Global Warming: A Reasonable Approach

I don’t know what to think about global warming. I hear in the news that the argument about global warming is over. The 2008 New York Times Almanac states that a group of “several thousand scientists” concluded that, “With this report, (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control) the debate over human influence is essentially over for most scientists . . . ” page 782. The Associated Press reported that their were only 52 scientists that were involved with the summary document that reported the argument was over. For a good summary see S. Fred Singer

I am skeptical about the debate and the way that public policy is leaning because of the debate. I am probably like a lot of other people, unwilling to outright accept the conclusions about global warming, and unwilling to accept the recommendations about how to fix it.

One argument is that we ought to take precautionary measures to reduce global warming, just as someone ought to wear a seatbelt in case of an accident. I would advocate a reasonable approach in public policy. Realizing, that we are not going to replace cars with horses, and if we did, they would produce a lot of methane anyway, we still should look for socially acceptable, economically palatable, and environmentally friendly means of reducing emissions or cleaning our air. We can all agree that clean air is a good thing regardless of whether there is global warming.

We want emerging economies to make improvements in their society and we want our country to continue to be at its best. How do you produce products, provide transportation, and create energy in an ever advancing and improving society without slowing progress?

Transportation. No matter how you look at it, we need to move large quantities of goods with tractor trailers. Over the years, we have saved fuel by making trucks more aerodynamic. We have not reduced the amount of trucks on the road, but we have improved their efficiency. One way to reduce consumption and emissions is to make trucks even more aerodynamic, because we are not likely to reduce the amount of trucks on the road

Some of the aerodynamic concept vehicles and ideas are really radical. It’s not out of the question to get a 10-20% savings in fuel from these vehicles. Simple add-on cab deflectors (the wing above the cab) and other current add on technologies would save thousands of gallons of fuel per year (See Truck Fuel and Emission Program)

Hybrid vehicles are making in-roads into society. Some of the gasoline models get about 40 mpg. That’s not a whole lot different then the early Honda Civics with plain gas engines. The diesel hybrids get better mileage than the gas electric hybrids, but the fumes are bad, and that technology is developing better in Europe, where diesels are more acceptable. Beam me up Scotty. Too bad we can’t just transport ourselves around like Kirk in Star Trek. What everyone needs to remember is that a lot of working people still have to drive pick-up trucks, and a lot of families still need to drive vans or SUV’s. But, as gas prices rise, the market is providing more vehicles to consumers that have improved fuel efficiency.

Energy. Coal, hydropower, nuclear, solar, wind, oil. . . The quandary is not necessarily what emits the least amount of pollutants, or CO2. The challenge is what is socially acceptable to our society. Nuclear, solar, and hydropower electrical energy produce no greenhouse gasses, except in initially constructing the plants. However, conflicting environmental concerns prevent new hydro and nuclear facilities. In fact we are removing hydroelectric facilities to improve salmon habitat. When was the last time the US built a new nuclear power plant? At this point our society puts a higher priority on protecting salmon, and does not consider the threat of global warming as great as that of nuclear accidents. Instead, we as a society choose to deal with easier issues. More of the emphasis is on high tech smokestacks that scrub out pollutants.

Carbon credits, though hard to understand, work to reduce the net input of carbon into the atmosphere. This is one concept that has gained a lot of acceptance. If a smoke stack emits 10 units of carbon, a company can buy 15 units of carbon sequestering forest somewhere to offset the emissions and either begin operations or continue operation. Carbon credits are a potential win-win because it may allow industry to operate when regulations would otherwise disallow it, or to operate cheaper, while theoretically reducing the net emissions.

The Forest Connection. A vigorous young forest accumulates and stores more carbon than it releases, as long as it doesn’t catch fire. A little history on forest policy in the Pacific Northwest: There has been over 100 years of fire exclusion, generally thought to have produced overstocked “doghair” stands of fir. In the past 20 years we have virtually stopped harvesting timber from the National Forests. Fires like the Bear and Booth Complex in the Cascades removed 50,000 acres of forest, or the Biscuit, where 400,000 acres went up in smoke. Fire exclusion combined with stagnant management has created the perfect conditions for large fires. By managing forests as reserves, the intent was to preserve them for spotted owls, salmon, etc. Instead, what we have are large inputs of carbon into the atmosphere from fire. Perhaps a better approach would have been to continue to manage these forests by thinning them out, reducing the chance of catastrophic size fires. On carbon credits, the forest should be managed to reduce the threat of fires, or the credit may go up in smoke eventually.

High efficiency cogeneration plants burn wood chips to produce electricity. This utilizes wood from forest biomass (slash piles), or from over-dense forests that we have seen burn in recent years. In the forest, the biomass is usually burned in a slash pile. The cogeneration plant boiler is much more efficient and releases less particulate and CO2 than a forest fire or slash pile burn. Plus, you the added benefit of electricity.

Carbon cracking some day may be improved enough to start using biomass from forests to produce ethanol. Ethanol has less emissions than petrol. Several varieties of hardwoods in Oregon and Washington would be good candidates for producing methanol. Madrone, Myrtlewood, Oaks, and Tanoak, have high energy output in BTU’s and quickly re-grow after harvest. Wood is a potentially better source than corn or sugar cane for producing ethanol because there is a greater available quantity, and it does not pull food off the counter, or water from the aquifers under the Great Basin.

Utilizing wood from forests has many benefits:

• Lowering the risk of wildfires
• Highly efficient cogeneration plants release less particulates/CO2 than slash piles.
• Electrical generation
• Ethanol is cleaner burning than Petrol
• Running your auto with ethanol.

Conclusion. Perhaps global warming is not as big a problem as finding a political solution. Just mention the word nuclear energy and emotions change the nature of the debate. In fact, mention global warming and you are going to get a heated exchange or sarcasm. At some point the price of gas gets expensive enough to consider buying a more expensive hybrid. Similarly, at some point the potential problems with hydropower or nuclear energy will not be as bad as the real or perceived environmental problems associated with global warming. In the interim, more reasonable solutions, such as incremental improvements in mileage, more efficient power generation, and a more holistic approach to forest policy are (or should be) gaining momentum behind the scenes of a more heated political battle over green ideologies.

Links:

US Senate Committee Report

Global Warming Website