Comment▼ The debate is over
I
n its April 3 special edition, Time magazine has declared it. The debate on global warming is over. And humans are causing it (at least, most of it). Meanwhile, according to a recent poll, 71% of Americans already believe that global warming is occurring. So what has taken the Bush Administration so long? The lack of leadership on climate change and energy policy by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and their cadre of oil executive cronies borders on malfeasance. Now that the debate is over, let’s get to work. More than 60% of our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions emanate from the transportation sector and from powering buildings. That is “low-hanging fruit”. In the U.S., we have not improved motor-vehicle efficiency in 20 years. By implementing greater energy efficiency, more renewable energy sources, and shifts in policy, we can decrease our GHG emissions by 50% over the next 25 years, while jump-starting the economy. Energy-efficient automobiles, lighting, and refrigeration, together with wind power, photovoltaic roofs, biofuels, and geothermal heat pumps, are the future. The companies and countries that lead in these industries will gain competitive advantages and employ millions in productive manufacturing jobs with good wages. Hybrid-electric cars are a key bridging technology for the automobile industry. Many hybrid vehicles are already on the road, yielding 50–100% better gas mileage than their earlier gasoline-only models. But imagine adding another electric battery to the system so that you can “fill up” on electricity at night. According to Lester Brown in Plan B 2.0 (Norton & Co., 2006), the cost of wind energy at off-peak hours will be equivalent to driving on $0.50/gal fuel. With a plug-in hybrid, mileage will increase from 50 to 75–100 mpg, depending on the ratio of short commutes to long-haul trips. On the long hauls, drivers will still enjoy 50 mpg and a 500–600-mi range. Now, dream that your plug-in hybrid is also a flexfuel vehicle burning E-85 ethanol (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) made from cellulose. Fuel efficiency, with respect to GHGs, has just skyrocketed to >200 mpg of fossil gasoline. It’s not a dream: Industry watchers believe Toyota will be coming out soon with a plug-in hybrid, and flex-fuel cars are already on the road. Transportation accounts for ~25% of our primary energy usage and GHG emissions. We could cut that in half relatively easily with leadership and a dedicated public. You can’t live in Iowa and not be aware of biofuels. We have dozens of ethanol plants (from corn) and ~10 biodiesel plants (from soybeans) completed or in various stages of construction. The latest reports indicate that © 2006 American Chemical Society
the energy balances are positive and improving rapidly. It would be better to make ethanol in a more sustainable fashion from switchgrass or waste cellulose (enzymatically), but the technology is not quite here yet. The existing plants will serve as a bridge to the future. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires 7.5 billion gal/ yr of ethanol or biodiesel by 2012, and I predict that we will achieve that easily. Current production is 4.4 billion gal/yr of ethanol and 75 million gal/yr of biodiesel, and it is growing fast. Unfortunately, 7.5 billion gal/yr is still a drop in the bucket compared with the 21 million barrels of oil that we burn every day in the U.S. The ethanol production represents only a few days’ supply. We could plant every acre in America with energy crops and not satisfy our burgeoning transportation needs. We are on our way to a new energy mix—one that includes energy efficiency, wind power, solar homes, light rails, and better buildings. We need to increase renewable energy from 10 to 50% of our energy mix. If you agree that global warming is a serious problem, then even new nuclear power cannot be ruled out. States are leading the way today, together with a few industry champions. But we need enlightened policy from the top. Why not shift some income taxes (a tax on labor) to carbon taxes (a tax on unsustainability)? Why not shift subsidies from roads and oil depletion allowances to light rails, freight rails, biking trails, and solar homes? It seems kind of sad to scientists and engineers that the global-warming debate should be interred by Time. Plenty of warning and evidence was provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their Third Assessment of Climate Change in 2001. But consensus, even among thousands of scientists from all over the world, did not sway the Bush Administration, the U.S. Congress, or a recalcitrant public. Perhaps a whole lot of weird weather is what has moved the people. Let’s hope our epiphany will happen in time to make a difference. For the first time, we can begin to see how to meet this challenge. It’s doable. We can address global warming and invigorate the economy simultaneously. But technology alone will not solve this global problem. It also stems from a crisis in leadership. The U.S. must accept its role as an environmental leader in the world and act like one.
Jerald L. Schnoor Editor
[email protected] MAY 1, 2006 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 2861
