Monday, July 29, 2013

Data Breakdown: the Presidential Address on Climate Change

At the end of last month, President Obama made a publicly televised address on his new plan to combat climate change. Al Gore called it “the best address on climate by any president ever”, and Obama laid out plans for the near future on how to combat the effects of climate change. He also indicated the progress that the US had made already- but let's see how accurate the president's facts were, and take a look at how feasible the new plan is.

If you didn't see the speech, check it out here:





I suggest you watch it as you read. Obama's charisma certainly outmatches what's in my writing- so it'll certainly add to the experience.


Let's start the breakdown:


President Obama is well spoken, even in the blistering heat at Georgetown. He's mentioned before that as a child, he was fascinated with the space program, and he starts off vividly, describing what Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and William Anders saw when they became the first men to orbit the moon. They sent back to Earth this picture, dubbed “Earthrise”:


About this view, Lovell stated “It makes you realize just what you have back there on Earth”. It gives an impressive sense of scale, serving as a reminder that as far as we know, Earth is the only planet of her kind our there. Despite the efforts of NASA, no other planet with vibrant life or directly hospitable conditions for it has been found. 

And around the time that this photo was taken, the mechanism of global warming was first being studied and understood. We've discussed those mechanisms before. Obama states that these changes are beginning to have measurable effects on our climate. He presses that the Earth is warming, and that the 12 warmest years recorded have all occurred within the last 15 years. NASA actually has recorded global average temperatures of the Earth- and confirms this.




In fact, according to the NASA data, the 15 hottest years have been the last 15- although, any method for measuring a global average temperature is bound to have some variance and error, so Obama is likely playing it safe. Either way, the increase in global temperature is undeniable. The difference in average temperature between 1880 and 2012 is 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius), but the truly worrying part is that the increase has been regular and sustained. Many cyclical natural effects on global temperatures have been determined and quantified, namely irregularities in the Earths orbit and cycles in the energy output of the sun, but none of these have ever warmed the Earth so directly and so fast.


The Impacts of Climate Change


Obama follows up with a solid point: while global warming in itself is alarming, the term 'climate change' covers many more effects. There's a long list, and honestly most of the scenarios are still being investigated and studied, but just to start: we're looking at sea level rise, ocean acidification, increased numbers and intensity of heat waves, decreased crop yields, increased rainfall, and more destructive hurricanes. These are all secondary and tertiary effects of the greenhouse gas effect- meaning that, in general, each are caused indirectly by warmer air temperatures. For example: air temperature rise inevitably causes the temperature of the ocean to rise as well. Warmer ocean waters allow higher levels of acid gasses, such as sulfur dioxide or carbon dioxide, to dissolve and lower the pH of the water. This is the secondary effect- and the tertiary effect is damage to delicate coral reefs as a result of ocean acidity. And with each stage it gets harder and harder to determine exactly what the effects to the natural world are. 

 Obama claims that we've already seen some of these secondary and tertiary effects of climate change: high heat, droughts in the midwest followed by increased rainfall, the increased destructiveness of hurricane Sandy due to higher sea level, and more wildfires which Obama says “scorched an area larger than the state of Maryland”. While many of these effects can be measured (albeit with some difficulty), they are harder to definitively attribute to climate change. However, data from the National Interagency Fire Center does support that impacts of wildfires are increasing:



Maryland is about 7,940 thousand acres in area- so he's correct. (Edit- the chart is now adjusted for inflation, all values are in 2013 US Dollars)

 And I can't say the next part any better than Mr. Obama:

“So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science -- of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements -- has put all that to rest... So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late. And how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren.”

“As a President, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act.”

Global climate change is one of the slowest burning crises that we've ever seen- and it's something the world doesn't quite know how to handle. Obama is taking a good step in the right direction- and isn't allowing any hesitation or denial when it comes to pursuing a solution. And so what are we doing?


National Climate Progress


Obama says that the United States is already taking action: doubling the gas mileage of cars by 2020, and doubling the electricity generated from wind and sun. And, in terms of wind and solar energy, we did just about double our energy output. In 2012, the US generated over 140 gigawatt hours of wind and solar energy, significantly over twice 2008 generation. This is follows a steep upward trend of development in wind and solar, and is promising.



Data from the US Energy Information Agency

 And when it comes to fuel economy for passenger cars, it's a mixed bag. US fuel efficiency standards have a sordid past, and it's worth writing more on it later. In 2007, legislation was approved to increase standards for cars and trucks to a 35 MPG average by 2020- which was a hefty 40% increase from the earlier, considerably lax regulation. Obama bumped this timeline up to 2016 when he came to office, with a marginal increase in efficiency to 35.5 MPG. Further regulations have been announced with a range of 47 to 62 MPG by 2025, but have not been confirmed. As to the actual advancement of fuel efficiency, see below:



So did we double the gas milage of our cars? In terms of legislation, we are “on track” to do so- but again, legislation is unconfirmed. As for the actual MPG of the cars we've sold, we're moving in a positive direction, but slower than you might think- fuel standards deal with the fleet average milage of auto maker's new models. Historical trends show that larger, less efficient cars sell better- which means that the MPG average usually galls a little low of regulation.

Additionally, the actual fuel efficiency of cars on the road is further decreased from that of new cars sold- the older a car is, the lower it's mileage gets as parts wear down, and very few cars on the road are new. So, the final verdict? While the president is technically correct by his phrasing, it's highly unlikely that the actual fuel efficiency of US vehicles will be near double by 2020.

Obama also addresses energy security and imports here, citing rare growth in nuclear and oil. And it's looking like that improvement might continue, especially in oil and gas. And all of this does certainly contribute to some pretty good growth in US energy security, but also, as Obama claims, in carbon reductions. In fact, Obama claims that the US has reduced it's total carbon pollution from 2006 more than any other country in the world.



This is, in fact, true. It's also, again, very carefully phrased- since 2006 specifically, no country has reduced it's emissions in terms of tonnage- but that's a little easier when you start with such high emissions to begin with. Many other countries reduced carbon dioxide emissions by a much larger percentage of their overall emissions- those emissions simply weren't as large. The US has only reduced their emissions by 7.32%- while other developed nations like the UK managed to cut their emissions by a full 15%. The claim of the largest CO2 emission reductions is at the very least slightly undercut by the knowledge that the US could be doing more proportional to it's size. But, Obama freely admits that this is only the start.

The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970 to regulate hazardous air pollutants, and now both the Senate and the EPA have ruled that greenhouse gasses- including carbon dioxide- fall under regulation with the Clean Air Act. It's interesting to see that Obama only refers to carbon dioxide as "carbon pollution", as if to drive home the fact that it is now regulated, even though the conventional term is, in general, "carbon dioxide emissions"

And in bringing up the Clean Air Act, Obama begins to talk about what is likely the largest obstacle in the path of environmental security: Politics. While the Clean Air Act itself enjoyed well-deserved bipartisan backing, rarely do environmental regulations today receive that kind of support. And, while the EPA is actually required to draft legislation on CO2 emissions based on their coverage under the Clean Air Act (and hasbegun doing so) the general political climate is still lukewarm behind true CO2 regulations.

But Obama is pledging to drive ahead strong- and he also points out that states and even cities themselves are engaging in new clean energy and energy efficiency initiatives, working to bring down the national total. In Boston, as an example, mayor Thomas Menino has set plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, and new mandatory energy use reporting by large buildings is coming into effect to help along that goal. This is reflected in similar plans in many other cities across the country. Obama is smart to acknowledge these more local efforts, as without the support and effort of the smaller actors, change is unlikely to come quickly. 

Politically, the argument against regulation of CO2 seems to be one of economics: that regulation would burden electrical utilities, automakers, and eventually, the consumer- who would pay the brunt of the cost of the required upgrades to infrastructure through taxes or higher prices of deliverables  But, as Obama said, this has never happened in the past- and especially automakers have dealt with fuel regulations well in the past. And Hybrids and plug-in electric vehicles are a large part of the new fuel efficiency increases, helping boost the average fuel efficiency of our cars. And, as Obama claims, these cars are selling faster then they have in the last five years.


They are- at a higher rate of overall sale and as a higher percentage of all vehicles sold. But in 2010 and 2011, hybrid growth had stalled, decreasing each year, indicating that growth may not be as stable and sustained as Obama is indicating (Edit- one of my friends Bhushan pointed out that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave a significant tax credit to those who purchased new hybrids, until it was phased out in 2010. This would seem to explain the dip in sales in 2010 and 2011, and shows that hybrids sold well despite the lack of federal incentives in 2012. However, increased fuel regulation will not only make them more widely available, it will also make these cars cheaper compared to other light vehicles around- and it's likely a safe bet to assume that more and more sold cars will be hybrids.).

But we wont see gasoline powered cars disappearing anytime soon either. The production of fossil fuels is something Obama wants to be clear on- he’s always touted an “all of the above” energy strategy including fossil fuels alongside renewables, which has attracted both praise and criticism from all sides. Conservatives will often complain about lopsided support for renewables when they are not economically competitive, and liberals complain about any support for fossil fuels on the basis of them being toxic to efforts to halt climate change. Obama’s stance, however, is clear:

“Now, one thing I want to make sure everybody understands -- this does not mean that we’re going to suddenly stop producing fossil fuels. Our economy wouldn’t run very well if it did. And transitioning to a clean energy economy takes time.”

And there is merit to this middle of the road strategy- it allows for a smooth transition to a cleaner energy system while maintaining the stability of the nation’s economy. Slow growth of renewables combined with efficiency and emission limits on fossil fuel sources will transition the economy away from a carbon intensive system. And Obama has made good on his plan- Renewables have almost doubled, Nuclear is expanding for the first time in 35 years, gas is a booming market and analysts say that the US is poised to be the number one oil producer in the world.


Obama's Plan


In fact, the only energy source that hasn’t risen in use is coal- which highlights the ingenuity of Obama’s plan. Coal, at a carbon intensity of 2.21 lbs of carbon dioxide per kWh of electricity is the dirtiest large fuel source the US has.



And power plant carbon regulations are Obama’s first point in his plan to cut emissions. These regulations are expected to heavily favor natural gas power plants, due to their cleaner burning nature. Most US utilities are fully aware of the looming regulations and have begun switching to natural gas in preparation- coal's slow decline is punctuated by steady gains in generation through natural gas fueled by the new resurgence of gas drilling.

But how clean is this, actually? Does switching out one fossil fuel for another really get us anywhere? As it turns out, yes. Natural gas burns much more cleanly with coal at a carbon intensity of 1.03 lbs per kWh, helping drive down carbon dioxide emissions. Natural gas also contains far fewer of the impurities that coal contains, which contribute to sulfur and nitrogen dioxide pollution- the vast majority of which must be eliminated in expensive scrubbing towers at coal plants.

And what impact has that conversion to natural gas had so far on US emissions? One of the best ways to measure this is to look at the average carbon intensity of our fuels- how much carbon dioxide they produce per kWh. If you look at only the coal and natural gas sectors:



While it may seem small, the carbon intensity of our fossil fuel fleet is decreasing based on the ratio of coal to natural gas plants. And although dropping from 0.95 to 0.9 looks minuscule, remember that this represents nearly 70% of our generated electricity- meaning there's a remarkable overall carbon dioxide avoidance. By continuing to install further natural gas and displace coal, that carbon intensity can drop as low as 0.61 short tons per MWh. That's significant, and certainly has it's place as one of the backbones of Obama's plan.

Obama's second point is the most praised one across the US: more solar and wind. As carbon-zero energy sources (almost- we'll discuss this later) they enjoy heavy support from environmentalists, and generally, the government. We've seen that solar and wind are expanding- and on track to continue. Any regulations on power plant emissions will only help renewables, and so they'll inevitably continue to play a larger and larger part of our energy mix.

And further, as Obama says, some of the largest detractors of climate change action need to look outside their homes more often- because an incredible amount of wind development occurs in the typically republican souther states.


Wind Power Capacity Installed By State



States with no installed wind are white. Data from American Wind Energy Association.


Although, by that he seems to be mostly highlighting Texas, as many other southeast states have no wind installed- although more for reasons of being surprisingly devoid of wind than local resistance.

Obama's plan further supports zero-carbon sources by seeking to invest in renewables while ending tax breaks for oil companies, which has the effect of swinging the economics of the issue. This is also one of the biggest points over which conservative economists and others complain of government involvement- it does, in a sense, artificially tip the economic scale of energy costs, which some worry is unsustainable.

And thirdly, Obama's plan involves regulations to increase energy efficiency in buildings and cars. As we said, hybrids and EVs are leading the charge on the automobile front, but buildings are as well a large part of this plan. Efficiency achieves many goals: it decreases energy use and carbon emissions over a long time, it reduces energy costs to the consumer, and it creates jobs in production and installation.

The effectiveness of efficiency regulations is very hard to predict on a large scale, however, but end-use efficiency benefits by being the last in the chain of energy transport. This is because electricity generated undergoes several losses before it is used- power plant efficiency losses and transmission losses being notable. If efficiency in a building means you don't have to produce extra electricity, you also avoid generating the energy that would have been lost through transmission and power plant losses.

But carbon reductions are no longer all that we need to do- as Obama says, we already missed our mark. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at 400 ppm and rising- while the IPCC says that the required atmospheric level for temperature stability rests at 350 ppm. We've about to get hit by the full brunt of climate change, Obama warns- so the next part of the plan is to prepare for this.

Climate change is blamed for exacerbating the effects of hurricane Sandy last year, which caused 18 billion dollars in damage and killed 53 people when it flooded New York City. This could happen more and more due to higher water levels in coastal cities worldwide, and we need to be prepared. It's a great thing that the Obama administration is acknowledging this- in fact, the idea that Obama is addressing climate change at all shows considerable foresight in government planning and action that is rarely present on the national level. Most regulation and government action is reactionary- and while it's true that we're already seeing the effects of climate change, the admittance of this and the steps to prevent further damage are a step in the right direction.

And the last branch of Obama's plan is to begin addressing carbon emissions abroad as well- as he says, the US still has a reputation as a world-leading country, and if anyone's got a change of impacting global emissions, it's the United States. We are not the only country emitting CO2, and we're no longer even the largest emitter, so international collaboration is imperative.



 Data from the US Energy Information Agency

And so Obama plans to help spread the trade of renewable energy technologies, end support for coal abroad, and engage in more climate based negotiations with other countries. No, it's not direct action or demands on the rest of the world's carbon dioxide, but it's a start.

And our action doesn't have time budgeted in for people to drag their feet- as Obama says, “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.” We can't ignore this, and we are going to act, as a world, as a country, in each of our own cities and towns and communities. And Obama encourages each and every citizen to act, to educate others, to each reduce their individual carbon footprint. With the support and effort of everyone, real change can occur.

We're saving the world here, people.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)