Off the keyboard of Steve Ludlum

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Economic Undertow on December 10, 2015

Discuss this article at the Environment Table inside the Diner

The most effective policy is to pay people to conserve: to offer a basic income conditioned to meeting conservation standards; to pay citizens who do not have children or own cars.

Figure 1: CO₂ content of the atmosphere increases, now over 400 ppm. NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography (click on for big).

Right now thousands of the world’s bosses and their underlings are meeting in Paris in an attempt to wrangle some sort of global reduction of warming gases without actually doing anything, from CNN:

COP21 climate change summit: ‘Never have the stakes been so high’

Leaders of 150 nations, along with 40,000 delegates from 195 countries, are attending the conference, called COP21. COP stands for Conference of Parties, an annual forum to try to tackle climate change on a global political level.

The leaders have one mission: Agree on legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions meant to hold global average temperatures short of a 2 degrees Celsius increase over pre-industrial global temperatures.

 

 

The cognitive dissonance is head-spinning: the delegates are flown first-class into Paris or in their countries’ official jetliners; they meander in long convoys of armored limousines from Five-star hotels to Michelin-rated restaurants where they are stuffed like geese destined to become foie gras. Eventually, the meetings end and the delegates jet off to other conferences elsewhere. Filling the otherwise boring interval between flights and limo rides is mindless pontificating and empty promises, all of it paid for by the same sorts of industries that emit most of the carbon pollution in the first place!

One would think bringing relief from what is becoming a runaway global meltdown would be an all-hands-on-deck emergency. You would be wrong … because the only action that will make a difference is to reconfigure our Westernized, garbage-producing society from the ground up, to ditch the gangrenous American Way and its polluting industries and their ‘products’ at once, starting with the hundreds of millions of worthless, non-remunerative automobiles. But the bosses and their minions are like children with their hands caught in the cookie jar; they refuse to give up anything even if it means total destruction. Their strategy is to end pollution is to wait until after everyone as become rich, countries will then be able to afford expensive pollution-remediation technology, that so far nobody has been able to produce.

We live in ridiculous times: bosses are working against themselves. The newer, less-polluting industries are subsidized by legacy versions. Because these standbys — such as coil-fired power stations — are critically important, they are given a continuous lease on life. The output of new and old added together increases ‘economic growth’ that cannot be willingly surrendered. As it is, when the growth fails to materialize on its own, every effort is made to gain it, regardless of consequences. Regardless of consequences. Regardless of consequences. regardless of consequences!

François Hollande’s 34 projects aimed at sealing France’s ‘industrial renaissance’

 

 

 

Driverless cars, nanotechnology and electric aeroplanes – François Hollande launches 34 projects aimed at sealing France’s “industrial renaissance”.

François Hollande denied he was returning France to a bygone age of state interventionism as he launched 34 state-aided projects aimed at sealing the country’s “industrial renaissance” – from futuristic fast trains to electric-powered satellites.

Unveiling the state-subsidised “industrial battle plans”, the French president insisted cutting edge research into “energy transition”, health and food and new technologies would help return France to its glorious industrial past in a globalised world.

Projects include plans to develop a car that can run 60 miles on two litres of fuel, electric aeroplanes, driverless cars, nanotechnology and “intelligent” fabrics, such as incubators made of a material that “cures” jaundice without medical intervention.

 

 

… and more pontification and empty promises. What the bosses refuse to understand is there will be the reduction of climate gases; this is an absolute certainty. The process appears to be underway, but not for the reasons often cited. Rather, it is resource constraints/peak oil, deleveraging, breakdown in credit infrastructure, bankruptcies and increases in poverty, ‘Conservation by Other Means^TM‘ whereby citizens are reduced to penury and are unable to afford resources in any form … no matter how low the prices go.

The fundamental problem of any emission-reduction strategy is the benefits and risks are in the future while costs accrue in the immediate present. It makes business sense to do nothing and push the costs into the future even though doing so causes them to multiply. An alternative strategy would be to de-emphasize the frontal assault on carbon and target other forms of pollution, by doing so mitigate carbon emissions indirectly. The idea is to break the main problem into smaller components and deal with them in detail. For instance there are multiple heat-trapping items besides carbon dioxide; there is soot, also nitrous oxides, hydrofluorocarbons, methane- and related, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride: some of these emissions are controlled, others such as carbon gas emissions have been reduced to some degree within the US and Europe by shifting manufacturing to other countries.

• The means to manage pollution are familiar and have been deployed successfully for decades, such as the regulatory requirement to produce and market diesel fuel without sulfur. This requirement is uncontroversial, there are no arguments against it. The means to produce sulfur-free fuel exist now and have been proven cost effective. Management is relatively simple because diesel fuel is the product of a relative handful of large, centralized industrial facilities which can be monitored. If the facilities don’t produce the correct diesel they are easily shut down. After the introduction of sulfur-free fuel there are visible benefits both in the form of lower fuel user costs and cleaner air, the diesel fuel producers’ margins aren’t effected.
• Administrative and technical tools to limit emissions can be perfected against more commonplace forms of pollution. Over time these tools can be improved enough to be effective against carbon emitters.
• As components of the climate problem are chipped away, the problem shrinks, it becomes underwhelming. The final reduction of the carbon problem becomes a relatively modest exercise.

There is low-hanging fruit to harvest by reducing smog in developing countries where it is considered to be a naturally occurring by-product of progress. As Americans and Europeans discovered in the 1950s, the costs of smog can be unbearable. Clean air and non-polluted water are not luxuries but a basic requirement for a functioning country.

Once there are visible pollution ‘victories’ — whatever they might be — it becomes easier to produce follow-on victories. Right now there is nothing to the climate dilemma but one administrative failure after another … managers are perceived to be inept and untrustworthy, each failure making it more difficult to take effective action in the future.

• To do nothing is to allow resource depletion and energy deflation to sharply diminish fuel consumption which will in turn reduce the output all hydrocarbon fuels including coal. Mining coal on an industrial scale is no longer a pick-and-shovel operation but requires vast amounts of petroleum. The coal customer must bear these costs otherwise, the coal remains in the ground. Resource depletion is the default solution to climate problems and is underway. The only word one must be mindful of regarding depletion is cost.
• The world-wide increase in suburbs, cars, developments, infrastructure, mines and oil wells ironically renders carbon fuels too costly and valuable to waste. Cost is a hard school, but accelerated development is the most likely cure for climate ills because it is the most certain. The conjecture that billions of tons of fossil fuel resources are immediately available for conversion into climate gases is false, these resources are not affordable in a world visibly going broke.

Kobane, Syria, 2015. Image by AFP Photo/Bulent Kilic: default climate gas management in action. Pollution is not emitted from these buildings. Consider changing the economic paradigm and look to Syria rather than Europe or the United States as the model customer for alternative energy. The shattered country filled with desperately impoverished people is somehow supposed to afford expensive replacement prime movers when they can barely afford what they have now.

• Climate scientists are overexposed in the media and elsewhere, they should step off the public stage. Questions about climate should be answered with a terse, “no comment”. Climate change should become a hip and trendy insider secret, accessible by only a privileged few. This is strictly a cynical marketing ploy as the businessmen would rush to fill the information vacuum with obvious, self-defeating lies. Events and word-of-mouth would do the heavy lifting. Ominous silence from the science community would be terrifying … perhaps enough to stir individual action.
• All climate scientists should get rid of their cars and other polluting luxuries: drive them to the junkyards and crush them. The scientists are either serious or they are not. If not, why should anyone else be?
• Focus on ‘other’ ordinary pollution culprits: ozone, nitrous oxides, volatile hydrocarbon photochemical smog, soot, methane and chlorofluorocarbon gases used in refrigeration, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.
• The primary components of smog are particulates, nburned fuel and nitrous oxides. Ordinary smog is reduced by the use of catalytic converters and fuel management systems. The catalyst combusts the unburned fuel in the stream of engine exhaust gas. Unburned fuel, nitrous oxides in the presence of sunlight produces ozone which is poisonous to vegetation. This in turn accelerates the release of greenhouse gases from agriculture lands and forests. Attacking ozone is a tactic to attack carbon emissions indirectly.
• There is a long history or successful management of photochemical smog sourced from vehicles, this effort should be expanded laterally … to countries without effective smog controls … and vertically … to include all kinds of engines. This includes fixed sources of ozone producing pollution such as generators and industrial prime movers; ship power plants and aircraft engines.
• Catalytic converters should be retrofitted to older engines. Those that cannot be retrofitted should be removed from service and scrapped. A country-by-country approach or by way of the WTO, the setting of requirements for manufacturers; all of these approaches would be effective and non-controversial. Half of the world operates engines equipped with with these converters and does so at low cost, the use of them in the other half represents a manageable expense. The public benefit is cleaner air, fewer pollution-related health problems and less damage to agriculture. The private benefit is the sales of catalysts and replacement engines.
• Soot- and soot-like particles are important components of climate change and is sourced from coal- and oil fired boilers, auto tire wear, brake- and clutch linings, diesel exhaust and from poorly performing gasoline engines, also from wood-burning and forest fires. Soot can be managed by using cleaner fuels, reducing open fires and using particulate traps on prime movers.
• Eliminate chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants that are produced and sold in developing countries. CFC’s are potent greenhouse gases: production and sale of bootleg refrigerants is a marginal activity whose loss would not effect national economies at all. Unlike narcotics and other contraband, CFCs are produced only in a few large factories which can be shut down or modified to produce non-destructive products. What is needed is the administrative impulse to do so.
• Institute a universal ban on 2-cycle engines including those which burn lubricating oil along with gasoline. Unburned oil and diesel fuel in the exhaust stream contaminates catalysts in catalytic converters; the poorly combusted oil is also a source of soot. There are four-cycle alternatives that do not burn lubricating oil, that allow the use of catalytic converters. A short phase-in period would retire or replace all 2-cycle engines including outdoor equipment, chain saws, scooters and mopeds.
• Ban carburetors on gasoline engines. Carburetors are obsolete and generally only found in the US on smaller engines used off-highway such as portable generators and lawn mowers. Carburetors do not allow fuel to mix completely with the air and are a source of photochemical smog. Carburetors are replaceable with electronic fuel management systems such as fuel injection.
• End the export trade in older vehicles and prime movers from the West to developing countries. Older vehicles are a large source of pollution. Ending this trade would be a step away from the proposal that every human is entitled to personal automobile transport without regards to the consequences. There are hundreds of millions of 2-cycle engines, carburetors and antiquated junkers in the world, removing them would make a noticeable difference at very low cost or even provide a return as the use of these things is subsidized.
• End the trade in partially-refined and unblended low quality fuels including but not limited to leaded gasoline and high-sulfur diesel. There should be an industry agreement regarding fuel quality; an international standard to meet. This standard would cost a modest amount of money to implement; like CFCs, fuels are the products of a few large factories that can be managed.
• Mandate the switch to low-sulfur fuels, gas scrubbers and catalytic converters on all ocean-going ships.
• Mandate only up-to-date electric generating plants which use low-sulfur fuels and pollution reducing technology … all of which is readily available. A schedule to update power stations should be agreed to reduce then eliminate non-carbon waste gases … doing so would indirectly reduce the carbon emissions. Non-performing prime movers would be scrapped even those that are relatively new. A fifteen year old thermal plant that produces excess waste gases can be scrapped the same as the fifteen year old merchant ship that falls into the same non-performing category. ‘Forced updating’ is cost-free as the new plant uses less fuel than what it replaces.
• Any sort of conservation policy is low-cost and highly effective. Conservation is the cheapest form of power generation as the plant not built represents billions of dollars of credit effectively earned. At the same time, tackling smog, particularly in developing countries, would demonstrate that managing carbon emissions is possible.
• The most effective policy is to pay people to conserve: offer a basic income conditioned to meeting conservation standards; pay citizens who do not have children or own cars.
• Eliminate fuel subsidies in all countries! This would accomplish a number of goals; a) reduce sovereign expenses in countries currently being bankrupted by their fuel subsidies; b) fuel consumption would be reduced along with auto fleets. This is because subsidies are more useful to those with sub-standard vehicles, c) carbon emissions would be indirectly reduced as there would be less fuel consumed: fuel pricing is a form of rationing.
• Ending subsidies risks aggravating motorists. Drivers and their entitlements will have to be dealt with sooner or later, easy way or hard: the ongoing world-wide bailout of motorists is unaffordable. Once government gains any sort of ascendancy over drivers it becomes a far simpler matter to bring the hammer down on them with regards to climate gas emissions as well as fuel waste. The default strategy to constrain drivers is to do nothing. This leaves fuel shortages caused by drivers’ bankruptcy to do the dirty work.
• Implement a world-wide moratorium on forest clear cutting. This is another easy fix that is practically cost free except to gangsters/Chinese who traffic in bootleg lumber. Commandos would earn their keep by killing loggers who would be otherwise paid not to log. Implementation would suggest a hard limit: this and no more! Forest removal and followup agricultural exploitation add only the smallest marginal additions to national GDP at the same time the costs to the environment and ability of the biosphere to absorb carbon are extraordinarily high. Deforestation by itself is a greenhouse gas emitter.
• Implement and fund a world-wide program of re-forestation, wherever possible. The cost would be modest, the returns would be felt in areas where deforestation has led to degraded soils and watersheds. Reforestation can also be a jobs-providing platform.
• It is important to reforest in ways that increase diversity making forests less susceptible to pests.
• Implement more effective forest-fire fighting efforts. The costs would be modest measured against the increased climate costs of forest fires.
• Put out coal mine- and coal seam fires. This is more low-hanging fruit.
• End gas flaring from oil wells, refineries and terminals. Not only do the flares produce carbon gases but they are also tremendously destructive of insect life.
• Eliminate ‘incidental’ methane leakage from oil and gas wells. Most oil and gas wells do not leak, those that do should be denied connection and ordered plugged immediately at drillers’ expense. Given a few such expensive duds, there would soon be no methane leaks from hydrocarbon wells.
• Eliminate tax advantages and subsidies for fuel use in the US, the world’s greatest waster of fossil fuels. Accelerated depreciation, depletion allowances for oil reservoirs, income tax deductions for ‘business vehicle’ purchases, favorable royalty rates and low cost access to public lands, access roads by the state(s), borrow-and-spend highway subsidies, mortgage interest deduction, favorable treatment of capital gains, etc. Reforms would not cost anything but would reduce costs, the obstacle is politics.
• Reformulate plastics so they degrade when exposed to sunlight or sea water. At the same time, place a ‘producer deposit’ — no different from the old-fashioned bottle deposit — on plastic factories for the packaging products they produce.
• Reform agriculture. CAFO’s — concentrated animal feeding operations or very large feedlots — provide utility the CAFO operator only. These operations with their confined animals contaminate water supplies with animal waste; they also produce massive amounts of climate gases. Shutting down CAFO’s would be a low-cost tactic that indirectly reduces climate gas emissions.
• Reform agriculture, make wider use of biochar.

Figure 2: Warming scenarios from UNEP by way of Robert Scribbler: Efforts to reduce carbon emissions and warming look to fall short, leaving the world to heat up to massively destructive +4°C which would wipe out our agriculture.

• End biofuel subsidies. Feeding cars and feeding humans together at the same time means that ultimately neither get fed. Biofuels are barely net-energy neutral and subsidy dependent, the beneficiaries are a handful of biofuel tycoons who would ‘lose’ with the elimination of subsidies.
• Implement a world-wide moratorium on road building. This is yet another easy fix that is cost free, both it and the moratorium on logging are easily enforced by way of satellite surveillance. Another, related step is to eliminate World Bank subsidies for logging, road building, dam building and other environmentally destructive policies that also produce climate gases or reduce the ability of the biosphere to sequester carbon.
• Electrify railroads and increase both freight and passenger capacity.
• Ban land-grabbing in undeveloped countries by 3d parties. Much of the so-called ‘new’ farm land becomes biofuel plantations, cash crop industrial monocultures that produce climate gases.

The most effective step is to provide incentives — to pay people — to conserve. Subsidizing conservation provides a direct capital return on investment that remains with the recipient. Subsidizing consumption as we do now leaves consumer without the resource, without the subsidy and his children with a mountain of unpayable debts. He’s older and poorer even if his consumption suggests otherwise.

The most effective tool is good management. Individuals can effect small scale changes on their own, in aggregate they can do much. American cities are being made over by younger people acting as individuals, who have turned their backs on suburbia. Managing at-scale industrial processes and mandating engineering approaches is more effectively done by governments with the wit to take action.

Ironically, government activism here would save the tycoons from themselves: left to their own unrestrained cruelty and greed, the tycoons’ self-serving activities will continue to price resources beyond the reach of their customers. Eventually, both resource- and the tycoon ‘problems’ are ‘solved’.

With a bit of effort it is not hard to think of other, indirect forms of action against carbon gas emitters. The benefit of these alternatives is that they would not cost very much or would provide economic gains. Meanwhile, the climate crisis is deflated by a thousand cuts leaving (hopefully) our descendants to wonder what all the fuss was about.