness and metallurgy were miscalculated in the initial design. Originally, the project was estimated to cost $2.4 billion to build the 582,000 kilowatts plant that translated to $4,123 per kilowatt (before DOE grants and tax credits). Now, however, the Kemper plant is projected to be delayed another year until May 2015 and to cost $5.5 billion or $9,450 per kilowatt, and the technology has not even been demonstrated to work on an industrial scale, yet.

from Mississippi Power

Mississippi Power, the smallest utility subsidiary of Southern Company, owns the plant and can only recover up to $3.8 billion for the Kemper costs through customer rates and the sale of securitized bonds. Customers began paying 22% higher utility rates for their power to Mississippi Power after the Kemper plant was allowed into the cost base last year after a lengthy regulatory battle. Meanwhile, Southern Company/ Mississippi Power has taken a $1,037,000,000 charge (so far) against earnings to write off costs overruns that cannot be recovered. The EPA has described carbon capture and sequestration as an available technology that will increase the capital cost of every new coal plant built in the United States by only 35%, but the cost overruns at Kemper have more than doubled the cost of the plant and brought the cost of building a coal fired electrical turbine to about nine times the cost of a gas fired turbine.

Regulating CO2 emissions from power plants are all part of the President’s Climate Action Plan that directs all federal agencies to address climate change using existing executive authorities. The EPA is the lead regulator of the plan to cut carbon pollution. The Plan has three key pillars: cutting carbon pollution in the United States; preparing the country for the impacts of climate change; and leading international efforts to combat global climate change. Power plants are the largest concentrated source of emissions in the United States, accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) most recent preliminary data through March 2013 show coal has generated 40% or more of the nation's electricity each month since November 2012, with natural gas fueling about 25% of generation during the same period. In 2012 natural gas had accounted for a larger share of power generation than in 2013, but fuel costs and power demand during the recent harsh winter increased the power generated by coal fired power plants.

from EIA

The Kemper plant will not be abandoned; it will be completed and will be operated. Southern Company or Mississippi Power, the operating subsidiary, (and possibly bond holders) will have to write off an additional $700 million or more, but the Kemper plant once it’s completed and running will have operational cost advantages. The plant is adjacent to a new coal mine with over 4 billion tons of lignite and near to old Mississippi oil fields. Lignite coal after drying out for three days is fine for the type of plant Southern is building and can supply the plant for centuries. The old oil fields offer an opportunity to sell the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Kemper’s pressurized and liquefied carbon dioxide will be used to enhance oil recovery and is estimated to increase oil production by 2 million barrels a year. Liquefied CO2 is valued at around $40 a ton right now and Kemper is projected to capture about 3-3.5 million tons a year.

The Kemper plant when it is finally completed will have a base coal-fired capacity of 524,000 kilowatts and natural gas capacity 58,000 kilowatts. The plant will capture 65% of total CO2 emissions resulting in 3-3.5 million tons per year of captured CO2 and reducing the CO2 emissions per megawatt to under 800 pounds if the plant performs as designed. The Kemper plant will also have fewer particulate, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions than traditional pulverized coal plants making it the cleanest coal plant ever built.

The utility rate payers and shareholder will both share in the high cost of this project. You and I threw in a little bit, too. Mississippi Power received a $270 million grant from the Department of Energy for the project and $133 million in investment tax credits approved by the Internal Revenue Service. Although by missing its projected deadline it will loses some of the tax benefits.

from Mississippi Power

World Carbon Emissions

Recently, President Obama has been focusing on climate change. So, I decided to take a look at the “Trends in Global Emissions 2013 Report” the latest report from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). Using data collected from various sources and the computer model called EDGAR (Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research) they compile the world estimates of CO2 emissions data.

In 2012, total world emissions of CO2 increased by 1.4% (corrected for leap year it was 1.1%) over 2011, to reach a total of 34.5 billion tonnes of CO2. In 2012 the top five world generators of CO2 emission from fossil fuels were (once again) in descending order China, the United States, the European Union, India and the Russian Federation.

The rate of increase in CO2 emissions has slowed. The average annual increase in world CO2 emissions was 2.9% per year since 2000. This growth was driven primarily by the growth in China, India and other developing countries as those economies emerged. India’s GDP growth at around 4% in 2012 was the lowest in a decade. India’s CO2 emissions in 2012 continued to increase by 6.8% to about 2.0 billion tonnes. China with the largest population is the largest CO2 emitter on earth. They increased CO2 emissions by 3% in 2012, compared to an average rate of increase in CO2 emissions of around 10% per year during the last decade.

In the United States CO2 emissions decreased by 4% in 2012. The United States which represents 16% of total world emissions has decreased total CO2 emissions each year since 2005. In 2012, with GDP (gross domestic product) growth of 2%, their CO2 emissions decreased by 4%, mainly because of a fuel shift from coal to gas in the power generation. Natural gas produces about half the CO2 as coal for the same amount of electricity. In recent years, the United States expanded shale gas fracturing and has now become the largest natural gas producer in the world.

In the European Union CO2 emissions decreased 1.6% in 2012. The European Union, as a whole, was in a recession in 2012. The European Union’s GDP declined by 0.3%, compared to 2011, and CO2 emissions declined by 1.3%. The European Union reported a decrease in consumption of oil and gas, by 4% and 2% respectively, a decrease in freight transported of 4%, and a decrease of 2% in total emissions from power generation and manufacturing installations. However, the use of coal for power generation increased in the European Union in 2012. Relative pricing for coal and gas and a decrease in the use of nuclear energy to generate power in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident are responsible for the increase in coal use in other parts of the world.

Renewable energy power generation has increased worldwide. The use of hydropower has accelerated and its output increased by 4.3%, between 2011 and 2012. The share of the ‘new’ renewable energy from solar, wind and biofuel also increased to 2.4% in 2012. In 2012 there appeared to be a ‘decoupling’ of the increase in CO2 emissions from global GDP growth. This may be an anomaly or indicate a shift towards less fossil-fuel intensive activities or fuel switch to less CO2 intense fuels, more use of renewable energy and increased energy saving.

Nonetheless, the worldwide level of CO2 emissions is higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just six years ago, but fortunately temperatures have not (yet) risen as projected by the climate models. The relationship of climate change to worldwide CO2 levels may not be the one previously assumed as research continues and time lags and other factors are studied and climate prediction models are modified to reflect ongoing research. The developed world no longer drives or controls CO2 emissions, and there is little we can do to change the future. What is going to happen will happen. Though we should still strive to reduce our personal energy use and efficiency.

Supreme Court Revives EPA Rule Targeting Coal Power Plants

EPA's breakdown of power plant pollution

On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6-2) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can reinstate the  Cross State Air Pollution Rule, CSAPR, which allows EPA’s "cost-effective allocation of emissionsreductions among upwind states”  by requiring some state to clean up more than their fair share of pollution. CSAPR dictates each State’s emissions reduction goals and the Federal Implementation Plans to obtain those goals at the State level. However, the EPA had used computer modeling to generate emissions “budgets” for each upwind State without regard for the amount of pollution each state was contributing to a downwind problem, but based instead on the cost of remediation. Now the Supreme Court has confirmed requiring the level of cleanup to be based on cost and requiring more work to be done where the cost of capturing a ton of sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide was the lowest creating a pollution trading system.

Back in  August 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled (2-1) that the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, CSAPR, exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s authority by requiring some state to clean up more than their fair share of pollution. The Supreme Court has overruled that decision. CASPR was intended to prevent pollution from one state from moving into other states and preventing them from meeting their air quality goals. CSAPR, when implemented will reduce SO2 emissions by 73% from 2005 levels and NOx emissions by 54% at the approximately 1,000 coal fired electrical generation plants in the eastern half of the country. The industry has indicated that many of these plants may be forced to close. This rule is intended to help downwind states unfairly impacted by upwind states attain their 24-Hour and/or Annual particulate pollution of 2.5 micrometers or less called PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. CSAPR will replace EPA's 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

The earth’s atmosphere is interconnected. That is accepted when it comes to carbon dioxide, but it also applies to industrial pollutants and soot. The EPA has estimated that just one-quarter of U.S. measured pollution emissions from coal-burning power plants are deposited within the contiguous U.S. The remainder enters the global cycle. Conversely, current estimates are that less than half of all measured coal pollution emissions deposited within the United States comes from American sources. According to the Mount Bachelor Observatory, Chinese exports include acid rain that falls in China, Korea, and Japan, and pollutants that enter the air stream including sulfates, NOx, black carbon, soot produced by cars, stoves, factories, and crop burning. EPA can now address these pollutants based on the cost of remediation instead of based on contribution by a state.

However, as a president, CSAPR may do much more. In the next two months the EPA is expected to propose a new sweeping set of Clean Air Act regulations to cut emission of carbon dioxide to fight global warming. According to the EPA the largest source of carbon dioxide is coal fired power plants, this decision will mark the end of the era of using coal to generate electricity in power plants. This era began with the oil crisis in 1972 and will end with CSAPR. However, using this decision EPA can allocate carbon dioxide “budgets” based on costs to meet the budget and potentially creates a national carbon trading market for carbon dioxide. In addition, it could create interstate trade and tariff  issues when allocating carbon dioxide and methane “budgets” in a world of greenhouse gas caps and trade markets.

from EIA

Warsaw Climate Conference Ends

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has just concluded their most recent meeting to once more discuss, negotiate and talk about climate change without any notable progress. This meeting was in Warsaw. The delegates manged to agree how on calculate emissions reductions and a method to address impact from rising sea levels at the last minute. The true failure was that China, the largest emitter of CO2, was left without commitments and only agreed to "contribute" towards treaty goals.. The goal of all these meetings is to negotiate a new agreement by 2015 that will become effective by 2020 to replace and expand the Kyoto Protocol. Though officially, the goal is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report on climate change released in September 2013 expects global surface temperatures for the end of the 21st century to likely increase 2.7°F to 3.6°F relative to 1850 to 1900 time period.  The IPCC Working Group also found that it is “extremely likely that the changes in our climate system for the past half a century are due to human influence.”

The Warsaw meeting experienced more setbacks than progress by the organizers. Japan has been forced by the loss of its nuclear power plants in Fukushima caused by the earthquake that hit the region to reduce its previous commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. Environmental activists and climate scientists, the Alliance of Small Island States, the Africa Group and the Least Developed Countries group all walked out of the meetings in protest for failure of the developed world to accept responsibility to global warming. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPS) is developing regulations on limiting CO2 emissions on existing power plants, Australia’s House of Representatives have voted to repeal their carbon tax. Organizers of the UNFCCC meetings have pinned their hopes for true progress on the 2015 Paris meeting. No real progress was made at this meeting.

IPCC and the scientific consensus have pivoted slightly in their focus to the oceans, sea level rise and extreme weather event frequency because of a failure of the climate models to explain the current global temperature anomaly.  The climate models cannot account for the recent pause in global temperatures. From 1970 to 2000 the median surface temperature as recorded by measurements increased 0.3 ± 0.04°F per year. However, there has been little further warming of the surface of the planet, particularly over the oceans in the most recent 10 years.

From NOAA web site

We cannot even stabilize the world CO2 emissions yet the UNFCCC continues to meet and talk. As each region or county industrializes the world CO2 emissions have grown. World CO2 emissions are 146% of 1990 levels. Europe has stabilized their emissions and with effort under the Kyoto Treaty has decreased them 2.8% from 1990 levels. The U.S. seems to have finally begun its stabilization and reduction process in the past few years, but since 1990 has increased emissions by 9.5% and the cost of stabilizing the CO2 emission might be the economic contraction of the 2008 recession and the stagnant economy since that time. The far more populous emerging nations have blown past us in CO2 emissions. Asia (including India) has increased their CO2 emissions by 270% since 1990, and China has increased their CO2 emissions by 352% since 1990. There appears to be a lack of progress towards any goal or agreement at UNFCCC conferences.

Earth is Projected to Warm 10 degrees Fahrenheit this Century

from IEA presentation

On Monday the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a series of recommendation for measures that might curtail the rapid growth that has occurred in carbon dioxide emission from fuel combustion that has taken place in the past few decades despite treaties, meetings and conferences. Global greenhouse gas emissions are increasing rapidly and, in May 2013, carbon-dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time in several hundred millennia.

The IEA has tracked world energy use since its creation in response to the oil embargo of the 1970’s. Energy use for electricity, industry and transportation accounts for around two-thirds of greenhouse-gas emissions, as more than 80% of global energy is based on fossil fuels.

According to the IEA, policies that are now being pursued by developed nations, are predicted (by the accepted group of climate models) to produce a long-term average temperature increase between 3.6 °C and 5.3 °C (6.5-10 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial conditions), with most of the increase occurring during this century. Unfortunately, until the planet is in severe stress, it is unlikely that a concerted effort by all the nations will even be considered. Until then, the richer nations will dally with reducing their carbon footprint while the emerging nations and China race to build wealth with only limited regard for the environment.

Though mankind has blown through the tipping point in CO2 emissions that was just a decade ago referred to as the point of no return, the IEA is making policy recommendations that might hold the global temperature increase to 2 to 4°C by cutting global CO2 emissions growth so that it does not exceed 38.75 billion metric tonnes from fossil fuels in 2020. The recommendations are:

• Installing energy efficiency measures in buildings, and requiring increased efficiency in industry and transportation. 
• Preventing the construction of and limiting use of the least-efficient and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. In addition to increasing the share of power generation from renewable sources (including nuclear) and from natural gas. 
• Reducing methane released from the processing and distribution of oil and gas by replacing aging infrastructure and improving technology implementation. 
• Finally phasing-out fossil fuel consumption subsidies to reduce consumption and support efficiency efforts. 

While trying as a first priority to reduce the generation of CO2 from fuel, they are also trying to expand the generation and availability of electricity to poorer nations as another policy program. The IEA and World Bank estimate that there are more than 1.2 billion people who still live without access to electricity and are working to increase electricity availability to the poorest nations on earth which also have the fastest growing populations. This is about 17% of the world’s population living in poverty.

The program to cut world CO2 emissions and the program to expand electricity availability to poorer nations appear to be in conflict, though I suppose that there are policy wonks dreaming that the poorest nations will electrify using only renewable sources of electricity or that the rest of the world will cut their CO2 emissions enough to reduce the overall CO2 trajectory with increasing portions of the earth have available electricity. Without electricity there can be little economic development. Electricity powers critical health equipment to improve the health and survival of the population. Electric lighting supports evening and indoor activities and commerce. Electricity used in classroom to support use of information technology. Electricity powers factories and businesses. Reliable, food, water, sewage and electricity are the necessary infrastructure for an advanced nation.

Global CO2 Soars Past 400 ppm

Data from IEA

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released their 2012 edition of the CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Statistics Highlights. World CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels have climbed past 396 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere and will hit 400 ppm in early spring before retreating slightly over the summer. Global CO2 emissions have grown by 47% since 1990 (based on IEA estimates for 2011). The CO2 levels on earth had averaged 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, but in the past century they began rising. 

As the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere increase the warming produced by the greenhouse gas effect is strengthened. Computer modeling of the climate predicts that there will be feedbacks that significantly increase the impact from the increasing CO2. This is a feedback control loop on a global scale. Mankind produces carbon dioxide from power plants, transportation (cars, trucks, planes, trains, and ships), heating, cement manufacture, deforestation, and breathing. Methane is produced from agriculture, livestock, mining, gas pipeline leaks and well heads, landfills, and sewage plants. Nitrous oxide is produced by fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, animal waste, polluted waters, and chemical processes. CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and water vapor are the major greenhouse gases. The IEA tells us that 65% of the global greenhouse gas emissions by mankind are from the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and in industrialized nations 83% of all greenhouse gas emissions are from power generation, heating and cooling and transportation, but it is clear that both population and industrialization drive CO2 production.  

Data from IEA

The climate models show that there is nothing that we can do to stop global warming and climate change. Even if the concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere were to stabilize at this level, global warming and sea level rising would continue for hundreds of years because of the time scales associated with climate and planetary feedback loops. In reality, the global emissions of CO2 will continue to rise for at least a generation. What is going to happen will happen. I will leave it to others to argue the case for the accuracy of climate models; however, both mankind and the earth itself will respond to changes in CO2 concentrations and temperature, but not before it becomes the pressing concern of the currently emerging nations. Though we constantly argue, discuss and meet, there is virtually nothing we can do to change what is going to happen in the next dozen generations. We can hope that mankind will move to a more sustainable course without the need for catastrophe to motivate us, but that will not change what is going to happen. 

Sorry, the scale is off.  I could not get 2011 to slide over. 

We need to face some tough realities. We cannot even stabilize the world CO2 emissions. As each region or county industrializes the world CO2 emissions have grown. World CO2 emissions are 146% of 1990 levels. Europe has stabilized their emissions and with effort under the Kyoto Treaty has decreased them 2.8% from 1990 levels. The U.S. seems to have finally begun its stabilization and reduction process in the past few years, but since 1990 has increased emissions by 9.5%. The far more populous emerging nations have blown past us in CO2 emissions. Asia (including India) has increased their CO2 emissions by 270% since 1990, and China has increased their CO2 emissions by 352% since 1990. Once the phenomenal growth in their economies that has driven the growth in CO2 emissions, slows down, the C02 emissions will stabilize at a higher level. As a county industrializes its emissions rise as Industrialization typically begins with coal fired power generation. Though coal fired power plants produce twice the CO2 as gas fired power plants they are the source of most power in China and India and still provide over 42% of power generation in the U.S. Nonetheless, except for the fall the Russian Federation, the CO2 emissions of a region or nation do not fall significantly. When populations get cars, homes with heating, air conditioning, on-demand water and power- become first world nations, they like to stay that way.

Air Pollution from Coal Fired Power Plants

On April 1, 2013 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice announced a settlement with Dominion Energy Corporation to pay $3.4 million civil penalty and spend $9.75 million on environmental mitigation and community projects and close a coal fired power plant in Indiana. Reducing air pollution from coal-fired power plants and reducing the number of coal fired power plants in the United States, is one of EPA’s National Enforcement Initiatives for 2011-2013.

In addition to the civil penalty and mitigation projects mentioned above Dominion Energy must install or upgrade pollution control technology on two coal fired power plants, and permanently retire their State Line plant. The pollution control upgrades will produce annual reductions at the Brayon Point and Kincaid plants of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by 52,000 tons from 2010 levels. The retirement of the State Line plant will result in an additional reduction of 18,000 tons of SO2 and NOx. The State Line power plant was first put into operation in 1929 and overhauled over half a century ago. Dominion Energy decided to close the plant rather than upgrade the pollution control systems announcing that intent back in November 2010 and finally closing the plant on March 31, 2013.

The reason that sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides matter to the EPA (and the rest of us) is because reacting in the atmosphere with sunlight and water vapor they form fine particulate pollution. Particles created this way tend to be fine particles with diameters smaller than 2.5 microns, called PM 2.5, which are the most dangerous to human health because the small particulates lodge in the lungs which can have both immediate and long term health impacts.  Combustion engines and coal burning power plants are key contributors to PM2.5 particles, and according to the US EPA and World Health Organization, the smaller, finer pollutant particles measured by PM2.5 are especially dangerous for human health. Studies have shown that there is an increased risk of asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular problems, birth defects and premature death from these particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter.

Coal fired power plant and other sources of pollution like refineries and cars and trucks emit both particulates and precursor pollutants that form particulates in the atmosphere. Air pollution will be significantly reduced in the immediate region of the Dominion power plants and because particulate pollution can travel significant distances downwind, air pollution will be reduced outside the immediate region. The State Line Plant which sits on Lake Michigan and supplied power into the Chicago market had 515 megawatt capacity. According to the Chicago Tribune, Illinois alone added 500 megawatts of wind power in 2010, under DOE subsidized projects. Elimination of the State Line Plant will reduce particulate pollution.

Currently, under the Clean Air Act the US EPA has established both annual and 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standards (as well as standards for other pollutants). The annual standard is 12 ug/m3 (an air quality index, AQI of 50). The 24-hr standard is 35ug/m3 (an AQI of 99). These standards were last revised in December 2012 when the annual standard was lowered from 15 to 12 ug/m3. EPA’s analysis found the new lower standard for the annual exposure will prevent almost 2,000 premature deaths each year in the United States.  According to EPA seven U.S. cities averaged particulate levels higher than the 15 ug/m3, the former standard: Bakersfield, CA; Hanford, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Visalia, CA; Fresno, CA; Pittsburgh, PA; and Phoenix, AZ. The American Lung Association in their latest report states that twenty cities have average year-round particle pollution above the new EPA air quality standard of 12 ug/m3 and most are in California. Though the California cities will remain in non-attainment in the near term, the other cities are anticipated to be able to meet the standard with the implementation of the new regulations for coal fired power plants and other recent EPA regulations which will result in the closing of several power plants and the upgrade of the pollution control systems of the others.

The United States particulate levels are a small fraction of the levels in the worst areas of the world-Beijing, New Delhi, Santiago (Chile), Mexico City, Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia), Cairo (Egypt), Chongqing (China), Guangzhou (China), Hong Kong, and Kabul (Afghanistan).   However, studies have shown that air currents over the Pacific are carrying elevated particulate levels into California presumably from China. Combined with their automobile density and use, California cities might have a difficult time meeting the new PM 2.5 standard despite their strict regulations.

The air pollution in Beijing, home to over 20 million people, can be seen as the smog that wraps the city’s apartment complexes and office buildings on many days. The US Embassy in Beijing has their own PM2.5 monitoring station atop their building and has been reporting via an open Embassy Twitter Feed hourly PM2.5 pollutiondata. The U.S. Embassy reported a series of readings beyond the scale of the equipment air quality index, AQI, (which goes to 500) in fall of 2010. Particulates levels soared to over 700 ug/m3 last June and reportedly had levels hit 1,000 ug/m3 this past winter which sparked emergency measures in the city. All these levels are beyond the AQI scale. 

Current air quality levels from the US Embassy are “moderate,” but as Edward Wong reported in the New York Times and others reported elsewhere data from the 2010 Global Burden of Disease Study found that over 3.2 million premature deaths in 2010 due to PM 2.5 particle air pollution worldwide. In East Asia (China and North Korea) PM 2.5 contributed to 1.2 million deaths in 2010, and in South Asia (including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) it contributed to 712,000 deaths in 2010. These numbers are more than double the deaths estimated by the World Health Organization based on 2004 data when there were fewer coal fired power plants, industrial plants and cars in these areas. Air quality in the urban centers of the United States has improved from the early days of the 20^th century when our nation was the factory of the world. While the   EPA’s regulations tighten and renewable energy subsidies increased to further improve ambient air quality and reduce carbon dioxide and pollutants released in the United States, the fast growing economies of Asia are spewing pollution (not only carbon dioxide) into earth’s atmosphere. 

Global Temperatures for 11,300 Years

On Friday the Journal Science published a peer reviewed paper by Shaun A. Marcott, of the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Jeremy D. Shakun, of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, and Peter U. Clark and Alan C. Mix also of the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature forthe Past 11,300 Years.” The authors lead by post-doctoral researcher Shaun Marcott used existing data from 73 records from multiple paleoclimate archives and 22 temperature proxies to create a reconstruction of global temperatures back to the end of the last Ice Age in order to view today’s climate conditions in a larger context during the Holocene period, the time of man. The last ice age is currently believed to be the eighth ice age during the last million years.

Drs. Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix’s research shows that over the past 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees (Fahrenheit) – until the past 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees (F) bringing the average global temperature back to the previous level. The largest temperature increase changes were in the northern hemisphere, where there are more land masses and greater human populations.

Figure taken from Dr. Marcott et als paper

The scientists did not take any new samples, but used existing core samples to derive age primarily with carbon 14 dating of organic material; and tephrochronology or annual layer counting were used where appropriate. These methods are the current established and accepted scientific procedure. They recalibrated the radiocarbon data of the original studies (some of which were decades old). The basic methology for determining surface temperature in the past depends on extrapolation of information from core samples. In ice cores drawn from glaciers, oxygen isotopes are measured and can be used to infer the temperature at the time when the snow was originally deposited. The isotopic composition of the ice in each layer reflects both the temperature in the region where the water molecules originally evaporated and the temperature of the clouds in which the water vapor molecules condensed to form snowflakes. The temperature can thus be inferred from the data.  

Data sets from cores taken from the sediments at the bottoms of lakes and oceans followed the original authors’ suggested values. Sediment cores can be analyzed for oxygen isotopes, the ratio of magnesium to calcium, and the relative abundance of different microfossil types with known temperature preferences (such as insects) or with a strong temperature correlation like some algae to determine the temperature of the water. This in turn, can be related to the local surface temperature. Beyond 2,000 years there was a higher level of uncertainty in the age of the samples. To account for that uncertainty, the authors used a Monte Carlo simulation. The uncertainty between the age-control points was modeled as a random walk. For the layer-counted ice-core records, they applied a ±2% uncertainty for the Antarctic sites and a ±1% uncertainty for the Greenland site.

According to Peter Clark, “When you just look at one part of the world, the temperature history can be affected by regional climate processes like El Niño or monsoon variations, but when you combine the data from sites all around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense
of the Earth’s global temperature history.”

We already knew that on a global scale, Earth is warmer today than it was over much of the past 2,000 years,” Dr. Marcott said. The new study, shows that the earth average temperature is still within the high point before the “Little Ice Age,” but as can be seen on the graph below warmer than most of the past 11,300 years. This period of time, the Holocene, spans the entire period of human civilization. “The Earth’s climate is complex and responds to multiple forcings, including CO2 and solar insolation,” Marcott said. “Both of those changed very slowly over the past 11,000 years. But in the last 100 years, the increase in CO2 through increased emissions from human activities has been significant. It is the only variable that can best explain the rapid increase in global temperatures.”

taken from Dr. Marcott et al 's paper

Greenhouse Gas Emissions in U.S. No Longer Matter

On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA released the second year of reported greenhouse gas emissions data from large sources, posting it on its website in case you want to view it, but the data is summarized above. The 2011 data was collected through the mandated Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program, and includes information reported from facilities that emit large quantities of greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gases are believed by the EPA to be the primary driver of climate change, and these large facilities account for about half of the greenhouse gas emissions in the nation. While the planet generates greenhouse gases, mankind has vastly increased the generation of greenhouse gases by drilling for and recovering coal, oil and gas from the earth then burning those fuels to generate electricity, power automobiles and manufacture and deliver all the products of our modern life.

The data that was reported to the EPA shows that power plants remain the largest stationary source of greenhouse gas emissions, with 2,221 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (mmtCO2e), roughly one-third of gross U.S. emissions. (The United States has significant woodlands that absorb carbon dioxide and act as a carbon dioxide sink so that net emissions for the U.S. are approximately 1,000 million metric tons of carbon dioxide less than CO2e generated.)  The transportation sector which consists of small non-stationary sources is the second largest generator of greenhouse gas emissions, but is not tracked by the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.  Petroleum and natural gas systems were the third largest sector, with emissions of 225 mmtCO2e in 2011. This was the first year this group of generators were required to report. Refineries were the next largest emitting source, with 182 mmtCO2e, slight increase over 2010. The major uses of energy in the United States are heating of residential and commercial buildings (11%), industry (20%), transportation including cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships (27.4%), and electric power generation (40%). Overall, CO2 emissions in the United States in 2011 fell by 1.7% to an estimated 5,32o million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions net of the carbon sinks that are our vast forests and open lands.  U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide are less than 10% higher than they were in 1990 while the population has grown by 24% over the same period.

US Greenhouse Gas Emissions from EPA

To achieve this reduction the EPA has used regulations that will ensure that total CO2 emissions are reduced over time. In 2012 EPA proposed the first Clean Air Act standard for carbon dioxide. Under the new rule, new power plants will have to emit no more than 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of energy produced. That standard effectively changes the fuel of choice for all future power capacity additions to natural gas, nuclear, or the renewable category (with government subsidies), and EPA has begun action to reduce CO2 emissions from existing plants.  In addition the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) new millage and emission standards for automobiles and light trucks for model year 2012 through 2025 requiring continued improvement of about a 5% per year in average fuel economy from 2016 when they are required to have at least a 35.5 mpg fleet average for vehicles sold in the U.S. and will have to boost car and light truck fuel economy to an average 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025 significantly reducing the use of fuel.   Passenger cars, light trucks and motorcycles represent 17% of the national greenhouse gas emissions. With the CO2 standard and fuel economy standards the U.S is on track to reduce their CO2 emission in the coming decades, but that will have little if any impact on global CO2 concentrations. Though we remain the nation with the highest CO2 emissions per citizen, we are no longer the nation with the highest total CO2 emissions.

According to the annual report ‘Trends in global CO2 emissions’, released  by the Joint Research Centre and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), global emissions of CO2 reached 34 billion metric tons in 2011. The top emitters of CO2 in 2011 were: China (29%), the United States (16%), the European Union (11%), India (6%), the Russian Federation (5%) and Japan (4%). China, the largest emitter of CO2 increased their emissions the most. China contributed almost three quarters of the global increase, with its emissions rising by 720 million metric tons, or 9.3% to 8,460 million metric tons of CO2, and is now driving global CO2 emissions bringing China within the range of 6 to 19 metric tons of CO2 per capita emissions of the industrialized countries.  It is estimate that China will emit around 10 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2013 entirely negating reductions from all other nations.  There is no interest in reducing CO2 emissions or even stopping emissions growth in China. They are not yet a rich nation and are currently experiencing the coldest winter in 28 years. Though Beijing is becoming aware of the impacts of particulate air pollution, they are far from being concerned about global CO2 emissions. China remains focused on food and growth. 

The climate of the earth is constantly changing on a geological time scale, but the geological record hints that sudden shifts can happen. The controversy over both the science and policy relating to climate change is far from over, but clearly the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans will have significant impact on the ecology of the planet and mankind. Policy mandates to have the United States adopt constraints on fossil fuel energy consumption will have little impact on the global level of CO2, and our CO2 emission and economy no longer appear to be in a growth phase.  However, the earth’s atmosphere is interconnected and worldwide CO2 emissions will continue to grow powered by China and India in the short run. We need now to appropriately respond to the changing planet and prepare to respond to those changes to ensure that mankind survives.

2012 the Warmest Year for U.S., but not for the Earth

NOAA 2012 Temperature Map

On Tuesday the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climate Data Center announced that 2012 had been the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States  with average temperatures 3.2°F above the 20th century average. While global temperatures are unlikely to reach a record for 2012 (only data through November 2012 is available) still, according to the latest data from the National Climatic Data Center, the high average global temperatures for November 2012 combined with record to near-record warmth over land from April to September and warmer-than-average global ocean temperatures contributed to the first 11 months of 2012 ranking as the eighth warmest 11 month period on record with 1998 remaining the warmest year on record for the earth.

According to the weather scientists at NOAA the average temperature for the contiguous United States for 2012 was 55.3°F, which was 3.2°F above the 20th century average and 1.0°F above the previous record from 1998. Every state in the contiguous United States had an above-average annual temperature for 2012. On the national scale, 2012 started off much warmer than average, with the fourth-warmest winter (December 2011–February 2012) on record, but the real and immediate problem is water.  The winter snow cover for the contiguous United States last winter was the third smallest on record, and snowpack totals across the Central and Southern Rockies were less than half of normal. The warm spring resulted in an early start to the 2012 growing season in many places, which increased water demand on the soil earlier than what is typical. In combination with the lack of winter snow and lingering dryness from 2011, the record-warm spring laid the foundation for the great drought of 2012. The average precipitation total for the contiguous U.S. for 2012 was 26.57 inches, 2.57 inches below average, and the 15th driest year on record for the nation.  

Regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency remain focused on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but if CO2 is the main driver of climate change and these new temperature highs in the United States are evidence of climate change and not just extreme weather, then it is too late and the United States at about 16% of global carbon emissions and falling cannot stop the growth in CO2 emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, IEA, 2011 estimates of world CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, World CO2 emissions rose by 1 billion metric tons in 2011, a 3.2 % increase  to reach 31.6 billion metric tons. In 2011 the top four world generators of CO2 emission from fossil fuels were in descending order China, the United States, the European Union and India who edged out Russia to take the number four slot. China, the largest emitter of CO2 increased their emissions the most. China contributed almost three quarters of the global increase, with its emissions rising by 720 million metric tons, or 9.3% to 8.46 billion metric tons of CO2, and are now driving global CO2 emissions. It is estimate that China will emit around 10 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2013. CO2 emissions in the United States in 2011 fell by 92 million metric tons of CO2 or 1.7% to an estimated 5.32 billion metric tons.  U.S. emissions have now fallen by 430 million metric tons or 7.7% since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions and no real growth is forecast. There is no interest in reducing CO2 emissions or even stopping emissions growth in China. They are not yet a rich nation and are currently experiencing the coldest winter in 28 years. China remains focused on food and growth. 

In the U.S. the EPA has used regulation to ensure that total CO2 emissions are reduced over time. In 2012 EPA proposed the first Clean Air Act standard for carbon dioxide. Under the new rule, new power plants will have to emit no more than 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of energy produced. That standard effectively changes the fuel of choice for all future power capacity additions to natural gas, nuclear, or the renewable category (with government subsidies).  In addition the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) new millage and emission standards for automobiles and light trucks for model year 2012 through 2025 requiring continued improvement of about a 5% per year in average fuel economy from 2016 when they are required to have at least a 35.5 mpg fleet average for vehicles sold in the U.S. and will have to boost car and light truck fuel economy to an average 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025 significantly reducing the use of fuel.   The major users of energy in the United States are heating of residential and commercial buildings (11%), industry (20%), transportation including cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships (27.4%), and electric power generation (40%). Passenger cars, light trucks and motorcycles represent 17% of the national greenhouse gas emissions. With the CO2 standard and fuel economy standards the U.S is on track to reduce their CO2 emission in the coming decades.

The climate of the earth is constantly changing on a geological time scale, but the geological record hints that sudden shifts can happen. The controversy over both the science and policy relating to climate change is far from over, but policy mandates to have the United States adopt constraints on fossil fuel energy consumption will have little impact on the global level of CO2. The earth’s atmosphere is interconnected and worldwide CO2 emissions will continue to grow powered by China and India in the short run. We need now to appropriately respond to the continuing drought.

Drought conditions November 2012 NOAA

The Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, creates a regulatory mandated demand for corn in the United States. In 2012 the RFS mandated ethanol consumed 5.05 billion bushels of corn almost 50% of the corn crop. The USDA has forecast total corn production for 2012 at 10.7 billion bushels, down 13% from 2011. The lowest U.S. production of corn since 1995. Much of the Midwest remains in drought conditions, and according to the most recent USDA and NOAA reports drought could impact the corn crop next year, too. To fulfill the RFS mandate we are using up our water resources (using the Ogallala Aquifer) and we might be forced to buy corn, taking food from the mouths of poorer nations. Yes, we can buy more corn if need be. The United States is still a rich enough country and we will eat meat and the long list of food made from corn products and make lots of ethanol to dilute gasoline, but the cost is the United States is exporting hunger to fulfill the RFS.