The Benefit of Increasing Federal Gas Taxes

It is difficult to imagine a situation where anyone on Capitol Hill would think to propose an increase in taxation, yet it seems that many think now is the right time to encourage lawmakers to consider just such a change. Here's why:

Highest average US gas price: $4.114, on 07/14/2008
Current average US gas price: $1.847, on 01/24/2009

In just 6 months, we have seen a 55% drop in prices at the pump. An additional $0.50 in taxation on top of existing prices would be a marginal increase relative to where prices were through most of 2007 and 2008.

Before going any further, I admit that any increase in gas prices, whether market-driven or imposed, is problematic. The cost of goods will increase, as we saw during 2007 and 2008, as a result of higher transportation costs. Those who bought SUVs and can't afford a smaller car could be forced to make difficult decisions about how to budget their money. With increasing joblessness, people who are now unemployed might face inhibited mobility. In many American cities, there may be insufficient public transport infrastructure to provide mobility to those who could no longer afford to drive their cars. Higher gas prices might also affect small businesses already struggling in the current economic climate.

There are, however, many potential benefits to increasing the federal gas tax. An incremental and continuing increase was suggested by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. Evident from the title of the commission, highway infrastructure maintenance was their primary funding concern. In 2007, there was a $105 billion shortfall in funding for such maintenance and that gap is projected to increase each year. Revenue from an increased tax could be used to decrease that deficit.

Despite the obvious importance of highway infrastructure maintenance, I would propose using some of the money raised to expand public transport networks. This will help provide alternatives to those who might be unable to afford gas if prices are increased. It will also reduce the need to expand existing highways, by providing transportation options with smaller carbon footprints.

The increased cost of fuel will also encourage car owners who can afford to continue driving to choose smaller new cars. In the period from January 2007 to November 2008, car sales exceeded truck sales, reversing a trend dating back to 1998. During that period, gas prices reached record highs. As soon as gas prices decreased toward the end of 2008, light truck sales surpassed passenger cars once again. President Obama has identified this pattern of energy cost amnesia as 'shock to trance'. An increase in gas taxes now may help moderate that behavior by encouraging car buyers to always consider buying smaller cars and make all drivers contemplate carefully what driving they must do and what they can avoid to reduce fuel consumption.

Perhaps now is the time to make this change. It is politically risky but will also provide much needed federal income to support mass transit and highway infrastructure while reducing transportation-related GHG emissions. Everyone will feel the pinch but we may be well served by the change.

Planes of the Future!

Sorry Alix, but paralleling your title was too tempting.

The aircraft industry emits just 2% of worldwide CO2 according to the IPCC, but that doesn't mean they don't want to cut back. Aircraft industry leaders from around the world are meeting right now in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss their plan of action as they strive to decrease their carbon footprint and eventually become carbon free. Representation includes the President/CEOs of both Boeing and Airbus, the Director/CEO of the International Air Transport Association, and the President/CEO of GE Aviation; definitely some powerful voices (links to some speeches here). There is even an "Aviation Industry Commitment to Action on Climate Change," endorsed by several aviation industry partners including the Austin Dept. of Aviation and Austin-Bergstrom Airport. Disappointing, however, is the lack of support by U.S. airlines.

At face value, this is very good to see. The rhetoric in the climate change declaration resembles oil executives' Congressional testimony in favor of carbon regulations, and it is good to see some level of industry responsibility for and acknowledgment of the climate problems we face.

Of course, with aircraft industry profits being slashed by high fuel prices, these companies and organizations have a strong incentive to support fuel efficiency gains and investigation into alternative fuels. Indeed, a good deal of the emphasis at the Geneva meeting seems to be on efficiency, not only in aircraft technology, but also in air traffic control and efficient management of planes that are already in use. Boeing CEO Scott Carson remarks "Even the most fuel-efficient airplane can’t achieve its highest efficiency levels if it is forced to fly indirect routes and to circle overhead waiting to land." Carson also mentions the pioneering Dreamliner aircraft, biofuels (under the loaded but carefully chosen jargon "sustainable" fuels), and the recent test flight of a hydrogen fuel cell aircraft.

In the end though, I still get the impression that it will take strong policy measures to see substantial emissions reductions even in the aircraft industry, and I don't in any way feel that the aircraft industry represents the "low-hanging fruit" when it comes to cutting carbon emissions. I applaud the gusto of the industry, but we've got bigger fish to fry (ground transportation and power generation, I'm looking at you).

China World's Top Carbon Polluter

I wanted to point out this article on the BBC about China. The article says that in a report due out next month, China is officially the top GHG emitter.

I think everyone knew this was coming, or thought it already did, but it is interesting to see researchers come out and say it finally (this time from the Unviersity of California - doesn't say which city). Their data only went until 2004, but they predicted the data forward to the current day. They actually estimate that China surpassed the US in 2006 or 2007.

The article doesn't say too much, but I think the report will be pretty interesting when it comes out.

Hopefully Clearing Up Some Misconceptions about CO2 Capture & Sequestration

I wrote the post below last week as a comment on "Clinton on Carbon Sequestration," and since it ended up being rather extensive, I decided to repeat it as its own post. If Sgt. Pepper's misconceptions regarding CO2 capture and sequestration are common, then I hope my comments are informative.

The third paragraph of this post that describes issues with carbon sequestration does not appear to be fully informed about the technology, and may be very misleading as written. First off, carbon sequestration is the act of permanent CO2 storage, separate from the capture of CO2 at an emissions source and its transport to a storage site. Sequestration is NOT an energy intensive process. Most of the energy used in a CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) system is from the energy required to capture and compress the gas, which typically takes place at the emissions source. CO2 capture technology is primarily intended for power plants (most likely coal facilities), though there are some niche industrial applications such as cement and steel production. No one is proposing to capture CO2 at a mine mouth.

Referring back to the distinction between capture and sequestration, sequestration can hardly be considered in the “theoretical stage.” Injecting and storage CO2 underground has direct analogues in the oil and natural gas industries, and we already inject CO2 underground in Texas for enhanced oil recovery. Several pilot scale CO2 sequestration projects have been completed or are underway in Norway, Canada, and Texas (courtesy of UT’s Bureau of Economic Geology). The word “theoretical” implies a technology has, at best, reached the laboratory experimental stage. Several components of CO2 sequestration technology can be considered commercial, and others have reached pilot scale and are now being developed for commercial scale.

The remaining technological issues with sequestration mostly concern monitoring the gas over long time periods once it’s underground. No one wants CO2 to leak back into the atmosphere or into drinking water aquifers and such, and these challenges are unique to CO2 sequestration. Creating effective regulations for CO2 storage is as big of a barrier to the technology as any remaining technical issues, which is why Clinton praised the WY legislature for its leadership in this regard.

Certain capture technologies can be considered theoretical, or lab/bench scale, but others have reached pilot scale, are being planned for large scale demonstration, and have commercially proven analogies. Chemical absorption of CO2 has been performed in the natural gas processing and ammonia production industries for decades, and UT is among several institutions working hard to scale up this technology for use at coal power plants.

What Clinton is referring to regarding Wyoming is that the state should have a demonstration scale (over a million tons of CO2 per year) storage site there, presumably receiving CO2 from one of the state’s 7 large coal fired power plants (over 100MW) and sequestering the gas in one of its previously identified geologic storage sites. Storing CO2 near the emissions source makes obvious sense to cut down on transport costs, which are mostly capital costs (steel for pipelines,etc.)

And finally, everyone in this class should be well aware that CO2 capture and sequestration will not be “our answer” to global warming, because no single technology will be the answer. It will take several approaches to mitigate the effects of climate change, and CCS will be a vital piece of the puzzle if we continue to use coal for electricity.

I hope these comments clear up some misconceptions about CCS technology. I’d be happy to provide more references, but NETL and the Technical Summary IPCC Special Report on CCS are great places to start.

Texas to Blame for High US CO2 Emissions? Not So Fast

This AP article blasts Texas as a hopelessly unenvironmental state whose "everything's bigger" mentality has led it to being the state with staggeringly more CO2 emissions than the rest of the US. It goes on to point out that if TX were a country (as I believe some believe it is...), it would rank 7th in the world in CO2 emissions! It does go on to point out that Texas's CO2 emissions are so high because of the state's sheer size, population, and industrial density, but my interpretation is that the article clearly intends to paint TX as a complacent entity that should learn a lesson or two from the emissions reduction initiatives in Cal. or NY.

Well, we already acknowledged that Texas's size may be a good reason for its emissions, so maybe there is a better way to compare states - how about carbon intensity! Carbon intensity is defined by the EIA as the ratio of CO2 emissions to gross domestic product and by the IPCC as the ratio of CO2 emissions to primary fuel use. One could argue that absolute emissions are all that matters, but carbon intensity is probably a better way to make basic emissions comparisons. I mean seriously, can we really compare Delaware to TX when it comes to total emissions? We're talking apples and oranges here.

So where does Texas stack up? Using the most recent 2004 data (I guess it takes a while to inventory a country's emissions), in emissions per primary fuel use, TX is #27. Per GDP? #16. So not great, but certainly not the worst of the bunch by these metrics. In case you're curious, top 3 in both measures are Wyoming, West Virginia, and North Dakota.

So my point is, cherry picking statistics to frame an article is certainly not uncommon, and we need to be aware that this practice helps shape more than just energy related policy and public opinion (seen any US article on China's energy use lately?). As the state with the 3rd highest GDP and highest fuel use, TX can certainly learn from other economically similar states like CA and NY, but care should be taken and all facts researched before we start labeling any US emissions scapegoat.

We should care about China's emissions

It was reported today in the Wall Street Journal that Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate. The U.S. needs to engage China on emissions related to air quality and climate because there are no borders in the atmosphere between our countries. Their pollution arrives in the U.S. with only a few days' delay.

An outpouring of dust layered with man-made sulfates, smog, industrial fumes, carbon grit and nitrates is crossing the Pacific Ocean on prevailing winds from booming Asian economies in plumes so vast they alter the climate. These rivers of polluted air can be wider than the Amazon and deeper than the Grand Canyon.

We care about this river of fumes because they land in L.A. and San Francisco.

On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast, Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

As long as we continue to ignore climate change, it gives China a free pass to ignore their emissions, for which we pay the price.