I have taken grief from some readers at times for my position on the issue of Climate Change. I have always maintained that I am not an expert, and therefore I accept the scientific consensus on climate change. This is no different than my standard in many other fields in which I am not an expert. If I get a diagnosis from my doctor, I may get a 2nd opinion, but generally I must defer to the experts on the matter. They might be wrong, of course, but I simply don’t have the sort of training they do to get into the fine details of the diagnosis. I am a believer in peer review and the scientific method. Despite occasional missteps, those have served us well.

Hence, my position has always been that I accept the scientific consensus on climate change, but also understand that science isn’t static. Therefore, it is important not to shut debate down and short-circuit the scientific process. But many climate change advocates have long sought to do just that by trying to intimidate people into not discussing the issue. They like to say “the science is settled and those who disagree are deniers.” I view the labeling of people as “deniers” as such an intimidation tactic. It is a remark intended to disparage those with a different view, and as such I don’t believe it has a place in this debate (no matter how correct you think you are).

However, even though I have always accepted the scientific consensus on this issue, I think there is little that we are going to be able to voluntarily do to stop the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The reason for that is that this is a global issue, and many countries are going to gravitate toward the cheapest source of energy – usually fossil fuels. Thus, my position on CO₂ emissions has always been that they will likely continue to increase as long as we have fossil fuels to burn. (I have explained my views on this in detail here and here). Here is an illustration that backs me up:

Despite our best efforts, CO₂ continues to rise, and again I believe it is because it is practically impossible to get a global agreement with enforcement teeth. It will be tough to convince a developing country with coal reserves not to exploit those reserves. Many developing (and developed) countries have refused to limit their emissions, and so despite Kyoto and other agreements the CO₂ concentration rise has been unabated.

So that’s my view in a nutshell. That doesn’t imply that I don’t think there is a problem. It only suggests that I can’t see us fixing it voluntarily. So recently when I was asked about CO₂ emissions at the 2010 Global Footprint Conference, I summed up my views as I have done so here.

I was quoted in a news release:

There is no cheap-oil future for us, and if humanity doesn’t make the transition to a sustainable energy source, Mother Nature will. Robert Rapier, Chief Technology Officer of Merica International, issued this dire warning during a presentation at an international forum in Colle di Val d’Elsa, Italy, on Monday. Rapier is among the experts at Footprint Forum 2010, an international gathering of 200 scientists, economists, and business and government leaders to discuss today’s most urgent environmental challenges and strategies to address them.

According to Rapier, peak oil — when oil production rates begin an irreversible decline — will have a direct effect on global warming. “When there’s a decline in oil production, the first thing we do is turn to coal plants and tar sands,” he said. “We will demand that because we have built a society on cheap oil. But eventually fossil fuels will run out. That would solve our CO₂ issue — it would solve a lot of problems. But I don’t like how Mother Nature solves these problems.”

I generally choose my words carefully, because they are so often taken out of context. Note what I did and did not say. I was asked specifically about CO₂ emissions. I chose to focus on that instead of simply talking about global warming or climate change, because even those who don’t agree about man’s impact on climate change have to acknowledge that CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere are rising. Likewise, I did not say a word about temperature, nor did I imply that climate change would be instantly solved when we run out of fossil fuels. My comment was specific to CO₂ – emphasizing the fact that I think the concentration will continue to rise while we have fossil fuels to burn.

So how did some fanatics respond to this?

Excerpts from Person A:

R^2,you have officially jumped the shark on CO2, IMO. Yours is also (Kjell) Aleklett’s position which why he’s listed as a CC denier. The idea is that CO2 causes warming, no more CO2 means no more warming, which is incorrect.

By jumped the shark I mean you’ve officially entered the realm of the CC deniers.

There are several camps of deniers. Some say we will run out of fossil fuel very soon and it will start to cool off–in other words a temporary phenomenon. I place you in the third camp.

Lest you think that is a random fanatic, someone else chimed in:

Excerpts from Person B:

Methane increases are already happening. Releases from the Arctic tundra and sea floor already exist. Aleklett does make exactly he same error: CO2 = FFs. Bzzzzzzt! Wrong! Rapier is wrong. Period. So is Aleklett.

Frankly, I put you in the same camp as Aleklett, too.

Really, it’s quite a ridiculous argument, totally devoid of logic. I see no difference here, Robert. CO2 will level off after we stop burning CO2? Tell that to the clathrates and the tundra, because they are saying you’re full of methane.

I simply don’t know what to say to people like this. Note that in this case, they have labeled me a “denier” because they extrapolated my position into something it is not. They chose to put words in my mouth. One falsely claimed that I was suggesting that it would soon start to cool off as CO2 stopped rising. The other falsely claimed that I suggested all greenhouse gases would immediately stop climbing. Note that I neither said nor implied any of the things they attributed to me.

What can you say about someone who would slap a derogatory label on anyone they feel isn’t in compliance with their views on climate change? It invokes images of a “Climate Change Thought Police.”

I do not want to see this issue turned into a religion, where belief trumps all and disbelievers must be harshly dealt with. That’s what these two have done, and they are certainly not isolated in their opinions. But when you go so far as to start slapping derogatory labels on those who don’t even dispute that there is a problem, then you deserve your own labels. You are nothing more than Joe McCarthy looking for phantom Communists everywhere.

The Center for Neighborhood Technology released a new series of GIS-based maps showing where carbon emissions from driving are the highest in the nation’s metro areas.  The maps demonstrate vividly that, although emissions on a per-acre basis are greatest in highly urban areas, it is in the suburbs and outlying areas where we pollute the most on a per-household basis.  This is because rates of driving are so much higher in spread-out suburbia than in places where homes, jobs, shops, and services are in more convenient proximity to each other.

Above left, for example, is the Tri-State area including and around New York City.  The map on the left shows that the areas with the highest emissions, in red, are those that are most heavily populated.  That much should not be surprising.  But the map changes dramatically when carbon emissions are plotted on a per-household basis, as shown on the right.  It is essentially a reversed image of the map on the left, showing that the most populated areas actually have the lowest pollution rates per household.

The differences show up even more dramatically in the sprawling Phoenix region:

CNT is a longtime collaborator with NRDC and many other organizations, and their GIS work is superb.  I have previously written about their excellent work on the geography of home affordability (for example, here and here) and have cited an early prototype of the CO2 mapping in a post about per-capita thinking in environmental impacts management.

Transportation accounts for 28 percent of all US greenhouse gases, according to CNT, and I believe it accounts for an even higher portion of carbon dioxide emissions specifically.  According to CNT president Scott Bernstein:

“Cities are more location-efficient – meaning key destinations are closer to where people live and work They require less time, money, fuel and greenhouse gas emissions for residents to meet their everyday travel needs. People can walk, bike, car-share, take public transit. So residents of cities and compact communities generate less CO2 per household than people who live in more dispersed communities, like many suburbs and outlying areas.

“If you’re deciding where to live, consider moving to an urban area. You’ll help fight global warming by emitting less CO2. And you’re likely to drive less, so you’ll spend less on transportation, saving up to $5,000 annually.”

I would add that the emissions savings come not only from a greater array of transportation mode choices but also from the shorter driving distances that are taken in more accessible locations.  And, in addition to cities, the traditional centers of well-established suburbs also can exhibit favorable per-household emissions profiles.  This is illustrated in the maps below of metro Cincinnati, where I was last week:

The carbon maps are part of CNT’s larger Housing +Transportation Affordability Index, which includes geographic data and mapping on housing costs, transportation costs, gasoline prices, and various customized variations thereof.  You can currently access the CO2 maps for 55 US metropolitan regions, and zoom in on particular neighborhoods or local communities if you like.  Later this year CNT expects to have 330 metro areas mapped on its site.

First let’s rewind the clock to 2007 when Greenwood County, South Carolina was attempting to address the emissions from it’s maturing landfill. It was not unlike the more than 2,300 landfills in the U.S. in this regard. It’s basic chemistry, decomposition produces various gases and the EPA has guidelines or how these are to be dealt with. In the case of Greenwood County, there was a rapidly approaching EPA deadline that was making this all the more critical.

Now enter Fujifilm Manufacturing who was looking for a cheap source of energy to power its 500 acre complex. With more than a thousand residents employed at Fujifilm, they are clearly an important member of the Greenwood community. Through a creative partnership with Methane Power LLC , the methane from Greenwood County’s landfill is piped a few miles to Fujifilm’s campus. The new energy source accounts for 40% of the site’s electricity and saves Fujifilm nearly 50% on their energy costs annually.

James “Jim” Voss, Methane Power’s President and CEO told us that the Fujifilm project was one of several U.S. projects the company has underway. “We have a number of similar projects where we are utilizing landfill methane to produce energy or, at a minimum, to destroy the methane to produce carbon credits. We are constructing an electricity plant in NC (Durham), and have active projects elsewhere in North Carolina and New York.” The approach that Methane Power uses is unique in that it does not own or run the landfills from which the methane is generated. Methane Power buys the rights to the methane and then resells it to end-users looking for alternative energy sources.

Capturing methane energy after a landfill is capped.

Sounds ingenious doesn’t it ?!? Take a problem such as landfill emissions and convert to a revenue source for the landfill operator and a cheap source of power for end-users. And, as a cherry on top, the end-user receives carbon credits for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Fujifilm expects to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 10% or more annually.

The EPA is fully on-board with LFGTE. They have an entire program dedicated to this opportunity and a website to assist with educating the public at-large. The EPA states that there are 480+ operational LFGTE projects and estimates that there are 520 additional landfills in the U.S. that are good candidates for this type of project

So why don’t we hear more about LFGTE? Jim Voss says it’s the result of several factors. He says that because Wind/Solar Energy projects are larger in scale, they tend to attract more of the major players and media attention. Not coincidentally, Wind/Solar Energy also receives significant financial incentives from the government. “GE, Bank of America, etc invest in wind because of the magnitude of the business and the size of each project.  They don’t invest at all in LFGTE — we’re a small, tiny portion of the business.  Hence, the “industry” is people like me — I don’t have the resources to promote anything other than my projects.  I’m not feeling sorry, mind you, because it is this very nature of the business which allows small companies to exist.”

The U.S. trails the E.U. when it comes to LFGTE for many of the same reasons we trail them in other areas of renewable energy. Jim states, “The EU has much more ambitious renewable energy goals which places a greater economic premium on these projects; and second, the underlying electricity prices and delivered thermal energy prices (ie, for natural gas) are materially higher.  Consequently, the developer can undertake the project with a much more firm and robust financial return — this makes it easier to attract debt and equity for project development.  The US is well behind in this market, and more other renewable energy markets.”

So to recap…solve the problem of landfill emissions, create needed revenue for the landfill operator, create medium-sized companies like Methane Power, provide cheap power to end-users and reduce greenhouse emissions….LFGTE sounds like a shovel-ready project just waiting for the Obama administration to endorse and fund.

Details on the Fujifilm project in Greenwood, S.C.

Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, delivered a "message of hope... message of change" from President Barack Obama on the issue of climate change.

EPA administrator delivers “message of hope” to G8 environmental meeting, committing the U.S. to the fight against climate change, in a major departure from the policies of former President Bush.

United States environmental officials, taking part in talks with the Group of Eight nations in Syracuse, Italy on Thursday, vowed that President Barack Obama would help bring about a ‘meaningful’ response to climate change.

“I bring from President Obama his message of hope, his message of change, his message of common purpose for the environment,” said Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“The U.S. government now fully acknowledges the urgency and complexity of climate change challenges, and we know full well that a meaningful U.S. response to this challenge is absolutely essential,” she said.

Obama’s stance marks a radical about-face from that of former President George W. Bush who refused to endorse the 1997 Kyoto Protocol binding wealthy nations to carbon cuts because he said it would endanger American jobs.

The current administration has made the fight against climate change a priority, and insists that protecting the environment will actually have a positive impact on the economy.

Currently, the US Congress is debating a bill that seeks to cut the country’s carbon emissions by 20 per cent from their 2005 levels by 2020. The Obama administration is also pushing for the introduction of a carbon trading system similar to the one already in place in Europe.

Obama is also set to host a meeting of world leaders from the 16 largest carbon emitting nations in Washington next week, in an attempt to clinch an international agreement in Copenhagen in December to extend the Kyoto deal beyond 2012.

The message that Jackson brought to the conference received warm applause from nations in attendance at the G8 meeting of environment ministers.

“It shows that the Americans attach a lot of importance to these discussions,” said Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner.

Pollution in China often obscures visibility in city streets.

European ministers at the conference continuously spoke about how important it is for the U.S. to take the lead in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The ministers contend that it’s the only way that big polluters such as China can be expected to follow suit.

“The sooner the U.S. can specify, and be concrete in its position, the sooner we can expect some signals coming out of Beijing,” Danish Climate and Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard, who will chair the talks in Copenhagen, told a German news service.

Jackson also scolded lobbyists who she said were attempting to derail the President’s attempt to fight climate change.

“I am hopeful and the president is hopeful that we are on the verge of opening a clean energy economy,” she said. “Certainly those with interests vested in the status quo will come up with horror stories to try to hold us back.”