Lying, Poorly, with Numbers

This is from a State Department press release titled U.S. Actions to Address: Energy Security, Clean Development, and Climate Change -

Decline in emissions growth

From 2000-2006, the population of the United States grew by 5.8 percent (16.5 million people) and GDP grew by 15 percent (about $1.5 trillion) while our GHG emissions growth was only 0.3 percent; comparable to the results of many other developed nations.

Of course what this means is emissions are still enormous and still growing. Where is the decline again?

This is an indication of the fantasy we still live in. This is a solitary but noteworthy effort to stick our head in the sand and pretend that any progress is good progress. In this case, regression is trumpeted as progress and then any progress is heralded as enough, "comparable to other nations"

This is like saying you're honest because you lie less than everyone else. What is missing is a culture of integrity about this. The score keeper here isn't us.

Making the Invisible Visible

I want to applaud ABC News for the intention behind their new series Earth 2100. From the press release -

We need you to bring this story to life — to use your imagination to create short videos about what it would be like to live through the next century if we stay on our current path. Using predictions from top experts, we will feed you detailed briefings from the years 2015, 2050, 2070 and 2100 — and you will report back about the dangers that are unfolding before your eyes.

Your videos will be combined with the projections of top scientists, historians, and economists to form a powerful web–based narrative about the perils of our future. We will also select the most compelling reports to form the backbone of our two–hour primetime ABC News broadcast: Earth 2100, airing this fall.

Silicon Valley is creating tools and gadgets to reduce the impact of our choices, but American inventors have another path available. Make those impacts more apparent, and you can change our choices. This has cultural, spiritual and technological aspects.

Normally, I am suspicious of ratings-motivated blurring of fact and fiction. Too often, the temptation is to feed fear or fantasy. But this looks like a request of that under-utilized natural resource: our imagination.

Cities Lead the Way

From the San Francisco Chronicle comes news that the Board of Supervisros (our version of a City Council) OK rebates for solar power systems -

San Francisco supervisors gave final approval Tuesday to a program that will create a $3 million fund to provide rebates for residents and businesses that install solar power systems.

... residents could receive between $3,000 and $6,000 for photovoltaic systems that produce at least 1 kilowatt of electricity. Businesses could receive $1,500 per kilowatt installed, with a cap of $10,000.

Well, its a start. How much of a start? Between 500 and 1,000 houses would eat the entire subsidy up. Only 345,527 houses left!

By the way, the $3,000 subsidy is .4% of the value of the house.

Good start, but the wrong end of the funnel.

Could Business Step in Where Government Has Failed?

A Cap & Trade plan failed in the Senate this week. Could business do what the politicians couldn't?

From the Guardian -

Up to 1,000 volunteers will be able to use their... shopping loyalty cards at any BP garage to record how much fuel they have purchased – and, as a result... how much carbon dioxide they will emit into the atmosphere.

Each volunteer will be given a monthly allowance of carbon credits which they will then be able to trade with other volunteers using an online trading system dubbed the CarbonDAQ. Volunteers who are thrifty with their credits will, using a virtual currency, be able to sell their spare credits to those needing to drive further than their allowance allows.

Could this work on a national level? Could this be the model we use to get to Monbiot's 90% reduction?

The best part of this plan is the way it makes the cost of carbon emissions real. Your choices raise or lower your emissions, and this is directly hooked to the amount of money in your pocket. Right now, your conscience is your guide, and all you have to do is pick up any Bible, newspaper or divorce proceeding to see that self-restraint has not proven to be much of a check on bad behavior.

It is also an effective riposte to claims that an individual carbon trading system would be too expensive. The UK's environment ministry published a study that found:

Initial set up costs would be between £700m and £2bn. Running costs would be between £1bn and £2bn a year.

Using bank cards hits number two in the reduce-reuse-recycle list.

That said, I see an immediate impediment. Any voluntary plan is most likely to attract the conscientious and least likely to bring in large emitters. For obvious reasons.

Which brings us back to why government involvement is required if you want anything more than token participation in Carbon emissions reductions: uniformity. Unless the whole market is forced to recognize pollution in their costs, the big polluters will go to markets where they can push the cost onto you, me, the future and the planet because their competitors will.

So, cute. Fun for some Prius owners. Not anywhere near a solution.

Coal Powered Cars

Is it better to run a car on coal or gas? It isn't usually put that way. Usually we ask if a plug-in electric car is better than a gas powered car. When its asked that way it seems a lot simpler, and in California, it is (relatively) simple. Only 1% of our total electric power is from Coal, and about 49% is from gas.

- data courtesy the Energy Information Administration

Questions about all those other states, how you deliver the energy and how efficient the cars are and how you measure it all, well, that is when it gets complicated enough that you need a few days, a lot of experts and Google.

Today and tomorrow, the Brookings Institution is sponsoring Plug-In Electric Vehicles 2008: What Role for Washington? They will be posting the sessions. I look forward to watching them.