The commissions, hearings, and investigations will all fail to recognize, and in fact will shy away from, the basic and common causes of both the Gulf disaster and climate change:  human greed, human arrogance and human fallibility. 

Greed and arrogance often go hand in hand, and can be both positive and negative.  Greed is a primary motivator, greed drives us to better ourselves, while arrogance demands that we push forward.  On the other hand, most consider rampant greed exercised at the expense of others as a human fallibility.  

It must be remembered that in a capitalistic society the “business of business is business”, that is, it is the purpose of any business to make as much profit for its owners or stockholders as possible.  The greed of stockholders and owners typically demands a short-term approach to profit, since most invest for an immediate return and have little patience with the possibility of an unknown profit at some unknown point in the future.  To keep the stockholders happy, and enhance his personal profit, a manager must maximize the short-term fiscal return to the stockholders which is typically accomplished by cutting as many corners as possible and investing the absolute minimum  in long-term areas such as safety and maintenance.

As the investigations into the Gulf disaster proceed we are hearing frequent reports of attempts by the oil industry pressuring government to ease regulations and waive requirements.  BP CEO Tony Hayward readily admits that they did not have a backup in place in case of a failure, which is contrary to MMS Safety Alert #186 issued March 3, 2000.  Acoustical backup systems are required by most nations, but the industry has managed to convince U.S. regulators that they are not worth the expense.  It is estimated that the cost of an acoustical backup would have cost BP about $500,000, roughly one day’s rental fee for the Deepwater Horizon, which is now sitting at the bottom of the Gulf.

Greed is not at all restricted to BP, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that during the past five years a U.S. offshore drilling worker was 4 times as likely to be killed than workers in European waters, primarily due to less stringent U.S. regulations.  All businesses weigh costs vs. benefits, and in most cases there is constant tension between business and their regulators.  But when greed gets the upper hand, society (and the environment) inevitably lose.

It is greed and arrogance that leads business to “externalize costs” by dumping their waste products into waterways and the atmosphere polluting the environment and forcing the public to clean the waters so that they are safe to drink, and bear the health cost of breathing polluted air.  The externalization of the cost incurred with the disposal cost of greenhouse gases, is a foremost cause of climate change.

Greed and arrogance are also prevalent in all levels of government around the world.  No matter what form of government a county has, there is always an enormous amount of money (usually from business) available to influence government to the benefit of the donor.  Call it corruption, influence peddling, bribery or donation there is always some appeal to political greed in exchange for influence or “favors”.  Many of our leaders are honorable people (or at least feel that they are), and serving in the public interest.  Yet their base greed makes it hard to decline political donations, which their arrogance can always justify on the basis that “everyone else does it”, or that it “takes money to be re-elected”.  It is being currently being reported that Halliburton, one of the BP contractors on the gushing oil well in the Gulf of Mexico has suddenly stepped up “political” contributions last month, with emphasis on members of the various U.S. Congressional committees that are investigating the Gulf disaster.  It speaks to the greed of these congressmen that they have accepted such donations, and to their arrogance in believing that it is proper to do so.  While they claim that they are not swayed by cash donations, they are fallible and cannot help but be influenced by such donations.

Perhaps no better example of human arrogance is available than our relationship to the natural environment upon which we depend.  We have “subdued the wilderness”, “conquered the raging rivers”, and “tamed the savage beasts”.  None of these common expressions conveys a feeling of living in harmony with our environment, sustainability, or conservation.  Our greed demands that we exploit our environment for our short-term benefit, an our arrogance assures us that we have the right to do so, without regard for the generations that will follow us.

It was greed that drove BP to drill 18,000 feet below the surface of the earth to extract oil. It was greed for BP to drill this well without any backup plans, or any method to contain a well blow-out, which is not an uncommon occurrence.  And if it is found that BP cut any corners, it will be due to pure greed.  It is unmitigated arrogance for BP CEO Hayward to state “we will clean up every drop”, and for BP advertisements to make such statements as “we will make this right”, “we will get this done”, “if wildlife is affected, rescue stations have been set up to take care of them”.  Note the “if” in the last claim, entire ecosystems are being destroyed before our eyes,  and BP has the arrogance to say “if”!  This is actually what the arrogance of BP’s “if” looks like:

We are now reaching the limits our planet’s resources.  Virtually all surveys show that have reached the peak of oil supply and production, therefore we must drill deeper and deeper, or in more hazardous environments to recover the last of our dwindling oil reserves.  The amount of our arable lands are declining due increasing urbanization, population, increasing droughts, and salinization and erosion resulting from exploitive agricultural practices.  And most ominously,  we have either passed, or are very rapidly approaching the “tipping point” at which we will no longer have the ability to influence climate change.

There is indeed a strong relationship between climate change and the Gulf oil disaster.  As we continue to drill deeper and deeper, and in more hostile environments, there will be more paperwork generated, and perhaps some technological changes put in place as a result of the Gulf disaster.  But there is no question that in spite of the assurances from the experts and our politicians, we will have another oil disaster, another mine disaster, and another one after that.  For we are fallible human beings,  no matter what safeguards are put in place, sooner or later a human will make an error and once again oil will gush into our fragile environment.  But we will keep drilling driven by our greed and arrogance, until the last drop of oil is extracted from the earth. 

Ultimate we are all the guilty ones.  In the developed nations we will continue our rampant lifestyle, demanding bigger houses, cars and TV’s, while citizens of the developing nations will naturally aspire to reach our standard of living.  Our economies are increasingly based on consumption, which requires exploitation of our planet’s resources and the pollution of our waters, lands and air.  Our greed must be fed, our arrogance will assure us that we have the right to our greed, and that the hindering warnings of science must thus be wrong.  And because they are composed of fallible humans our governments will fail to make the hard, unpopular choices required.

In short, We Are Toast. 

Over the past 6 weeks the size of the surface oil slick has appeared to expand and contract, while the official U.S. Government estimates of the volume of gushing oil have increased from 1,000 barrels (42,000 U.S. gallons) to 5,000 bbl./day to the current estimates 12,000 to 19,000 bbl./day.  Some independent estimates are even higher.  No matter what the actual volume, it is obvious that a great deal of oil is gushing out of the well.  But if the slick on the surface is not drastically increasing  where is that oil going?   Where else could it be, but between the surface and the bottom of Gulf; and, in fact we are now know that this is the case as at least two vast undersea plumes of oil have been found, one heading in a westerly direction from failed well site, the other stretching in an easterly direction.  The dimensions of both plumes are great, and largely unexplored. 

Why the oil is remaining below the surface has not been proven at this time, but two possible reasons are readily apparent.  The most probable reason for the subsurface oil plumes is the large amounts of highly toxic “dispersants” that BP has applied both at the surface, and at the well head, 5,000 feet below the surface.  Dispersants do exactly what the name implies, they break up the oil into smaller droplets which then become dispersed throughout the water column rather than rising to the surface.  In other words,  the “solution to the oil pollution is dilution” with the added benefit in this case of keeping it “out of sight, out of mind”.  If the gushing oil had been rapidly contained, this might have been a successful approach for BP as it could have avoided massive amounts of oil on the beaches and nightly TV reports of oiled birds.  However, it has now made the worse environmental disaster to hit the United States even far larger.

At the time of this writing, BP has announced the failure of their “top kill” approach, and is now planning an even riskier approach, and one that the company’s May 29th press release states has “the intention of capturing most of the oil and gas flowing from the well.” BP spokesmen are also cautioning that this “top hat” approach will not capture all of the oil.  And on May 30th,  President Obama’s energy and climate advisor Carol Browner and BP managing director Bob Dudley both announced that the next (fourth) attempt to control the well will temporarily increase flow, and that “fix” would capture only a majority of flow.  Both warned that oil from the well would most likely continue flow into Gulf until August when it is hoped that the relief well will  result in a successful stoppage of flow.  Meanwhile, BP continues to apply the toxic dispersants to dilute the oil and keep it out of sight.  (It most be noted that in theory, dispersing the oil into small droplets should enhance the biological breakdown of the hydrocarbons.  However, since BP is applying most of the dispersant at the well head where the water temperature is only 39^oF (3.9^oC) any biological activity would be greatly reduced.  And, the Gulf would still be polluted by the dispersant itself, plus the non-carbon fractions of the gushing crude oil compound.)

We have not yet begun to experience the impacts of the oil that has already flowed into the Gulf, but many of them can be predicted with a high degree of certainty.  The extraordinarily rich ecosystem that supported the most valuable commercial fishing industry in the U.S. is doomed.  The vast plumes, a mixture of highly toxic oil and dispersants that are spreading through the Gulf will eliminate life from the surface to the ocean floor.  The spread of the plumes, and their duration will be greatly increased by any hurricane activity in the Gulf, with the predictions for this season being one of above normal activity.  Eventually, some of the suspended hydrocarbons will be biologically broken down, but many toxic elements will remain suspended in the water column.  Another fraction of the oil will settle to the sea floor, coating the corals and other substrates that support marine life; and, the final fraction will rise to the surface, possibly as “tar balls”, some of which will eventually wash up on the beaches.  Virtually all marine life, fish, turtles, marine mammals, plants and invertebrates that come into contact with the suspended oil will be sickened, or mostly likely die.  Entire species such as the imperiled blue-finned Tuna will be heavily impacted. The western north Atlantic bluefin tuna which spawns exclusively in the north-central Gulf is near extinction.  This years eggs are larvae, now suspended in the water column along with the oil plumes, are presumed lost.  

Both the volume and movement of the suspended oil is largely unknown at this time, but the eastward plume is reaching toward Florida, and oil is entering the Gulf Loop Current which travels over the coral reefs of the Florida Keys continuing to western Cuba before heading up the East Coast of the U.S.  It appears likely that oil will reach the beaches of west Florida, and there is great concern about the corals of the Keys.  In fact some experts are predicting that the oil will reach the beaches of Cuba.  The plumes should be reduced as they travel up the East U.S. Coast and will most likely remain offshore, but tar balls may be washed up on the beaches by storms.

The big question is when will the suspended oil reach the coasts of Louisiana,  Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas.  The coast of Louisiana is largely composed of marshlands. These marshes are a highly productive nursery for birds, fish and invertebrates such as shrimp and oysters.  As it reaches the coast, the oil suspended in the water column will flow unimpeded under the miles of oil booms that were placed to protect the beaches and marshes.  When oil reaches the marshes it will be rapidly absorbed by the marsh grasses, killing them and leaving little more than highly erodible mud flats.  As the marshes cannot be “cleaned”, there is no saving them once they are oiled.  The newly exposed mud flats will be likely be rapidly washed away by storms and wave action.  The marshlands of the Mississippi delta were originally formed from the rich soils of interior United States carried, as sediment, by the Mississippi river until deposited at its mouth.  This natural process no longer continues since we have “tamed” the Mississippi to reduce flooding and provide reliable navigation.  Today’s sediments are sped down a channelized waterway and deposited in the deeper waters off the continental shelf.  Thus, there is no longer a source of sediment to rebuild these vital marshes.

Removed from the endangered species list in 2009, the highly photogenic brown pelicans illustrate the importance of the coastal marshlands to wildlife.  It is nesting time for the brown pelicans of the Gulf.  Pelicans fishing to feed their young may become oiled by diving into oil polluted waters, and/or they may gather oil-tainted fish which will poison their offspring.  If oil coated pelicans are captured for cleaning and rehabilitation their chicks, or eggs, are left behind and cannot survive.  Since pelicans nest on low-lying ground in the marshes any oil washed into the marshes can coat the eggs or chicks, resulting in their death.  And, as pelicans depend upon a healthy Gulf fish population for food, a decline in the Gulf fishery will surely result in a decline among any pelicans who manage to escape the direct impact of oil. 

When the oil reaches the famed Gulf beaches, they too will be in peril.  While individual “tar balls” can be picked up, any coating of the beaches by the surface oil slicks, or the “dispersed” oil currently suspended in the water column will penetrate the sand and be impossible to remove.  Just as the Alaska beaches contain oil only couple of inches below the highly cleaned rock surface over 20 years after the Exxon Valdez disaster, the white sands of the Gulf beaches will be a source of contamination for years to come.

The above narrative may seem overly dire, but the scope of this disaster is impossible to describe, due to the vast geographical area that will be impacted and the complexity and magnitude of the integrated and highly productive effected ecosystems.  The overall extent of this disaster will be largely determined by two, currently unknown, variables.  The first unanswered question is how much oil has been placed in the aquatic ecosystem and when will the well be brought under control.  An answer to the first part of this question is that since BP must pay a fine for each barrel of oil “spilled” it is very obviously in their best interest to keep this number as low as possible (“out of sight, out of mind”) and since BP is the only party that can provide an accurate answer it is highly unlikely that we will ever know.  

The second, and very large question is the potential impact of storms during this hurricane season.  Storms in Gulf could impede the attempts to control the well and will more thoroughly mix the oil and water suspension of the water column.  If the storms approach land they will push the oil/water mixture into the marshes and on the beaches.  Because of exceptionally warm water temperatures in the Atlantic and Caribbean, and the rapid disappearance of El Nino conditions in the Pacific, predictions for this season all call for an above normal number of hurricanes.  Most forecasts are calling conditions comparable to 1995, the most active hurricane season on record, and when both Rita and Katrina devastated the Gulf region.  A 1 – 2 blow, like Rita and Katrina, this year would likely remove much of the protection provided by weakened marshes and have a far greater impact upon New Orleans than experienced in 1995. 

The economic impact on the Gulf states, especially Louisiana and Mississippi will be enormous.  Coastal land values, tourism,  recreational and commercial fishing, and tax revenues will be greatly reduced.  The economic costs due to the  loss of storm protection provided by coastal marshes could be astronomical.  The Gulf, will eventually “recover”, but the process will be slow and it will most likely result in a different Gulf.  For example, we cannot  know if the shrimping industry will recover.  For example, in Alaska’s Prince William Sound the herring fleet is still idle as the herring have not returned after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.  Without this foundation species the populations of other species have been reduced to the extent that the Prince William Sound commercial fishing season opens in May, rather than March.

Putting aside the economic costs, the biggest loss will be the unique Gulf ecosystems that were our heritage, our duty to protect, and our obligation to pass on to our children.  The oil that is surging into the Gulf is coming from a well on property owned by the citizens of the United States, and the gushing oil belonged to the citizens of the U.S. until we sold BP the right to exploit it in return for royalty payments.    We, collectively as citizens of the United States and also of the world, are responsible for this environmental disaster.  As we continue to demand more, and cheaper energy derived from fossil fuels the resource has become increasingly depleted, requiring us to drill deeper and dig deeper to extract every drop of oil, or spoonful of coal.  Some will say that our insatiable demand for fossil fuels is expanding the limits of technology, others will say that we are exceeding the limits of technology.  The very fact that this blow-out occurred  should indicate that we have exceeded our technology, and the fact that we have no way of controlling the devastating oil gusher for at least 4 months would appear to confirm that we have indeed exceeded our limits.   Our dependence upon fossil fuels is poisoning our air, fouling our land and polluting our oceans.  The solution is clear.  We owe better to our planet and to our children.

A cynic might note that the state new-found royalty payments could be shared with neighboring states to discourage any veto legislation.

As I have previously written, the American Power Act is primarily an energy bill, providing something for every special interest.  The bill increases funding for nuclear power plants, natural gas, off-shore oil and gas production and provides $2 billion per year for the development of clean coal technologies.  The act places a “hard” minimum and maximum price, indexed for inflation, on carbon emissions.  However,  carbon emission controls are only applied to the transportation, utility and heavy manufacturing sectors, exempting such sectors as agriculture, chemical/refining industries, buildings and other major carbon sources.  Only the largest polluters, those who produce more that 25,000 tons of carbon emissions, will be regulated under the act.  In other words, the emissions of only 7,500 factories and power plants will be covered by the Act.

The Act does provide for 2/3rds of all allowance auction proceeds “not dedicated to reducing our nation’s deficit” to be returned to the consumer.  The funds will be returned to local electricity and natural gas distributing companies to be used “exclusively for the benefit of ratepayers”.  For heating oil and propane consumers, the funds would be returned to state governments who would be responsible for ensuring that they are used to for the exclusive benefit on heating oil and propane consumers. The funds would be used to either reduce rates, or provide a direct rebate. 

The cap and trade carbon emission targets of the American Power Act are somewhat less than other proposed legislation in the early years, but does approach the 17% of 2005 by 2050 standard.

In addition to the American Power Act, Senators Cantwell and Collins have introduced their Carbon Limits and Energy America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act.  In contrast to the massive American Power Act, the 39-page CLEAR act is a straight-forward cap and dividend proposal.  CLEAR prohibits financial speculation in “carbon derivatives” and restricts resale of allowances.  In sharp contrast to the American Power Act, the boondoggle of emission offsets do not exist under CLEAR. 

As a cap and dividend bill, CLEAR would rebate 75% of the emission auction funds directly to every legal resident of the United states, in the form of a direct monthly payment.  All residents would receive an equal amount, and the payments would be exempt from Federal income tax.   Thus most of any increase in energy cost would be directly returned to the citizens, not to special interest groups.

CLEAR has strong provisions to ensure the competiveness of American business in the international market, and provides a fair, uniform approach to emission control.  It establishes a target carbon emission levels of 70% in 2025 and 17% in 2050, again using 2005 as the reference year.

CLEAR does not attempt to resolve all problems, rather it directly, clearly and fairly provides for the regulation of carbon emissions.  And it does so in far more effective manner than the American Power Act, and at a much lower cost to Americans.  Contact you senators and request their support for CLEAR.

Mankind has long relied on energy provided by other humans and animals to accomplish work.  But humans and animals can supply only a limited amount of power, for a limited duration and require a constant energy input of food and water.  Thus mankind sought to tap natural resources to overcome these limitations.  Perhaps the first successful utilization “natural power” was the addition of sails to ships, replacing or supplementing the power provided by oarsmen.  Sailing vessels are known to have existed in Egypt by 3000 BC, and the technology has been worldwide for most of recorded history. 

Just as it was over 5,000 years ago, wind is still being being used to power ocean-going vessels.  Perhaps the most recent example is the 20,000 ton MV Beluga SkySail which uses a bow-mounted “kite” to achieve fuel savings of approximately 30% while primarily carrying cargo between Europe and North America. 

The first known use of windmill to power a machine was in 150 BC by Hero in Alexandria, Egypt.  By the 9th Century windmills where widely used thought the Persian Empire to grind gains and pump water, applications that are currently in common usage throughout the world.   In 1887 James Blyth constructed a windmill powered generator in Scotland to provide lighting.   By the 1920’s the basic design of contemporary 3-blade windmills was fixed, with some of the windmills that supplied electricity on farms, islands and other remote areas during the 1930's still in use today.  A Jacobs wind generator installed  by Admiral Byrd in Antarctica on his 1933 exposition was found to be operating perfectly in 1955 after running in the severe Antarctic environment without maintenance for over 20 years.

In 1881 a water driven generator in the British town of Godalming,  used to provide DC electricity for street lighting, become the first public power supply.  While electricity was first generated by the renewable energy sources of wind and water, Thomas Edison added a third energy source in 1885 when he constructed a coal-fired steam DC generator in London, England.  Because direct current (DC) electricity could not be transmitted for any great distance early generating plants could service only local customers.  The distribution of electricity was revolutionized in 1895 when the work of Nikola Telsa made possible the construction of a large AC (alternating current) water driven generating station at Niagara Falls, NY.  The alternating current from the Telsa generators could be transmitted for long distances, and is still the system in common usage today.

Unlike wind–driven generators, steam plants can produce a uniform supply of electricity, and do not require a source of running, or falling, water.  Steam driven AC generating rapidly spread throughout the world, providing the majority of our electrical energy.  The only major variable is the source of heat used to generate the steam, with fossil fuels being the most popular.  Biomass, solar energy, geothermal energy and most recently nuclear energy are also used to produce the steam required to drive the generators. But all share the same design as a water-powered plant, with the steam driving a turbine connected to an AC generator. Coal, wood or nuclear the principle is the same – a “fire” boiling water to make steam which spins a turbine connected to a generator.

The photovoltaic effect was first noted in 1839 by a French physicist, but it was not until 1883 that an American, C. Fritts, built the first solar cell; a selenium/gold device.  Early solar cells were highly inefficient, however recent advances have demonstrated efficiencies of 20% to 40%, under laboratory conditions.  As individual solar cells have a very low, DC, electrical output many cells must be connected together into modules or arrays to provide useful power.  Solar cells have undergone an application curve much like windmills, initially providing low voltage DC power primarily used to charge batteries in remote locations, but are now being connected to the public power supply grid.  Current solar cells typically have a life span of 25 – 30 years, and remain economical only with government subsidies. 

The history of automobiles is much the same.  While a great deal of attention is currently being focused on  “new, green” technologies these same technologies were  common place in the early years of automobiles.  Electric vehicles were popular in Europe in the late 1800’s, with the first major U.S. manufacturer being the Pope Manufacturing Company, established in Hartford, Connecticut in 1897.  Within two years Pope had built over 50 cars and in 1899 merged with two smaller companies to form the Electric Vehicle Company, which by 1904 was producing over 2,000 taxis, buses and trucks per year.  A subdivision, of the Electric Vehicle Company, the Columbia Automobile Company was selling hundreds of personal vehicles per year by the turn of the century.  During the early 1900’s electric vehicles were the most popular in America, followed by steam, and then gasoline.  

During a visit to the 1901 Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, NY. (a celebration of electric lighting) President William McKinley was shot by an assassin.  McKinley was carried to the hospital in the electric ambulance pictured here, becoming the first U.S. President to ride in a motorized ambulance, and most likely the first to ride in an electric vehicle.  

In 1903 the Krieger Company produced a hybrid electric/petrol vehicle as did Woods Motor Vehicle Company of Chicago in 1917. Several other companies introduced hybrid vehicles, but none became popular due to slow speed, poor reliability and difficulty of servicing. 

Due to their durability many electric trucks were still in service during World War II, during which they found increased usage due to diversion of gasoline to the war effort.   If you ate the original Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, your breakfast was transported from the factory in Niagara Falls, NY to the nearby railroad siding by a  fleet of electric trucks until the early 1950's.

With the introduction of the Ford Model T in 1908, and the “self-starter” in 1913 demand for electric vehicles declined.  The Model T and Model A Fords that rapidly became the most popular cars in the word, were both so called “flex-fuel” cars, using either petroleum products or biofuels such as ethanol for fuel. 

Meanwhile, the Wright brothers flew the first fixed-wing airplane in 1903, at Kitty Hawk, NC.  Most importantly they also defined the “three-axis” (yaw, pitch and roll around the center of mass) of flight dynamics, and designed the basic control systems which has made it possible to control all fixed-wing aircraft from their “Flyer” to the space shuttles.

Thus none of the technologies that we commonly rely on today for our energy and transportation are new, they are all over a century old, as are the so-called “green” or “alternate” fuels currently returning to popularity.  We might actually refer to such fuels as wind, electricity, ethanol as “traditional” fuels rather than “alternate fuels”.  

The current state of our energy and transportation technologies is the result of incremental development or “tweaking” over the past century, not innovation.  We are suffering from a lack of innovation, and radical innovation is needed if we are to address and adapt to climate change.  Innovation is rooted in education; a rigorous foundation in mathematics, engineering and technology is essential for innovation in energy, transportation, communication, housing and other fields.  However, we will also need innovation in governance, institutions, and other social fields.  No one country, or society, is going to solve climate change, nor will any one nation be able to adapt without global cooperation.  As a civilization, we cannot continue to be satisfied with incremental development, but rather must foster and embrace innovation.

Thus we have three sources of energy, but with the exception of passive heating, none of these sources is directly useful – they all require capture, storage, conversion and distribution in order to provide the "work" desired by mankind.  For example, electricity is converted and distributed energy from the sun (coal, oil, wind, bio-fuel, or "solar"), rocks (nuclear) or gravity (hydro-electric).  Whether we burn gasoline or ethanol in our internal combustion engines, both are solar energy captured by plant photosynthesis, either refined or distilled, and then distributed to our engines.  The only real difference is that one has been stored in the ground for about 320 to 360 million years while the other has not.  [See "Too Valuable to Burn" for another perspective on this ancient carbon.]  We use the heat energy of a nuclear reaction to make steam, which drives a generator and makes electricity to be distributed to users.  Electricity is again a distribution medium, not the ultimate source of the energy.

The sun remains our largest source of energy, either through fossil energy stored as coal or oil, or such fuels as wood and biofuels.  As we attempt to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of coal and oil, we are primarily turning toward other forms of solar energy such as solar-driven air currents (wind) or "direct solar" (photovoltaics, steam/electric), and increased reliance upon hydro.  It is ironic that these so-called "clean", "green", or "renewable" energy sources are all extremely sensitive to climate change: and, in fact, are already being negatively impacted by climate change.  The western, and southeastern regions of the United States are in the midst of a prolonged, severe and increasing drought, which has already curtained the production of hydro-power, and as also occurred in other regions throughout the world.  "Direct solar" energy conversion requires copious amounts of water for cooling and steam generation.  In the U.S. the Southwest receives the most dependable supply of solar energy, but this water-short arid region is also impacted by multi-year drought. 

The wind industry is rapidly expanding, with many countries placing increasing reliance upon wind to help meet emission reduction targets.  But, a research study just reported in the esteemed "Journal of Geophysical Research"(1)  suggests a significant reduction of about 10% in wind (speed and duration) in the mid-west and eastern regions of the United States.  Similar results have been reported from Europe and Australia.  It has been suggested that the reduction is caused by global climate change with the warming conditions at the poles reducing air pressure gradients.

Throughout the world agriculture has been impacted by climate change.  Growing season temperatures, water supply, pests and disease are climate sensitive and directly influence agricultural production.  While plant breeding has resulted in exceptionally hardy varieties, the monoculture resulting from reliance on these "improved" varieties has resulted in an agricultural system that may prove to be especially vulnerable to effects of a rapidly changing climate, thus reducing the supply of materials for bio-fuels in addition to food.

The fact remains, that our current emphasis on wind, bio-fuels and "solar energy" is not introducing new energy sources, but rather new methods of capturing, or converting energy from the sun.  And the quandary is that while we are banking upon these alternate, "green" sources of solar energy to reduce slow global warming and subsequent climate change, the changing climate may already be reducing the effectiveness of their implementation.  In this regard, the longer we delay an effective global program to reduce warming of our planet, the less likely its success.

___________________________________

1.)  Pryor, S. C., R. J. Barthelmie, D. T. Young, E. S. Takle, R. W. Arritt, D. Flory, W. J. Gutowski Jr., A. Nunes, and J. Roads (2009), Wind speed trends over the contiguous United States, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14105, doi:10.1029/2008JD011416.

There are three basic options that governments can implement to regulate pollutant discharges:  “cap and trade”, “cap” and “tax”.

Under a “cap and trade” scheme the government establishes a “cap” on the amount of pollutant, say CO2, that an industry can discharge into the environment.  The cap is lowered at regular intervals, thus reducing the total amount of pollutant that can be discharged.   Businesses must then buy “allowances” to discharge, either from the government or at specially created, open market “trading” exchanges (comparable to a stock exchange).

• The selling of allowances has the potential to generate vast sums of money for the government.  It is thus in the governments interest to sell more allowances during difficult fiscal times, with fiscal needs and politics becoming the driving factor.
• Proponents claim that the selling and trading of pollution allowances “moniterizes” the pollutant, or turns it into a commodity with a defined value.
• Cap and trade requires the establishment of a vast bureaucracy to establish and regulate the caps and to establish and regulate the trading exchanges.
• Cap and trade creates a vast new constituency  of lawyers, lobbyists, traders, investment banks, hedge funds and other speculators; all of whom have a vested interest in perpetuating the scheme.
• A cap and trade scheme is inherently complex few, in any, individuals being in a position to have a good understanding of the entire operation. Consequently cap and trade creates large opportunities for graft, fraud and abuse.
• Due to the complexity of the scheme, cap and trade is usually applied only to large companies, leaving vast numbers of individual and businesses free to pollute as much as they want.
• Under a cap and trade scheme, the cost of the required large bureaucracies will be passed on to the taxpayers.  Businesses and utilities will also pass on to the consumer the cost of their allowances, whether purchased from the government or at trading exchanges.  And, when the cap is lowered to the point that available allowances will no longer cover a businesses discharges, companies will be forced to install new equipment or otherwise reduce emissions; at a cost which will again be passed on to the consumer.  Note that it is only this last, of three, cost that provides any benefits to the consumer.
• Cap and trade schemes have not proven to be universally successful, especially as the profit motive both on the part of governments and trades often obscures the intended purpose.

Under a “cap” or “regulatory” scheme the government would merely place a “cap” on emissions and issue discharge permits to businesses and utilities.  In essence such a scheme would be no different than the current  processes used to regulate discharge of pollutants into waterways.  In the United States, the government has just placed a “cap” on 2016 tailpipe emissions of CO2 from vehicles of 250 grams per mile, a 34% reduction from the 2009 models.  There appears to be no justifiable reason that a government could not just as easily place a CO2 cap on all CO2 discharges, including those from industry.

• Under a pure regulatory cap, the government would not receive money from the sale of pollution allowances.
• There would be no trading exchanges, since there would be nothing to trade, and thus no establishment of a constituency dedicated to preserving the right to pollute. And the opportunities for graft, corruption and abuse would be greatly decreased.
• Essentially all developed nations have an environmental regulatory agency, so there is no need to establish a new, separate bureaucracies as required under a cap and trade scheme.  No doubt, the existing regulatory agencies might need to be expanded, but new agencies and their associated costs would not be needed.
• The governmental costs borne by taxpayers would be minimal compared to a cap and trade scheme, and there would be no costs of allowances for businesses to pass on to consumers. Consumers would share only the costs of new equipment and practices to reduce pollution, as passed on by businesses.  Thus consumers would pay only one cost, rather than three, to obtain the desired environmental benefits.
• Since a purely regulatory cap removes profit opportunities, opponents claim that it would be politically unpalatable.   But the fact remains that in the long run, a pure regulatory cap would be just as effective, and far cheaper for all involved, that a cap and trade scheme.

While there are several variations, a carbon tax is by far the simplest means of lowering CO2 emissions.  Most tax proposals are for a “rising”, “rebated” tax under which the tax would be steadily raised (just as a cap is lowered), and the collected tax dollars are rebated to consumers.  As the cost of energy increases, market forces would lower carbon fuel consumption, and thus reduce CO2 emissions.  In theory, consumers would choose energy-efficient products and adopt conservation practices, while energy efficient businesses would have a competitive advantage.  In practice, CO2 emissions in the United States actually decreased 2.8% in 2008 – a decrease attributed to high gasoline prices and a sagging economy.  Upon closer examination, we find that CO2 emissions of the transportation sector actually decreased by 5.2% and that CO2 emissions per dollar of economic output decreased by 3.8%; both decreases indicating that the high cost of energy was the major contributing factor rather than the economic downturn.

• Virtually all developed nations have a well established, and experienced bureaucracy dedicated to the collection and rebating of taxes.  While the tax agencies might need to be expanded to cover an increased workload the cost would be minimal.
• Any added cost would be minimal.
• Opportunities for fraud, corruption and abuse would be no greater than under current tax practices.
• If the tax is equally rebated to taxpayers, those who consume an average amount of energy would break even, while those who consume less energy than the average would actually make money, thus providing an economic incentive to conserve energy.  Also, while all surveys show that energy usage tends to increase with income, those with a low income would tend to receive a larger rebate than their energy taxes paid.  (More lower income people utilize public transportation than drive Hummers.)
• The base cost of energy and any increased cost of manufactured products would be driven by competitive market forces.
• As the energy tax rises, and oil consumption decreases, more dollars would remain at home, rather than being shipped to the oil producing nations.
• Any additional tax would be difficult to implement since citizens of all nations abhor taxes.  Therefore implementation of a rising, rebated tax scheme will require political foresight and courage.  However, a rising, rebated tax scheme is by far the cheapest alternative, and of proven effectiveness.

The need to address climate change is urgent.  We do not have the time to experiment with various schemes to lower CO2 emissions, but rather must get it right the first time.  Citizens should inform themselves on the issues and possible actions, and demand that our political leaders have the courage to do what is right, not what is “expedient”.

Solar and wind power technologies are both low efficiency producers of power, converting only a relatively small percentage of sunlight or wind into usable energy; and both suffer from variable and unpredictable availability.  Thus we have relatively inefficient, unreliable supply balanced against a relatively constant demand for reliable energy.  This is not a good match, and not one that we can rely on.  In fact many instances of peak electricity demand occur during periods when supply from solar or wind are low, or non-existent.   On a regional basis, there are only two viable alternatives to this dilemma: standby and storage.

The most common application of the “storage” concept is “pumped hydro storage” in which electricity generated during periods of slack demand is diverted to pump water into a high elevation reservoir.  During periods of high demand water is released from the high reservoir and passed through turbines to generate electricity.  A relatively old technology, pumped hydro is most commonly used for “load-balancing” with water pumped into the high reservoir during the night, and released through the turbines during peak-demand daytime hours.   Pumped hydro is restricted to hydro-electric facilities in sites permitting an elevated reservoir, which is not often the case.  Due to the energy required to pump water uphill into the high reservoir more energy is actually used than produced, but since utilities can charge a higher rate during peak demand hours, pumped storage facilities can be profitable.  Batteries, flywheels, compressed gases another other schemes for storage may have limited applications, but are not feasible on a regional basis.  Some will content that wind and solar power are actually a variant of the storage concept as they permit the “storage” of fossil fuels when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.

The alternative to storage is a standby conventional generating facility maintained in a constant state of readiness and prepared to instantly assume the load if solar or wind power becomes unavailable.  To be effective the constant standby facility must be in a “spinning” state with its generators rotating at production speed.  The standby facility constantly consumes energy and must be staffed and maintain as if it were a full-time production facility.  While the energy consumption of the standby facility is less when it is in a standby state than when actually producing electricity , the emissions required for the  construction, maintenance,  operation, and the ultimate demolition and disposal of the duplicate facilities must be accounted for in determining the effective emission reduction of solar or wind power.

Wind and solar advocates often envision wind, or solar, farms in geographic regions that are rich in these resources, and with the generated electricity fed into regional, or national, grids for distribution to distant locations.  In theory such a scheme would be equivalent to the load-balancing of pumped hydro on the if the wind is always blowing, or the sun always shining, at some location on the grid.  Unfortunately, no national grid is that large, and world-wide grid capacity and construction has not kept pace with increased demand.  Also, in most regions, distribution grids are at, or near, capacity with increasing brown-outs, or black-outs a near-term possibility.  The grid capacity for simply transporting energy from producer to consumer,  in-lieu of local generating facilities, is virtually non-existent

Solar and wind certainly have a role in supplying needed energy, but it is hard to imagine that they can ever be more that a supporting player, not a core contributor.  It would seem reasonable that large-scale government funding for solar and wind development would be far better spent on increasing the efficiency and reducing the emissions or our current fuels, and seeking new technologies whose supply is more reliable and capable of matching demand.  The fact remains that the most economical, reliable, readily available and zero-emission alternate-power source is conservation!

The Nano has achieved a certified fuel efficiency of 23.6 km/liter (55.5 mpg) which is claimed to be the highest for any gasoline-powered car in India and about 12% more efficient than a typical motorcycle.  Carbon Dioxide emissions are a low, at 101 gm/km, as are Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, particulates and hydrocarbons.

As previously discussed the Nano will undoubtedly be a commercial success in a country where automobile ownership is growing rapidly but yet only 1 out every 1,000 adults currently own and auto.  The Nano is affordable and a major step-up from the ever present motor scooters found currently jamming the nations roadways.  Tata is claiming a “stupendous response to the Nano and hopes to increase production up to a level of 1 million units a year in India.  However, it must be noted that Tata also has a $2 billion load due this summer for its recent purchase of Land Rover and Jaguar, which may slow new factory construction.

Tata will have a European model of the Nano available by 2011 and is reported to be considering exporting the Nano to the United States.

Initially the Nano was trumpeted as a safer alternative to the motor bikes which serve as a primary source of transportation in India, often overloaded with several passengers and baggage.  But, will the Nano be a replacement for the family motor bike, or an additional family vehicle and thus increasing transportation emissions per family?

Even though the Nano is only 3.1 m (10.2 ft) in length it is still considerably larger than a typical motor bike and will occupy significantly more space on India’s already crowded roadways.  Will the addition of large numbers of Nano’s result in increased traffic congestion and traffic “jams”,  resulting in a significant overall increase in transportation CO₂ emissions, and thus negate the advantages of a fuel efficient automobile?

Will the Nano be a benefit or an environmental disaster?

The entire range of plastics, from those used to replace human body parts to the bags for our garbage are petroleum products.  But perhaps one of the most critical uses of petroleum, in addition to providing energy, is as a lubricant. Without lubricating oils the worlds machines would simply, and rapidly, grind to a halt.  There is no substitute for petroleum lubricating oils, even the so-called “synthetic motor oils” are specially refined petroleum products.

We are now burning fossil oils, and emitting greenhouse gases,  at a rapidly accelerating rate, and at a rate that will increase as consumption in the developing nations continues to increase. The world’s supply of oil is limited and scarcity is assured at some point in the future.  In fact, some of the oil-rich middle eastern countries are now preparing for an energy future based on nuclear power.

It may well be that the it will be impossible to reverse the world’s burning of petroleum; but considering that it is a essential component for so many products required for human health and well-being it would appear prudent to conserve this vital, and limited resource.  After all, how will we lubricate our windmills, hydro- and nuclear-powered generators after we burn the last drop of oil in our SUVs?  Even more critical is the role of carbon emissions into the atmosphere upon our climate.

Fossil fuels are indeed too valuable to burn, and their combustion is too dangerous for our climate.  We must conserve this valuable resource and protect our atmosphere, or we will indeed be toast!

With the completion of a new manufacturing facility the Nano will go on sale in India this fall. The five seat car is powered by a 2 cylinder, 624 cc engine, producing 33 hp. It will meet all current safety and emission standards in India and the current Euro IV standard in Europe – but neither regulate CO2 output. With a top speed of 105 km/h (65 mph) the Nano will achieve 22km/L (52 mpg US) in city driving and 26 km/L (61 mpg US) in highway driving. While the basic car does not include such features as air conditioning, power windows, power steering or air bags it was conceived as a family car with the intent of replacing heavily laden two-wheeled scooters as the sole means of family conveyance.

The seems to be little reason to doubt that the Nano will become an economic success, introducing millions of families in the developing nations to automobile ownership. But whether of not the Nano is part of the solution to climate change or a climatic disaster is the subject of debate.

If the Nano replaces motor scooters with their dirtier 2-stroke engines it would appear to be a benefit; but the motor scooters usually get far greater mileage than even the high mileage Nano. And in the real world, it would seem likely that Nanos will be an addition, not replacement for a motor scooter.

In spite of being a small car, the Nano is considerably larger than a motor scooter, or bicycle, and will thus take up considerably more space on already congested roads. Increased congestion will result in increased idling, reducing effective mileage and increasing emissions.

While Tata is planing initial production of only 250,000 Nanos per year, there is great concern that the low-cost Nano, and its likely imitators, will hasten the introduction of carbon-powered automobile ownership to large masses of the emerging middle class of developing nations – a move that seems inevitable under any circumstance. To argue otherwise would imply that in a free-society prices should be kept artificially high to promote desire social benefits.

While it appears unlikely that the the Nano, in it present form, will ever be introduced in the developed nations, its influence will no doubt be felt in the design and manufacture of automobiles throughout the world. If so, the Nano may ultimately be judged as as contributing to the solution of the climate change crises.

______________

November, 2008 Update:  Production at the main Nano factory, on a 900 acre site in the Punjab District of India has not yet begun as it has become embroiled in a dispute with local farmers who feel that they were cheated out of their small parcels of land.  In the meantime Tata has bought both the Land Rover and Jaguar brands from the Ford Motor Company.