Climate Capitalism

For congress, it has been all about health care and the economy in recent months. However, an article in the NYT today suggest there may be some motion on climate change legislation as the major players in the energy industry start taking sides.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/business/energy-environment/19fuel.html

New York times reporter, Elisabeth Rosenthal had an article in the New York Times today which makes me rethink my excitement for Seattle’s shinny new light-rail line.  The article highlights Bogotá Colombia’s bus rapid transit system (BRT.)

The basic idea behind BRT sytems is that building light-rail or subway systems are very capital intensive, not very flexible and don’t take advantage of the millions of miles of pavement we already have.  Use of buses instead of trains makes a lot of sense in terms of basic economics and getting the most out of our car-centric infrastructure — but the negative stereotype of “riding the bus” keep us laying tracks and issuing government bonds in cities all over the first-world.

The concept is not new, but BRT system do seem to be gaining some momentum. I remember reading about them in the State of the World 2007 by the World Watch Institute.  One of the overarching themes in the report: traditionally first-world nations have exported knowledge and expertise to the developing world. Recently the roles are starting to reverse.  As cash-strapped cities in the developing world are forced to come up with creative solutions to the problems of urbanization they are creating the new models of sustainble developent.  One of the chapters focused on a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in the city of Curitiba, Brazil similar to the one discussed in the NYT article today.  The Curitiba system was origional designed in the mid-1960’s. Like the NYT article, the authors pointed out the importance of building these systems “right.”  These are not your typical city bus.  You need dedicated lanes for speed, platform stations for quick loading and unloading.   Cities like Curibiba and Bogata have figured this out while attempts to uses buses in places like Los Angeles have fallen flat since these key ingredients were left out. It has to feel like riding the subway.

In Seattle, during the 10+ year debate around the new light-rail system, many oppoents argued our bus system was just fine, buy more buses, light-rail was just too expensive. The counter argument was that the roads are the problem.  Buses can’t move in gridlock any faster than cars.  I wonder what would have happened if a true BRT system had be proposed instead?  Perhaps I missed it or perhaps I’m just having buyer’s remorse.

I’ll be interested to follow this topic as more cities around the world wrestle with the collision of climate change,  traffic congestion.  I’m not sure how many American’s will be trading in their car keys for bus passes just yet, but until we get flying cars, there may be more BRT systems in our future.

The Guardian’s, Suzanne Goldenberg discusses the global importance of the U.S. House vote on landmark climate change legislation scheduled for tomorrow morning.  She writes that Obama’s ability to set a global agenda to tackel global warming hinges on the United States passing climate change prior to the United Nations - Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in December.

Read Goldenberg’s arcticle at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/25/barack-obama-climate-change-bill

Peter Henderson of Reuters reports on Microsoft futurist Craig Mundie.  Mundie promotes conservation but also predicts that nuclear power will play a major role in meeting 21st century “green” energy needs.

Mundie mentions traveling wave reactors which is a sub type of breeder reactors.  Also see Adam Smith’s December, 8th, 2008 post: IFR Technology, the Holy Grail of Clean Energy? about the related Integral Fast Reactors (IFR.)  Breader reactors are still largely theoretical, but do promise to help solve another 21st Century problem… what to do with all that 20th century nuclear waste.

I was curious to learn a little more about the state algae as a sustainable source for bio-diesel.   I’d heard it was very efficient source of oil, especially compared to agricultural mainstays like corn and soybeans. I’d also heard claims that it could grow in places less desirable than Iowa such as raw sewage or even space.

A few things I did learn:

Problems

There are some challenges using algae as a economically viable fuel source.  Here is a quick summary of what I found:

From: http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2006/10/three-big-problems-with-algae.html

• Energy intensive to harvest
• Naturally occurring (less-oil rich) species of algae will crowd out preferred species in open-pond systems
• Cost of mitigating potential ground-water contamination

• In a open pond design, since only the top 1/4 in of water in a pond will receive enough light, algea production, like any other land based crop, is limited by surface area.
• Optimum production requires consitent tempatures. Even sun-rich locations like New Mexico had problems due to low night-time temperatures.
• Lab cultures did not always grow in outside ponds.

In yet another example of the complexities of combatting climate change, a study conducted by environmental engineers at the University of California at Davis raises questions about the true carbon reduction benefits of using public transportation as compared, for example, to driving an SUV, according to this article from AFP.  The study focused on the overall carbon production of public transport including the impacts of building and maintaining the infrastructure for the transportation system.  The study doesn’t appear to discourage investment in mass transit, but rather appears to be aimed at raising awareness among consumers and policymakers about all of the factors that impact carbon emissions.

In this May 14 entry, I commented on an article from an Oregon newspaper discussing how relatively inexpensive efficiency improvements like installing insulation can have a much greater impact on reducing carbon emissions than investing in more expensive technologies like solar power.  Seemingly to reinforce the point, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced an initiative today to increase the number of light colored roofs.  Replacing dark roofs with white ones, according to a statement attributed to Secretary Chu in a May 26, 2009, AFP article, “could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years.” 

Although the article isn’t clear, it appears that the 11-year figure assumes that all dark roofs in the world suddenly be painted white.  Obviously, an initiative to get new government construction or to provide tax incentives for lighter colored roofs on private construction would not have this drastic an effect, but it would have a positive effect.  Again, the point is not that investment in more expensive technologies should not be abandoned for simpler ones.  As Secretary Chu points out, we must consider a “range of measures” in fighting climate change, which includes both new advances in technology and greater implementation of common sense efficiency improvements.

21st Century Bus Stop?

When I first read Candace Lombardi’s article “In Italy, futuristic bus stops to blend practical, chic” about the twenty-first century bus stop, “EyeStop”, I thought I’d stumbled onto a straggler from April Fool’s day or possibly the antics of The Yes Men.

Upon further investigation, it appears that Apple inspired name is not a fictitious marketing spoof ala the iProduct, but an actual collaboration between MIT, the province of Florence and the local transit authority, ATAF.

The “EyeStop” project is part of MIT’s SENSEable City Laboratory which is exploring the “increasing deployment of sensors and hand-held electronics in recent years,” and exploring “a new approach to the study of the built environment.”

AP White House Correpondent Jennifer Loven published this analysis today on the Obama administration’s brokering of a compromise between the federal government, state governments, the auto industry and environmentalists on vehicle emissions standards.  No doubt many will find fault with one or more aspects of the deal, but that is the nature of any compromise.  The fact that the various stakeholders with significantly divergent interests were able to find common ground is reason for optimism that we will start to see progress on other energy and pollution issues, including the fight against global warming more generally.

We here at ClimateCapitalism.com are all for investing in clean energy, but we’re also for common sense.  Here’s an article from the Corvallis, OR Gazette Times that puts both concepts into perspective.  According to a study performed by an advocacy group in nearby Vancouver, WA, old-fashioned investments like installing insulation can often result in more energy savings than more expensive “green” investments like solar systems.  The moral of the story: a combination of energy efficiency and new technology is the best clean energy strategy.