Sustainability PR Blog |

Organic Food: PR Conundrum

By Peter Wilkinson on September 12, 2012

Here is a public relations quiz for organic farmers and people who want to promote organic produce. Why isn’t the message getting through?

For instance, there’s been a lot of convoluted arguing over organic farming since the Stanford University study was published (September 2012), which found amongst many other things that organic food may not be more nutritious. Here’s the NYT‘s take on the story.

The study findings were weird to us because we don’t know anyone amongst our sustainability clients who claims that organic produce is more nutritious.

What we do know is that certified organic produce in Australia is synthetic-chemical-free (pesticides, hormones, antibiotics), and this may help reduce the likelihood of cancer and a variety of other complaints. We also know that organic produce is farmed on soils that are also synthetic-chemicals-free and so better in terms of environmental sustainability, possibly leading to better health for us albeit by a longer route (cleaner air, clearer water, etc.). And we know this is government regulated (in Australia).

So, here’s a conundrum. There are people who insure their house against fire because it may burn down; the same people might also self-compost because it may contribute to a cleaner environment, and in a teeny way to preventing climate change. If these same people don’t eat organic food knowing it may be healthier, then there is a disconnect. Each is a form of insurance against a risk that something bad might happen. The only difference to argue about is the probability (and who knows the probability of their house burning down?).

A common argument against organic is that there is scientific evidence that pesticides, hormones, etc., in non-organic foods are at safe levels by the time it is sold to you. Argument accepted. But here is another disconnect, scientists also can’t explain a host of society illnesses such as increased rates of cancer, and more.

Another reason that people didn’t buy organic is that the food used to look sickly: blotchy, poorly coloured, small; or quite clearly past its used by date; or sold by people with dirty finger nails. But no more, just look in the organic section of any major supermarket, or any large farmers’ market.

Other reasons are cost and access. Point taken.

There is a good article that sets all this out here, in the Huffington Post (see also an extract below).

So why the lack of PR promoting organic produce? Well, we know of one company that says it’s just not a priority – the company is already working flat-out to cater for growing demand.

Stanford Organic Food Study: Amidst Pushback, Co-Author Acknowledges Limitations : Huff Post

Posted: 09/10/2012 3:59 pm

Last week, a controversial study concluding that organic food has no real health benefit over conventionally grown food received a great deal of media attention. But there was also a wave of backlash.

On the Huffington Post alone, bloggers sounded the alarm, with headlines like, “Stanford Scientists Shockingly Reckless on Health Risk And Organics,” “Media Coverage of Stanford’s Organic Foods Study is Half Baked,” and “Organic Food vs. Conventional: What the Stanford Study Missed.”

So what exactly was the problem? Some argued that the study’s conclusions were being oversimplified and some pointed out that even if its media-grabbing assessment was true, that hosts of other reasons why organic farming and produce might be preferable were being overlooked.

NYU professor Marion Nestle pointed out that the study did in fact confirm that organic food reduces exposure to pesticides and antibiotics. Nestle writes that the authors found organic food was “doing exactly what it is supposed to.” Nestle also explains how focusing on nutrient content alone misses the point, since “additional nutrients do not make healthy people healthier.”
Michael Pollan agreed, saying that this is not new research and he’s seen “exact same data analyzed in a very different direction.” He said, “we’re kind of erecting a straw man and then knocking it down, the straw man being that the whole point of organic food is that it’s more nutritious. The whole point of organic food is that it’s more environmentally sustainable. That’s the stronger and easier case to make.”
Bloomberg restaurant critic Ryan Sutton argued that headlines about organic food not being healthier misses the point of the study altogether. “We pay more for organic or free range products because we believe it’s the right thing to do,” he wrote. “We want to support the farmers and growers who treat their animals, their crops and mother nature’s land with respect and dignity.”
Tom Philpott of Mother Jones writes that “the study in some places makes a strong case for organic—though you’d barely know it from the language the authors use.” He names five reasons the study sells organics short, including an oversimplification of pesticide exposure. He writes, ” the study seriously underplays the benefit of going organic to avoid pesticide traces, especially for vulnerable populations like pregnant women and kids.”

Now it turns out that one of the lead authors of the study acknowledges some of these shortcomings of their “meta-analysis” (the study was a comprehensive review of previous organic food studies). <more>

Image

Posted in Environmental Sustainability, Social Sustainability | Tagged environmental sustainability, organic | Leave a response

Beyond Clumsy: APPEA misquotes CSIRO on Coal Seam Gas

By Peter Wilkinson on September 7, 2012

It’s hard to believe these two elementary PR mistakes have been made by the industry body that represents such an important industry.

The background: the oil and gas industry body (APPEA) completely misquoted the CSIRO in an advertisement in which it said there is not a risk to groundwater from coal seam gas mining. The CSIRO said there is a risk (see The Australian and the SMH here).

This comes on the back of increasing scientific conservatism about the industry. For instance, CEDA (the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, hardly a radical organisation) in its in its most recent report, Australia’s Unconventional Energy Options calls for “Adoption of better and best practice management by industry that includes careful monitoring of wellbores and their integrity, water, air quality and noise levels associated with mining activity.”

First mistake: it’s hard to quantify the damage to trust by APPEA’s (Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association) clumsiness in misquoting the CSIRO. This from an organisation and members that purport to rely on good science and the facts. Besides public perception, mistakes like this reverberate around the corridors of opinion leaders: politicians, journalists, exec offices in related industries and more. It just adds to the already worldwide suspicion of the environmental and social sustainability of coal seam gas mining (and oil shale gas).

Even the industry magazine MiningAustralia chose to headline the story:

“The CSIRO says the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association has misrepresented its research on coal seam gas. In a statement yesterday the CSIRO said it had asked the APPEA not to air a CSG advertisement because it wrongly attributed quotes to the research body. The advertisement claims CSIRO and government studies have shown “groundwater is safe with CSG,” but the CSIRO refutes the claim.

“At no time has CSIRO made such a statement, and nor do the results of CSIRO research support such a statement,” it said. “CSIRO has stated on the public record that coal seam gas extraction is likely to pose a ‘low risk’ to groundwater quality through contamination.”

Second mistake: this clumsiness is exacerbated by the lack of a prompt apology and correction, at least we can’t find one on the website. This is also basic PR 101. Instead, this rather unnecessary and belligerent quote on an industry website: “The ads we run, where we run them, and when we run them, will be determined over the months ahead, however we have taken CSIRO’s comments on board.”

The frustration with this is that many people want a resolution here. There is consensus among many that we need this cleaner energy source, but we need to resolve the big issues: invasion of property, ground water contamination, ground water depletion, gas seepage from poorly constructed wells.

We know from our work in Community Relations that those goals become almost impossible when there is no effort made to gain trust and the social license to operate. As the Brisbane Times wrote: ‘…..new energy industries can provide lower emission options, and promise to create tens of thousands of jobs, CEDA’s chief executive Stephen Martin says. But the full potential of “unconventional” gas developments will be realised only if companies have a “social licence” to operate, he says. ”In recent weeks we have seen further protests in NSW and a moratorium being discussed in Victoria for coal seam gas extraction, which shows that the social licence to operate is in serious jeopardy,”…’

Posted in Environmental Sustainability, Social Sustainability | Tagged coal seam gas | Leave a response

Do We Want High Productivity? Australia’s tug-o-war

By Peter Wilkinson on September 5, 2012

There is a lot of discussion about Australia’s lack of productivity. It’s described as a curse, where it could equally be called a compliment. It’s a balancing act. This goes to the heart of the Wilkinson Group striving to help clients move towards sustainable ways of doing business. It’s a fundamental way of approaching public relations and corporate affairs.

The baseline for a discussion about productivity is financial sustainability. If we don’t operate to make a profit then we must at least make a profit in order to operate. How does this impact on the productivity debate? Well, the more community services we provide, the more we spend, the less the productivity. The more government, or companies, or families throw money around, the less the productivity. Largesse & luxuries and productivity are opposites.

There’s a wonderful explanation of this by SMH economic commentator, Ross Gittins (see below). He discusses the balance between ‘equity’ and ‘efficiency’, where efficiency means making maximum use of “the scarce resources of land, labour and capital available to the community” and equity is the “fairness with which the proceeds from all this efficiency are distributed between individuals and households”.

At a government level this is seen in the way wealth is redistributed, like the Carbon Tax and the Mining Tax, and the various services governments provide, hence the Obamacare debate in the US and the dental care debate and the current education-funding debate in Australia.

At a company level it impacts the extent to which a company can afford to be a good corporate citizen, which brings us to the balance of Financial, Social and Environmental Sustainability. The trouble with the old models of Triple Bottom Line Accounting (accounting that scores financial, social and environment success) and more recently Corporate Social Responsibility is that the social and environmental components were at the expense of the financial component. In other words social and environmental sustainability cost companies money, which shareholders don’t always like. Michael Porter is an economist who has since come along with Creating Shared Value, which is a model that looks at ways to contribute to social and environmental benefits and increase a company’s profits. For instance a company that sells coffee invests in the education of coffee farmers; while the farmers gain with an education for themselves and their children, the environment gains because the farmers are educated to use less water and fertiliser; productivity goes up; the company (and everyone else in the production cycle) makes more money. Everyone wins; hence the ‘shared value’ that’s been created.

We need a more balanced approach to progress

SMH WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2012

A lot of the problems the nation struggles with and argues over boil down to the considerable potential for conflict between what economists summarise as “equity” and “efficiency”.

We act as though one is right and the other wrong but, in truth, sensible people want a mix of both. So, though we don’t always realise it, the hard part is finding the best trade-off between the two.

“Efficiency” means taking the scarce resources of land, labour and capital available to the community and employing them in such a way that they produce the combination of goods and services that maximises the satisfaction of the community’s material wants.

So it’s about improving the productivity of our work effort – getting a bigger bang for our buck and minimising waste. But it’s also about being flexible in our response to the change that comes along.

Technology is always improving, allowing us to achieve the things we want more efficiently or even allowing us to satisfy wants we didn’t know we had. So we accept it as a force for good, but it can greatly disrupt the lives of people whose jobs have been geared to the old technology.

No one tends to argue against technological change, but we’re often less willing to accept change coming from that other major source, change in how the rest of the world relates to us. Why should we change just because they’ve changed?

Let’s say the economic development of China and India reaches the point where they need huge quantities of coal and iron ore to make steel. They’re willing to pay much higher prices and their need for a lot of steel is likely to run for several decades.

Are we willing to take their money? Sure. Are we willing to build a lot more mines to accommodate their needs? Sure. Are we willing to pay the various prices that come with this good fortune: the high dollar that makes life a lot tougher for manufacturers and others, the need to shift workers and other resources to other parts of the country, the two-speed economy this will bring? Not so sure.

All this sounding familiar? The efficiency story is one we hear all the time from economists, business people and politicians.

Taken narrowly, “equity” refers to the fairness with which the proceeds from all this efficiency are distributed between individuals and households. Is income being shared more unequally between the top, middle and bottom, or less?

But I want to use the term more broadly to encompass all our non-efficiency objectives. Not just monetary fairness, but our need to preserve the natural environment, need for strong relationships with family and friends, need for recreation and our desire to live in a community that’s free, democratic and subject to the rule of law, with harmony between the many groups that make it up.

You can see the scope for conflict between all these objectives. We don’t want to be so efficient we’re unfair, nor so fair we’re inefficient.

Conflict arises partly because people tend to specialise in one objective or another. They bang on about the economy or the environment or social concerns as though their speciality was all that mattered. Business people and economists are particularly prone to having one-track minds, but they’re by no means the only super-specialists.

An even bigger problem arises because so many people tend to conceal pursuit of their own interests behind the banner of a larger, worthier cause. Cutting my taxes would be great for the economy. If you care about People not Profit, you’ll protect my job from change (what this implies for other people’s jobs is not my concern; they can look after themselves).

I have doubts about the sincerity of business groups demanding reforms to correct our supposed weak productivity performance. Why? Because the “reforms” they choose to advocate would benefit themselves in the first instance and the rest of us only indirectly.

But, similarly, unions fight to preserve a status quo that’s been overtaken by events and to protect their (surviving) members’ interests at the expense of other workers.

Perhaps many of these urgers aren’t knowingly dishonest in the way they frame their case, just so conscious of their own interests that they’re unable to see how self-serving their arguments are.

Maybe I’m just getting old, but it seems to me the public debate about government policies is getting more self-seeking, strident and polarised.

It also seems the people who worry most about money have more of the stuff and are able to use it to buy a bigger say in the debate. We’re always hearing how much money we’ll lose if we fail to improve our productivity performance, but we rarely hear about what we have to give up to preserve and enhance our material affluence.

The people reminding us there’s more to life than money and the things it buys don’t get much of a hearing. Are we being asked to work longer hours (including at the end of a mobile phone)? Will we be required to work on weekends and public holidays? Will that mean we see less of our spouse, kids, extended family and friends? If so, how exactly will we be better off?

Will the hastening pace of modern life make us more stressed and damage our health? Will more people succumb to depression? Will greater efficiency make our jobs less secure and less permanent? Will we continue destroying the environment and losing species? If so, how exactly will we be better off?

We need a more balanced approach to progress. One that weighs the pros and cons of “reforms” more carefully and doesn’t go overboard in one direction or another.

Image: The Vecci Blog

Posted in Financial Sustainability | Tagged financial sustainability | Leave a response

Global Energy Mix – the pie chart and the dilemma

By Peter Wilkinson on August 18, 2012

This blog is part library of relevant information, and part overlay of our experience in the Corporate Affairs aspects of sustainability; but at all times in huge deference to the very public and expert debaters in energy security and sustainability, most of whom are in the US: Michael Levi, Robert Rapier, Tom Whipple, Thomas Friedman, Joe Romm, Josh Fox and more.

Below is a really good summary by Robert Rapier of the mix of energy sources, and the pressures of supply/demand.

Each country sees the energy debate mostly through the prism of its local energy security issues; Australia’s healthy economy is dependent on selling coal, with gas becoming important, and importing oil. However, much of the global debate is caused by anxiety over the four big environmental risks in fossil based energy (dirty coal, risky deep sea drilling, oil producing tar sands, gas with fracking) and their impact on slowing the rate of growth of more costly renewables. We want what we can’t have, so long as market forces reign.

Renewable Energy — Facts and Figures: The Energy Collective

Posted July 9, 2012: Robert Rapier

Today’s article looks at the explosive growth of renewable energy, but also places it in the context of our overall energy demands.

Rapid Rise in Biofuels Production — U.S. Takes the Lead

The first graphic shows the rapid rise in global biofuel production that has occurred in the past decade — led by the United States.

While it is not indicated in the spreadsheet, these production numbers apparently represent barrels of oil equivalent (BOE). The reason I say that is that the BP data indicate U.S. biofuel production of 8.7 billion gallons, but actual production of ethanol alone in 2011 was reportedly 13.9 billion gallons. U.S. biodiesel also contributed over 1 billion gallons. But these biofuels have lower energy density than crude oil, which means that if converted to barrels of oil equivalent the BOE number would be lower than actual volumetric production.

Cumulatively, the U.S., Brazil, and the European Union account for 87% of global biofuel production. The U.S. produced 48% of the world’s 2011 biofuel total, mostly in the form of corn ethanol. Brazil produced 22.4%, primarily as sugarcane ethanol. However, ethanol production in Brazil has been flat to declining in recent years due to disappointing sugarcane harvests. The third major biofuel producing region is the EU, which is the leading biodiesel-producing region in the world. The EU was responsible for 16.5% of global biofuel production. Other than the U.S. and Brazil, the only other countries producing more than 3% of the global biofuel total were Germany (4.8%) and Argentina (3.8%).

Solar PV’s Explosive Growth

The next figure shows the explosive growth of solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity, dominated by Europe. (The data did not break down into capacity specific to the EU, and data were only available from 1996).

Global PV capacity has increased at a dramatic pace since 2007, driven largely by generous incentives in Europe. In 2011, Europe was responsible for 74% of the world’s total PV capacity, with Germany leading the way at 35.8% of the global total. Italy — not Spain as many might have suspected — was in 2nd place in Europe with 18.4% of global PV capacity. Spain was in 3rd place at 6.2% of global PV capacity.

Solar PV capacity for U.S. and China are far behind European capacity, but I broke them out separately in the next graphic to show that they — as well as Japan — have also shown explosive growth in adding PV capacity.

Wind Power — China Jumps Ahead of the U.S.

As the next graphic demonstrates, global wind power has also grown rapidly in recent years. At 239 gigawatts of installed capacity, global wind capacity is well above solar PV’s 69 gigawatts of capacity. Wind power is also more evenly distributed around the world.

Once again, Europe does have the most installed capacity of any region at 40% of the world’s total, but China recently surpassed the U.S. and now possesses 26% of the world’s installed wind capacity versus 19.7% for the U.S. Cumulatively, the three areas are responsible for 86% of global wind capacity.

Taking a Look at the Global Energy Mix

Of course as many would be quick to point out, despite the rapid growth the renewable portion of the world’s energy mix is still small. The next graphic shows the total renewable contribution toward the energy that was consumed in 2011.

The renewable portion — which included solar PV, wind power, geothermal power, and power from biomass — accounted for 1.6% of the world’s energy consumption, up slightly from 1.4% in 2010 and coming almost exclusively from developed countries. However, BP includes ethanol and biodiesel under the “Oil” category, and if we make that adjustment the renewable portion rises to 2.1% . If we include hydropower in the renewable category, the renewable share rises to 8% of total consumption. (Note that these numbers do not include conventional biomass burning, which I identified in my book as the “main energy source for cooking for most of the developing world, and the primary source of energy for over 2 billion people.”)

Oil was the largest contributor to our global energy needs at 33% of total consumption, followed by coal (30%), natural gas (24%), hydroelectricity (6%), and nuclear power (5%). Cumulatively, fossil fuels provided 87% of the world’s energy in 2011, which was actually a tiny fraction higher than in 2010 (86.9%). (If we add nuclear power, fossil fuels plus nuclear power provided 92.1% of all energy in 2010, and declined a tiny fraction to 92.0% in 2011 because of a slight decline in nuclear electricity).

Given the explosive increase in renewable capacity, why would the world have used a slightly higher fraction of fossil power in 2011? Intuition might indicate that this fraction should be falling, but not only did the fraction from fossil fuels grow slightly, overall consumption of fossil fuels grew by nearly 3%. So renewables aren’t growing fast enough to displace fossil fuels; they are merely supplementing them.

The main reason for this is that developing countries are gravitating toward the cheapest and most reliable energy sources they can find, and those tend to be fossil fuels. This was demonstrated earlier in this series by showing the growth of coal consumption in developing regions.

The reliability issue can be brought into focus by comparing the capacity of wind or solar power with the electricity that was actually produced. The ratio of the actual output over the potential output if the power source produced 100% of the time is called the capacity factor. In the U.S., the capacity factor for nuclear power plants in 2011 was 89%. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that the capacity factors for electricity derived from fossil fuels or nuclear power are in the range of 85% to 90%, 92% for geothermal, 52% for hydropower, 34% for wind, and 25% for solar PV.

We can cross-check this with the data from the BP report. Total consumption of solar power was reportedly 55.7 terawatt-hours (TW·h). (I have an enquiry into BP on exactly how they obtain consumption numbers; a colleague suggested that the numbers are probably readily available since production is generally subsidized — and thus the production must be measured). The 69 gigawatts of total installed solar PV capacity could produce 69*24*365 = 604 TW·h if solar produced 100% of the time. Thus, the capacity factor based on those numbers is only 9%.

But the real number is actually higher than that, because the capacity number is based on the end of the year, while actual production is measured throughout the year. We can get a better true capacity factor if we average the PV capacity of the end of 2010 and the end of 2011, which would be more indicative of average 2011 capacity. In this case, the capacity factor for solar PV rises to 11.6%, which is far below the EIA estimate.

For wind power, the average capacity between year end 2010 and year end 2011 was 219 gigawatts, which could potentially produce 1,918 TW·h. Actual consumption was 437 TW·h, implying a capacity factor of 23% — double the capacity factor for solar PV, but again far below the EIA’s estimate of 34%. If we look at just the data for the U.S., the solar capacity factor in 2011 comes to only 6% for some reason (3.5 gigawatts of average capacity for 2010 and 2011, but only 1.8 TW·h of consumption), but the capacity factor for wind was better than the global average at 31.6%.

These capacity factors help explain why developing countries are embracing fossil fuels. Developed countries with ample supplies of stable power can afford to increase the penetration of wind and solar power into their grids. Power-hungry developing countries are building up those supplies of stable power, which will enable them to increase the supplies of intermittent power. But given the current cost and intermittency of wind and solar power, no developing country is going to rely on them heavily.

Unless a cost-effective energy storage system is commercialized and widely adopted, wind and solar power will continue to depend on firm power, which is predominantly from fossil fuels or nuclear power (but sometimes from hydropower). In fact, we often say that wind and solar must be backed up by firm power, but in reality they are merely providing a small offset to our use of fossil fuels.

Nevertheless, the growth rate for almost every class of renewables over the past decade far surpasses the growth rate of fossil fuels and nuclear power. But because it is starting from a very low base — and because of the need to be backed by firm power — it is questionable whether renewables like solar power, wind power, and biofuels can make a major contribution (e.g., more than 10% of the world’s total consumption) in the foreseeable future.

Posted in Environmental Sustainability, Financial Sustainability | Tagged energy security | Leave a response

Safe Coal Seam Gas? And The Sky is Pink.

By Peter Wilkinson on August 8, 2012

Below is a response to Thomas Friedman’s article by contraversial film maker Josh Fox. It was written as a comment under Friedman’s article in the NYT (August 4, 2012). His view, expressed in his film, The Sky is Pink, is that fracking can never be safe. Unlike Friedman, few would describe Fox as objective. Even so, if you accept Fox’s claims, and read here from some who do not, Friedman’s thesis can never be realised.

Fox: Recently, politicians and publications have conditionally endorsed so-called “safe fracking” as a part of the nation’s energy mix. But safe fracking is an impossibility, and the industry’s claims for it are knowingly based on false premises.

Chief among them is the notion that a “leakproof well” is possible. We’ve heard time again that strict regulation is the key to moving forward on fracking, and that new regulations should make sure that industry constructs leakproof wells that do not pollute the water table. There is no such thing as a leakproof gas well. The gas industry knows this; in fact, it has known it for decades.

I recently made a short film addressing the well casing failure issue called THE SKY IS PINK and you can watch it here: www.pinkskyny.com.

A 2003 joint industry publication from Schlumberger, the world’s No. 1 fracking company, cites astronomical failure rates of 60 percent over a 30-year span. To imagine gas companies voluntarily committing to an eternity of costly maintenance on wells failing at ever-increasing rates is beyond credulity. “Safe fracking” is a contradiction in terms.

Leaking gas wells at these rates mean thousands across the nation have enough contaminants in their water and land to render them unfit for residential use.

It’s not only the gas wells that have integrity problems; it is the oil and gas industry itself. We can believe in their self-interested assertions of leakproof wells about as much as we can expect pigs to fly.

Posted in Sustainability: energy security | Tagged coal seam gas | Leave a response

Getting it right on Coal Seam Gas

By Peter Wilkinson on August 8, 2012

It’s rare to find an article on gas that is reasonably objective and tells a reasonably complete story, and is comprehensible to most of us readers. Here is one, written by the author of that wonderful book, Hot Flat and Crowded. Thomas Friedman is writing about oil shale gas in the US, but it is directly relevant to our battles over coal seam gas in Australia. He makes these four points:

1. Gas emits half as much greenhouse gas when combusted as coal. That’s good

2. But there is a hidden, long-term, cost of using gas: it could undermine new investments in wind, solar, nuclear and energy efficiency systems — which have zero emissions — and thus keep us addicted to fossil fuels for decades. That’s bad.

3. While it is cleaner, extracting it can be a very dirty process. That’s bad too.

4. To get it right, we have to get the economics right, so we’re all incentivised to do the right thing. So, as Friedman poses: Why not a carbon tax that raises enough money to help pay down the deficit and lower both personal income taxes and corporate taxes — and ensures that renewables remain competitive with natural gas? Hmmmm. Do you think US politicians, having watched what’s happened here, are going to think that’s doable?

Get It Right on Gas: NYT

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: Published: August 4, 2012

WE are in the midst of a natural gas revolution in America that is a potential game changer for the economy, environment and our national security — if we do it right.

The enormous stores of natural gas that have been locked away in shale deposits across America that we’ve now been able to tap into, thanks to breakthroughs in seismic imaging, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” are enabling us to replace much dirtier coal with cleaner gas as the largest source of electricity generation in America. And natural gas may soon be powering cars, trucks and ships as well. This is helping to lower our carbon emissions faster than expected and make us more energy secure. And, if prices stay low, it may enable America to bring back manufacturing that migrated overseas. But, as the energy and climate expert Hal Harvey puts it, there is just one big, hugely important question to be asked about this natural gas bounty: “Will it be a transition to a clean energy future, or does it defer a clean energy future?”

That is the question — because natural gas is still a fossil fuel. The good news: It emits only half as much greenhouse gas as coal when combusted and, therefore, contributes only half as much to global warming. The better news: The recent glut has made it inexpensive to deploy. But there is a hidden, long-term, cost: A sustained gas glut could undermine new investments in wind, solar, nuclear and energy efficiency systems — which have zero emissions — and thus keep us addicted to fossil fuels for decades.

That would be reckless. This year’s global extremes of droughts and floods are totally consistent with models of disruptive, nonlinear climate change. After record warm temperatures in the first half of this year, it was no surprise to find last week that the Department of Agriculture has now designated more than half of all U.S. counties — 1,584 in 32 states — as primary disaster areas where crops and grazing areas have been ravaged by drought.

That is why on May 29 the British newspaper The Guardian quoted Fatih Birol, the chief economist for the International Energy Agency, as saying that “a golden age for gas is not necessarily a golden age for the climate” — if natural gas ends up sinking renewables. Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the I.E.A., urged governments to keep in place subsidies and regulations to encourage investments in wind, solar and other renewables “for years to come” so they remain competitive.

Moreover, while natural gas is cleaner than coal, extracting it can be very dirty. We have to do this right. For instance, the carbon advantage can be undermined by leakage of uncombusted natural gas from wellheads and pipelines because methane — the primary component of natural gas — is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, more powerful than carbon dioxide. The big oil companies can easily maintain high drilling standards, but a lot of fracking is done by mom-and-pop drillers that do not. The standards that can make fracking environmentally O.K. are not expensive, but the big drillers want to make sure that the little guys have to apply them, too, so everyone has the same cost basis.

On July 19, Forbes interviewed George Phydias Mitchell, who, in the 1990s, pioneered the use of fracking to break natural gas free from impermeable shale. According to Forbes, Mitchell argued that fracking needs to be regulated by the Department of Energy, not just states: “Because if they don’t do it right, there could be trouble,” he says. There’s no excuse not to get it right. “There are good techniques to make it safe that should be followed properly,” he says. But, the smaller, independent drillers, “are wild.” “It’s tough to control these independents. If they do something wrong and dangerous, they should punish them.”

Adds Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund who has been working with the government and companies on drilling standards: “The economic and national security advantages of natural gas are obvious, but if you tour some of these areas of intensive development the environmental impacts are equally obvious.” We need nationally accepted standards for controlling methane leakage, for controlling water used in fracking — where you get it, how you treat the polluted water that comes out from the fracking process and how you protect aquifers — and for ensuring that communities have the right to say no to drilling. “The key message,” said Krupp, “is you gotta get the rules right. States need real inspector capacity and compliance schemes where companies certify they have done it right and there are severe penalties if they perjure.”

Energy companies who want to keep regulations lax need to understand that a series of mishaps around natural gas will — justifiably — trigger an environmental backlash to stop it.

But we also need to get the economics right. We’ll need more tax revenue to reach a budget deal in January. Why not a carbon tax that raises enough money to help pay down the deficit and lower both personal income taxes and corporate taxes — and ensures that renewables remain competitive with natural gas? That would ensure this gas revolution transforms America, not just our electric grid.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 5, 2012, on page SR13 of the New York edition with the headline: Get It Right On Gas.

Comments

- Ted
- Cheeseman
“Why not a carbon tax…?” Indeed! Taxing a bad thing (carbon) and reducing tax on a good thing (employment) would be a net win for our economy and environment. Makes sense to everyone except flat earth science deniers, and politicians… shame!
- Josh Fox
- NYC
Recently, politicians and publications have conditionally endorsed so-called “safe fracking” as a part of the nation’s energy mix. But safe fracking is an impossibility, and the industry’s claims for it are knowingly based on false premises.

Chief among them is the notion that a “leakproof well” is possible. We’ve heard time again that strict regulation is the key to moving forward on fracking, and that new regulations should make sure that industry constructs leakproof wells that do not pollute the water table. There is no such thing as a leakproof gas well. The gas industry knows this; in fact, it has known it for decades.

I recently made a short film addressing the well casing failure issue called THE SKY IS PINK and you can watch it here: www.pinkskyny.com.

A 2003 joint industry publication from Schlumberger, the world’s No. 1 fracking company, cites astronomical failure rates of 60 percent over a 30-year span. To imagine gas companies voluntarily committing to an eternity of costly maintenance on wells failing at ever-increasing rates is beyond credulity. “Safe fracking” is a contradiction in terms.

Leaking gas wells at these rates mean thousands across the nation have enough contaminants in their water and land to render them unfit for residential use.

It’s not only the gas wells that have integrity problems; it is the oil and gas industry itself. We can believe in their self-interested assertions of leakproof wells about as much as we can expect pigs to fly.

Posted in Sustainability: energy security | Tagged coal seam gas | Leave a response

You choose: Nuclear v coal: clean and risky v dirty and safe(r)

By Peter Wilkinson on July 7, 2012

energy security, social sustainability, environmental sustainability,

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

Below is a practical dilemma for the authorities in one area of California, so which would you shutdown: a nuclear power generator or a coal fired power generator? Either way you lose a little; either way you win a little.

This reinforces the view that there are no easy answers when it comes to energy security and environmental sustainability.

Troubles at a 1960s-Era Nuclear Plant in California May Hint at the Future

By IAN LOVETT: Published NYT: July 4, 2012

SAN ONOFRE STATE BEACH, Calif. — More than seven million people live within 50 miles of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which is about halfway between Los Angeles and San Diego. But for decades, residents here largely accepted, if not exactly embraced, the hulking nuclear plant perched on the cliffs above this popular surfing beach as a necessary part of keeping the lights on in a state that uses more electricity than all of Argentina.

“I don’t think about it too much,” said David Vichules, 55, who has been surfing here since before the plant opened in 1968. “I guess it’s risk and benefit.”

All that changed, however, after the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown in Japan last year, followed in January by a small leak of radioactive steam here caused by the deterioration of steam tubes that had been damaged by vibration and friction. The twin generators at the San Onofre plant have been off-line for five months, and the plant has subsequently become a point of contention in the fight over nuclear power in the United States.

The leak has galvanized opposition to the nuclear plant among local residents, who are calling for San Onofre to remain shuttered for good.

Antinuclear activists from across the country have seized on problems at San Onofre as an opportunity to push California toward a future without nuclear power.

“A lot of people have gotten involved since Fukushima, and now especially since San Onofre has been closed,” said Gary Headrick, the founder of San Clemente Green, a local environmental organization. “It’s really not worth living with this risk. We should shut it down.”

The plant will remain shut through at least the end of the summer while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Southern California Edison, the utility company that operates it, investigate the cause of the leak from the steam tubes.

Officials have said repeatedly that the generators will restart only if they are deemed safe.

Still, any efforts to permanently close the nuclear plant face the ever-growing appetite for electricity in Southern California. San Onofre, the largest power plant in the region, produced 2,200 megawatts, enough to power 1.4 million homes, and also helps import power to the region.

The absence of these reactors is being felt now as Southern California moves into the hot summer months. Two retired generators from a natural gas plant have been temporarily fired up, and state energy officials have encouraged the public to conserve energy during peak hours.

Without any power from San Onofre, a severe heat wave could bring rolling blackouts, but state energy officials said they expected to get through the summer without problems.

“If we have a high-heat wave, and we don’t get cooperation from the public, we could have issues,” said Stephen Berberich, president of the California Independent System Operator, a nonprofit agency that manages the flow of electricity in the state.

In 2009 and 2010, Southern California Edison spent nearly $700 million — financed by ratepayers — to install two new steam generators, which were supposed to keep San Onofre’s aging reactors running well into the future.

But in June, federal regulatory officials announced that faulty computer modeling caused the generators’ steam tubes to deteriorate much more quickly than expected, which led to the leak in January.

Lara Uselding, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, called the leaks “unprecedented,” and said there was no plan for when the plant might be allowed to restart or what fixes would have to be made before then. Southern California Edison declined to make a spokesman available and responded to questions with a short written statement. “There is no timeline on safety,” it said.

Local and national antinuclear activists say they will be satisfied only when the nuclear plant is shut down for good.

Maria Mattioli, 44, is one of the area residents who have spoken to government officials in municipalities around the plant in recent months, urging them to lobby federal regulators to keep the plant closed.

“I think it’s very important that we take a very close look at San Onofre and possibly shut it down,” Ms. Mattioli said. “My heart says shut it down. I don’t want to uproot myself and move to Arizona or somewhere else.”

Damon Moglen, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth, notes that California already has a law that prevents the construction of nuclear reactors, and said the shutdown at San Onofre gives the state an opportunity to prepare for the day when both its nuclear plants are shut down.

“You cannot run San Onofre and Diablo Canyon forever,” Mr. Moglen said, referring to the state’s only other nuclear plant, in San Luis Obispo County. “California could be the first really big state to come to grips with a post-nuclear energy program.”

For the moment, though, California energy officials may have few options aside from nuclear power — which remains relatively inexpensive to produce and does not add to greenhouse gases — especially if they hope to meet aggressive goals for reducing the state’s carbon emissions by 2020.

“We are really faced with a choice, at least in the next decade,” said Per Peterson, a professor of engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. “Do we turn off nuclear plants first, or do we turn off coal plants first? You have to do one or the other.”

Posted in Sustainability: energy security | Tagged coal, nuclear power | Leave a response

The Carbon Dioxide dilemma – so what, if we Australians reduce our emissions?

By Peter Wilkinson on July 7, 2012

What I like about the below argument is the simple explanation. It helps explain why, by taxing carbon and reducing our emissions, we Australians make almost no impact on the worlds growing CO2 emissions. What we are doing, is setting a ‘blueprint’ for others to follow.

(N.B. For Australian readers: according to the date relied upon below our CO2 emissions per person make us the 11th highest user on Earth, above the US which is ranked 12th. The UK is 45th with less than half our per capita emissions.)

Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions — Facts and Figures

By Robert Rapier: July 2, 2012 with 403 reads

In the first installment of this series, I reviewed U.S. and global oil reserves according to the 2012 BP Statistical Review of World Energy. The second installment covered oil production, and the third looked at global consumption trends. Today, I look at the growth of global carbon dioxide emissions since 1965. A great deal has changed over the past 46 years.

Major Worldwide Growth in CO₂ Emissions

In the U.S., the public is bombarded with messages about climate change. One may get the impression that if we only stop the next pipeline and slow down the growth of Canada’s oil sands, we are one step closer to victory. But this is really akin to fighting a small local skirmish while a war rages on the other side of the globe. But the skirmish does not change the outcome of the war. I am going to take up this theme in a follow-up column, but for now let’s examine what’s going on in the world.

First, here is the global carbon dioxide emissions picture:

The graph shows that the growth rate in emissions over the past decade is faster than that of previous decades — indicating carbon dioxide emissions have accelerated in recent years. Prior to 2002, the incremental annual increase had never reached 1 billion new metric tons of carbon dioxide. Since 2002, 1 billion incremental tons have been added three times: In 2003, 2004, and 2010.

In fact, 2010′s addition of 1.58 billion new tons globally is the largest annual increase on record. The incremental increase over the past decade was at least 0.87 billion new tons on 4 other occasions. Only once during the decade — in 2009 in response to recession — was there a measured year-to-year decrease.

Breakdown by Region

One reason I think climate change advocacy has been so ineffective is that most advocates are misinformed about the present mixture of global carbon emissions. The next figure tells the tale:

This figure closely resembles the coal graph from World Energy Consumption Facts, Figures, and Shockers because in fact global coal consumption is the largest contributor to rising carbon dioxide emissions. Asia Pacific is the source of 45% of global carbon dioxide emissions, and is on a growth trajectory to reach 50% by the end of the decade. In the U.S., coal consumption is on the decline because new supplies of natural gas are displacing coal in power plants. The change has been so dramatic that since 2006, the U.S. is the world leader in reducing carbon dioxide emissions:

US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. This development has arisen from lower oil use in the transport sector … and a substantial shift from coal to gas in the power sector.

One bit of irony here is that some environmental groups are seeking to stop fracking altogether, or have otherwise fought against the expansion of natural gas. However, if they were successful this would in the short-term absolutely mean a return to coal and an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. (Wind and solar will make large contributions long-term, but in the short term can’t displace idled coal plants). So emissions in the U.S. have declined despite misguided environmental obstructionism.

The next graphic shows the picture in the rest of the world:

While each region’s total is far less than Asia Pacific’s 15 billion tons of emissions in 2011, the trends are the same. Developing countries are increasing their emissions as they increase standards of living.

One question that often comes up concerns the historical U.S. contribution to the atmospheric carbon dioxide inventory. Developing countries will point to historical U.S. emissions and argue that these emissions enabled U.S. development. They don’t believe it is in any way fair to restrict their development since developed countries have already emitted huge quantities of carbon dioxide.

There is truth to this argument. From 1965 through 2011, U.S. cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide were 255 billion metric tons. That is enough carbon dioxide to raise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the past 46 years by 18 parts per million (PPM) from just the U.S. contribution. (See Footnote for calculation).

As a region, Asia Pacific has added even more cumulative carbon dioxide than that since 1965 at 287 billion metric tons. EU countries added another 203 billion tons. But as far as countries go, the U.S. has by far the highest cumulative emissions since 1965. China is in 2nd place at 133 billion tons, but no other country even breaks the 100 billion ton barrier. Globally, cumulative emissions since 1965 are 1.0 trillion tons, which should have increased (according to the calculation in the footnote) atmospheric carbon dioxide by 73 ppm. And if we cross-check the data from the Mauna Loa Observatory, we see that atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 320 ppm in 1965 and is just above 390 ppm in 2012.

Per Capita Emissions

The U.S. also has much higher per capita emissions than developing countries and EU countries. In 2008, the U.S. had the 12th highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions, but due to decreases in recent years are probably further down the list of countries now. Based on the newly-released BP data, here is how the U.S. compares to other regions of the world:

We can see that despite the decline in carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S., we are still far above the EU and the developing world. Therein lies a problem. While we can acknowledge our historical emissions, and recognize that we still emit a lot of carbon dioxide per person, how exactly does this help the developing world? One answer I sometimes hear is “We have to provide the blueprint.” It is one thing to imagine that developing countries could develop without increasing their use of fossil fuels, but the reality is that even the developed regions have not shown that it can be done. We are so accustomed to our way of life and the high carbon emissions that it entails that we can’t begin to imagine how to show a country that emits 1/10th of what we do how to improve their standard of living without increasing their emissions.

For more go to the original article

Posted in Environmental Sustainability, Financial Sustainability | Tagged Carbon policy | Leave a response

Coal Seam Gas: IEA presents Golden Rules for a Golden Age

By Peter Wilkinson on May 31, 2012

energy literacy, environmental sustainability, social sustainability

Sydney Demonstration

Of the four types of readily available energy (petroleum, coal, nuclear and gas) gas seems to have the potential to be the most environmentally friendly. However, there are legitimate concerns about the environmental and social impacts, especially given that most gas explorers seem to take 1950′s view to community relations.

These have now been addressed by the International Energy Agency (IEA). A special World Energy Outlook report on unconventional gas, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas, released on May 29th in London by the IEA, presents a set of “Golden Rules” .

NSW and Qld governments will no doubt take note that, as the press release states – “The Golden Rules underline the importance of full transparency, measuring and monitoring of environmental impacts and engagement with local communities; careful choice of drilling sites and measures to prevent any leaks from wells into nearby aquifers; rigorous assessment and monitoring of water requirements and of waste water; measures to target zero venting and minimal flaring of gas; and improved project planning and regulatory control.”

The report also spells out a pessimistic outcome – where issues are ignored, and public acceptance is not forthcoming. It’s an easy read for those who want a summary of governments’ dilemmas: (pp 63) “Although the forces driving the (pessimistic outcome) are led by environmental concerns, it is difficult to make the case that a reduction in unconventional gas output brings net environmental gains. The effect of replacing gas with coal in the Low Unconventional Case is to push up energy-related CO2 emissions, which are 1.3% higher than in the Golden Rules Case. Reaching the international goal to limit the longterm increase in the global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius would, in either case, require strong additional policy action.”

Below is how Michael Levi from the Council on Foreign Relations has reviewed this document.

Safe Fracking Looks Cheap

Posted on May 29, 2012 11:17 am
by Michael Levi

The public battle over fracking tends to emphasize extremes: some say that shale gas can’t be developed safely; others say that new regulation would kill the industry. But a third set of observers (myself included) has claimed that smart new rules would boost costs only marginally, while building public acceptance for drilling. A new study from the International Energy Agency (IEA) adds serious support to this middle way.

The study, “Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas”, is worth reading in its entirety – it’s a great assessment of the environmental challenges involved in developing unconventional gas and of ways to address them. What jumps out at me, though, is how the authors have gone beyond the usual hand-waving claims about how steps to ensure safe drilling shouldn’t be too expensive. Instead, they’d actually done some concrete cost estimates.

The verdict? Adopting “Golden Rules” for shale gas development would add a mere seven percent to the cost of each well. And though the IEA report doesn’t discuss this the impact on the price of gas, at least in the United States, would be even less, because some of the cost of delivered gas has nothing to do with well expenses: distribution costs, for example, would be unaffected by new drilling rules; severance taxes and impact fees wouldn’t change; and corporate taxes would presumably fall a bit, since many compliance costs could be written off. If you think that delivered gas will ultimately cost five dollars for a thousand cubic feet, the IEA is saying that its golden rules would add less than thirty-five cents. Contrast that with the much bigger impact of a backlash against drilling, and you have a pretty compelling case.

So what do the IEA “Golden Rules” entail? Some extra spending on “cement design, selection and verification”, together with a bit of extra drilling time to make sure that things are done right. Green completions would be required to avoid flaring and venting. Green fracturing fluids and rock solid treatment of produced water would protect groundwater resources. The IEA even includes costs for soundproofing rigs and implementing some trucking restrictions in order to reduce noise pollution.

The authors indicate that this suite of measures is an upper bound on the costs of a smart environmental approach. They observe that large-scale development creates additional ways to improve environmental performance while actually reducing costs. Economies of scale, for example, can make better water infrastructure make simple economic sense, reducing truck trips and improving safe disposal. “Systematic learning” about shale areas can reduce the number of dry wells and unnecessary fracture stages, improving economics while reducing environmental footprints. All told, the authors estimate that these and other steps could cut costs by five percent. In case you’re keeping track, that’s a net impact of two percent on production costs for large-scale development.

The IEA estimates, of course, are extremely crude. It wouldn’t be surprising to see compliance costs twice what they estimate – or half. Either way, the bottom line remains: smart regulation of shale gas looks like it would be relatively cheap. It’s the excessively hands off approach that could turn out to be a lot more costly.

Posted in Environmental Sustainability | Tagged coal seam gas | Leave a response

Carbon Tax made simple #10: The Carbon Farming Initiative

By Peter Wilkinson on May 20, 2012

Energy Literacy, environmental sustainability, social sustainability, financial sustainability If you are a farmer, or a group of farmers, what do you gain by allowing your land to become a carbon sink? The federal government has introduced a system to help. The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) allows farmers and land managers to earn carbon credits by storing carbon or reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the land. These credits can then be sold to people and businesses wishing to offset their emissions.

The CFI also helps the environment by encouraging sustainable farming and providing a source of funding for landscape restoration projects.

Unfortunately, it sounds simpler than it is because as a farmer you can’t simply telephone someone and suddenly take money to plant trees. However, that is the concept. For more on this go here.