The IPCC Working Group III report – the one on mitigation and adaptation – contains some more interesting data on emissions intensity. Once again, emissions intensity is a handy concept for comparing economic efficiency, but a pointless metric for climate and emissions policy.
The report summary explains that world GHG emissions increased by 70% from 1970 to 2004, a statement widely referenced by the press. The next line of the report, not as widely referenced, explains that despite this GHG emissions increase, there was a 33% decrease in energy intensity (energy supply per $GDP) and 40% decrease in emissions intensity (emissions per $ GDP) over the same time period. As I’ve been arguing for weeks, both here and over at Worldchanging, it is important to read the IPCC summary reports yourself.
So I’ll say it again. Emissions intensity naturally decreases over time, even as total emissions increase. Setting an intensity-based target is a foolish way to reduce total emissions. And, yes, I intend to keep hammering away at this point until emissions intensity is removed from North American policy.
The above figure from the IPCC report shows that the more economically developed countries tend to have lower emissions intensity (on the y-axis). In other words, as the economy develops, it tends to become more greenhouse gas efficient. The graph also shows that emissions intensity is much higher in the US and Canada than in Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the EU. You could argue that reducing emissions should be “easier” for the US and Canada because we are less greenhouse gas efficient than other countries at a similar stage of economic development. While there is some truth to that argument, it ignores the large differences in sources of emissions in North America (e.g., large energy production) than in Europe.
What about China? Bucking the global trend, the emissions intensity in China has increased in the past decade. As the IPCC reports, the economic boom has been fueled by dramatic increases in coal and other carbon-based fuels. This is not surprising – it is just what happened in the west during the Industrial Revolution (see here). Emissions and emissions intensity rose until the early 1900s. Economic growth and emissions then began to decouple – emissions continued to soar, but the economy grew even faster.
If anything, the fact that China is bucking the global trend demonstrates the tremendous lack of leadership from western nations on this issue. Rather than learn from our experience, China is reliving it.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The IPCC on emissions intensity
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The policy that won't die
Before tackling some of the new developments in climate science and climate policy, we've got to battle an old nemesis.
The concept of “emissions intensity” appears to rearing its mathematically twisted head again in Canada. According to yesterday’s Globe and Mail, a draft of the new federal climate policy includes what everyone is referring to as intensity-based targets. I've harped on this many times before, and with some luck, will do so here for the last time.
Emissions intensity is the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions divided by some measure of economic productivity, like GDP. Say your goal is to keep the emissions intensity constant. If GDP goes up, emissions go up. Since inflation causes GDP to rise every year, an intensity-based emissions plan may very well involved an increase in emissions.
That’s not to say there is no value in using intensity-based measures in an emissions policy. Say the country’s emissions are growing – each year, more is expected to be emitted than the last year – because of economic growth. That means at the beginning of emissions controls, simply slowing the growth may be an accomplishment. The problem is that the climate does not care about GDP. So, at some point, the policy has to involve actual reductions in emissions below current levels. The common beef with recent Canadian policy proposal is that point is being set too far into the future.
What bothers me, the reason I keep writing about this, is that the use of emissions intensity so often smacks of politics and marketing. Reducing emissions intensity sounds nice: We’re become less intense. We’re becoming more efficient.
See, in the policy, the emissions intensity “target” could be converted into an estimated emissions target.. Simple. Take the emissions intensity “target” set for industry for whatever year – say 2020 – and multiply by the projected GDP (which was used to estimate the intensity in the first place). That would give you the actual emission target.
This is never done. Why? Because it would lay bare the fact that actual emissions target in the policy is higher than the current emissions. And, that is a fact that the authors and promoters of the policy, regardless of their political stripes, would prefer to hide from the voters.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Energy intensity and the challenge that lies ahead
A passage about "energy intensity" in the, er, cheery Thomas Homer-Dixon book The Upside of Down got me thinking more about the historical trend in GHG emissions intensity.
For new readers, a couple months back I showed that the globally-averaged emissions intensity has been decreasing for decades even though the total emissions were increasing. In other words, the economy has been expanding faster than GHG emissions. Therefore, a future emissions target based on the rate of emissions per economic production, as was proposed in Canada, would allow total emissions to increase.
History Database of the Global Environment (similar analysis has been done for the recent past by the IPCC's WG III and by Informetrica for Canada alone).
The graph shows that the emissions per unit energy - the blue line - has been relative stable since the Industrial Revolution. The energy intensity- the green line - mirrors the original emissions intensity curve. It peaked in the 1920s and has been decreasing since.
In other words, the emissions intensity has been falling for the past eighty years because we’ve been producing more stuff with less energy not because we’ve become more efficient, emissions-wise, at producing energy. Over the past three decades, world energy production has actually became less GHG efficient due largely to increased energy use in Asia. Emissions intensity decreased during this time only because, as a planet, we were able to produce more income with less energy.
The graph is useful for articulating the challenge that lies ahead. Since it will take time to rebuild the existing energy production infrastructure ("slow turnover of capital stock"), becoming more energy efficient, producing more stuff with less energy is critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the short-term. That's the green line. But to achieve the long-term emissions reductions (ie. like these proposals) required to avoid dangerous interference with the climate, we'll need to move the blue line. In other words, we'll need to radically change the way be produce, not just use, energy. And, again, with the slow "turnover of capital stock", we need to start planning as soon as possible.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
China, the G8 and emissions intensity
Earlier, this week China announced a vague climate change policy that includes no GHG emissions targets. While hardly a surprise, the refusal to consider any emissions targets, or even any aspirational emissions goals pretty much destroyed whatever little chance there was that UK, Germany, Japan and the G8 countries would oppose the US effort to block the use of hard emissions targets.
China may be one place where the intensity-based metrics make some sense. With low per capita emissions and a smaller historical contribution to emissions, forcing China to drastically restrict economic development would hardly be a globally equitable solution to climate change.
As I discussed a couple weeks ago, China’s GHG emissions intensity rose in the past decade. China is at the stage of development where “carbon” generation is outpacing economic development. In terms of carbon efficiency, you can imagine China being around where the West was back in 1920s, before the global peak in emissions intensity (see the global intensity graph)
So at least new Chinese policy calls for a 20% decrease in energy intensity, the energy consumption per $ of GDP. Whether that policy has any teeth, or whether the emissions data is trustworthy, who knows? But it is a start.
The Canadian government proposal that G8 countries adopt intensity-based targets is ridiculous for Western nations. Europe, Japan, Australia and North America passed their peaks in emissions intensity, or lows in carbon efficiency, decades ago. For those countries, targets have to be based on the actual emissions.
For China and other rapidly developing nations, however, setting initial targets based initially on the “carbon” efficiency or intensity of the economy may be the only sensible solution to the global policy stalemate. Perhaps the only global plan that is equitable is one in which: i) the U.S., Europe, Canada and other Annex 1 nations accept hard caps on their own emissions, and ii) China and other developing nations use intensity-based targets until the per-capita emissions reach some threshold, beyond which hard emissions caps should be applied.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Emissions intensity: Declining for decades
In case you are still not convinced that the emissions intensity concept is a sham, take a look at this graph.
In fact, don’t just look at it. E-mail a copy to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Or fax it to the Environment Minister. Or walk around Ottawa with it stapled to your forehead (er, ok, you can use tape instead).
I’ve calculated the change in global emissions intensity since 1750, using data on manmade CO2 emissions by (Oak Ridges National Lab) and a recreation of world GDP expressed in 1990 dollars.
The data is not perfect. Obviously the 1800 GDP is an estimate. But it demonstrates the point. Emissions intensity increased during the industrial revolution, as the world learned how to burn coal, drilling for, etc. Afterwards, we became more efficient in the way we produce and use energy.
Emissions increased throughout the 20th century, but not as fast as the economy. The global emissions intensity has been naturally decreasing - at an average rate of around 1.5%/year – since the early 1900s! The pace actually accelerated over the last few decades. Global emissions intensity dropped 27% during the 1990s alone.
The moral of the story: Emissions intensity is naturally decreasing as the economy becomes more efficient. This has been happening for a century. The idea – promoted in the Canadian government’s new climate plan and the Bush Administration’s 2002 policy – that reducing emissions intensity by a couple percent a year is the way to tackle greenhouse gas emissions is a complete farce.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Do the IPCC scenarios underestimate future emissions?
A commentary in this week's Nature by Roger Pielke Jr. and colleagues about whether the future scenarios used by the IPCC underestimate future emissions has caused all sorts of fits, defenses and sighs. The journal itself went so far as to include rebuttals from climate and energy experts in the same issue.
One of the causes of the furor is Pielke's reputation. The lead author's previous writings stressing adaptation to climate change give some the impression he is either climate skeptic/denier or a Lomborg-esque "delayer" (and drive many other people crazy). This is the problem with applying broad labels, especially ones with, intentional or not, serious historical overtones.
Let's be fair: Pielke (and his colleagues) don't question the basic science behind climate change, rather whether we should spend more effort on mitigation or adaptation. Like many, I'm troubled by some of the pro-adaptation arguments, both because of the particular way the science is interpreted in those arguments, and in the way that they can create soft bigotry of low expectations (we can't reduce emissions, so we won't reduce emissions). But, it is not like Pielke et al. ever argue that cosmic rays are to blame or that CO2 was higher in the mid-1800s.
The basic premise of the commentary is that all of the future scenarios used by the IPCC presume there will be substantial technological advances in the future, and that without that assumption, emissions would actually be much higher. The authors calculate how much future emissions are "reduced" in the scenarios by the technology assumption by comparing with a case in which technology is effectively frozen over time. The result is some big numbers.
The argument comes down to rates of technology change, measured here by the emissions "efficiency" of energy production, and whether we just naturally become more efficient. Graphs of declining energy intensity (energy/GDP) or emissions intensity (emissions/GDP) over the past century show that we're now producing far more "stuff" per unit of energy and per unit of emissions. That happened naturally, without any emissions or climate policy.
Pielke and colleagues argue the energy intensity cannot continue to drop as such rates, especially with the growth of China, and that's where the scenarios used by the IPCC go wrong. Either way, the real issue, I would think, is not the energy intensity but what's buried within it, the "GHG intensity".
If you look at the energy intensity plot, it is clear that the energy intensity improvements in the past have happened from producing more "stuff" (GDP) per unit of energy, not from emitting fewer GHGs per unit of energy. In other words, there's not been much advance in the GHG intensity. In fact, it is currently decreasing because so much GDP is being produced by coal burning in China.
Under a business-as-usual scenario, it is reasonable to assume the world will keep trying to produce more stuff per unit of energy, so energy intensity would continue to fall. That's the "technological advance" the authors of the scenarios supposedly assumed. One can -- and should -- debate the numbers. But the basic assumption the world would go in that general direction without prompting by policy follows from history. Under a mitigation scenario, I'd think the reduction in emissions should come more from producing far fewer emissions per unit of energy (or from dramatically cutting energy use), because we'd already naturally be trying to produce more per unit of energy.
In the end, whether one agrees with the logic of the commentary or not, or whether one likes the tone, it is hard to figure out what the take-home message of such an argument should be for policy. The authors are members of the Breakthrough Institute, which arguments in favour of funding new energy technologies, without much mention of climate change or emissions targets. The paper and the Institute present their arguments set up a false dichotomy between technology and climate or emissions policy, as if talking about climate change distracts us from developing new energy technologies, or other in the community think we can magically reduce emissions without any technological advances. I've argued about this before. There's no reason that a technology policy and emissions targets have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, the entire purpose of the binding emissions targets is to force things like the development of cleaner energy technologies.
At least the commentary has people talking about these issues. That we can all support.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The Canadian emissions story
Earth Hour dipped electricity use in British Columbia by 1.1%. Again, a nice gimmick to raise awareness about energy use, but far far far from what's needed to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in Canada (right)
The Canadian government published a report earlier this year documenting the trends in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990, the first reporting year, up until 2006. The data reveals a lot of interesting and surprising trends and can answer some of the questions about the contribution of individual Canadian provinces raised by my recent post on change in per capita GHG emissions around the world.
Between 1990 and 2006, Alberta passed Ontario as the largest total emitter of greenhouse gases [top chart]. Alberta is responsible for 33% of emissions, despite housing only 11% of the Canadian population. Alberta alone was responsible for just over half of the total increase in GHG emissions between 1990 and 2006 [second chart].
The #2 province Ontario is responsible for 27% of national emissions but has almost four times the population. Therefore the per capita emissions in Ontario are 15 t CO2-eq / person, hardly a lofty goal, still more than three times that of China, but one quarter that of Alberta.
Saskatchewan is fourth in total emissions at 10% of national emissions, only slightly behind Quebec, despite housing only one-seventh of the population of la belle province. Saskatchewan’s carbon-intensive economy has become even more so over the past two decades. Thanks to a growing uranium and potash industries, expansion of oil production and reliance on coal power, the province of only one million people was responsible almost a quarter of the national increase in GHG emissions from 1990 to 2006.
Quebec, on the other hand is Canada’s pocket of Europe in more ways than one. Thanks to a heavy reliance on hydro power, la belle province’s per capita GHG emissions of 10.7 t CO2-eq/person are more in line with Europe than the rest of North America. Lower heating demands and increased reliance on hydro power helped make Quebec the one Canadian province where GHG emissions decreased (by 1%) between 1990 and 2006. Note the word province; this is not to slight the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, where GHG emissions decreased 17% over the same time period.
Per capita emissions [third chart] were relatively steady across much of the country between 1990 and 2006: there was a 12% decrease in Ontario, a 10% decrease in Quebec, and a 7% increase across the Maritimes. The big discrepancy is between Alberta and Saskatchewan. Alberta’s population growth kept pace with the growth in emissions – people came from other provinces to work in the oil sands operations. Saskatchewan, on the other hand, has seen a 67% increase in per capita emissions due to a declining population (this trend began to reverse in the past few years).
The carbon-intense nature of the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan is best illustrated by a chart of the GHG emissions intensity: the GHG emissions per $ of GDP. This is shown in the final chart to the right (2006 only). In 2006, creating one dollar of GDP in Alberta required over five times the GHG emissions as in Ontario, over six times the GHG emissions as in Quebec. The high emissions intensity of Saskatchewan and Alberta leads to the interesting results that the emissions intensity appears to decrease with population.
There’s likely some economic logic to that pattern: for example, areas of higher populations and large cities are more “efficient” overall, and resource extractive industries tend to be located in areas of lower population.
These are just some of the broad patterns in the GHG data. There is much much more to analyse and discuss.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Leak of Asia-Pacific climate policy
Apparently I’m not the only one talking about energy intensity.
The declaration – you can read it here – is a remarkably evasive document (if it is genuine...). It takes real craftsmanship to construct something like this.
A 25% reduction in energy intensity, essentially producing more income with less energy is important, yes. Especially in China and India. But is it an accomplishment? No. Like the US and Canadian targets based on emissions intensity, this target is a farce. It is destined to happen with or without a "climate" policy. The real advance, as the graph shows, would be a decrease in the greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy production.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Emissions intensity: read the fine print
The coverage of the new Canadian GHG emissions regulations (technically, it's not a policy) generally opens with a sentence like this:
The plan, entitled Turning the Corner, calls on Canada to reduce its current amount of greenhouse gas emissions by 150 million tonnes by 2020 and will require most industries in Canada to reduce greenhouse gases by 18 per cent by 2010. (CBC-News)
It is wrong.
The plan - read it here - calls for an 18% reduction in emissions intensity by 2010. That, once again (and again, apologies to regular readers, I harp on this point only because it is important), is not the total emissions but the emissions per unit of GDP, or in this case, production by the company.
The plan is, right down to the numbers, eerily similar to the American policy I lampooned, as a warning to Canadians, in the Toronto Star almost a year ago. I'd like to claim some brilliance in debunking the US and, at the time potential, Canadian plans. The truth is, as I wrote then "A couple minutes with a calculator, or a morning of Economics 101, will reveal a hole in the intensity plan so big you can drive a Hummer through it".
A target of 18% reduction in emissions intensity by 2010? Reads like the "ambitious national goal" set by the Bush Administration in 2002. Canadian companies are being given less time, but that's merely catch-up for the lack of policy until now.
After 2010, the new plan calls for a 2% per year improvement in emissions intensity. If your production, measured in terms of dollars, tracks with the economy (at roughly 3% per year), guess what? The actual emissions could increase by roughly 1% per year.
Yes, the emissions would be lower in comparison to a business-as-usual growth scenario, but they would still be rising over all. That's one reason the environmental organizations and the opposition parties are attacking this policy with a fervour. Or why they should be. If industries are not required to reduce their actual emissions, the odds of reaching any long-term reduction goal, even the inadequate goal announced yesterday (20% below 2006 levels by 2020), are extremely low.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Emissions (or energy) intensity
A snippet of the upcoming Canadian GHG and smog-forming emissions plans (Globe and Mail):
In a separate interview with CTV Newsnet, Ms. Ambrose said the plan would include financial penalties.
Oil industry sources said yesterday the Tories intend to set standards to reduce "energy intensity" in the sector, an approach that would reduce emissions for every barrel produced. That approach, which is favoured by the Alberta government and the industry, would see emissions continue to rise as oil-sands development booms, but would slow the pace of the growth.
Any regulation is better than the current situation. But the intensity trick is what I've been warning about for months (Toronto Star):
Since the days of the Canadian Alliance, Harper and colleagues have opposed the Kyoto limits on greenhouse gas emissions. They preferred the approach of the United States, which refused to sign any international climate agreement under the pretence that it could hurt the economy. The new "Made in Canada" plan is expected to be based upon the current U.S. government policy that the Bush administration adopted in 2002 after rejecting Kyoto... It is worth examining the problem with a U.S.-style policy...
The economy, expressed as GDP, grows at roughly 3 per cent a year. The compound interest function on your calculator will show that this average annual growth rate works out to 34 per cent growth over a 10-year period. The stated target is to have the GHG intensity — the emissions divided by the GDP — be 18 per cent lower in about 10 years. Since the GDP will have increased by 34 per cent, the greenhouse gas emissions can actually increase by 10 per cent over those 10 years. The proposed reduction in intensity is actually an increase in total emissions.
Proponents will argue that this is still an improvement over business-as-usual. If the greenhouse gas intensity remains constant over the 10 years, the total emissions would increase by 34 per cent. In that sense, the reduction in intensity could represent some progress. It would not save the planet from the disastrous implications of climate change but it would be better than nothing.
Actually, no. The catch is that the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S., of Canada, and of virtually every industrialized country has been decreasing for years as our economies become more productive and our technology improves. How much? Here's the funny coincidence. In the U.S., the greenhouse gas intensity decreased by about 18 per cent between 1990 and 2000.
In other words, the Bush administration climate policy is just a statement about staying the course. It does absolutely nothing to address climate change. Canadians should be wary of any similar Conservative policy that uses words like greenhouse gas intensity and claims to address both the economy and the climate. When the announcement is made, have a calculator handy.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Julie Bishop and Australian Opposition parties need to do better research about climate policy
The Australian Prime Minister, who heads a minority coalition in Parliament, has proposed carbon pricing scheme that will begin in 2012. The opposition parties are lobbying hard against the scheme, or any scheme that puts a price on carbon. In her regular blog for the Sydney Morning Herald, Deputy Leader of the Opposition Julie Bishop uses an argument that will sound familiar to argues that will sound familiar to Canadians and Americans: in essence, why should "we" take action if China is not?
One of the principal arguments of the Julia Gillard - Bob Brown government to justify imposing a carbon tax on Australia is that the international effort on climate change will leave us behind and that even China is taking dramatic action to reduce its carbon emissions.
This is deeply misleading. What the government doesn't tell you is that even if the Chinese government met its stated targets of cutting carbon emissions "per unit of GDP", there will in fact be a massive increase in emissions from China for the foreseeable future.
And here is the evidence:
University of British Columbia Professor in Geography Simon Donner calculates in an article titled "China's emissions pledge depends entirely on economic growth" that the Chinese emissions "intensity" targets would still result in substantial emissions increases.He says: "If China keeps up the planned 8 per cent/year growth, emissions in 2020 will be 74-90 per cent higher than 2005 levels".
When I heard about this "citation" yesterday, I was puzzled. What article is she talking about? I'm fairly certainly I'd remember if I'd published an article about Chinese climate policy. It turns out she is referring to a brief Maribo post from two years ago in which I pointed out that the China's new emissions target is based on emissions intensity, and thus represents less of a decrease than it might sound. This brings up all sorts of interesting questions about appeals to authority, blog posts vs. published research, etc., which I'd be happy to discuss.
Now had the Deputy Leader or her staff or whomever writes the posts in her name contacted me or, say, done more than typed "china's emissions pledge" into Google (the post comes up #3, at least from here), she may have learned that many international policy experts think it is reasonable to allow nations with developing economies to set targets based on emissions intensity. I've written numerous posts arguing just that. In fact, that point was touched on in the previous paragraph in the post though only fully fleshed out in other posts:
It is, however, a reasonably fair way to bring a reluctant developing nation like China into an international emissions control framework.
The moral here is not what I wrote. The moral here is that Australians should be just horrified that by the lack of research and analysis being done by the opposition parties on the carbon tax proposal. They should not be citing a two-year old blog post written by a Canadian university professor for which the data is now out of date. I'd guess it took me about 20 minutes to do the analysis and write that post. Certainly that's not too much time to spend working on your position on a critical policy proposal.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Kyoto and how we got here (III)
As promised, I'll explain the climate policy enacted by the Bush administration in lieu of the Kyoto Protocol. Canadians should also pay attention; the Bush approach will probably be the model for Canadian PM Harper's"Made-in-Canada" climate policy.
The plan put forth in 2002 calls for an 18% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas intensity by 2012. The intensity is not the total GHG emissions. It is the GHG emissions per dollar of GDP. The idea is that the economy become more greenhouse gas efficient. On the surface, it sounds sensible.
The hole in this policy is so big you could drive a Hummer through it. I say this not out of politics or any feelings about the current administration. The hole will be obvious anyone who owns a calculator, who sat through Economics 101 or who likes to scribble out equations on a cocktail napkin.
The economy or the GDP grows at roughly 3% a year. Your calculator can tell you that works out to about a 34% increase in GDP over ten years. Compound interest, from Economics 101.
Remember, the stated goal is to reduce the GHG intensity – the emissions divided by the GDP – by 18%. A bit of multiplication and division, and you’ll discover that means the actual GHG emissions can increase by 10% over those same ten years. So the proposed reduction in intensity is actually an increase in total emissions.
Hold on, you might say. If the GHG intensity remained the same over those ten years, the total emissions would increase by 34%. An increase of only 10% is still better than “business as usual”. This is better an improvement, right?
Er, no. The GHG intensity of the US economy had already been decreasing.
How much? I have to pause here, and admit, this is my favourite part. About 18% between 1990 and 2000. I'm not kidding.
The reduction in emissions intensity is not an "ambitious national goal" as the White House claims. It is a statement of what was already happening with no policy in place. It would probably take effort not to continue that trend.
There it is, kids, the Bush climate policy, and Stephen Harper's model for the made-in-Canada solution to climate changes, debunked in about three minutes with a calculator.
Monday, November 30, 2009
China's emissions pledge depends entirely on economic growth
Last week, China announced that it will reduce carbon "intensity" by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. The emissions intensity (emissions/$GDP) approach taken by the Canada and the US in the past has been much maligned here as a dishonest dodge.
It is, however, a reasonably fair way to bring a reluctant developing nation like China into an international emissions control framework. The problem of course is that actual emissions target depends entirely on how much the Chinese economy grows by 2020. So 40-45% sounds impressive, but won't amount to an actual reduction in emissions.
The graph above shows a spectrum of possibilities. Unless the growth rate is less than ~4%/year - highly unlikely - Chinese carbon emissions will be higher in 2020 than 2005. If China keeps up the planned 8%/year growth, emissions in 2020 will be 74-90% higher than 2005 levels.
And, just like in the US and Canada cases, Chinese emissions intensity will naturally decrease over time without any policy intervention. It decreased 10% from 2000 to 2005, and well over 40% from 1990 to 2005.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Intensity targets for the world, says PM Harper
The Globe and Mail reports that Canadian PM Stephen Harper is pushing for a new international climate change plan using intensity-based emissions targets rather actual emissions targets, like Kyoto.
Harper is correct in asserting that many countries, including China, are currently unwilling to accept hard targets. In that case, an intensity-based targets may be an acceptable middle ground (though not indefinitely!) for countries in the midst of economic growth and development. Not for the whole world, and especially not for the worst per-capita polluters like the US and Canada.
The claim that this "Canadian" idea is the best way to engage the US is laughable.
First of all, the emissions intensity tack taken by the Can. Conservative party and now at least temporarily enshrined in government policy came directly from Bush Administration policy set over five years ago. I wrote a warning about this 16 months ago in the Toronto Star (at the time, I admit, I never considered the plan would be lifted almost digit for digit from US policy!).
Second, time is running out on the Bush Administration and its refusal to accept real emissions targets. There are multiple bills with medium and long-term emissions targets before Senate and the Congress, summarized by this dizzying World Resources Institute chart. States representing almost half the US population have set long-term emissions targets. I even drew a map. And all the major contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination are putting forward climate change plans with real emissions targets.
Third, the Conservative government is a minority, and all three opposition parties support real emissions targets. The only reason their approach to climate change may survive is that no party in Parliament wants to force an election over this, or possibly, any other issue. The result is that the Canadian government is now advancing a policy that is dishonest, regressive (with respect to other developed nations), and does not have the support of the Canadian people.
For other opinions, try the Toronto Star's latest editorial, the Globe's editorial, and the various angry online reactions (here here here).
Friday, September 11, 2009
The problem with an intensity-based target for the oil sands
Earlier this week, the Toronto Star reported that the Harper government is planning to release a carbon trading system which will use intensity-based targets for the oil and gas sector. Yesterday, we took a trip down memory lane, looking at op-ed about climate policy from 2004. Let's look at one from 2006, where I warned that the Harper government will try to use the trick of intensity-based targets.
At first glance, the intensity concept is logical and appealing. It appears to address both economic growth and the climate by making the economy more greenhouse gas “efficient” over time. A couple minutes with a calculator, or a morning of Economics 101, will reveal a hole in the intensity plan so big you can drive a Hummer through it.
The math in my 2006 article was based on the Bush administration plan to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18% by 2012. My conclusion?
Canadians should be wary of any similar Conservative policy that uses words like greenhouse gas intensity and claims to address both economy and the climate. When the announcement is made, have a calculator handy.
A real emissions policy is one that addresses emissions. Canada may have failed to date in the implementation of Kyoto. But it is not too late to try.
There is still over five years to reduce emissions at home, to negotiate investments in emissions reductions in other countries and to purchase emissions credits from overseas. The other Kyoto signatories and the rest of the world will respect a concerted effort that comes up short more than a plan that can be debunked in two minutes with a $10 calculator.
The irony is had the Alliance-Conservatives not strongly opposed controls on greenhouse gas emissions over the past decade, the current Conservative government may not be in what they term an impossible position. That is the lesson of climate change: we all need to think ahead.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Alberta's climate change plan
Last Friday's post on transit plans ended with this aside:
But I can guarantee you no one, at any level of government anywhere in the country, wants to look like Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, who toured Washington this week trying to deny the environmental impact of oil sands operations... The argument: large facilities are required to "reduce the intensity by 12 per cent." This while they plan to triple production. So if intensity is the emissions per unit of production, that means the emissions would multiple by 2.64. Canadians do understand fractions.
Prophetic? The release of the Alberta government's dubious climate change plan invited no shortage of ridicule.
There are two things any discussion of this must concede right away. First, the fact that Alberta has recognized the need to address climate change, let alone release a plan, is a huge positive change. Second, Canada's economic boom in recent years has been driven in large part by high oil prices encouraging expansion of production from Alberta's tar sands. So, like it or not, Alberta's in a difficult place on this issue.
That all being said, the plan is purposely deceptive, relying on tricks of language and statistics to pretend that meaningful action will be taken. The report also displays a fundamental misunderstanding of climate change, discussing it as an environmental problem, rather than a problem that will affect the economy and human well-being worldwide.
For the number: the plan calls for a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below business-as-usual projections by 2050. Given that the usual business is carbon-intensive, this equates to a 14% decrease from 2005 emissions.
Now, Alberta's GHG emissions increased by over 40% from 1990, the baseline most of the planet is using, to 2005. Therefore, the 2050 target is around 20% above 1990 levels. I can't provide exact numbers because the reported total 2005 emissions in the Alberta plan is lower than what I find in the federal inventory. This may be a simple reporting issue.
Comparing to a business-as-usual scenario that involves ramping up oil sands production paved
the way for the disingenuous graph
to your right. It appears that Alberta is calling for far greater emissions reductions than any other province. Two reasons: i) the comparison is to the business as usual projections, which again, assume a huge increase in oil extraction from the tar sands, ii) BC, Quebec and Ontario have set emissions reduction targets for 2050, but based on current or 1990 levels rather than Alberta's business-as-usual approach, so no comparison is made.
The idea of setting a target based on business-as-usual emissions follows from the "stabilization wedges" approach developed by Steve Pacala and Rob Socolow at Princeton; the word wedge even pops up in the Alberta report. Their popular idea is to use a variety of strategies to at least stabilize emissions by 2050-2055. The Alberta "wedges" include carbon capture and storage (70% of reductions), conservation (12%) and "greening energy production" (18%). Again, the breakdown appears to put the burden on industry, particular those related oil sands production. But the calculations have been done assuming a huge expansion in oil sands production. So, at best, it is a wash.
However you crunch the numbers, the Alberta's plan openly conflicts with even the mediocre plan put forth by the Conservative government. It openly conflicts with the idea that the developed world should shoulder a greater burden of emissions reductions -- the reason global emissions are expected to rise without any mitigation is supposed to be development in the Global South.
Following this template, it will be extremely difficult for Canada to meet any scientifically meaningful long-term emissions target. NDP leader Jack Layton summed it up well: "This program put forward by the government of Alberta would be totally contrary to virtually any target that anyone has set anywhere."
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Are emissions growing faster than the models say?
There have been a number of recent studies warning that greenhouse gas emissions will skyrocket in the next three decades, thanks to rising energy use in China, India, and the developing world. The new International Energy Outlook from the US Energy Information Administration reports that global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels will increase 51% by 2030.
Projecting future emissions is by no means simply. The underlying conceit in much of the discussion (e.g. see Pielke et al.) of late is that the projected emissions in the scenarios used by all the climate models are too low. In other words, climate change will be even worse than the models say, and the runaway emissions train will be even harder to stop than we think.
I had to plot some emissions data for a presentation, so I did a quick comparison of the SRES scenarios, the group of future emissions scenarios used by all the climate models in the last IPCC assessments. The global carbon emissions from fossil fuels only in the four main scenarios are plotted in the figure to the right. [A note: These are the means for each scenario. Despite what most people think, A2, A1b, etc. do not each refer to one set of emissions data, rather a series of datasets generated by different economics / emissions models using the same inputs].
Now here's the same graph with the high growth, medium (reference scenario) and low growth scenarios from the IEO (coarse grey/black lines). And the surprise: the path of the
highest IEO scenario lies in between SRES A1b and SRES A2, basically what people have been calling "business as usual" for quite some time. The low growth scenario parallels SRES B1, a scenario in which thew world seeks "global solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability, including improved equity". The emission path in all the IEO scenarios fall below that of SRES A1F1, the fossil fuel intensive scenario. In other words, the scary new report is no worse than what we were already projecting. That is hardly a reason to celebrate, yes, but it may be a reason to argue with those claiming emissions are rising so fast that climate change mitigation is prohibitively expensive.
There is a caveat. The red line on the graph comes from a recent paper by Sheehan in Climatic Change (see Pielke's commentary). This scenario attempts to take into account the "abrupt shift to rapid growth based on fossil fuels" that has occurred in Asian countries. The paper argues that the SRES scenarios assumed too much decarbonization of the energy system and the economy. The SRES approach is reasonable -- as I've argued before, the emissions intensity of the world economy, the amount of carbon pumped out per unit of GDP, has been declining for decades as we became more efficient at making producing stuff. The problem is that we're at a moment where Asian are using coal and oil to expand, so the global decarbonization is slowing down or even stopping (because the carbon emissions per unit energy production is rising). How and whether recent Asian fossil fuel growth should be extrapolated 25 years into the future, I can't say. I'd be interested to see a comparison of Sheehan-style scenarios with those of the IEO.
(By the way, the IPCC is planning a new set of scenarios for the fifth assessment)
Monday, June 04, 2007
Exporting a bad idea to the world
First, the US proposes setting a global GHG emissions "goal" - an object to which effort or ambition is directed, rather than a "target" - an amount set as a (minimum) objective. Then, the effort to undermine the push for a global emissions agreement at the G8 Summit was savaged, by foreign governments, by Democrats and by commentators, like a tofurkey at a Greenpeace rally.
Now, quel horreur, the Canadian PM says his government wants to play peacemaker (CBC).
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a German business audience Monday Canada won't meet its Kyoto targets to lower greenhouse gas emissions, but can be a world leader in battling climate change.
And here it comes:
Harper did say he believes his government's plan for intensity-based targets to limit greenhouse gas emissions will be more effective than setting overall reduction targets.
I was so dumbfounded by this, I double-checked on the CBC's French language service:
Selon la solution canadienne, il n'y aurait pas une réduction draconienne des gaz à effets de serre, mais l'encouragement de mesures moins polluantes dans chaque unité de production industrielle.
That's right. Canada is championing the emissions intensity policy as the solution to it all. Could it work? Only if the intensity-based targets, not aspirational goals, are set such that total emissions actually decline. However, that is not the case in the Canadian policy.
The joke is, er, the tragedy is, not only has the Canadian policy been ridiculed by experts across the spectrum, it is not even original. It was lifted, almost digit for digit, from the equally toothless American policy.
Let's hope the rest of the world looks at this graph. And that someone out there has a calculator that can do compound interest.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Thoughts on Canada's new policy
The Clean Air Act announced yesterday in the Canadian Parliament has been pretty much universally panned. The only support has been from what the press calls the "business community", although a real poll of companies operating in Canada would find many would welcome a policy that will addresses near-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
No doubt, many of the critics are being opportunistic. Blustering by members of the previous government about how the Conservatives are ignoring Kyoto is a bit hypocritical, given how emissions grew under the previous government. And, at this point, yelling "Canada should meet Kyoto" is a meaningless pledge required to win support among a certain constituency. I agree with idea behind the Kyoto pledge, that there still be a concerted effort to reduce emissions and engage with the other sigantories. But this late in the game, there's no point at all in making the pledge unless you have a real plan.
We should not let the failures of the previous government give the current government a pass. No matter what, if the authors of this Act thought it would address climate change, if the authors thought the 45-65% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 had any real meaning, don't you think the word climate would find its way into the title, or the language of the act? It is called the Clean Air Act for a reason: to focus people's concern on air quality, not climate. Otherwise it would be called the Clean Air and Safe Climate Act.
The long-term reduction goal itself is fraught with complications. Bear with me here:
1) The target is 45-65% below 2003 levels by 2050, not 1990 levels, the standard used by Kyoto and the UNFCCC. Canada's emissions rose ~24% between 1990 and 2003. So the 45-65% works out to 32-56% less than 1990 emissions. The choice of numbers seems entirely arbitrary. I see no basis, climatically, for these numbers.
2) Reaching that goal would require a 1.35-2.35% annual reduction in GHG emissions. For perspective, reaching the science-based British goal of 60% below 1990 levels by 2050, would require a 2.55% annual reduction. Tough, no doubt.
However, the new plan says there are to be no hard caps 'til 2025. So let's say emissions stay constant until 2025. That means an annual reduction from 2025-2050 of 2.35%-4.20%. Of course, with no hard cap, a growing population and a growing economy, emissions are unlikely to stay constant. Let's say they increase at the rate (~2%/year) observed in the past 15 years. Take note, given average economic growth of 3%/ year, this emissions growth rate implies a continued decrease in emissions intensity. The result is the reduction between 2025 and 2050 must be 4.2% - 5.9% each year.
In other words, setting a cap for 2050, but not starting the reductions until 2025, is ridiculous. This is not a political argument. It is plain-old mathematics.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
US President Bush speaks about climate change
There is a lot to parse in today's speech, including more of this false dichotomy between emissions policy and technology policy (try the Ecogeek drinking game). I've included the full text after the bump. [Dot Earth has a breakdown of the speech]
US President's stated goal is to stop greenhouse gas emissions growth by 2025.
Let's put that the goal in perspective. If emissions continue to rise (from 2006 levels) at the rate since 1990 (0.88%/year), the U.S. 2025 emissions will be 8363 Mt CO2-eq or 36% above 1990 levels. If we assume a emissions grow at only half that rate, the 2025 emission will be 7691 Mt CO2-eq or 25% above 1990 levels. These are the blue lines in the graph.
The little green line? The US Kyoto target.
When US President Bush speaks about climate change - as he did at the APEC summit and the last G8 summit - the world is left arguing whether some action is better than no action at all. It is tempting to say the mere fact that the US President felt it necessary to deliver a speech on climate change and to announce new goals related to climate change could be seen as a step forward.
The problem here is that the step is so small as to be inconsequential, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Today's statement implies the US that by 2025 - almost 15 years later - the US will still be 35-46% off the old Kyoto target. Will think European countries will be happy? [That's a no] Does this sets a good precedent for China and India?
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Welcome. Thank you all for coming. I particularly want to thank members of my Cabinet for joining me here today in the Rose Garden.
Tomorrow represents — representatives of the world’s major economies will gather in Paris to discuss climate change. Here in Washington, the debate about climate change is intensifying. Today, I’ll share some views on this important issue to advance discussions both at home and abroad.
Climate change involves complicated science and generates vigorous debate. Many are concerned about the effect of climate change on our environment. Many are concerned about the effect of climate change policies on our economy. I share these concerns, and I believe they can be sensibly reconciled.
Over the past seven years, my administration has taken a rational, balanced approach to these serious challenges. We believe we need to protect our environment. We believe we need to strengthen our energy security. We believe we need to grow our economy. And we believe the only way to achieve these goals is through continued advances in technology. So we’ve pursued a series of policies aimed at encouraging the rise of innovative as well as more cost-effective clean energy technologies that can help America and developing nations reduce greenhouse gases, reduce our dependence on oil, and keep our economies vibrant and strong for decades to come.
I have put our nation on a path to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002, I announced our first step: to reduce America’s greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through 2012. I’m pleased to say that we remain on track to meet this goal even as our economy has grown 17 percent.
As we take these steps here at home, we’re also working internationally on a rational path to addressing global climate change. When I took office seven years ago, we faced a problem. A number of nations around the world were preparing to implement the flawed approach of Kyoto Protocol. In 1997, the United States Senate took a look at the Kyoto approach and passed a resolution opposing this approach by a 95 to nothing vote.
The Kyoto Protocol would have required the United States to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of this agreement, however, would have been to limit our economic growth and to shift American jobs to other countries — while allowing major developing nations to increase their emissions. Countries like China and India are experiencing rapid economic growth — and that’s good for their people and it’s good for the world. This also means that they are emitting increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases — which has consequences for the entire global climate.
So the United States has launched — and the G8 has embraced — a new process that brings together the countries responsible for most of the world’s emissions. We’re working toward a climate agreement that includes the meaningful participation of every major economy — and gives none a free ride.
In support of this process, and based on technology advances and strong new policy, it is now time for the U.S. to look beyond 2012 and to take the next step. We’ve shown that we can slow emissions growth. Today, I’m announcing a new national goal: to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.
To reach this goal, we will pursue an economy-wide strategy that builds on the solid foundation that we have in place. As part of this strategy, we worked with Congress to pass energy legislation that specifies a new fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and requires fuel producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. This should provide an incentive for shifting to a new generation of fuels like cellulosic ethanol that will reduce concerns about food prices and the environment.
We also mandated new objectives for the coming decade to increase the efficiency of lighting and appliances. We’re helping states achieve their goals for increasing renewable power and building code efficiency by sharing new technologies and providing tax incentives. We’re working to implement a new international agreement that will accelerate cuts in potent HCFC emissions. Taken together, these landmark actions will prevent billions of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere.
These objectives are backed by a combination of new market-based regulations, new government incentives, and new funding for technology research. We’ve provided billions of dollars for next generation nuclear energy technologies. Along with the private sector, we’ve invested billions more to research, develop and commercially deploy renewable fuels, hydrogen fuel cells, advanced batteries, and other technologies to enable a new generation of vehicles and more reliable renewable power systems.
In 2009 alone, the government and the private sector plan to dedicate nearly a billion dollars to clean coal research and development. Our incentives for power production from wind and solar energy have helped to more than quadruple its use. We have worked with Congress to make available more than $40 billion in loan guarantees to support investments that will avoid, reduce, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions or air pollutants. And our farmers can now compete for substantial new conservation incentives to restore land and forests in ways that help cut greenhouse gases.
We’re doing a lot to protect this environment. We’ve laid a solid foundation for further progress. But these measures — while these measures will bring us a long way to achieving our new goal, we’ve got to do more in the power generation sector. To reach our 2025 goal, we’ll need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so they peak within 10 to 15 years, and decline thereafter. By doing so, we’ll reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002.
There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies.
As we approach this challenge, we face a growing problem here at home. Some courts are taking laws written more than 30 years ago — to primarily address local and regional environmental effects — and applying them to global climate change. The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate. For example, under a Supreme Court decision last year, the Clean Air Act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. This would automatically trigger regulation under the Clean Air Act of greenhouse gases all across our economy — leading to what Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell last week called, “a glorious mess.”
If these laws are stretched beyond their original intent, they could override the programs Congress just adopted, and force the government to regulate more than just power plant emissions. They could also force the government to regulate smaller users and producers of energy — from schools and stores to hospitals and apartment buildings. This would make the federal government act like a local planning and zoning board, have crippling effects on our entire economy.
Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges. Such decisions should be opened — debated openly; such decisions should be made by the elected representatives of the people they affect. The American people deserve an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution.
This is the approach Congress properly took last year on mandatory policies that will reduce emissions from cars and trucks, and improve the efficiency of lighting and appliances. This year, Congress will soon be considering additional legislation that will affect global climate change. I believe that Congressional debate should be guided by certain core principles and a clear appreciation that there is a wrong way and a right way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy and on American families without accomplishing the important climate change goals we share.
The wrong way is to raise taxes, duplicate mandates, or demand sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy. The right way is to set realistic goals for reducing emissions consistent with advances in technology, while increasing our energy security and ensuring our economy can continue to prosper and grow.
The wrong way is to sharply increase gasoline prices, home heating bills for American families and the cost of energy for American businesses.
The right way is to adopt policies that spur investment in the new technologies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more cost-effectively in the longer term without placing unreasonable burdens on American consumers and workers in the short term.
The wrong way is to jeopardize our energy and economic security by abandoning nuclear power and our nation’s huge reserves of coal. The right way is to promote more emission-free nuclear power and encourage the investments necessary to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon into the air.
The wrong way is to unilaterally impose regulatory costs that put American businesses at a disadvantage with their competitors abroad — which would simply drive American jobs overseas and increase emissions there. The right way is to ensure that all major economies are bound to take action and to work cooperatively with our partners for a fair and effective international climate agreement.
The wrong way is to threaten punitive tariffs and protectionist barriers, start a carbon-based global trade war, and to stifle the diffusion of new technologies. The right way is to work to make advanced technology affordable and available in the developing world — by lowering trade barriers, creating a global free market for clean energy technologies, and enhancing international cooperation and technology investment.
We must all recognize that in the long run, new technologies are the key to addressing climate change. But in the short run, they can be more expensive. And that is why I believe part of any solution means reforming today’s complicated mix of incentives to make the commercialization and use of new, lower emission technologies more competitive. Today we have different incentives for different technologies — from nuclear power, to clean coal, to wind and solar energy. What we need to do is consolidate them into a single, expanded program with the following features.
First, the incentive should be carbon-weighted to make lower emission power sources less expensive relative to higher emissions sources — and it should take into account our nation’s energy security needs.
Second, the incentive should be technology-neutral because the government should not be picking winners and losers in this emerging market.
Third, the incentive should be long-lasting. It should provide a positive and reliable market signal not only for the investment in a technology, but also for the investments in domestic manufacturing capacity and infrastructure that will help lower costs and scale up availability.
Even with strong new incentives, many new technologies face regulatory and political barriers. To pave the way for a new generation of nuclear power plants, we must provide greater certainty on issues from licensing to responsible management of spent fuel. The promise of carbon capture and storage depends on new pipelines and liability rules. Large-scale renewable energy installations are most likely to be built in sparsely populated areas — which will require advanced, interstate transmission systems to deliver this power to major population centers. If we’re serious about confronting climate change, then we have to be serious about addressing these obstacles.
If we fully implement our new strong laws, adhere to the principles that I’ve outlined, and adopt appropriate incentives, we will put America on an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions. The growth in emissions will slow over the next decade, stop by 2025, and begin to reverse thereafter, so long as technology continues to advance.
Our new 2025 goal marks a major step forward in America’s efforts to address climate change. Yet even if we reduced our own emissions to zero tomorrow, we would not make a meaningful dent in solving the problem without concerted action by all major economies. So in connection with the major economies process we launched, we’re urging each country to develop its own national goals and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Like many other countries, America’s national plan will be a comprehensive blend of market incentives and regulations to reduce emissions by encouraging clean and efficient energy technologies. We’re willing to include this plan in a binding international agreement, so long as our fellow major economies are prepared to include their plans in such an agreement. We recognize that different nations will design different strategies, with goals and policies that reflect their unique energy resources and economic circumstances. But we can only make progress if their plans will make a real difference as well.
The next step in the major economies process is a meeting this week in Paris — and I want to thank my friend, President Sarkozy, for hosting it. There, representatives of all participating nations will lay the groundwork for a leaders’ meeting in conjunction with the G8 summit in July. Our objective is to come together on a common approach that will contribute to the negotiations under the U.N. Framework Convention of global climate once the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. This approach must be environmentally effective and economically sustainable.
To be effective, this approach will — this approach will require commitments by all major economies to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. To be economically sustainable, this approach must foster the economic growth necessary to pay for investments in new technology and to raise living standards. We must help countries in the developing world gain access to the technologies, as well as financing that will enable them to take a lower carbon path to economic growth.
And then there will be the major economies leader meeting in July — that’s the one I’ll be going to — where we will seek agreement on a long-term global goal for emissions reductions, as well as an agreement on how national plans will be part of the post-2012 approach. We’ll also seek to increase international cooperation among private firms and governments in key sectors such as power generation, auto manufacturing, renewable fuels, and aluminum and steel.
We will work toward the creation of an international clean technology fund that will help finance low-emissions energy projects in the developing world. We’ll call on all nations to help spark a global clean energy revolution by agreeing immediately to eliminate trade barriers on clean energy goods and services.
The strategy I have laid out today shows faith in the ingenuity and enterprise of the American people — and that’s a resource that will never run out. I’m confident that with sensible and balanced policies from Washington, American innovators and entrepreneurs will pioneer a new generation of technology that improves our environment, strengthens our economy, and continues to amaze the world.
