Because Barack says so: the case for state incentives

(Source)

My social media algorithms are likely to blame, but I have to look very long and hard to find comments denouncing Obama's time as US President. Whilst his military legacy is questionable, his climate record appears infallible at the surface.

It's a darn shame that this article in Science was published on the day of the deadline for my blog. "The irreversible momentum of clean energy" is the first time Science has published a sitting president, and I can't imagine this will happen for another four years at least. Obama argues for the role of state incentives providing the nudge that the private sector needs towards the direction a zero-emissions future. What was I saying?

"Beyond market forces, state-level policy will continue to drive clean-energy momentum." 

- Barack Obama, Science, 2017.

He recounts the examples of Google and Walmart, and their pledge to be 100% renewably powered as case studies of the profitability of renewable investment, and credited US public policy with initiating this change. He also boasts of the new standards put in place to improve fuel economy standards in new vehicles, appliances and new building codes which will reduce emissions as well as save money for consumers. Beyond this, he also banned drilling of Arctic resources.

So his efforts within US borders clearly deserve recognition, but his label as the first 'climate president' is problematic.

To begin with, his claim that energy sector carbon emissions fell by 9.5% from 2008 to 2015, while the U.S. economy grew by 10% in the same timeframe is complicated. Part of this was due to the development of fracking under his administration, meaning the relatively cleaner burning of natural gas dominated emissions as opposed to coal. Furthermore, an investigation into the official export credit agency of the US government found that whilst Obama stabilised US emissions, he invested $34 billion in coal, oil and gas projects elsewhere in the world, including Mexico, Ukraine and Australia. Overall, 70 fossil fuel projects have been given loans or guarantees under Obama. This means that his administration has given overseas funding for fossil fuel development more than any other presidency. Comparatively, George W. Bush gave three times less.

It's fair to say that Obama attempting to pass a bill through Congress was akin to banging his head against a brick wall, and you wonder whether this caused him to remain silent on the issue of climate change for the remainder of his first term, after the resounding defeat of his cap-and-trade bill in 2010. As much as I appreciate his efforts in being a vocal role model for efforts towards climate change, I can't say that his decision-making, domestic or global, has always had climate at its core.

So why publish this article? Is this a lament to the likely unravelling of progress that he made? And why in Science? Interesting how this was the means for his final published word as president. It's a real statement on the legacy he wants to be remembered for. There is passing reference to the Trump administration, with contemplation of what would happen if the US was to walk away from the Paris Agreement. His argument attempts to play to Trump's interests by emphasising the economic and global political benefits as opposed to the scientific basis, drawing upon being in the position of wielding significant power to hold other powerful nations to account (e.g. China and Mexico). Futile, likely, and one can only hope that Donald ever picks up a Science magazine. As for convincing the general public, I have searched the depths of Twitter... and can find no criticisms of his publication, only praise. By publishing in Science, is he only preaching to the choir?

And who else is chuckling at the thought of Trump reading Science magazine?

Redefining risk and uncertainty: a call for changing public and political perceptions of technology

"Uncertainty - real or manufactured - is a well-rehearsed reason for inaction."

(The Guardian, 2014)

And this, as I have discovered, is the story of the discourse of technology and climate change. A state of inertia gripping a capitalist society built on impatience, inaction and reaction.

Through my research over the last few months I have found that many renewable technologies and some geoengineering techniques (e.g. solar and CCS) are entirely practical but have struggled beyond conception because they are in the grips of the hand of uncertainty. Uncertainty dictates whether they are lawful. Uncertainty dictates politics, economics and social perception. Worst of all, uncertainty is uncertain. And it is widely defined. New forms of hazard, risk and uncertainty are developing along with modernisation (Beck, 1992), so no wonder society can be resistant. Under such an outlook, why would governments want to invest precious money towards uncertain causes such as aerosol or space mirror development?

Regarding private development of these technologies, public perception is important. Renewables may be rapidly gaining public support worldwide (Devine-Wright, 2014) but this is not necessarily the case for geoengineering (Scheer and Renn, 2014). In the past, public perception has had the power to limit the potential of a number of technological developments, for example, wind energy expansion, and this may well be the case (or worse) for numerous geoengineering techniques if the private sector are left responsible for their development.

So I am calling for a change of public perception by redefining uncertainty. Scientists need to be cautious with their communication of uncertainty to ensure that the public are correctly informed. A positive spin is required, alongside an emphasis on personal responsibility and widespread participation. The public need convincing that this isn't just a matter to be managed by a higher power (Stilgoe, 2015). We need to embrace the precautionary principle, which states that not having all information to hand is no reason for inaction (Steele, 2006). Otherwise, it is unlikely that anything productive would occur. Apparently, it is applied in its rudimentary form in many international agreements, except when there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage (Principle 15 of Rio Declaration). Many geoengineering techniques therefore apply to this exception. Perhaps international law's definition of the precautionary principle needs redefining too.

Then again, can the public be trusted to lead change? Unfortunately, a paper by Patt and Weber (2013) shows that the public are still more likely to form their opinions on climate change from their political views, rather than from evidence and error bars presented by the scientific community. This goes some way to explaining resistance amongst some members of the public. Maybe public opinion needs to be bypassed, by offering them what they should want, as opposed to what they think they want. I refer to the innovative private companies, and a quote from Steve Jobs, who once said: "People don't know what they want until you show it to them". He was a big believer in bypassing market research altogether; a waste of time and money.

I live in a position of privilege, with reasonable wealth, with a vote, in a region of the world where the effects of climate change are less impactful. Therefore, it is easy for me to sit here and dictate that we all need to lighten up in order for radical technological developments to progress. For this reason, I am thankful for the position of the law to ensure that the likes of me and my radical train of thought are kept in check, and that privilege and rights are shared with those who live in less fortunate circumstances.

I have learned the following from researching this blog so far:

• I remain pro-technology, even more so than when I began. But so long as it is sustainable for environmental health. 
• At present renewable technologies are overall in a good place - economically and politically. Long may this continue. Newly elected governments taking their seats in 2017 would be stupid not to see their environmental and ultimately, economic potential. 
• I have a mixed outlook towards geoengineering techniques. Whilst I'm interested in the innovative ideas that have emerged (for example, solar mirrors), they fail to solve the root of a problem, instead they risk introducing new ones. This is not the case for all of them however: I am convinced that CCS is a viable option and must be made widespread. 
• Economics dictate how the world works. And I can't see that changing, however much I would like it to.

Geoengineering and the law

My investigation so far has revealed much by the way of economic and political limitations, and I haven't even delved into the abyss that is international law yet.

International law is more complicated than one might think. What is international law anyway? How is it governed? Where is the higher power to enforce it? Does it even formally exist?

There are two types. International treaty law is probably better understood because it features regularly in the realm of climate change. It involves parties (typically states) ratifying an agreement and assuming obligation to the treaty. Alternatively, customary international law “consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way” (Rosenne, 1985, p55). Much of international law began this way with the formation of the League of Nations, and then the United Nations. For example, the Laws of War began as customary international law (Roberts, 2008). Over time many aspects of customary law have eventually been written into treaty law. The Laws of War were eventually written into the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, then as part of the Geneva Convention (ibid).

Geoengineering is implicated in both types of law. It applies to international customary law because of the threat it poses to state sovereignty. The transboundary nature of geoengineering techniques means that they could affect the environment beyond the state of jurisdiction. In such a case, a balance between parties involved must be struck to allow certain testing or activities. International law plus all of the states involved must be applied, making for a complicated process (Proelss, 2012).

Regarding international treaty law, individual geoengineering technologies likely apply to multiple treaties and must adhere to all. Proelss (2012) offers the example of marine geoengineering. It must be assessed against the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the CBD and the London Convention and Protocol. At present, the international legal system doesn't have any legislation specific to the development and testing of geoengineering. This makes for a challenging process to decide which activities are legal or not.

Geoengineering has transboundary impacts, and it is intended to have global impacts. This places it in the realm of public international law (Proelss, 2012). There are ethical implications for its testing because the true impact of each method is so far unknown. Overall, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is met with fewer legal objections compared to Solar Radiation Management (SRM). This is likely because SRM techniques are generally more concerned with altering forcings and feedbacks of the climate system in ways that we cannot fully predict.

Law as a restricitive force against change

It is fair to say that international law is the ultimate power of restriction in scientific development and testing of geoengineering methods. Not only is it risk averse, but leading up to the present, it has only functioned largely to suit the needs of the current global population, rather than needing to plan for the long-term future. Furthermore, it is contradictory. I refer back to the example that I used in a previous post: space-based geoengineering schemes fall under the definition of "dangerous anthropogenic interference" by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as an activity that produces inadvertent climate effects (Robock, 2008). This conflicts with the call from COP21 to invest more heavily in geoengineering research. Furthermore, the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) prohibits “military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage, or injury to any other State Party.” Therefore, any space-based scheme that adversely impacts climate would violate the treaty (Robock, 2008).

To initiate progress, there is a need to define what negligible environmental impacts are in relation to geoengineering in international law (Blackstock and Long, 2010), or even what environmental impacts would be acceptable under the testing and development of geoengineering. A disagreement of these definitions is problematic for decision-making. In terms of perspective, Stilgoe (2015) argues for a new style of governance related to geoengineering - collective experimentation. The aim of this concept is to turn geoengineering from a 'noun' to a 'verb'. He proposes reassigning language currently used to discuss geoengineering to a more positive and productive approach. Currently we view its uncertainties as limitations. Stilgoe wants to reimage these uncertainties as potential, and for the public to participate positively in this experimentation. Aspirational, but unlikely to be embraced, in my opinion.

As an aside: can a resolution really emerge from a democratic system? Stilgoe (2015) states how democracy is not sufficient enough to instil the changes that we need with immediate effect to manage or manipulate climate change. A environmental discourse of climate change requires a totalitarian approach for efficient decision-making. However, I argue that human civilisation in the long-term may require this approach too. Democracy rightly has moral and civil importance for the present population, but this also serves as its downfall. International and domestic politics, despite preaching sustainability, often look no further than the present generation. Democracy functions to meet the beliefs of the majority, not necessarily the needs, and can therefore remain stagnant, particularly when little progress can be made with such short terms of modern leadership. Therefore I don't believe that it is compatible with the demands of a rapidly changing climate.

The rule of law dictates that scientific uncertainty is grounds for restricting the progress of geoengineering. Uncertainty will never disappear. Perhaps uncertainty needs to be redefined to become unstuck?

Law is quite frankly mind-boggling, and I am certainly no lawyer, so I want those better informed than me to offer their opinion. Have I over-simplified? I have only been able to see the restrictions of law to progress with managing climate change, I'd love to find out if there is another side to the story too.

Solar energy: the past, present and future

Annual long-term average for global horizontal irradiance (in kWh per m2 per year). Source: Gerlach et al. (2011).

What is your train of thought when looking at the map above? If the question was: "Is solar energy globally feasible?", which of the following would be your response?

"No: some areas of the world receive barely any sunlight."

or,

"Yes: everywhere receives some sunlight."

I hark back to my first post on the blog. The Achilles' heel of solar energy for so long was the lack of sunlight hours for some populations, as well as the variability of energy generation from day to day. Energy storage was required to eliminate the uncertainty of receiving sufficient solar energy from day to day. Widespread home energy storage was first made more feasible with the release of Tesla's Powerwall in 2015. After this, perceptions changed.

History of the development of solar power

The solar movement was sparked by the observation of the photovoltaic effect by Alexandre Becquerel in 1839: the ability of a light source to induce an electric current in a material (Recherches sur les effetsde la radiation chimique de la lumière solaire, au moyen des courants électriques). About 50 years later, a patent for the first solar cell was gained by Edward Weston in 1888 and developments have been made ever since. In the 1950s, solar cells were adapted by Bell Labs for space activities which in turn fuelled the boom in space exploration, and the first commercial company for solar cells was founded in 1955. 

1985 was a breakthrough year for solar energy: technological developments led to a doubling in the efficiency of solar cells from 10% to 20%. To date, the recognised record for efficiency is 34.5%, although this is reported to have been exceeded unofficially in 2008. In the future, cell efficiency is likely to increase with investment. Investment is inevitable because the solar industry has proved that profitability is increasing. This is very good news for a world striving towards a net zero-emissions future. However, despite progress, there have been setbacks along the way, and some predict more setbacks to come… 

Progress in state investment: The good and the bad 

Some nations have made outstanding investment towards the cause for solar energy generation for example, China (Reuters, 2016), Germany (Fraunhofer, 2016) and Japan (Reuters, 2015). Greece has also installed significant photovoltaic capacity by offering feed-in tariffs to secure long-term contracts, leading to a solar boom in 2009. This meant that Greece currently ranks as 5th in the world for PV capacity per capita (IEA, 2015). However, the combination of the financial crash and over-saturation of the market led to a collapse. Many proposals and constructions have been halted, and all installed photovoltaic power stations must pay a tax to operate. 

The example of China tells a similar tale. I have already referred to China and their state-led incentives for mass production in a previous post. This has helped to make solar energy significantly more affordable and desirable. However, high Chinese output is keeping prices low, which is stunting the growth and foundation of solar companies elsewhere. Many European and American companies are relying upon a reduction in Chinese output in order to become more profitable (The Guardian, 2016). As a result, the competition in the market is not as healthy or as innovative as it could be. Innovation then rests more significantly on state investment.

Over in the US, a pioneering solar future is looking uncertain under a Trump administration. The Guardian’s Arthur Neslen paints a picture of a wary solar industry, speculating what the outcome of this election means for them. Under Obama, the solar industry is soaring thanks to investment tax credits of 30% tax rebate. This has helped initiate a record 4.1GW of solar power installation in the third quarter of 2016 in the US. Solar companies disagree as to what happens next under Trump. Some (including CEO of SolarPower Europe, James Watson) are certain that these state initiatives for solar and wind development will be scrapped under the new administration. Not unlikely with the appointment of Rex Tillerson (ExxonMobil CEO) for Secretary of State, alongside other oil industry executives and climate change deniers. However, the Republican-led congress under Obama has shown significant support towards renewables industries by voting to extend the tax credit scheme to 2022. Furthermore, solar energy has become one of the cheapest sources of electricity. Surely, as a businessman, Trump will recognise the profitable power of the industry? 

What about progress in the private sector? 

If you’ve learned anything about me over the course of this blog, it’s probably that I’m a huge Tesla and SolarCity fan. These companies have really captured by interest in mainstream renewable technology development. Old news, perhaps, but in August 2016, Tesla and SolarCity formally announced their deal to merge. Praised by some, criticised by others. Under this acquisition, Tesla made clear to the public its hopes of diversifying beyond electric vehicles into renewable energy generation and storage. 

Despite financial reservations beyond my remit from economic experts, I thought that this made sense. Surely merging the number one provider of residential and commercial solar energy in the US with the second largest manufacturer of plug-in vehicles worldwide was a progressive move? As a consumer, the concept of buying into a renewable lifestyle under one brand is appealing. Apple have achieved this concept. It's clear that Tesla wants in on this too. Beyond Tesla and the US, private sector growth is looking strong thanks to the state. In 2014, 6 out of 10 of the top solar companies by output were Chinese, including Trina Solar and Yingli Green Energy (Forbes, 2014).

At present, private investment depends heavily on state incentives, restricting development in some countries depending on their budget. Furthermore, the nature of the global economics means that there is a framework of quarterly reviews, meaning that many companies opt for short-term gains as opposed to long-term ambitions to build a positive presence. This is paralleled with the short-term nature of democratic elections. Both of these could act to slow progress towards a solar and fully renewable future.

Overall, with solar energy storage now part of global picture, the future of solar looks promising. But a balance must be achieved to make it a profitable industry for all, the environment included. With the recognition of the profitability of the industry, independent private sector progress is ready to flex its muscles, but the state must recognise their role in regulating this progress to promote optimal and sustainable development of the industry.

In the news: Tech billionaires unite to battle climate change

It seems that private wealth is forging its own path to a zero-emission future independent of state incentives, thanks to the development of Breakthrough Energy Ventures (BEV) led by Bill Gates.

(Source: Carlos Serrao)

The i published the article today (14/12/16) summarised the plan of the 23 investors involved, including Richard Branson (Virgin) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon), both of which are already involved in projects promoting technological sustainability. Branson launched the Virgin Earth Challenge competition in 2007 to stimulate development of carbon removal technologies, whilst Bezos founded Blue Origin, paving the way for reusable spaceflight technology alongside Elon Musk's SpaceX.

The plan is to invest more than $1 billion dollars into five branches of research, including electricity, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing and buildings. Ultimately, the aim of BEV is to improve methods of producing, transmitting and storing low-carbon electricity, develop effective carbon-free modes of transportation and grow enough food sustainably for a rapidly growing population.

Perhaps I was wrong to think that state investment was the only way to initiate real progress towards net-zero emissions. Could it be that capitalism is the solution as well as the problem? There is no doubt that climate change is uncovering new realms of economic profitability. With increasing public interest in climate issues and consumer demand for technology, it seems the trendy world of tech is listening and ready to deliver...

In the news: Tesla And SolarCity Power Entire Island With Solar Energy Microgrid

I came across this brilliant video from Tesla and SolarCity this week. Elon Musk really does put his money where his mouth is.

They have proved their capacity for widespread deployment of solar energy by using the American Samoan island of Ta'u as a case study. In the past, Ta'u was dependent on diesel generators for power. However, 5328 solar panels have been built alongside 6 megawatt hours of storage from 60 Tesla powerpacks. Now, the whole island can remain powered for 3 full days without sun.

This is significant. For a long time, the barrier to progress of harnessing solar energy was not only cost of production and implementation, but the ability to effectively store the energy for future use. This means that solar energy is also a viable option as part of the energy mix for those with limited sunlight hours.

Next up on the blog: an insight into these two merger companies from Elon Musk and their capacity for paving the way towards a fossil-free future.

Money: the barrier to a CCS future

The need for urgent CCS investment has been established in order to meet the ambitious Paris Agreement targets. How far away are we from CCS becoming a common reality?

Each of the individual components of capture, transport and storage have been in operation already. For example, capture and removal of carbon dioxide from natural gas is already a common process in this industry (Rufford et al., 2012) through use of amines. Furthermore, transport and storage of carbon dioxide is already in use in the enhanced oil recovery industry, amongst others (IEA, 2010). The challenge is integrating each of these components on an industrial scale.

CCS has already been in operation in several countries, including Germany, Canada and the US. The first commercial example was the Weyburn-Midale Carbon Dioxide Project in Saskatchewan, Canada, which began construction in 2000. It began as a collaborative project between researchers to test the feasibility of the technology. As of 2008, it became the largest CCS plant in the world (IEA, 2010). Researchers found that after allegations of carbon dioxide leakage in 2011, it was determined that the detection was from naturally occurring biological processes instead (Green Car Congress press release, 2005; NRDC, 2012). So far, its implementation has been deemed successful, and it has been calculated that Weyburn-Midale will store carbon dioxide equivalent to removing about 9 million cars off the road for a year (PTRC, 2010).

Meanwhile, in Europe, the Schwarze Pumpe power station in eastern Germany (run by Swedish energy company Vattenfall) stopped its CCS project in 2014 because of significant costs of running the technology (thelocal.se, 2014).

On UK shores, two key CCS proposals that were in the pipeline to be built alongside current power stations (Peterhead and Drax) were halted when the government scrapped the funding for a CCS competition worth £1 billion in November 2015 (The Guardian, 2015). The integration of CCS into current power plant infrastructure is an expensive process, raised by the report published by the Climate Change Committee from the last post (CCC, 2016). The scrapping of this scheme has therefore significantly halted any progress of CCS being developed in the UK. This needs to change.

Costs of CCS vary depending on the site. For example, costs drastically increase if the distance of the CCS plant to the point source increases, or if there is a reduction in concentration or volume of carbon dioxide (IEA, 2013). It is the uncertainty of costs that is ultimately hindering development. How could the issue of cost be resolved to spark global implementation?

The International Energy Agency (2013) published a report recommending that governments commit public funds towards ten pilot schemes to help determine true physical and economic feasibility of different projects, including iron, steel and cement plants. To encourage government uptake, they further recommend the allocation of capital grants, subsidies and loans at the initial stages of development (see figure below), which then shifts to carbon taxation and credits in the latter stages once deployed on the wider-scale:

Possible gateways on the way to wide-scale deployment in a CCS policy framework (Source: IEA, 2012) 

The technology exists. It is physically feasible. Money, once more, remains the barrier to progress.