The New Yorker Magazine reports (Andy Borowitz) that after a study from Yale showed that the term “Climate Change” elicits relatively little concern from the American public, leading scientists are recommending replacing it with new terms like:
You will be burnt to a crisp and die,
Your cities will be ravaged by tsunamis and floods.
Having a mind just as strange as Andy Borowitz or the folks at the Onion -- it took only 3.14159265359 nanoseconds (easy as pie really) to compile some top positives.
For example, sharks (and their human equivalent, lawyers with lots of people to sue for causing this hot mess) are going to love Global Warming.
Top Ten Good Things That Can Happen With Global Warming:
Two Words (even in Nebraska, Alaska, or Sweden): SURF's UP!!!
Some Random Thoughts That Also Pop Into My Head:
The Fussin' and Fightin': In the Blogosphere, when people debate highly technical points (like temperature statistical methods), we are reminded of how Nerds Talk Trash/Smack.
Today's Horoscope for Climate Scientists: Being a Climate Scientist must be pretty stressful -- with everybody suing each other and now Congress inquiring about personal financial records.
A Wicked Problem: Most Climate Scientists agree that there are unknown unknowns (things that we don't even know that we we don't know) with Global Warming. When we get to the Pearly Gates, even Saint Peter might not exactly know what's going on.
When Calvinism "Pre-Destination" comes to the Global Warming Debate.
Breaking Story: National Public Radio (NPR) has a report which mirrors the major point of our following blog article -- Go Here.
What Would We Replace Ethanol With?
In the U.S., ethanol has become a "Whipping Boy" -- especially among Tea Party Types as yet another example of "Big Government" intrusion on free markets and personal liberties. But in Media reporting and debate, three key aspects of ethanol blending in gasoline are almost never mentioned (as if these realities don't exist):
Octane: Octane rating (RON, MON) is a measure of a fuel's ability to resist/reduce the reaction of gasoline to combust/ignite under pressure in a car's engine cylinder (called anti-knock, AKI). Without proper octane levels in gas we buy at the pump, automobile performance levels will decrease and cause engine damage.
Un-blended gasoline (E-0 ethanol free) has a typical octane rating of ~84 and thus needs an octane enhancer to achieve a minimum rating of 87. Ethanol has a high octane rating (~113), where the majority of U.S. gasoline today is blended with ~10% ethanol (called E-10) to achieve the needed regular grade octane rating level of 87 for proper engine performance:
Reason #1 Why Ethanol is Blended With Gasoline
Gas Component:
Octane Rating
Percentage Blend
Weighted Octane
Unblended Gas (E-0)
84
90%
75.7
Ethanol (E-100)
113
10%
11.3
Gas @ Pump (E-10)
87
100%
87
(The above chart illustrates the typical practice used of splash blending.)
Clearly the Media is not presenting the significance of this ~10% ethanol blending level -- which is not a "Big-Government Mandate" but an automotive engineering requirement for a minimum 87 octane rating in gasoline.
Octane's History: For decades, the principle source to meet minimum octane requirements in gasoline was lead. But according to every World Health Organization this results in severe health problems (e.g., central nervous system damage, neurological development in children, fertility problems, high blood pressure, kidney damage).
In fact, there are now only 4 Countries in the entire World that have not taken action to eliminate lead in gasoline -- North Korea, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Burma.
In the 1990's, the U.S. EPA began requiring that lead be phased out of gasoline. Initially, this was achieved by using the high octane and oxygenate additive MTBE (derived from fossil fuels). However in the early 2000's, research from numerous national and international Health Organizations found that high usage levels of MTBE was likely a cancer causing agent. While the EPA has not specifically banned MTBE, its use has been banned in about half of the U.S. by State Legislatures.
States Banning MTBE
Like on so many other environmental issues (assessing economic costs versus health benefits under scientific uncertainty), the opinion on MTBE generally followed the Red State versus Blue State deep cultural divide that exists in the U.S. (as the above map reflects).
For all practical purposes however, the MTBE controversy was settled not by Regulation but by the Courts. MTBE Manufactures and Blenders were being hauled into Courts (in hundreds of lawsuits) and losing. In an attempt to address this lawsuit problem by Blenders/Manufacturers occurring at State and local levels, Tea Party Members in the U.S. Congress (e.g., Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee) attempted to protect the MTBE Industry through Federal indemnification legislation -- which was rejected by the U.S. Senate.
Without Federal protection from environmental damage lawsuits (similar to what the Nuclear Power Industry receives for any accident)1, MTBE Manufacturers/Blenders decided it just wasn't worth the legal exposure and hassle.
Energy Policy Act of 2005: This Federal legislation created the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to collectively address the following issues -- issues which still exist today:
Octane Requirements in Gasoline;
Oxygenate Requirements in Gasoline;
Foreign Oil Dependence;
Economic Development for U.S. Farmers.
In anti-ethanol rhetoric which the Media seems all to willing to accept, the following untruths are routinely presented to the American Public:
The Ethanol Mandate: A perception is often presented that the RFS "mandates" that the ethanol production volume used by Gasoline Blenders must increase by pre-determined levels every year. The EPA has clearly stated that this is just untrue -- and that scheduled increases in the RFS are targets, and not mandates.2
For 2015, the EPA proposed blending volumes of 2.9 billion gallons less than the RFS scheduled targets; which is also 1.34 billion gallons lessthan in 2014. According to EIA and EPA estimates, ethanol currently provides a little less than 10% (9.74%) of the total volume of finished motor gasoline consumed in the U.S.
(2) Under Section 211(o)(7) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the authority to reduce the renewable fuel standard requirements if implementing the standard could cause severe economic harm or if there is inadequate domestic supply to meet the requirements.
Ethanol Must Be Blended In All Gasoline: This myth is refuted by the fact that ethanol free gasoline is blended and marketed throughout the U.S. (e.g., Boat Marinas). The problem here is not "Big Government" Regulations -- its the lack of overall consumer volume demand for this pricier product (which has higher cost non-ethanol octane enhancers which we will discuss in a moment).
In fact, the RFS does exactly the opposite of what the Tea Party says. The RFS reduced/simplified a myriad of cumbersome Regulations for gasoline, giving Blenders much more flexibility including the blending of special niche (e.g., Watercraft) gasolines. While most notable was the removal of the 2% oxygenate blending requirement, other aspects included volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) regulations.
One question that anti-ethanol proponents never address is: If Congress just eliminates the RFS, what Regulations would the EPA then impose for clean air? The age old adage "Be Careful What You Wish For" could result in EPA Regulations more restrictive that what currently exist for Blenders.3
The U.S. Is No Longer Dependent on Foreign Oil: Another argument often repeated in the Media is that since the enactment of the RFS, circumstances have changed dramatically -- as foreign oil imports have decreased from ~60% to ~33% by 2013.4 The problem with citing this metric is that it's both irrelevant (to the octane and oxygenate requirements discussed above) and also highly misleading.
Arguments that the RFS is no longer needed are cherry-picking data -- citing U.S. Net Imports (i.e., Gross Petroleum Imports minus Exports). Using a dependency metric of Gross Imports reflects a very different story -- where the U.S. is importing a whopping ~50% of its Oil Demand.4
(4) Using incomplete data from the EIA for 2014, estimated Gross Oil Imports were ~49% and Net Oil Imports were ~28%.
Data is also being cherry-picked as to where this Foreign Oil is coming from. While Spin Doctors can be technically correct that Canada now represents the largest single country importing oil to the U.S, this fails to reflect that a tremendous amount of oil is still being imported by OPEC countries (collectively exceeding that of Canada per EIA data).
So why is the U.S. still dependent on so much foreign oil? As addressed in depth on a previous blog post, it comes down to two bullet points: (1) Not all oil is created the same; (2) Many U.S. Gasoline Refiners did some "Wrong Guessing".
Crude oil can come in numerous forms. It can be heavy or light, sour (high sulfur content) or sweet. The dramatic increase in recent U.S. Oil Production (from fracking) has primarily been in light oil.
But prior to this shale oil boom, many U.S. Gasoline Refiners spent billions of dollars to configure their plants for heavier and sour foreign oils -- from places like OPEC countries of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Venezuela. U.S. Gasoline Refiners using heavy oil (represented in the black dots on the chart below) are not going to just walk away en masse from their capital investment and reconfigure yet again for U.S. light oil.
Further, while it may be technically correct that U.S. dependence on foreign oil (using the metric of net imports) is at the lowest level in almost 30 years, the composition of this metric is very different between 2013 and 1986.
Dependency Metric
1986
2013
Change
Gross Imports
38%
52%
+14%
Exports
05%
19%
+14%
Net Imports
33%
33%
0%
The dramatic increase in U.S. Petroleum exports (primarily gasoline and diesel) reflects an "Inconvenient Truth" that Politicians, the Oil Industry, and the Media are not telling the American Public -- that the U.S. has a Refinery structural problem on foreign heavy oil dependency.
The U.S. will continue to be very dependent on imported heavy oil until/unless many Refineries are re-configured to process light oils.
Unless many U.S. Refineries are reconfigured, much of the U.S.'s light oil will be exported.5
This results in higher cost heavy foreign oil ending up in U.S. consumer's gastanks, while lower cost domestic light oil is exported (indirectly through gasoline exports).
This last bullet point is extremely important in understanding foreign oil dependence. If U.S. Refiners were simply importing oil, refining it, and then exporting gasoline/diesel from this foreign oil, then the use of the Net Imports metric would be appropriate. But this isn't what's happening.
Current Oil Prices: U.S. (WTI) Versus International (Brent)
With domestic oil (WTI) selling at a discount to the international Brent price, U.S. Refiners/Blenders have a competitive advantage over their international competitors. This explains why U.S. gasoline exports have increased so dramatically, as U.S. Gasoline Exporters have lower raw product crude oil cost.
(5) Either as refined products (primarily gasoline and diesel) or direct crude oil exports (if Congress rescinds the +30 year old U.S. Oil Embargo).
Applying the No Harm, No Foul Rule: Three octane alternatives to ethanol are the aromatic compounds benzene, toluene, and xylene. These aromatics can be produced via high-pressure catalytic reformers in the same refineries that produce other petroleum feedstock for gasoline blending. In a recent study from the University of Illinois, the price of these 3 aromatics was compared with ethanol over a two year period -- January 2013 through January 2015.
As the above graph illustrates, ethanol prices were almost always substantially lower than the price of the other aromatics (with the gap recently narrowing but still favoring ethanol even with the collapse of +$100/bbl oil prices).
Anyone doubting the validity of the above data should think about something. The price of premium octane grades at the pump (greater than 87) always are significantly higher than regular. Higher octane ratings in premium grades are being achieved by using these non-ethanol aromatics.
Thus, by considering three points we can put Tea Party ideological arguments that customers must always have a freedom of choice into a pragmatic context:
Historically, the price of ethanol beats the costs of its alternatives as a needed octane enhancer for automotive engines.
In light of Refiners resistance to commit extensive capital to reconfigure their facilities for domestic light oil, it is inconceivable they would commit billions of dollars in capital to produce octane enhancers to replace lower cost ethanol.
But even if Refiners did want to commit extensive capital to produce non-ethanol replacement aromatics like benzene, they couldn't do it. Benzene is a carcinogen and limited by the EPA to a blending level of 0.62 percent (in the E.U. it's 1%). Also, there are numerous red flag health concerns with the mass use of other options like toluene as well.
What Rescinding the RFS Would Do: As shown, simply rescinding the RFS would have very little (if any) impact on the current volume of ethanol blended into gasoline. What it would do is likely destroy the promising and emerging cellulosic (e.g., using feedstocks such as agricultural wastes instead of corn) ethanol industry.
Notes on Octane: Increasingly stringent environmental regulation is causing more refiners to seek solutions to offset octane loss due to deeper hydrotreating of the naphtha streams to remove sulfur.
In the US, the growth in light, sweet domestic crude processing has resulted in an octane shortfall in some refineries, creating a clear value proposition for higher octane from the FCCU.
The catalytic reforming process produces most of the aromatic streams for refining, as well as xylenes for petrochemicals. Benzene extraction from FCC naphtha is an option that is being considered to both comply with gasoline specifications and add value to the aromatics produced, but this option requires capital investment. Moreover, steam crackers and new unit constructions and startups in the petrochemical sector do target increased aromatic production, and, as a result, extraction of aromatics from the FCCU is not the preferred option.
Notes on Ethanol's Current Blending Rate of ~10%: In 2015, about 13.7 billion gallons of fuel ethanol were added to motor gasoline produced in the United States, and fuel ethanol accounted for about 10% of the total volume of finished motor gasoline consumed in the United States.
My best to re-create this EIA 10% quote: (1) Go to Department of Energy's EIA Webpage on Ethanol Production for 2015; and take yearly number and divide by 365 (331,897/365 equals 909.307 thousand barrels per day); (2) Go to EIA Webpage on Oil Production. For 2015 Finished Motor Gasoline was 9,161 thousand barrels per day. 909/9161 equals a little less than 10%.
Breaking Story: National Public Radio (NPR) has a report which mirrors the major point of our following blog article -- Go Here.
What Would We Replace Ethanol With?
In the U.S., ethanol has become a "Whipping Boy" -- especially among Tea Party Types as yet another example of "Big Government" intrusion on free markets and personal liberties. But in Media reporting and debate, three key aspects of ethanol blending in gasoline are almost never mentioned (as if these realities don't exist):
Octane: Octane rating (RON, MON) is a measure of a fuel's ability to resist/reduce the reaction of gasoline to combust/ignite under pressure in a car's engine cylinder (called anti-knock, AKI). Without proper octane levels in gas we buy at the pump, automobile performance levels will decrease and cause engine damage.
Un-blended gasoline (E-0 ethanol free) has a typical octane rating of ~84 and thus needs an octane enhancer to achieve a minimum rating of 87. Ethanol has a high octane rating (~113), where the majority of U.S. gasoline today is blended with ~10% ethanol (called E-10) to achieve the needed regular grade octane rating level of 87 for proper engine performance:
Reason #1 Why Ethanol is Blended With Gasoline
Gas Component:
Octane Rating
Percentage Blend
Weighted Octane
Unblended Gas (E-0)
84
90%
75.7
Ethanol (E-100)
113
10%
11.3
Gas @ Pump (E-10)
87
100%
87
(The above chart illustrates the typical practice used of splash blending.)
Clearly the Media is not presenting the significance of this ~10% ethanol blending level -- which is not a "Big-Government Mandate" but an automotive engineering requirement for a minimum 87 octane rating in gasoline.
Octane's History: For decades, the principle source to meet minimum octane requirements in gasoline was lead. But according to every World Health Organization this results in severe health problems (e.g., central nervous system damage, neurological development in children, fertility problems, high blood pressure, kidney damage).
In fact, there are now only 4 Countries in the entire World that have not taken action to eliminate lead in gasoline -- North Korea, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Burma.
In the 1990's, the U.S. EPA began requiring that lead be phased out of gasoline. Initially, this was achieved by using the high octane and oxygenate additive MTBE (derived from fossil fuels). However in the early 2000's, research from numerous national and international Health Organizations found that high usage levels of MTBE was likely a cancer causing agent. While the EPA has not specifically banned MTBE, its use has been banned in about half of the U.S. by State Legislatures.
States Banning MTBE
Like on so many other environmental issues (assessing economic costs versus health benefits under scientific uncertainty), the opinion on MTBE generally followed the Red State versus Blue State deep cultural divide that exists in the U.S. (as the above map reflects).
For all practical purposes however, the MTBE controversy was settled not by Regulation but by the Courts. MTBE Manufactures and Blenders were being hauled into Courts (in hundreds of lawsuits) and losing. In an attempt to address this lawsuit problem by Blenders/Manufacturers occurring at State and local levels, Tea Party Members in the U.S. Congress (e.g., Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee) attempted to protect the MTBE Industry through Federal indemnification legislation -- which was rejected by the U.S. Senate.
Without Federal protection from environmental damage lawsuits (similar to what the Nuclear Power Industry would receive for any accident)1, MTBE Manufacturers/Blenders decided it just wasn't worth the legal exposure and hassle.
Energy Policy Act of 2005: This Federal legislation created the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to collectively address the following issues -- issues which still exist today:
Octane Requirements in Gasoline;
Oxygenate Requirements in Gasoline;
Foreign Oil Dependence;
Economic Development for U.S. Farmers.
In anti-ethanol rhetoric which the Media seems all to willing to accept, the following untruths are routinely presented to the American Public:
The Ethanol Mandate: A perception is often presented that the RFS "mandates" that the ethanol production volume used by Gasoline Blenders must increase by pre-determined levels every year. The EPA has clearly stated that this is just untrue -- and that scheduled increases in the RFS are targets, and not mandates.2
For 2015, the EPA proposed blending volumes of 2.9 billion gallons less than the RFS scheduled targets; which is also 1.34 billion gallons lessthan in 2014. According to EIA and EPA estimates, ethanol currently provides a little less than 10% (9.74%) of the total volume of finished motor gasoline consumed in the U.S.
(2) Under Section 211(o)(7) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the authority to reduce the renewable fuel standard requirements if implementing the standard could cause severe economic harm or if there is inadequate domestic supply to meet the requirements.
Ethanol Must Be Blended In All Gasoline: This myth is refuted by the fact that ethanol free gasoline is blended and marketed throughout the U.S. (e.g., Boat Marinas). The problem here is not "Big Government" Regulations -- its the lack of overall consumer volume demand for this pricier product (which has higher cost non-ethanol octane enhancers which we will discuss in a moment).
In fact, the RFS does exactly the opposite of what the Tea Party says. The RFS reduced/simplified a myriad of cumbersome Regulations for gasoline, giving Blenders much more flexibility including the blending of special niche (e.g., Watercraft) gasolines. While most notable was the removal of the 2% oxygenate blending requirement, other aspects included volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) regulations.
One question that anti-ethanol proponents never address is: If Congress just eliminates the RFS, what Regulations would the EPA then impose for clean air? The age old adage "Be Careful What You Wish For" could result in EPA Regulations more restrictive that what currently exist for Blenders.3
The U.S. Is No Longer Dependent on Foreign Oil: Another argument often repeated in the Media is that since the enactment of the RFS, circumstances have changed dramatically -- as foreign oil imports have decreased from ~60% to ~33% by 2013.4 The problem with citing this metric is that it's both irrelevant (to the octane and oxygenate requirements discussed above) and also highly misleading.
Arguments that the RFS is no longer needed are cherry-picking data -- citing U.S. Net Imports (i.e., Gross Petroleum Imports minus Exports). Using a dependency metric of Gross Imports reflects a very different story -- where the U.S. is importing a whopping ~50% of its Oil Demand.4
(4) Using incomplete data from the EIA for 2014, estimated Gross Oil Imports were ~49% and Net Oil Imports were ~28%.
Data is also being cherry-picked as to where this Foreign Oil is coming from. While Spin Doctors can be technically correct that Canada now represents the largest single country importing oil to the U.S, this fails to reflect that a tremendous amount of oil is still being imported by OPEC countries (collectively exceeding that of Canada per EIA data).
So why is the U.S. still dependent on so much foreign oil? As addressed in depth on a previous blog post, it comes down to two bullet points: (1) Not all oil is created the same; (2) Many U.S. Gasoline Refiners did some "Wrong Guessing".
Crude oil can come in numerous forms. It can be heavy or light, sour (high sulfur content) or sweet. The dramatic increase in recent U.S. Oil Production (from fracking) has primarily been in light oil.
But prior to this shale oil boom, many U.S. Gasoline Refiners spent billions of dollars to configure their plants for heavier and sour foreign oils -- from places like OPEC countries of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Venezuela. U.S. Gasoline Refiners using heavy oil (represented in the black dots on the chart below) are not going to just walk away en masse from their capital investment and reconfigure yet again for U.S. light oil.
Further, while it may be technically correct that U.S. dependence on foreign oil (using the metric of net imports) is at the lowest level in almost 30 years, the composition of this metric is very different between 2013 and 1986.
Dependency Metric
1986
2013
Change
Gross Imports
38%
52%
+14%
Exports
05%
19%
+14%
Net Imports
33%
33%
0%
The dramatic increase in U.S. Petroleum exports (primarily gasoline and diesel) reflects an "Inconvenient Truth" that Politicians, the Oil Industry, and the Media are not telling the American Public -- that the U.S. has a Refinery structural problem on foreign heavy oil dependency.
The U.S. will continue to be very dependent on imported heavy oil until/unless many Refineries are re-configured to process light oils.
Unless many U.S. Refineries are reconfigured, much of the U.S.'s light oil will be exported.5
This results in higher cost heavy foreign oil ending up in U.S. consumer's gastanks, while lower cost domestic light oil is exported (indirectly through gasoline exports).
This last bullet point is extremely important in understanding foreign oil dependence. If U.S. Refiners were simply importing oil, refining it, and then exporting gasoline/diesel from this foreign oil, then the use of the Net Imports metric would be appropriate. But this isn't what's happening.
Current Oil Prices: U.S. (WTI) Versus International (Brent)
With domestic oil (WTI) selling at a discount to the international Brent price, U.S. Refiners/Blenders have a competitive advantage over their international competitors. This explains why U.S. gasoline exports have increased so dramatically, as U.S. Gasoline Exporters have lower raw product crude oil cost.
(5) Either as refined products (primarily gasoline and diesel) or direct crude oil exports (if Congress rescinds the +30 year old U.S. Oil Embargo).
Applying the No Harm, No Foul Rule: Three octane alternatives to ethanol are the aromatic compounds benzene, toluene, and xylene. These aromatics can be produced via high-pressure catalytic reformers in the same refineries that produce other petroleum feedstock for gasoline blending. In a recent study from the University of Illinois, the price of these 3 aromatics was compared with ethanol over a two year period -- January 2013 through January 2015.
As the above graph illustrates, ethanol prices were almost always substantially lower than the price of the other aromatics (with the gap recently narrowing but still favoring ethanol even with the collapse of +$100/bbl oil prices).
Anyone doubting the validity of the above data should think about something. The price of premium octane grades at the pump (greater than 87) always are significantly higher than regular. Higher octane ratings in premium grades are being achieved by using these non-ethanol aromatics.
Thus, by considering three points we can put Tea Party ideological arguments that customers must always have a freedom of choice into a pragmatic context:
Historically, the price of ethanol beats the costs of its alternatives as a needed octane enhancer for automotive engines.
In light of Refiners resistance to commit extensive capital to reconfigure their facilities for domestic light oil, it is inconceivable they would commit billions of dollars in capital to produce octane enhancers to replace lower cost ethanol.
But even if Refiners did want to commit extensive capital to produce non-ethanol replacement aromatics like benzene, they couldn't do it. Benzene is a carcinogen and limited by the EPA to a blending level of 0.62 percent (in the E.U. it's 1%). Also, there are numerous red flag health concerns with the mass use of other options like toluene as well.
What Rescinding the RFS Would Do: As shown, simply rescinding the RFS would have very little (if any) impact on the current volume of ethanol blended into gasoline. What it would do is likely destroy the promising and emerging cellulosic (e.g., using feedstocks such as agricultural wastes instead of corn) ethanol industry.
Notes on Octane: Increasingly stringent environmental regulation is causing more refiners to seek solutions to offset octane loss due to deeper hydrotreating of the naphtha streams to remove sulfur.
In the US, the growth in light, sweet domestic crude processing has resulted in an octane shortfall in some refineries, creating a clear value proposition for higher octane from the FCCU.
The catalytic reforming process produces most of the aromatic streams for refining, as well as xylenes for petrochemicals. Benzene extraction from FCC naphtha is an option that is being considered to both comply with gasoline specifications and add value to the aromatics produced, but this option requires capital investment. Moreover, steam crackers and new unit constructions and startups in the petrochemical sector do target increased aromatic production, and, as a result, extraction of aromatics from the FCCU is not the preferred option.
Notes on Ethanol's Current Blending Rate of ~10%: In 2015, about 13.7 billion gallons of fuel ethanol were added to motor gasoline produced in the United States, and fuel ethanol accounted for about 10% of the total volume of finished motor gasoline consumed in the United States.
My best to re-create this EIA 10% quote: (1) Go to Department of Energy's EIA Webpage on Ethanol Production for 2015; and take yearly number and divide by 365 (331,897/365 equals 909.307 thousand barrels per day); (2) Go to EIA Webpage on Oil Production. For 2015 Finished Motor Gasoline was 9,161 thousand barrels per day. 909/9161 equals a little less than 10%.
Conservatives have allowed and seemingly even wanted Liberal Ideology to Hijack the Global Warming/Climate Change Debate.
As a Pew Opinion Poll reflects, Global Warming has become yet another chapter in the ongoing U.S. Culture Wars between Liberals and Conservatives. This gulf in beliefs is especially wide with people who identify with the Tea Party movement (very anti "Big Government") -- where 41% surveyed were "Deniers", believing that Global Warming just isn't happening.
Where the News and Public Media emphasizes the extreme polarization and conflict, rarely is it conveyed what most climate scientists can actually agree on.
Agreement on the Basic Science: Global Warming Theory is based on Nobel Prize winning science1 -- which is clearly not "Junk Science". One basic concept area that everyone can relate to is Rayleigh scattering -- of why the the sky is blue. Applications
of the fundamental chemistry and physics of Global Warming theory are used in aircraft design, missile defense systems, and the space program.
1 This includes: Rayleigh scattering and distillation, van der Waals (equations of state), Wien's law, Planck's constant (central to radiation theory).
Probably 99% of Climate Scientists can agree on a core of basic beliefs that does represent "a consensus on settled science":
For the past 60 years, a large part of this warming is human driven.4
2 NOAA data for 650 million years; NOAA data for past 1,000 years; IPCC AR5.
3 The level of CO2 is now 42% above pre Industrial Revolution levels.
4 Views on what "large part" means -- a percentage of ~50% (Curry) to 100% (Schmidt).
CO2 Levels:
Temperature Levels:
Science Uncertainty: But understanding Climate Science/Change is much more than just this "basic science". Called a "Wicked Problem", this involves extremely complex issues of our Planet's natural variability (wind and ocean currents), geological events (e.g., volcanoes) and feedback loops.
Where Climate Scientists can and do sharply disagree is how much and how quickly human driven greenhouse gases will effect global temperatures and regional climates through:
The predictive ability of Forecasting Models (e.g., the "Pause").
In describing "Wicked Problems", perhaps the best analogy ever coined was by U.S. Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld of knowns and unknowns -- where applied to Climate Change there are:
The Rhetoric of Uncertainty: But it's important to understand that the current unknowns do not disprove a scientific consensus in the above "core beliefs". A good example of this is the current Global Warming "Pause" -- where for the past ~15 years there have been:
No statistically significant increases in Earth's land temperature,
Even though CO2 levels continue to significantly increase.5
5 Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by ~25%.
Deniers or extreme Skeptics/Contrarians saying or implying this "Pause" disproves a core of "Basic Science Beliefs" is a classic application of anti-science. One can try to poke all the gotcha holes they want in "Theory X", but doing so doesn't prove an alternative "Theory Y" (e.g., a tactic used by Biblical Literalists that their attempts to cherry-pick supposed holes in the theory of evolution provesCreationism beliefs).
Conversely, Anthropogenic (human driven) Global Warming Advocates need to do a much better job in their communication of uncertainty -- especially their defensiveness. A good start would be a well versed "consensus" recognition that Climate Scientists don't yet adequately understand the sensitivities of this "Wicked Problem" -- especially the ability of current Climate Models to predict near term decadal impacts.6
Clearly, CO2 parts per million levels and temperatures have not responded in a linear cause and effect fashion in the short-term (as many initially believed). Maybe the long-term progression of Global Warming is a stair-step function (with pauses of decades or more). Maybe its a exponential log function when some thresholds are broken through until equilibrium. Maybe, its a combination of these functions with warming interacting and compounding natural variabilities on things we currently just don't even know about (unknown, unknowns).
We do know this -- if anything does happen with severe consequences, we won't be able to fix it as changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration levels can persist for centuries. With a trajectory to double the Earth's CO2 levels, mankind is conducting the biggest science experiment of all time involving very deep uncertainties.
Reaching a Consensus: A TED presentation provides a good perspective of how to be effective when taking on difficult, wicked problems. The lecture uses a example of Dr. Alice Stewart, who in the 1950’s thought she had found a solid statistical link between expectant Mothers who had received x-rays and childhood cancers. But while Dr. Stewart was eventually shown to be correct, it took the medical science community over 25 years to achieve a consensus in proving and accepting this linkage.
For over two decades within the medical and public policy arena, Dr. Stewart was labeled an Alarmist in her Catastrophic warnings.
As the TED lecture explains, science is most often messy and laborious. In resolving challenges, the Right Kind of both Advocate and Skeptic is needed in an environment of some basic trust -- not driven by tribalism and hard-line ideologies of political, religious, economic, and even academic special interests or egos.
Conservative Hot Buttons: In recent years, negative ideological "values" messaging from Conservative Think Tanks, Media Sources, and Religious Groups have associated and demonized environmental policy initiatives as big-government, socialism, anti-free markets, job loss, and even with Faith (worshiping the Green Dragon).
Global Warming is framed to hit all the hot buttons of Conservatives to create a perfect storm.
The effectiveness of this negative messaging is absolutely evident in national polling, where partisan divides on environmental issues are greater than on major issues like the budget deficit, health care, and Social Security.
Widest Partisan Differences Over Issues (% rating each a top priority)
Issue:
Rep
Dem
Ind
Diff
Protecting the Environment:
28%
65%
48%
-37%
Problems of Poor & Needy:
32%
64%
48%
-32%
Reducing U.S. Budget Deficit:
80%
49%
66%
-31%
Dealing with Global Warming:
14%
42%
27%
-28%
Clearly, environmental issues have become a "hot button" among many Conservatives -- a litmus test in defining one's personal values:
"Global warming is a religion of a secular left that rejects the God of creation in favor of worship of creation. . . Any of those involved in the science of global warming oppose capitalism in general and America in particular. They are maladjusted, Al Gore type angry people in need of prayer." (Erick Erickson of RedState.com)
History of Republican Environmental Leadership: The current adversarial and combative attitude toward environmental issues hasn't always been the case. The Republican Party has a rich history in leadership and bi-partisan cooperation to address numerous serious environmental issues.
Two vivid examples are ozone depletion (President Reagan) and air quality (under both Bush Administrations) -- where significant improvements have been achieved without destroying the economy, advancing socialism, or worshiping a supposed Mother Earth.
Air Quality
Click To See Improvement
Ozone Hole
Click To See Improvement
When past Republican EPA Administrators7 serving under every Republican President thinks Anthropogenic (emissions from human activity) Global Warming is a real and serious threat, this should mean something to Conservatives -- no matter what Al Gore believes.
7 Ruckelshaus (Nixon), Thomas (Reagan), Reilly (Bush), Whitman (Bush).
Where Have the Conservative Thinkers Gone?: By reducing Global Warming/Climate Change to Culture Warfare, Conservatives have and continue to fail miserably. The Problem isn't "Junk Science" of liberal scientists, its the "Junk Thinking" by Conservatives. They are forgetting the very core principles of conservatism, and how these principles should be applied to any policy issue.
Fundamental Ideological Differences Between Liberal Vs. Conservatism
The "True Problem" for Conservatives is that from the get-go, the issue of Global Warming was hi-jacked by Liberal Ideology policy proposals. Conservatives have never developed meaningful and consistent policy alternatives based on their principles to pro-actively tackle this issue.
By arguing that no or little actions are warranted, Conservatives are choosing to play a very dangerous and high stakes "winner take all" game. No person on this Planet knows how the science or politics of Global Warming will eventually play out. Two things can absolutely happen: (1) Breakthroughs in science confirming the theory where the timing and consequences are unquestionably serious; (2) The occurrence of extreme weather events which overwhelms public opinion (correct or not) to demand immediate major policy actions.
Waiting to develop, taking a pro-active leadership position, and establishing credibility on conservative policy alternatives is a non-starter. If swings in public opinion do occur to take action, it will be too late. Liberal policies (e.g., carbon taxes) will be too entrenched and Conservatives' credibility will be shot (labeled as obstructionists).
Liberal Vs. Conservative Approaches to Global Warming Policy
In their policy approaches to Global Warming, Liberals never really address:
No matter how a U.S. Carbon Tax is packaged, it will still be a regressive tax -- disproportionately impacting the poor.
A Conservative Path : By bashing Liberals less and studying science more, there just might be a way out of this mess. Using an approach advocated by Dr. Ramanathan called "Fast Mitigation", a sound-science foundation for "no regrets" climate policies can be developed -- reflecting
and consistent with the Republican Party's history of environmental leadership and commitment on hard issues (e.g., ozone depletion, acid rain, air quality).
Fast Mitigation (basically targeted to improving air quality) coupled with policies to spur high economic growth using international trade just might provide the ticket needed. With pro-active "smart and creative" conservative leadership, meaningful and immediate reductions in the "Global" trajectory path of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved.
Fast Mitigation: While CO2 is about 77% of total greenhouse gas emissions, it is not the only thing that contributes to global warming. Other potent warming agents include three short-lived gases and dark soot particles -- called short-lived climate pollutants:
The warming effect of these short-lived climate and air quality pollutants (which stay in the atmosphere for several days to about a decade) delivers a very big punch. Methane is over 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in causing warming. Some HFCs can have a warming potential 11,000 times greater than CO2.
Global Warming Potential of CO2 & Short Lived Climate Pollutants8
9 Based on the most commonly used auto refrigerant (HFC-134a). A new refrigerant (HFO-1234yf) with a GWP that is just 4 times that of CO2 and exists for only 11 days is scheduled to become the new standard for automakers in the U.S., Europe, and Japan.
According to Dr. Ramanathan, the warming effect of these pollutants is currently about 80% of the amount that CO2 causes.
Changes in Radiative Forcing from Human Activity
Emissions Since the Industrial Revolution of 1750 (in W/m2)
Decision Making Under "No Regrets": Often the words "no regrets" are used as code "to kick the can down the road" by just calling for more research. Used in a correct context, "No or Low Regrets" should be a process of best efforts to make good decisions, especially under deep uncertainties.
With the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act (CAA)10 and EPA now promulgating Regs, Conservatives can try to:
Overturn the law by re-writing the CAA (through the election of a GOP President & super majorities in Congress).
10 Defined as a pollutant agent under the CAA effecting weather or climate.
11 Both of the first two paths involve deep uncertainties. For example, to overturn EPA Regulations would likely require a super majority (60 votes) in the U.S. Senate. Also, based on other CAA legal precedents, overturning EPA authority is highly questionable.
What Conservatives should be very concerned about are the potential consequences if policy opposition is unsuccessful. By not developing pro-active alternatives, a huge void is created. If public opinion does ever demand immediate action (e.g., from catastrophic weather events) -- it will almost certainly be a liberal top/down approach based on command/control:
Attributes of a Conservative Plan: A pro-active approach to Global Warming based on Fast Mitigation and economic growth (through international trade) fills this current Policy void -- and directly addresses what many consider catastrophic messaging that liberal policy actions must be taken immediately (e.g., carbon taxes, etc).
Buying Time: While Fast Mitigation to reduce short lived carbon pollutants is not a long term cure-all to Global Warming (AGW), it could have a dramatic and immediate effect in decreasing the growth rate (trajectory) in global atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.
Trajectory of Global Greenhouse Gases Since 1850
In Policy decision making, Fast Mitigation can buy some time (perhaps several decades according to Dr. Ramanathan) for our scientists and engineers to hopefully figure out this "Wicked Problem" and how to best address it:
Improving Air Quality: In forming public opinion, a picture can be worth a thousand words. For many Americans, connecting with the need to reduce CO2 emissions (a colorless, odorless gas) can be difficult. Fast Mitigation targets known air quality pollutants (such as heavy truck diesel exhaust) that everyone can connect with for cleaner air.
Also, applied on a regional and local basis, Fast Mitigation can be tailored to reflect conservative principles of flexibility and de-centralized bottom-up approaches (compared to one-size-fits-all) targeted to where air quality issues are of higher concern.
Building Low Carbon Global Markets through Economic Growth: Using international trade to address concerns of Global Warming/Climate Change is a perfect example of applying conservative principles of bottom-up, de-centralized, flexible, and reward based no-regrets policy actions.
If reducing the trajectory path in green-house gases is to be truly treated as serious on a global stage, pragmatic lessons must be drawn from international trade -- where reciprocity reigns supreme. No country eliminates or reduces its trade barriers without reciprocal and meaningful concessions from trading partners.
As discussed in previous blogs (including criticism of the Obama Administration on coal use), the template of building low carbon markets is pretty straight forward:
Developing countries would commit (with verifiable standards) to building low carbon intensity economies by purchasing high technology/energy efficient American products.
In exchange, the U.S. would give Developing Countries unpreceded access into U.S. markets for their products.
Simply stated, this Policy approach accentuates stuff we're good at (high technology products) and stuff that Developing Countries are good at (low labor cost products) -- a Win/Win.
An example of this would be current U.S. efforts to create a large free-trade zone encompassing 11 other Pacific Rim countries (excluding China) -- called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. A good first-step would be for the U.S. to create some global "Enterprise Zones" with friendly developing nations (e.g., India, Philippines) to test the effectiveness of using trade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
Specific Industries would be targeted to develop and implement "Low Carbon Standards" (LCS) using U.S. high energy efficient technology.
In return, the U.S. would give special access into U.S. markets for these LCS products.
