Meeting the Prez

Little speech delivered as Host Opener at Capital Toastmasters 1 meeting on October 25, 2011:

On October 16th, the new Martin Luther King Jr. memorial was officially dedicated after hurricane Irene had postponed the ceremonies that were originally schedule for late August. My wife and I felt we should go. So we did. We had three reasons to go. First of all, we felt compelled to honor Dr. King’s life, legacy and unfinished dream. Although there were quite a few, we had hoped more white people had come out showing recognition that Dr. King’s work had lifted a moral burden off their shoulders and what he stood for is an inspiration to black and white alike. Second, it was a lovely fall morning to go out and experience American culture and the art of rhetoric by passionate speakers like reverend Al Sharpton. And third, it would be our chance to finally see the President, live.

I remember the wave of hope that traveled through Europe when Obama was elected president in 2008 and I thought it would make for a nice goal to spot the president in person before we leave Washington. I’ve had several opportunities before, but each time, when I thought I came close, something came between me and Barack. One time I was strategically positioned at a health care summit in the Blair house. Little could go wrong, but when the president was about to walk out, everyone was directed backward two hundred yards and some fat, black SUVs came to block my view. Recently, the president was coming to the University of Maryland in College Park, where I work, for a town hall meeting. We could get free tickets, but when we showed up at the time they were going to be distributed, a line had formed across what seemed the entire campus. We queued for over an hour in 100+ degrees, but when we neared the box office the message came that tickets had run out.

This time, at the tidal basin, it could not go wrong. From our position we could see the main stage as well as the route over which the motorcade would arrive. The motorcade came. On a big screens we saw Obama and his family tour the memorial and were waiting for the president to take the stage. He did take the stage, but it was a different one, not the one we could see! We could only see him on the big screen. People all around us, who had been screaming for “four more years,” were disappointed too. They apparently had cherished the same hope. I’m beginning to suspect that the president is playing hide and seek with me.

Nevertheless, it was the closest I’ve come to see Obama and we were glad we had come to the dedication event and see so many inspired and grateful people. I encourage you all to go take a look. Barack and I, we’ll get our moment.

"Atomausstieg" and green energy consensus

"How refreshing!" The senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) sounded genuinely relieved when the delegation of politicians from the German state of Baden Württemberg explained that in Germany there was no debate whether the country should switch to 100% renewable energy sources - that notion is "mainstream" in Germany - but the discussion is how fast that transition should happen.
CAP hosted a roundtable discussion today with Baden Württemberg's environment and energy minister Franz Untersteller on German energy policy and what the U.S. could learn from that. The Germans were obviously proud of their bold, progressive stance on energy and climate while maintaining one of the strongest economies. "In Baden Württemberg unemployment is 3.9 percent, compared to around 9, 10 percent in the States," Untersteller said at least three times. He explained how about a decade ago, Germany had had a large, national debate on the future of the country's energy supply and the role of nuclear energy. At that time the Greens were in power and the conclusion had been that a decarbonization of the economy was inevitable and that nuclear power was not a part of that. "Atomausstieg" (phase-out of nukes) became national policy. A more conservative government later tried to slow the pace, but then Fukushima came. After the horrible tragedy in Japan, Germany decided that by 2022 all nuclear power plants had to be taken off the grid. For Baden Württemberg, which relies on nukes for 50% of its electricity consumption, that means a fundamental overhaul of its energy system. The eight oldest of the seventeen nuclear plants were shut down this year. Despite a lot of skepticism and fear that it would raise energy prices, not much had  happened. Prices had hardly been influenced, no blackouts either. Would the "Atomausstieg" force Germany to abandon its renewable energy policy? Not at all. "We are convinced that climate change is a serious issue we should do something about," a parliamentarian said, causing the Americans to embarrassedly chuckle. The minister referred to a McKinsey report that said that 80% greenhouse gas emissions reduction was perfectly possible in combination with the "Atomausstieg." That made me think back to last week's faculty meeting at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, when one professor proclaimed that "it is clear" that we can't get to 80% less CO2 emissions without "a dramatic increase" of nuclear power. "But, we can't do it with the current reactor technology." To me, the latter statement seemed to undermine the first, but contrast with the German notion is stark. This was the director of Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) speaking. For such a center the prospect of world without nuclear power, with all its complex security and international policy dimensions, is probably one worth doubting.
Apart from the climate issue, the Germans see huge opportunities in the energy efficiency and renewable energy business. Thanks to the widely copied German feed-in tariff system for renewable power generation, its renewable energy sector now boasts over 300,000 jobs and many companies that are leading in the world. "What about the lobby from vested fossil fuel interests?" someone asked. "We don't have such a thing as the Koch brothers," Untersteller said. Germany doesn't produce its own coal and few people would rather spend their euros on foreign oil and coal than on domestic solutions. Electricity consumers pay a 3.7 eurocents per kWh surcharge to pay for Germany's renewable energy policy, but approval rates of solar power are very high. Germany is turning a comparative disadvantage in the old-energy world (little domestic fossil fuel reserves) into a competitive edge in the new-energy world. As one American participant remarked, the abundance of cheap energy in the U.S. makes renewable energy far less competitive here. Nevertheless, the energy policy goals that drive the discussion in Germany are different from those in the U.S.. While for the Americans price, short term job creation and security of supply are most important, the Germans seem to put concerns over climate and new economic opportunities first. Whether this order of things reflects both countries' values and culture or is merely a consequence of different structural and geographic starting points, I don't know, but the German progressive consensus is surely refreshing and hopeful.

Twee voor twaalf...

Het ligt genuanceerd, het is complex en er moet geïntegreerd naar gekeken worden. Een kind kan de was niet doen; vele kinderen moeten samen de was doen (maar wij zijn geen kinderen). Er is visie nodig en er moeten radicale keuzes worden gemaakt. Anders raken we achterop. Bij China. Het gaat niet goed, we verliezen de slag. Deze regering doet er te weinig aan. Ze past slechts op de winkel, maar pakt de grote problemen waar dit land, deze wereld voor staat niet aan. We schuiven de rekening door naar volgende generaties. Het 'window of opportunity' sluit zich snel. De gevolgen zullen iedereen raken, de hardwerkende Amerikaan, de hardwerkende Nederlander, ook de zachtwerkenden ontspringen de dans niet, maar dat is dan hun eigen schuld. Met de zachtwerkenden zijn wij niet solidair. Wel met de zwakkeren. Ook zij worden geraakt. En de jeugd van tegenwoordig? Zij deugt niet, is lui en onverschillig. Zij is onze toekomst. De jeugd moet ook hard werken, geïntegreerd, voor onze bestwil. Het is twee voor twaalf.

Shale gas, bridge fuel and sustainable extraction

Yesterday I attended a conference in DC on 'a transatlantic agenda for natural gas supply,' at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, among mostly energy diplomats and scholars on geopolitical energy affairs. I was invited to a panel to discuss the question: shale gas, a game changer? Here are the remarks I made:

"I appreciate the invitation to be here today and the opportunity to share a couple of things with you. The question to this panel is: “Shale gas: is it a game changer?” Has anyone ever asked which game? If the game is energy security, the answer should most likely be yes. For the United States that game has already changed, with spillover effects to Europe. The estimates for resources that are technically recoverable are huge. However, as one gentleman mentioned earlier today, “the problem with shale gas is that it is gas” - it releases carbon when burned. Due to limited fossil resources, energy security and reducing carbon emissions were two sides of the same medal, but with so many new discoveries of fossil fuels made, the two problems are less and less aligned. Climate change is becoming ever more urgent, while finding alternatives for dwindling fossil fuel reserves is much less pressing.

Let me make three points:

First: for natural gas to become the “bridge fuel” to a de-carbonized economy many promise it to be, additional policy is needed. “We need to steer it that way,” said Mr. Elkind (DOE) this morning. We need policy to really displace coal-fired power generation and incentivize renewable energy sources. Without such policies, increased supplies and lower prices will lead to more consumption with associated CO2 emissions, more than offsetting emissions savings due to a new preference for gas as the fuel of choice for new power generation. And, as we recently learned from the Cornell study on emissions from shale gas, capture or prevention of fugitive methane emissions is required. The Cornell study (Howarth, 2011) has many questionable assumptions and bad data, but one thing it tells us is that we can’t only look at the emissions from burning the fuel to compare it to alternatives like coal; we need to take into account the complete life-cycle.
To be a bridge fuel means to be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the short term and facilitate a shift to zero-carbon technologies on the long-term. The first can be achieved by substituting natural gas for coal in power generation. MIT’s ‘Future of Natural Gas’ study (MIT, 2010) - as Ms. Kenderdine presented in this same room in February - has shown that there’s significant potential to do that here in the US. The second can be achieved by growing renewable sources, like wind and solar power. On their own, when they grow too big, their intermittency would cause problems on the grid, but with flexible natural gas plants as back-up power, larger shares of renewables are possible. However, as other studies have shown (Tyndall, 2011; RFF, 2009), without market interventions gas won’t play this double role. For gas to displace coal, a price on carbon could work. That would also help renewables. But if it’s not enough, additional incentives should be put in place (such as a strong clean energy standard (CES)). The larger point is that we need to think of natural gas within the energy system at large, go beyond gas-to-gas comparisons, discuss what role it has to play in the transition to an energy efficient, low-carbon economy, and make policy accordingly.
Oil & Gas interests had better lobby for such low-carbon policies than against them. The US is already losing the game that really matters, as China and Europe are pushing ahead with clean technologies. Gas should help the US free itself from its fossil fuel dependence, instead of staying stuck in it.

That brings me to my second point, which is about sustainable extraction, about the need to take a long-term perspective and look beyond the gas glut. As abundant as it may be, shale gas, and the jobs that come with it, are finite resources. Once the gas and the jobs are gone, no-one will ever be able to enjoy their services anymore. That holds true for all fossil fuels. If we’re talking about sustainable production of shale gas, we should not only look at good local environmental practices and short term reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainable extraction requires that part of the revenue from nonrenewable resources is invested in building a renewable substitute (e.g. Daly, 1990), so that the same level of services are available to future generations in a post-gas era. This means that revenues from gas extraction should be used to invest in renewable energy sources and green jobs, in good infrastructure, energy efficient housing, education and innovation. We all have a responsibility to communities and their heirs to prevent the mining-town boom-bust cycle.

My third point is that shale gas may be abundant, but is it really as cheap as we think? Already we see that shale gas production involves considerable social and environmental costs. They vary from place to place, and may not yet be institutionalized, but they are real. If it’s increased crime rates, split communities, water contamination, road degradation, industrialization of places of rural tranquillity or natural beauty, these costs are real and will eventually be factored in. Now they materialize as money spent on the PR battle and lobbying legislatures against stricter rules. They will become more institutionalized when permit fees are raised for stronger oversight and adequate permitting capacity at state departments, when new regulations with better safeguards for individuals, communities and the environment are adopted, and when new infrastructure, to treat waste water for instance, has to be built. Some say such costs will not be a show stopper, but a study by the Oxford Institute (Gény, 2010) estimated that in Europe production costs would be three times higher than currently in the US, which to a large extent is due to the more demanding regulatory context. ExxonMobil recently warned that any new government regulations on hydraulic fracturing could stop shale exploration (Reuters Africa, April 28, 2011). That should be a hint. Could it be that the US is experiencing a “shale bubble”?

To conclude, I hope that - in addition to the energy security and zero-carbon game - shale gas can become a game changer on a third playing field: the way we do business in the public domain. I hope the hydraulic fracturing PR debacle will teach lessons on more cooperative, 21st century decision-making. Instead of door-to-door lease acquisition, why don’t businesses invite NGOs to the table and help organize communities to start a dialogue about sustainable shale gas extraction, and allow time for a consensus to emerge? Failing to do so will get less and less done. When governments see their ability to safeguard public and environmental health compromised by huge debts, more of that responsibility befalls private parties."

A Shale Bubble?

After many violations of regulations, the first marjor undeniable hydraulic fracturing incident happened last week in Pennsylvania. A Marcellus shale well that Chesapeake Energy was hydraulically fracturing blew out, ironically enough on the first anniversary of the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout. Many words that the latter added to our vocabulary - such as 'top kill' and 'junk shot' - could be heard again. Although it remains to be seen what the damage will be, thousands of gallons of fracking fluid have spilled on the surrounding ground. It wouldn't surprise me if the industry's response follows the familiar pattern: they'll say that this is an 'incident', that many thousands of wells have been 'successfully fractured' in the past and that we should not ban a practice that for decades has produced 'clean, American, job-creating gas' based on one incident. It's a repeating pattern, but one that alienates the industry from the people, I believe, and does the business more harm than good. Following reports of violations, incidents and bad PR, public opposition has spread rapidly around the world. With their missteps and aggressive opposition against any new regulations could American companies spoil it for the rest? For Europe, for instance, it becomes much harder to reduce its ever-growing dependence on Russian gas and shut its coal plants if its people won’t allow exploitation of its shale resources. For the American industry itself it means its practices are unqualified for the more complex environments overseas. Some companies, Shell for instance, seem to realize this and have started calling for raising standards and disclosure of the chemicals used for fracturing. For other companies it is in their own interest to follow that example and lobby for stricter regulations and better oversight, as well as incentives for switching to gas for electricity generation and for renewable energy sources. That's how natural gas can earn its label as a bridge fuel to a low-carbon economy. For lawmakers, it is in the interest of American businesses to adopt such measures, starting with the FRAC Act. With stricter regulations may come higher direct costs. Does the Chesapeake well blowout tell us that abundant cheap shale gas is a myth, based on extraordinarily favorable circumstances that only apply in few areas? Have we been living in a shale bubble? Let’s get our feet back on the ground and raise that bar together.

on certainty

At a recent conference I attended, scientists complained that decision makers want 100% certainty when it comes to forecasts of climate change and associated impacts, or else, they say, they can't make decisions. But who's actually using that argument? The decision makers with an interest in the status quo abuse it to take no action. In it lies an illegitimate running away from responsibility, shifting the political burden to science. If they were really looking for more certainty, they should put their money where their mouth is to get it. It's their job to either fund the research that can reduce the uncertainties or take responsibility for not taking action.

Plan B - the Film

I don't know if the DC environmental film festival saved the best for last, but the global premiere of "Plan B" was an excellent picture for the festival's final day. "Plan B" is the film version of the book with the same name by Lester R. Brown. Brown, a renowned environmentalist, travels all over the globe to warn for a collapse of civilization if it continues on the "fossil fuel dependent, automobile centered, throwaway" path it is on. That is Plan A. Plan B is his alternative, world-saving route. This may sound like the next climate alarmist movie, after Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" or DiCaprio's "11th Hour," and alarmist it sure is, but it's different. Plan B turns your attention to food as the critical link in national and global stability. In multiple countries around the world where the state has failed (e.g., Somalia, Sudan), food insecurity played a pivotal role in the failure. So far, those cases of failing states have been isolated ones that took place in very poor countries, safe to ignore for the developed world. But Brown says we'd better watch them, because they could represent sneak peeks into the future, if global food security is increasingly stressed by a growing population, increased affluence, demand for biofuels and continued insults on production-sustaining natural resources, of which climate change is probably the most urgent one. Wherever he travels, Brown now asks the question: How many failing states does it take before global civilization fails? If Brown is right in that we'll see the number of failed states increase because of larger, systemic, and often environmental, causes that are not confined to the failing state itself, we may find ourselves ever more involved in dealing with social turmoil and conflicts, with ever less resources (attention, money) available to deal with the root causes. Hungry people that turn to the streets to protest, will probably not call for CO2 emissions reductions. The window of opportunity for a gradual and peaceful transition to sustainability may rapidly close. Plan B seems the safer bet to me.