Category Archives: energy

social licence to operate

Posted on by
Reply

The National Bureau of Asian Research has just made available a paper I co-authored for the Pacific Energy Summit.  Entitled:  "Social License to Operate, how to Get it and How to Keep It" the main findings included:

“Social license” generally refers to a local community’s acceptance or approval of a company’s project or
ongoing presence in an area. It is increasingly recognized by various stakeholders and communities as a
prerequisite to development. The development of social license occurs outside of formal permitting or
regulatory processes, and requires sustained investment by proponents to acquire and maintain social
capital within the context of trust-based relationships. Often intangible and informal, social license can
nevertheless be realized through a robust suite of actions centered on timely and effective communication,
meaningful dialogue, and ethical and responsible behavior. 

My co-author, Celesa Horvath, has posted about the paper here. Apologies for the spelling of "licence" – US editors.

 

Environmental Policy news: Germany’s plan to shut down its nuclear plants will add 40 million tons of CO2 per year

Posted on by
Reply

Environmentalists welcomed the shift, although some demanded a faster phase-out, hoping it would spur a shift to renewable energy which they view as less harmful by avoiding radioactive waste.

But analysts say the move will also see an increase in planet-warming greenhouse gases equivalent to the annual emissions of Slovakia, as Germany uses gas and coal to plug a power generation gap, both of which are more carbon-emitting than nuclear power.

via www.enn.com

Nukes: Improve them, but don’t even think of abandoning them

Posted on by
Reply

It may be possible in Europe and North America to talk about reducing consumer demand for electricity and using alternatives instead of nukes. But none of that applies in Asia, Africa or South America, where the most pressing demand in the next two decades will be to turn three billion poor or impoverished people into energy consumers – ideally, high-efficiency, low-waste consumers, but certainly people able to have street lighting and refrigerators.

To do this without nuclear power would either be ecologically catastrophic, because it would rely on more coal-fired generation than the world has seen, or murderously inhumane, because it would raise energy prices to levels that would keep people in terrible poverty.

The world needs two things now: fewer carbon emissions, and a growing supply of energy at a low cost. By accomplishing both, nuclear power, even factoring in disasters, can save millions of lives.

Some leading environmentalists this week immediately recognized the danger of abandoning nuclear power. The British arch-Green activist George Monbiot wrote a cri de coeur on Thursday urging countries to stay with nuclear: “Even when nuclear power plants go horribly wrong, they do less damage to the planet and its people than coal-burning stations operating normally,” he wrote, rightly.

“Coal, the most carbon-dense of fossil fuels, is the primary driver of human-caused climate change. If its combustion is not curtailed, it could kill millions of times more people than nuclear power plants have done so far. … Abandoning nuclear power as an option narrows our choices just when we need to be thinking as broadly as possible.”

via www.theglobeandmail.com

We need nuclear power, and lots more of it, if we want to effectively curb climate change.

Their Moon Shot and Ours

Posted on by
Reply

Chinese-rocket China is doing moon shots. Yes, that’s plural. When I say “moon shots” I mean big, multibillion-dollar, 25-year-horizon, game-changing investments. China has at least four going now: one is building a network of ultramodern airports; another is building a web of high-speed trains connecting major cities; a third is in bioscience, where the Beijing Genomics Institute this year ordered 128 DNA sequencers — from America — giving China the largest number in the world in one institute to launch its own stem cell/genetic engineering industry; and, finally, Beijing just announced that it was providing $15 billion in seed money for the country’s leading auto and battery companies to create an electric car industry, starting in 20 pilot cities. In essence, China Inc. just named its dream team of 16-state-owned enterprises to move China off oil and into the next industrial growth engine: electric cars.

Not to worry. America today also has its own multibillion-dollar, 25-year-horizon, game-changing moon shot: fixing Afghanistan.

via www.nytimes.com

Wracked and bankrupted by endless border wars – the decline of the American empire?

German Military Study Warns of Finite Oil and Economic Crisis

Posted on by
Reply

Oil is a precious and finite resource, which is why the blocking of conversation measures, including those designed to combat climate change, exposes us to a broad spectrum of security issues, from direct impacts associated with climate change, to economic dislocation driven by soaring fuel costs.

The study was produced by the Future Analysis department of the Bundeswehr Transformation Center, a branch of the German military. It was leaked in August, and its authenticity was confirmed last week by the German newspaper Der Spiegel.

The study states that there is “some probability that peak oil will occur around the year 2010 and that the impact on security is expected to be felt 15 to 30 years later.”

The concept of “peak oil” is a controversial one, as it signifies the point at which global oil production reaches its maximum level and then enters a permanent decline. As oil is a finite resource, most energy experts consider the eventual peak and decline of world oil production to be an inevitable reality.

……

The German military study, which was analyzed and partly translated into English by Der Spiegel, declares that once peak oil begins in earnest, economies around the globe — including Germany’s — will probably struggle with price shocks as a result of higher transportation costs, and “shortages of vital goods could arise.”

via green.blogs.nytimes.com

Road warrior humungous

Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you.

Reducing our carbon footprint with the direct purchase of renewable energy

Posted on by
Reply

Google enters a long term purchase agreement with an Iowa wind farm.

We just completed a substantial 20-year green Power Purchase Agreement that allows us to take responsibility for our footprint and foster true growth in the renewable energy sector. On July 30 we will begin purchasing the clean energy from 114 megawatts of wind generation at the NextEra Energy Resources Story County II facility in Iowa at a predetermined rate for 20 years. Incorporating such a large amount of wind power into our portfolio is tricky (read more about how the deal is structured), but this power is enough to supply several data centers.

via googleblog.blogspot.com

David Frum on a Carbon Tax

Posted on by
Reply

Again there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. The right way is to raise a cost umbrella over all forms of green energy via, for example, a carbon tax – and then let the technologies battle it out in the marketplace. Let private investors direct capital to its best use. (As I write, I am at a conference in Montana to introduce a very promising new solar technology to venture capital funds.)

via www.frumforum.com

Do we really need an overfed economy? Is it worth it?

Posted on by
Reply

Consumerism-illustration Dave Sawyer penned a great letter on climate change policy in today's Globe and Mail.  Money quote:

Even with aggressive action on climate change, our economy will
still be larger than today. All sectors will increase, including that
great cash cow of oil and gas. In this "devastated" future, Canada will
be richer and Wal-Mart will be bigger.

So, are we better off with action on climate change? Economically,
we may be marginally worse off, but our well-being is rooted in more
than economics. For starters, the growing trash heap in which we live
may be a little smaller. And that may just make us all better off.

It really does seem opponents of climate change action are fighting for economic obesity, rather than settling for economic health.

Apple, Climate Change, and the Chamber of Commerce

Posted on by
Reply

I agree with almost everything Matt Yglesias says here about the Chamber of Commerce and their stance on climate change, particularly in the context of the departure of high profile companies like Apple from the Chamber.  I don't see how opposition to climate change policy can be in the interests, even short term, of their corporate stakeholders.

The fundamental problem the Chamber of Commerce is going to have on this is that they’re really really wrong. Not like how they’re morally wrong about, say, labor rights or workplace safety rules. They’re analytically mistaken about the interests of the United States business community. If we take action to avert ecological catastrophe, economic growth will still happen. Capitalism will march on. Big companies will be big, and people will earn lots of money managing them. Yes, the present-day owners of coal companies or manufacturers specifically wedded to unusually energy-intensive processes will be in trouble. But “business” in a broad and general sense will keep on keeping on. People will still want gadgets and furniture, will shop at stores, will buy and sell, and generally keep being customers for business.


The real risk is being run by doing nothing. It’s doing nothing that might end the party, and lead to various kinds of nightmare scenarios. And over time, more and more firms are going to see that they have no particular stake in underpricing pollution. One maybe of the Chamber board is a guy from Anheuser-Busch. A serious climate bill’s not going to put him out of business. Nor, to just pick board affiliated companies whose lines of business I recognize, is it going to put State Farm Insurance or IBM or AT&T or Pfizer or Accenture out of business. But the executives at those companies and their kids and their customers are all going to face all the problems caused by untrammeled climate change. And why, genuinely, should a pharmaceutical company or a telecom company be fighting to stop people from stopping an ecological disaster? It genuinely doesn’t make sense.

via yglesias.thinkprogress.org