Europe's 5 largest airports emit more than Sweden

 

From TransportEnvironment

Europe’s five biggest airports combined pollute more CO2 than the entire Swedish economy with emissions that are almost entirely untaxed, a new airport tracker shows. 

The online airport tracker created by ODI, Transport and Environment (T&E) and the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), uncovers, for the first time, precisely how much CO2 is released from planes leaving airports.

Passenger flights departing London Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt, Amsterdam Schiphol and Madrid Barajas emit[1] 53 million tons of CO2 which is exempt from fuel tax and of which less than 15% is priced into the EU and UK’s cap and trade schemes. These schemes include domestic and EU flights only, meaning flights leaving Europe are not covered.

Jo Dardenne, aviation manager at T&E, said: “Unlike cars or power stations, most flight emissions are released outside of Europe’s borders, leaving the vast bulk of emissions from European airports scandalously overlooked. All flights should be included in the emission trading system, not just the ones within Europe.”

80% of Paris Charles de Gaulle’s emissions, for example, come from long-haul flights, whereas the majority departing from smaller airports, such as Krakow, are short-haul. Pollution from smaller airports is therefore taxed more than those from larger ones which cater for longer, higher-emitting flights.

These undocumented and untaxed carbon emissions are important when considering airport expansions, says the coalition of NGOs. Emissions from the aviation sector grew 5% per year from 2013 to 2018 reaching 2.5% of global CO2 emissions – the 7th biggest emitter globally if it were a country. 

Jo Dardenne concluded: “We can now see the alarming extent of airport emissions and it is clear that the aviation sector isn’t doing enough to curb its pollution. We cannot justify airport expansion in this time of climate crisis.”

All of the major airports mentioned have plans for expansion, most notably Heathrow. Heathrow airport – whose planned expansion has recently been delayed due to Covid –  is responsible for the second largest airport emissions in the world. Its 16.2 million tonnes of CO2 each year is equivalent to that of 8.1 million cars.

Sweden reaches 52% plug-in share

 From CleanTechnica

Sweden started 2022 with an impressive plugin electric vehicle [PHEV + EV] share of 52.3%, up from 33.5% in January 2021.  This is the first time Sweden has started a year with plugins preferred over non-plugins, and their share will only climb throughout 2022. Sweden has thus already “made the switch” to mostly plugin sales. The overall auto market saw volume in line with seasonal norms at 19,890 units. The Kia Niro was January’s best selling full electric.

January’s combined plugin result of 52.9% comprised 25.9% full electrics (BEVs) and 27.0% plugin hybrids (PHEVs), continuing the fairly even weighting we have seen since policy changes in Spring 2021 (before that, PHEVs were heavily dominant).

The trailing quarter share for plugins now stands at 56.4%, from 41.9% year-on-year, a substantial step up. BEVs alone are now at 30.2% over the trailing quarter.

With plugins now clearly favoured over plugless vehicles in Sweden, we can expect their share to steadily climb in the months ahead, reaching above 60% in September and into the 70% range in December. We should see BEVs alone get very close to 50% in December.

Source: CleanTechnica
Including simple hybrids, the electric share is 61.4%

Sweden pushes for real green steel

 From CleanTechnica

HYBRIT and H2 Green Steel have launched projects in Sweden with a target to manufacture 10 million tonnes (mt) of fossil fuel-free crude (green) steel per year by 2030. Success, of course, depends on the numbers adding up, or rather, the numbers going down.

To make green steel, you need green hydrogen; to make green hydrogen, you need cheap renewable energy. HYBRIT and H2 Green Steel believe this will come from wind power at a LCOE of $30 per megawatt-hour. With the trajectory of costs for renewable energy going ever downward, it is likely they will be able to achieve this.

Add to the mix the increasing costs of carbon and the pressure to decarbonize, and you have a winner. It is expected that a carbon credits will be available to green steel producers of around $85 per ton. 

Sweden is a relatively small producer of steel and this target of 10 mt is three times what is currently being produced in the Scandinavian country. However:  “The country boasts Europe’s largest iron ore reserves and excellent renewable energy resources — two primary prerequisites for the production of green hydrogen and decarbonized crude steel,” writes Wood Mackenzie principal analyst Sohaib Malik.

“According to Malik, at a levelled cost of electricity at $30 per megawatt-hour, wind power is a highly economical source of power generation in Sweden today. Meanwhile, further cost reductions are expected with better financing structures for onshore wind, lower capex for onshore and offshore installations, technological optimization for asset management and state support for offshore grid infrastructure.”

Another part of the green steel mix that needs to be factored in is the method for the production of green hydrogen — in this case, alkaline electrolysis technology. The costs associated with this are expected to halve by 2030, enabling a levelled cost of $1 per kilogram of green hydrogen using onshore wind power.

Photo by David Becker on Unsplash

Sweden's plug-in share reaches 60%

 From CleanTechnica

Sweden saw a record high 60.7% plugin electric vehicle share in December, up from 49.4% share year-on-year. Full battery electric vehicles took the largest share, with 36.4%, greater than the combined share of old-school petrol and diesel vehicles (32.3%). The overall auto market saw 27,582 sales, the lowest December result of recent years.

December’s combined plugin result of 60.7% comprised a record 36.4% for full battery electrics (BEVs), with plugin hybrids (PHEVs) taking 24.3%. This continues a shift in weighting towards BEVs over recent months.

The full year 2021 result for combined plugins stood at 45% (with BEVs alone at 19.1%), up from 32% (with BEVs at 9.5%) in full year 2020.

Looking at Q4 2021 — a more current sample of the state of play — BEVs’ share climbed dramatically to 29.3% from 13.1% in Q4 2020. PHEVs meanwhile fell slightly year-on-year, from 29.0% to 26.6%.

Highlighting the surge in BEVs, their December 2021 volume increased 6.5x from that seen 24 months ago, in December 2019. The equivalent growth in PHEV volumes is a more modest 2x.

The world's first fossil-free steel vehicle

 From Forbes

The 21st century has no shortage of companies claiming “world’s first” status for their products. Few stand up to sustained scrutiny. So when Volvo today unveiled an autonomous vehicle produced using fossil-free steel, how big a deal was it?

Short answer: pretty big. Though the devil is in the detail.

Volvo CEO Martin Lundstedt presented the four-wheeled, autonomous and fully electric machine at a press conference in Copenhagen alongside counterparts from Swedish steel makers SSAB and Ovako, who are collaborating with Volvo in an effort to bring to market vehicles that are manufactured with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. SSAB CEO Martin Lindqvist said at the launch: “Having the world’s first actual vehicle made using SSAB’s fossil-free steel is a true milestone. Our collaboration with Volvo Group shows that green transition is possible and brings results.”

The vehicle in question is a load carrier, designed for use in quarrying and mining, and capable of working in convoy with other autonomous vehicles to pick up and transport material around a pre-programmed route. Powered by an electric motor, the vehicle produces no emissions when in operation. 

But as the title suggests, the most groundbreaking aspect of the vehicle is that the steel used in its construction was produced without using fossil fuels. That steel is, in fact, the same material reported on by Forbes Sustainability in August, when Swedish steelmaker SSAB, along with energy company Vattenfall and iron ore miner LKAB, teamed up to deliver the world’s first shipment of fossil fuel-free steel, replacing the coal traditionally used in the steelmaking process with green hydrogen derived from electrolysis.

That really was a big deal. While emissions from the energy sector and direct emissions from transport are relatively easy to reduce—usually by abandoning combustion in favor of electrification—getting coal out of steel production was thought to be a more complex challenge. Yet with their new technology, SSAB and its partners appeared to have cracked it. 

“When we have been talking about ‘fossil free’ in the transport sector, we have been focusing a lot on emissions from the vehicles in use. But it's clear to us and to everyone else that we also need to address the carbon footprint from the production of our vehicles,” Volvo Group’s Chief Technology Officer Lars Stenqvist told me via video link. “That's why it's so important now to team up with everyone in the value chain and collaborate in order to drive out all the fossil fuel also used in the production of components, parts and also running our production facilities.”

There is, however, a caveat to the “fossil free” claim—namely that not all of the steel in the vehicle is, in fact, fossil fuel-free. While the bucket and major parts of the chassis do hail from Volvo’s coal-free collaboration with SSAB, parts such as the electric motor were made with conventional materials by a supplier, the name of which Stenqvist could not divulge.

So note Volvo’s wording: the firm describes the vehicle as having been made using fossil fuel-free steel; nowhere is the claim made that the steel used to make it is entirely fossil fuel-free.

Nevertheless, Stenqvist said the vehicle represents a breakthrough for low-emissions vehicle production.

“I don’t have the percentage exactly, but the majority of the steel in this vehicle is fossil free,” he said, further divulging that of the carrier’s 8-ton-plus total weight, 3 tons were produced from fossil fuel-free steel. Factoring in the weight of the tires, various plastics and non-ferrous components in such an electric vehicle, the “majority” claim sounds reasonable enough.

“For a chief technology officer it’s a fantastic day,” Stenqvist continued. “For me it was rather obvious that [choosing the load carrier to be the first fossil-free vehicle] was a good choice because it was in the forefront of all these technologies: full electric, fully autonomous and based on fossil-free steel. I mean that mix is unbeatable.”

United Airlines to acquire 100 electric planes

 

From ClimateCrocks

United Airlines on Tuesday said it will buy 100 ES-19 aircraft from the Sweden-based electric aircraft startup Heart Aerospace. 

The Chicago carrier will invest an undisclosed amount in the new airplanes, which must first meet United’s safety, business and operating requirements.

Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures will also invest an undisclosed amount as will Arizona’s Mesa Airlines, which will add 100 ES-19 aircraft to its fleet.

“Electric aircraft are happening now—the technology is already here,” CEO of Heart Aerospace Anders Forslund said in the release. “We couldn’t be prouder to be partnering with United, Mesa and BEV on taking our ES-19 aircraft to market. I can’t imagine a stronger coalition of partners to advance our mission to electrify short-haul air travel.”

The ES-19, a 19-seat electric airplane, has the potential to fly customers up to 250 miles. 

The ES-19 will be larger than its all-electric competitors and will operate on the same types of batteries used in electric cars.  By using electric motors instead of jet engines, and batteries instead of jet fuel, Heart’s ES-19 aircraft will have zero operational emissions.

The ES-19 could hit the market as early as 2026.

From Heart Aerospace's website:

Electric aircraft have zero emissions and offer a comfortable, quiet flight experience. The significantly reduced direct operating costs also enable electric aircraft to develop new routes, or restore legacy routes, that were not profitable with gas turbine powered aircraft. This offers a unique opportunity to improve regional air mobility and connectivity for everyone.

The ES-19 is much quieter than any fossil-fuel aircraft, and the engine vibrations that can be felt on smaller aircraft are virtually eliminated. The aircraft is fully fly-by-wire, and actively compensates for turbulence, ensuring a smoother ride in all weather conditions. The all-metal fuselage is fully pressurised.

Our first-generation aircraft will have a maximum range of up to 400 km (250 miles), which will increase as battery energy densities improve.

Our electric motor is about 20 times less expensive than a similarly-size[d] turboprop, and about a 100 times less expensive than the cheapest turbofan. More importantly, maintenance costs are more than 100 times lower. These lower operating costs will make 19-seater electric aircraft competitive to 70-seater turboprop aircraft. 

Air travel contributes to about 2% of global CO2 emissions, and emissions are growing exponentially at a rate of about 5% a year. Some analysts predict that by 2050, about 25% of global CO2 emissions will come from aviation alone. Fossil-fuel aircraft also emit NOx, soot, water vapour and other  greenhouse gases. According to recent studies, the overall effect of these emissions can be triple of those of CO2 alone.

While it’s impossible to predict the future, it is unlikely that we will be able to cross the Atlantic on battery-powered passenger planes any time soon. However, electric aircraft will play an important role in decarbonising short-haul air travel. 

About 9% of global emissions [from air transport] are from routes under 400 km, which we believe we can start to address already by the middle of this decade. Our long term goal is to electrify all short-haul travel, i.e. all trips under 1300 km, by the year 2050. Today, these trips account for about 33% of global emissions. The total emissions from air travel is expected to rise to 2.8 Gigatons by 2050.

Electric aircraft will not be viable for long-haul routes anytime soon, and therefore, it is only part of the solution for decarbonising air travel. Hydrogen and biofuels can be looked to for these applications.

However, what sets electric aircraft apart are the unit economics. Whereas biofuels today are much more expensive than fossil fuels, and hydrogen aircraft would require a whole new infrastructure and operations, electric aircraft present a major cost advantage to airlines. Further, the ubiquity of the electricity network makes it relatively easy for airports to install chargers.

The ES-19 is designed to be an electric STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing) aircraft  It is designed to operate from runways as short as 750m and will have steep approach capability.

Charge time is largely dependent on the available charging infrastructure but with the recommended charging, we can charge an ES-19 in less than 40 minutes for an average mission.

Heart’s ES-19 will have a similar acquisition price and offer direct operating costs (energy and maintenance) 50 – 70% lower than competing fossil fuel powered aircraft. In the full aircraft context, battery acquisition costs are less than 2% of the aircraft price. This is very different to road EV’s where batteries comprise about 30% of the car cost. Battery cycle amortisation costs are less than 10% of the ES-19s direct operating cost.

Battery costs have fallen by almost 10x since 2010. According to the latest forecast from research company BloombergNEF (BNEF), “Battery prices, which were above $1,100 per kilowatt-hour in 2010, have fallen 87% in real terms to $156/kWh in 2019. By 2023, average prices will be close to $100/kWh.” BNEF cites a longer term forecast of batteries costing $61/kWh by 2030.

In our direct operating costs-model, we assume 1000 cycles [battery life]. This is a slight increase from the electric aircraft certified today – the Pipistrel Velis Electro – which has a cycle life of 800 cycles. However, we do think it’s achievable to reach 3000 cycles, or even more, depending on the specific route. Even so, if an aircraft is used ten times a day, batteries will need to be replaced on a yearly basis.

Meanwhile, long-distance flights may well be carried out using suborbital Starship, fuelled with green methane, produced by the Sabatier process, and small short-range electric planes will be used to fly people to the spaceport.

See this related article:

Mesa Airlines has also signed up for 100 electric planes

Record heat in the Arctic circle

The midnight sun shines at the border area between Finland and Norway in Kilpisjarvi, Enontekio, Finland, on June 22, 2020. Finland’s national meteorological institute has registered its hottest temperature for June since records began in 1844. Photograph: LEHTIKUVA/Reuters

From The Guardian:

 

Nordic countries have registered near-record temperatures over the weekend, including highs of 34C (93.2F) in some places.

The latest figures came after Finland’s national meteorological institute registered its hottest temperature for June since records began in 1844.

Kevo, in Lapland, recorded heat of 33.6C (92.5F) on Sunday, the hottest day since 1914 when authorities registered 34.7C (94.5F), said the STT news agency. Several parts of Sweden also reported record highs for June.

The high temperatures follow the record-breaking heatwave and wildfires that have caused devastation in parts of North America.

The intense heatwave has killed 95 people in the US state of Oregon alone, its governor said on Sunday. Hundreds are believed to have died from the heat in the US north-west and south-western Canada.

Michael Reeder, a professor of meteorology in the school of Earth, atmosphere and environment at Australia’s Monash University, said the events on the European and North American continents were not unlinked.

Reeder has written about the meteorological conditions that allowed for the North American heatwave to form. He said a tropical low in the western Pacific, near Japan, had disturbed the atmosphere, creating ripples around the hemisphere as what is known as a Rossby wave.

That wave broke off the west of Canada, triggering the conditions for the heatwave.

“It’s like plucking a guitar string. The disturbance propagated along the jet stream,” Reeder said.

“It gets to North America, it (amplified) and produced a big high pressure system in the middle part of the atmosphere.”

He said that had then kicked off another wave over the north Atlantic that then broke and produced the conditions for high temperatures in the Nordic regions.

“So from that perspective, the high temperatures over Scandinavia are directly linked to what happened in North America.”

From LiveScience:

On the summer solstice (June 20 — the longest day of the year) two European Union satellites recorded a scorching temperature of 118 degrees Fahrenheit (48 degrees Celsius ) on the ground in Arctic Siberia.

This isn't quite a new heat record; as a post on the EU's Copernicus satellite website noted, this egg-boiling temperature was detected only on the ground in Siberia's Sakha Republic, while the region's air temperature (the temperature people would actually feel while walking around) was a toasty 86 F (30 C).

However, that's still an anomalously high temperature for the Arctic Circle — and one that could exacerbate the region's melting permafrost, which is the only thing preventing ancient caches of greenhouse gases from reentering Earth's atmosphere, according to Gizmodo.

The EU's Copernicus Sentinal-3A and 3B satellites recorded the high temperatures in the midst of an ongoing heat wave over much of Siberia. The heat spike is, unfortunately, a predictable start to summer, following a spring that saw hundreds of wildfires scorching the Siberian countryside and blacking out major cities with blankets of smoke.

Many of these spring fires were "zombie fires," so named because they are thought to be the rekindled remains of wildfires that ignited the previous summer and were never fully extinguished. The zombie fires smoldered for months under winter ice and snow, fed by the carbon-rich peat below the surface. When the spring melt arrived, the old fires blazed anew, Live Science previously reported.

If last summer is any indication, the hot solstice temperatures are just the beginning. Precisely one year ago, on June 20, 2020, the same region of Siberia recorded the first 100 F (38 C) day above the Arctic Circle — the hottest temperature ever recorded there. The sweltering day in Siberia fits into a larger climate change trend. For years, average temperatures in the Arctic have been rising at a far faster rate than anywhere else on Earth, largely due to melting sea ice induced by man-made global warming.

This is the frigging Arctic, people.  Not the Middle East.  Nor Outback Australia.  It has to be obvious to everybody (except those whose salaries depend on their blind eyes) that climate change is happening right now.  We don't have to wait for another 30 years to see its consequences.  They're crystal clear.  Right now, And we must act now to prevent it getting worse.

Wooden wind turbine

Sweden's first wooden wind power tower, standing 30 m high, has been erected outside Gothenburg
Source: New Atlas

From New Atlas:

The wheels have begun to turn on an interesting new form of wind turbine in Sweden, with the country’s first wooden power-generation tower now complete. Built from sustainably sourced materials and said to offer comparable performance to traditional wind turbines, it's hoped the wooden power tower will be a harbinger of cheaper and greener solutions for renewable energy in the Nordic country, with commercial versions planned for a couple of years down the track.

Following in the footsteps of a similar creation in Germany, the new wooden wind tower is the brainchild of Swedish engineering firm Modvion, which is out to improve on what it sees as significant drawbacks when it comes to typical wind towers. These tall, steel towers demand thick bases to support their upper sections, which not only makes them very expensive to produce, but very expensive to transport to site, with rules around load size on public roads often proving problematic.

Modvion is instead working on a modular version that can be made out of cheaper and greener materials than steel, which requires huge amounts of energy to produce. The company’s wooden wind towers are designed to reach heights of more than 120 m (393 ft), at significantly lower cost than those made out of steel, with the modular approach allowing for stackable sections to be transported on public roads without issue. They are also claimed to be carbon neutral from the day construction begins.

The 30-meter (100-ft) proof-of-concept tower was built together with wood construction company Moelven at its facility in Töreboda. The wooden sections of the turbine were then transported to Björkö, an island outside Gothenburg around 200 km (124 mi) away, with the final piece put into place in late April.

"This is a major breakthrough that paves the way for the next generation of wind turbines," says Otto Lundman, CEO of Modvion AB. "Laminated wood is stronger than steel at the same weight and by building in modules, the wind turbines can be taller. By building in wood, we also reduce carbon dioxide emissions in manufacturing and instead store carbon dioxide in the design."

Inside the wooden wind turbine tower.
Source:  New Atlas

The Titanic moment--beyond the point of no return

‘Knowing how long societies have to react to pull the brake on the Earth’s climate and then how long it will take for the ship to slow down is the difference between a climate emergency and a manageable problem.’ Photograph: Topical Press Agency/Getty Images

A fascinating article from the Guardian.

Formula for climate emergency shows if ‘reaction time is longer than intervention time left’ then ‘we have lost control’

When is an emergency really an emergency?

If you’re the captain of the Titanic, approaching a giant iceberg with the potential to sink your ship becomes an emergency only when you realise you might not have enough time to steer a safe course.

And so it is, says Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, when it comes to the climate emergency.

Knowing how long societies have to react to pull the brake on the Earth’s climate and then how long it will take for the ship to slow down is the difference between a climate emergency and a manageable problem.

Rather than being something abstract and open to interpretation, Schellnhuber says the climate emergency is something with clear and calculable risks that you could put into a formula. And so he wrote one:

Emergency = R × U 
R= p × D   
U = τ / T

Risk (R) = probability (p) ×  damage  (D)
Urgency (U) = reaction time (τ) /   time left to avoid a bad outcome  (T)

This is a fascinating way to look at it.  

Over the last 30 or 40 years, the perception of p and D has risen dramatically, while T has fallen sharply.  It seemed logical to many in 1970 to argue that the damage (D) from climate change would likely be low, and the thesis that CO2 would raise global temperatures, while interesting, was still untested.  It was also thought that we had lots of time (T) .  It seemed to politicians and the public that action wasn't urgent.  Now we know, as a fact, that global warming is happening, and that it's caused by rising levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and they are caused by us.  And the negative consequences of global warming are happening faster than was thought even just 10 years ago.  R has risen sharply and so has U.  And τ looks as if it is longer than we might have thought.  Getting individual countries to act is taking too long.  Denialists, either funded by fossil fuel interests, or useful idiots, continue to lie about climate change. 

The article continues:

In a comment article in the journal Nature, Schellnhuber and colleagues explained that to understand the climate emergency we needed to quantify the relationship between risk (R) and urgency (U).

Borrowing from the insurance industry, the scientists define risk (R) as the probability of something happening (p) multiplied by damage (D).

For example, how likely is it that sea levels will rise by a metre and how much damage will that cause.

Urgency (U) is the time it takes you to react to an issue (τ) “divided by the intervention time left to avoid a bad outcome (T)”, they wrote.

Schellnhuber, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, tells Guardian Australia the work on the formula was just the “tip of a mathematical iceberg” in defining the climate emergency.

“It can be illustrated by the Titanic disaster, but it applies to many severe risks where you can calculate the do-nothing/business-as-usual probability of a highly damaging event,” he says. “Yet there are options to avoid the disaster.

“In other words, this a control problem.”

There is a time lag between the rapid cuts to greenhouse gases and the climate system reacting. Knowing if you have enough time tells you if you’re in an emergency or not.

Schellnhuber used “standard risk analysis and control theory” to come up with the formula, and he was already putting numbers to it.

“As a matter of fact, the intervention time left for limiting global warming to less than 2C is about 30 [years] at best. The reaction time – time needed for full global decarbonisation - is at least 20 [years].”

As the scientists write in Nature, if the “reaction time is longer than the intervention time left” then “we have lost control”.

Schellnhuber says: “Beyond that critical point, only some sort of adaptation option is left, such as moving the Titanic passengers into rescue boats (if available).”

[Read more here]

So let's see what kind of cuts to emissions are needed.  Instead of zero carbon by 2050, let's say we must cut emissions by 90%, to 10% of what they are today, though obviously we will go on cutting emissions after 2050.  It's just that we need to get there by 2050 or the rise in global temperatures will exceed 2 degrees C. The 10% left will be offset by tree-planting (or any other workable de-carbonisation method.)  To achieve a 90% cut in emissions, we need to cut them by a compound 7.4% per annum.  Which will be very hard to do, i.e., τ is greater than T.  Which means we have lost control.  It's an emergency.  A Titanic moment.  The iceberg is up ahead and cretins and fools are still lying about it.

What if we settle on an 80% cut by 2050?  That will require a compound rate of decline of 5% per annum.  We might be able to offset the remaining 20% by tree-planting.  Maybe.

So at a bare minimum, we must cut emissions by a cumulative compound 5% per annum, preferably more, to avoid an emergency.  How?

1. No more coal power stations must be built anywhere, ever.  That means we must lean on China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa and other laggards to stop building coal power stations now.  In the "West", coal power stations are being shuttered, because they're old and getting near the end of their lives, and new coal power stations are too costly compared to renewables and gas.  The exception is Australia, where a government of more than usual stupidity wants to build a new coal power station with a government subsidy.  Just because it'll irritate the "greenies" and "leftists".
2. The big falls in European electricity generated by coal have come about because of the European carbon price, which is (finally!) biting hard.  The moral of that story is that we need a carbon price everywhere, and countries which have one should levy taxes on imports from countries which do not.  I have no doubt that (a) a carbon price won't impact growth (see Sweden and British Columbia and Australia, when we had a carbon price) and (b) will cut emissions drastically.  It could start at $20 a tonne of CO2, rising  by $3/tonne each year thereafter. The small (in absolute) terms rise in the European carbon price has had a significant impact on coal usage.  The proceeds of a carbon tax could be distributed to the people as a monthly "carbon dividend".  This will reduce political opposition.
3. After electricity generation, vehicle emissions are the next largest, and will likely mean that this year's total global emissions won't fall, even though coal-sourced emissions will fall by 3%.  (In the USA, vehicle emissions now exceed emissions from the power sector.)  EVs should get a subsidy of $5-$10K per car when you buy a new one, falling by $1000 each year, because battery costs are plunging and subsidies won't be needed in 5 or 10 years' time.  And the carbon tax should apply to petrol (gasoline) and diesel, to make the incentive to switch even stronger.
4. We need an end to fossil fuel subsidies.  A carbon price will start to offset indirect subsidies (the cost to society of air pollution and carbon emissions) but direct subsidies (cheap govt loans, tax exemptions, export subsidies, etc.) have to be eliminated. 

Those steps will be enough for the next 10 years.  Transitioning electricity generation to renewables and our vehicle fleet to electric engines will cut emissions by 50%.  A 50 % decline over the next 15 years (eminently feasible) would be a compound annual decline of 5%.  It's what we have to do if we are to cut τ to as short a period as possible.  But if, as each year goes by, we see that emissions are not falling by the required 5-7% per annum, we will need to tighten the screws so that they do, for example by raising the annual increment in the carbon price from $3 to $5.  And we need to start working now on iron & steel, cement production, air transport and agriculture, so that in 10 years we can start cutting their emissions drastically too. 

It is unquestionably very close to a climate emergency.  Unless we act now, τ will be greater than T which means we will have lost control.   But we can act.  We are rational, we are informed, we have the technologies to slash emissions,.  Whether we'll cut τ enough remains to be seen.  Only serious, concerted, determined global action by everybody will do.  Think of that when you cast your next vote, or choose your next electricity supplier, or choose whether to have meat or vegetarian for your next meal.  

Viking economics

Scandinavia provides an alternative vision of economics and democracy to the kind of red-in-tooth-and-claw version that the USA practices, and which neo-liberals and economists have tried to make the standard ideology around the world.  Though policies differ in detail from country to country within Scandinavia, the general picture is one of high taxes, comprehensive welfare states, low inequality, low crime, low unemployment, free education and free health, and according to surveys, some of the happiest people in the developed world.  Despite all these things that the neo-liberal right deeply despises, somehow they also manage to have reasonable per capita growth (for developed countries—developing countries tend to have higher growth).

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

I’d like to tell you I’ve been away working hard on a study tour of the Nordic economies – or perhaps tracing the remnant economic impact of the Hanseatic League (look it up) – but the truth is we were too busy enjoying the sights around Scandinavia and the Baltic for me to spend much time reading the books and papers I’d taken along.

But since I always like telling people what I did on my holidays (oh, those fjords and waterfalls we saw while sailing up the coast of Norway to the Arctic Circle!), I’ve been looking up facts and figures in a forthcoming book comparing the main developed countries on many criteria, by my mate Professor Rod Tiffen and others at Sydney University (including me).

But first, the travelogue. Prosperous countries have a lot in common but Scandinavia is different. I have seen the future and, while some might regard it as political correctness gone mad, it looked pretty good to me.

One aspect in which the Nordics (strictly speaking, Finland isn’t Scandinavian because it’s a republic rather than a monarchy and because the Finnish language bears no relation to Danish, Swedish or Norwegian) are way more advanced is the role of women.

All of them have had female prime ministers or presidents, they have loads of female politicians and we were always seeing women out at business functions with their male colleagues.

Governments spend much more on childcare and they’re big on men actually taking paid paternity leave. They have “family zones” in trains and we were struck by how many men we saw by themselves pushing prams.

They’re much more relaxed on sexual matters. These days, any new building in Sweden will have unisex toilets, with rows of cubicles and not a urinal to be seen. Neat way of sidestepping debates about which toilet transgender people should use.

The Nordics are well ahead of us on environmental matters. They’re bicycle crazy (a big health hazard for tourists who don’t know they’re standing in a bike lane) and drive small cars.

They’re obsessed with organic food and even hotel guests are expected to recycle their paper and plastic. One hotel we stayed at in Copenhagen was so concerned to save the planet its policy was to make up the rooms only every fourth day.

The Norwegians have made and, unlike the rest of us, saved their pile by selling oil to the world but you get the feeling it troubles their conscience. So, like the other Nordics, they have ambitious targets to move to renewables and, to that end, are making more use of carbon pricing than most other countries.

The truth is, I’ve long wanted to see Scandinavia for myself. It’s a part of the world that most politicians and economists prefer not to think about. Why not? Because its performance laughs at all they believe about how to run a successful economy.

Everyone in the English-speaking economies knows big government is the enemy of efficiency. The less governments do, the better things go. The lower we can get our taxes, the more we’ll grow.

Just ask Scott Morrison. As he loves to say, no one ever taxed their way to prosperity. What’s he doing to encourage jobs and growth? Cutting taxes, of course. That’s Economics 101 – so obvious it doesn’t need explaining.

Trouble is, the Nordics have some of the highest rates of government spending in the world and pay among the highest levels of taxation but have hugely successful economies.

The Danes pay 46 per cent of gross domestic product in total taxes, the Finns pay 44 per cent, the Swedes 43 per cent and the Norwegians 38 per cent (compared with our 28 per cent).

Measured by GDP per person, Norway's standard of living is well ahead of America's. Then come the Danes and the Swedes – at around the average for 18 developed democracies (as are we) – with the Finns just beating out the Brits and the French further down the list.

The Nordics are also good at managing their government budgets.

We all know unions are bad for jobs and growth and we’ve succeeded in getting our rate of union membership down to 17 per cent. Funny that, the Nordics still have the highest rates (up around two-thirds), so, do they have lots of strikes? No.

The four Nordics are right at the top when it comes to the smallest gap between rich and poor, with Canada, Australia, Britain and the United States right at the bottom.

Other indicators show that (provided you ignore the long snowy winters) the Nordics enjoy a high quality of life and not just a high material standard of living.

Note this, I’m not claiming that the Scandinavians are more economically successful because of their big government and high taxes. No, I’m saying that, contrary to the unshakable beliefs of many economists and all conservative politicians, there’s little connection between economic success and the size of government.

So how do the Scandis do it? I read this on the wall of an art museum in Aarhus, Denmark: “In a society we are mutually interdependent. Strengthening the spirit of community, we improve society for all of us as a group but we also provide each individual with better opportunities for realising his or her own potential.”

Source
Note: US population growth rates are higher than Scandinavian

Source

So deeply are the neo-liberal tenets held in Anglophone countries that no matter how much evidence is produced showing that the Scandinavian model works, I doubt that we will ever move towards their system.  Sad.

Storing solar energy for 18 years

Hang on, what?  18 years?

Source: ZME Science

From ZME Science:

Swedish researchers have developed a new liquid that can store solar heat for almost two decades.

The main drawback of solar power is that we’re yet to develop reliable, dense, and long-term storage for the energy that it generates. Our only realistic option at this time are batteries, but they’re quite expensive, use on rare or polluting materials, and have a limited capacity. The current research, however, might provide exactly the breakthrough that the industry needs — the new compound, a specialized fluid called solar thermal fuel, can store and release solar heat for up to 18 years.

“The energy in this isomer can now be stored for up to 18 years,” says one of the team, nanomaterials scientist Kasper Moth-Poulsen from Chalmers University.

“And when we come to extract the energy and use it, we get a warmth increase which is greater than we dared hope for.”

What makes this fluid stand out is its interaction with sunlight. When exposed to sunlight, the bonds between the molecule’s atoms get rearranged and stabilize in an energized form — an isomer (called quadricyclane). This transforms heat energy from the sun into chemical energy that can be stored and released. The isomer itself is stable enough to last unaltered for up to 18 years (which is a lot), even at room temperatures.

When the energy is needed, the ‘charged’ fluid can be drawn through a catalyst that unpacks the molecule to its original form. The excess chemical energy is given off as heat.

A prototype rig using this new fuel is already undergoing tests on one of the university’s buildings, the team adds. The system is based on a circuit that pumps the fluid through transparent tubes under a concave reflector (this focuses sunlight on the fuel). The charged fuel is then pumped into storage. The whole installation acts much like a sunflower, tracking the Sun as it moves across the sky.

When the energy is needed, the fluid is filtered through the catalyst, warming it by 63 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit). The team hopes that the heat can be used in various roles around the house — heating systems, dishwashers, anything and everything, really — before being pumped back to the roof once again.

“We have made many crucial advances recently, and today we have an emissions-free energy system which works all year around,” says Moth-Poulsen.

So far, the researchers have tested their fuel through 125 such cycles without observing any significant damage to the molecule. Furthermore, they report that one kilogram of the fuel can store 250 watt-hours of energy — which is double what a Tesla Powerwall can boast. However, they’re confident that there are still areas where the fuel can be improved. They hope to have the system generate at least 110 degrees Celsius (230 degrees Fahrenheit) more with further tweaks.

[Read more here]

Universal healthcare

A twitter thread by Christian Christensen:

He also tweeted this chart, which shows how the number of women dying per 100,000 births:

See also Shit Life Syndrome, where I talk about the USA's declining life expectancy.

Neo-liberalism has failed.

Sweden's carbon tax

Stockholm's archipelago (source)

If we have to have a tax, we should tax "bads" rather than "goods".  For example, you should tax junk food rather than greens, tobacco rather than water, and so on.

A carbon tax raises revenue for the government which allows other taxes to be cut, or allows spending to be higher, just like any other tax.  Carbon emissions are a "bad".  Burning fossil fuels is unambiguously bad.  Carbon dioxide produced when fossil fuels burn is raising global temperatures, and that rise is imposing costs on society, so on equity grounds we should discourage, even penalise the emissions of carbon dioxide.  Plus burning coal and oil produces air pollution, which causes ill health and death.  This also justifies a carbon tax.  Obviously, when you introduce a carbon tax, you start out low and slowly increase it year by year, because introducing a high carbon tax in one go would cause major economic disruption.

But if it is introduced at a low rate and gradually stepped up, does it reduce economic growth?  The Swedish experience says not.

Sweden has the rare distinction of having consistently curbed carbon dioxide emissions over the past two-and-a-half decades while enjoying solid growth. In so doing, it has set a model that much of the world could emulate.

Sweden introduced a CO2 tax in 1991. At the time, the price was EUR29 per ton, and it has since risen to today’s price of EUR137 per ton – the highest CO2 tax rate in the world. The effect of such a tax on fossil fuel consumption has been, among other things, a rise in the contribution of biomass to district-level heating from 25 percent in 1990, to 70 percent in 2012.

Speaking at a recent High Level Assembly of the Carbon Price Leadership Coalition, Swedish Minister of Finance Magdalena Andersson, said “We’ve had GDP growth of 60 percent, and at the same time, our emissions have been reduced by 25 percent. So, it shows that absolute decoupling is possible.”

[Read more here]

By the way, Sweden suffered a deep recession in 1992/93, caused by (what else?) excessive lending for property by banks, and without that, GDP growth since 1991 would be more like 66%.

The tax is more complicated than the statement above implies.  See this interesting blog post.  Industry pays a carbon tax 80% lower than consumers.  Now if the tax were a purely revenue raising exercise, then that might be justified, in the same way VAT is refunded when goods are exported.  But if it's designed to cut carbon emissions, then everybody who emits CO2 should pay the tax, because the whole point is to provide a price signal to discourage the burning of fossil fuels.  Even despite this flaw, Sweden's energy intensity (energy use/GDP) has fallen 54%.  This is a remarkable achievement.  British Columbia's carbon tax also appeared to have no effect on growth while reducing carbon emissions. 

A carbon tax is undoubtedly one of the best ways to reduce carbon emissions.  If it starts at (say) $10 per ton of CO2 emissions, and rises by $2.50 a year, it will push our economies towards zero carbon, while not reducing living standards.  One megawatt-hour of coal-fired electricity creates approximately one tonne of carbon dioxide.  (Source)  So a $10 per tonne carbon tax will up the cost of coal-fired electricity by $10.  As each year goes by, the impulse to switch to renewables would increase, steadily and inexorably, and each year, CO2 emissions would fall.