Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

September 21 2009


Steven L. Hoch
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP


Ed. note: There is so much going on that I will attempt to put the pieces together under some common headings so that you can go to whatever issue you are particularly interested in or note the differences of opinion within each category.

MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE WEEK

Beer Affected by Climate Change
Now this is a crisis! We predict beer hording… can you imagine longing for a Bud 2012, great vintage!


In a paper recently published in the Journal of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, by the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute, they found that the quality of Saaz hops – a delicate variety of hop used to make pilsner lager – has been decreasing in recent years. The continuing rise of air temperature in the Czech Republic (where the crops are located) is the culprit. The team used high-resolution weather pattern, crop yield and hop quality data to gauge the impact of climate change on the Saaz crops between 1954 and 2006. The team found that the acidity of the hops had dropped 0.06% every year in this time period. Ideally, to get that characteristic of delicate bitter pilsner taste, the hops must contain around 5% alpha acid. Unfortunately, this quantity is dropping and showing little sign of stabilizing. In fact, the team predicts that it is only going to get worse.


Lithium for Batteries Ties Us to Foreign Countries Just Like Oil
A not so funny irony.


Most of the world’s lithium production is centered in Bolivia, Chile, and China. Recycling (see below “Transportation”) has to be in place for vehicle batteries so that it can help save the United States from trading “peak oil” for “peak lithium.” Demand for lithium is currently restrained by the global recession, but is expected to catch back up with the world supply by 2013 but rising demand for electric vehicles could cause a lithium production crunch as early as 2017 and beyond.

GREEN BUILDINGS

Green Buildings are Better Values
Uncle Sam wants you… to be green.


A study by Pike Research, Boulder, Colorado, has shown that in addition to the benefits of reducing energy bills, high-performance buildings command premium rental and sales prices. According to the report, commercial building retrofits range from less than $1 per square foot for a simple energy efficiency program to save 10% of energy costs, to $10 to $30 per square foot to save 40% of energy costs and enhance occupant performance or up to $40 per square foot for a major renovation.


People are More Productive in “Green” Buildings
Take two buildings and call me in the morning.


Researchers at the University of San Diego’s Burnham-Moores Center for Real Estate and CB Richard Ellis have found that employees who work in green buildings are more productive than their counterparts who work in non-green buildings. Forty-five percent of respondents reported that they had experienced an average of 2.88 fewer sick days at their new, green office location vs. their earlier non-green office location. The 10 percent that reported more sick days were residents of Energy Star-labeled, not LEED-certified buildings. Unlike LEED buildings, Energy Star buildings do not have air quality requirements.

ECONOMICS

Report Says Global Warming Will Cost a Lot!
DUH! Maybe if we didn’t pay for these types of reports, we could spend the money wisely.


A report developed by a coalition of major climate change foundations found that global warming could cost some countries as much as 19 percent of their gross domestic product by 2030. In Florida, for example, three Miami-area counties could face $26 billion in economic losses if hurricane and other climate risks increase as expected. In Maharashtra, India, the major risks are to food production and the rural poor. For India, the study found that a drought in 2030 could mean $7 billion in agricultural losses. Under a severe climate change scenario, droughts that occur once every 25 years could occur every eight years.




Two-Thirds of Banks Acknowledge Business Risks from Climate Change, But Lag on Funding.
There is a need to put your money where your mouth is.


Amid growing pressure on developing countries to join an international climate treaty later this year, a new Ceres report released today shows that emerging market banks are beginning to integrate climate change considerations into lending and other business decision-making, but that significantly more attention is needed. Despite this, the report shows that only a small number of banks are financing clean energy programs and fewer still are participating in carbon trading projects.


And Now, from the French
“Let them eat petrol!”


French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s plan to impose a tax on carbon emissions appears to be engendering opposition from all fronts, with environmentalists claiming the plan to impose a roughly $25-per-ton tax on CO2 is far too modest, and both socialist and centrist political leaders—well aware of polls indicating just one-third of the public backs the proposal – denouncing it as “unjust” and regressive. The French carbon tax would be imposed on fossil fuels beginning next year.


Advocating a Carbon Tax
President Sarkozy, may I introduce you to Professor Mason?


Carbon-tax advocates think they’re still in the game, despite all the talk about cap-and-trade, and a new study by one carbon-tax proponent argues it should be a hands-down winner, offering “the most efficient policy approach” and “the flexibility policymakers need to grapple with the problems presented by climate change.” The study by LSU economist Joseph R. Mason sees “myriad benefits” in a carbon tax and fatal flaws in cap-and-trade, the most important drawback of which “is that they do not work in practice.” Mason’s over-all conclusion: “A carbon tax confers far greater economic efficiency than an ill-defined, unstable, and environmentalist—and Wall Street—driven cap-and-trade market design.”


Offsets a Distraction
Don’t worry; there isn’t enough to go around. (See below.)


The controversial practice of carbon offsetting, via which U.S. polluters send money overseas in exchange for promised pollution reductions elsewhere, came under fire last week in a new report published by Friends of the Earth. Spokespersons for the organization have said: “The offsets in the bill that recently passed the House could allow the United States to keep increasing emissions of heat-trapping gases until 2029, even though scientists say we need to reduce emissions now.” Full report at: www.foe.org/dangerous-distraction.


Not Enough Offsets
Friends of the Earth – take note.


The National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group that advises on policy, says there won’t be enough international offsets to reach the necessary assumed levels of availability, particularly in the early years of a US cap and trade scheme. The Commission notes that past experience with offset programs indicates the international offset market to ramp up slowly compared to some of the more optimistic estimates associated with House climate legislation.


Offsets are a CROC
A big dose of cynicism always mixes well with any dispute.


A new website, www.thecroc.org, has been created to express, in a slightly satirical manner (a lot like Comments), a belief that offsets are a “croc.” The website explains itself as follows: “C.R.O.C. was created to promote the benefits of carbon offsets to folks like you. Just like a pollution-belching corporation, you too are now able to wreak environmental destruction when you earn a sufficient amount of carbon offset points. If you do something good for the environment, it just makes sense you get to do something bad to it–or vice versa. Keep the logic circular, is what we say. Spin baby, spin!” It’s worth a visit.

TRANSPORTATION

Reducing Vehicle Emissions
Wonder if one of those pine cone air fresheners to reduce emissions?


EPA and the NHTSA have released a much-anticipated proposed regulation to increase federal fuel-economy requirements and reduce GHG emissions, claiming the new standards would reduce vehicle GHGs by approximately 12 percent by 2020 and 23 percent by 2050. The proposed rulemaking would establish a national average fuel economy standard for new vehicles of 35.5 miles per gallon or an average of 250 grams/mile of carbon dioxide by model year 2016. The standards would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles and cover model years 2012 to 2016.


Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Says CAFE More Costly Than Cap-and-Trade
Forget the air fresheners...


A CBO “issue brief” asserts that tighter corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards meant to reduce vehicle emissions will likely “be more costly to society than other strategies (such as generating electricity from natural gas instead of coal) that could be encompassed by a cap-and-trade program.”


Recyclers Craft End-of-Life Solutions for EV Batteries
The Energizer Bunny now has a place to rest in pieces.


In the race to put 1 million plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on U.S. roads by 2015, another challenge awaits on the other side of the finish line: recycling all of those batteries. DOE recently awarded $9.5 million to a recycling company to boost capacity for lithium-ion batteries, the kind used to power most of the new hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles entering the world market. Though lithium currently fetches very little on the open market, other components in lithium-ion batteries, such as nickel and cobalt, will make the batteries far too valuable to send to the landfill.

WHERE DOES IT ALL COME FROM?

Consumer Goods Cause 42% US GHGs: EPA
Now that I think of it, ever wonder why they put bananas in plastic bags, or package grapes?


The EPA released the estimate in a report highlighting opportunities for reducing greenhouse gases through better materials and land-use management practices. The agency analyzed the total amount of greenhouse gases associated with the life cycle of goods, from their extraction or harvest, to their production and transport, and reuse or disposal. The EPA projected millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced by changing the management of products, such as packaging and recycling. Among its findings are:


• 105 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent could be reduced a year by reducing packaging by 50 per cent;
• 300 million tonnes of could be reduced a year through 100 per cent recycling and composting of municipal solid waste;
• 150 million tonnes of could be reduced by capturing 100 per cent of methane from US landfills to generate electricity.
The report can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ghg_land_and_materials_management.pdf