Originally posted on Climate and Capitalism
http://climateandcapitalism.blogspot.com/

THE EMISSIONS INTENSITY HOAX

By Ian Angus

As I've written previously, the Climate Change Denial Industry is
still active despite the IPCC Report — but it's also true that it has
become unfashionable as an explicit political stance, at least in
Canada. After years of inaction, politicians of every stripe are
actively seeking to outdo each other in pledges to fight global
warming.

For Conservative Party politicians, the preferred approach is
restrictions on "emissions intensity." The idea is to encourage
industry to invest in R&D that will reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions per unit of output. This will make Canada a leader
in "green technology" that "we" (ie, the corporations that back the
Conservative Party) can sell worldwide. Canadian capitalism will do
well by doing good.

First out of the gate was the Conservative government of Alberta, the
province whose industries generate 31% of Canada's GHG emissions,
despite having a population and GDP share just over 10%

On March 8, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach announced a bill to require
about 100 large facilities, which together produce about 70% of the
province's emissions, to cut their emissions intensity by 12% this
year. That sounds tougher than it really is, since the plan allows
companies that don't meet the goal to instead pay $15 per excess
tonne into a government technology fund, or to invest in an "Alberta-
based offset."

Federal Prime Minister Stephen Harper (also a Conservative) stood
beside Stelmach when the "Specified Gas Emitters Regulation" was
announced, endorsing the Alberta approach. "All Canadians are looking
for a balance between economic growth and environmental protection,"
Harper told reporters. "Finding that balance is the fundamental
challenge of our time."

Harper is expected to announce his own emissions intensity program
next month. "We'll treat all regions and sectors equitably and those
will be the minimum standards we will expect in every province in
Canada," he said. (Canwest News, March 9, 2007)

It's easy to show that controls on emissions intensity don't
necessarily reduce actual emissions. If the oil sands reduce their
intensity by 12%, while increasing production by 20%, total emissions
will increase.

That's simple math — but it isn't just playing with numbers. Way back
in 1865, Stanley Jevons noted that a 66% reduction in the coal needed
to produce steel had resulted in a 1000% increase in the amount of
coal used in the steel industry over 30 years. It was more efficient,
so coal was cheaper, so the industry used it to vastly increase
production. That observation was generalized in the 20th Century into
what economists call the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate — lower energy
costs result in increased energy use.

But we don't have to take our argument from Victorian England or from
abstract economic theory. Statistics published this month in a report
by the Chief Economist of CIBC World Markets (the
investment/brokerage arm of Canada's fifth largest bank) prove that
the processes described by Khazzoom and Brookes have been fully
operational in Canada.

In eight of the ten provinces, the Tories' much-vaunted "emissions
intensity" improved between 1990 and 2004, while actual emissions got
much worse. Canada as a whole increased its emissions by 27% (that's
33% over the Kyoto target) while intensity improved by 14%.

This CIBC chart shows the bottom line from 1990 to 2004, and extends
it to 2012, by which time Canada's GHG emissions will be 45% over the
Kyoto target, despite a 25% improvement in emissions intensity.

In the words of the CIBC report:

"To date, Ottawa has emphasized reductions in emission intensity as
the focus of its global warming fight, with intensity simply a
measure of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of real GDP.
Unfortunately, in an expanding economy, intensity targets are an
effectively meaningless tool for stabilizing, let alone reducing, the
absolute level of greenhouse gas emissions. ….

"At current rates of economic growth, achieving the Kyoto emissions
target would then require a quantum leap in energy efficiency: annual
reductions in intensity that are roughly four times the current
trend."

What the report doesn't say is that a 400% percent increase in energy
efficiency would reduce production costs for the oil sands and coal-
fired power plants and other big emitters. That would allow them to
grab more market share and radically jack up production — and
increase emissions.

That could be called that the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate in action —
but it's actually the illogical logic of capitalism, in which the
growth of individual firms or industries always takes precedence over
the needs of society as a whole.

posted to ClimateConcern


Page Information

  • 1 year ago [history]
  • View page source
  • You're not logged in
  • No tags yet learn more

Wiki Information
Update to PBwiki 2.0

An entirely new PBwiki experience, including folders and easier editing.

Convert Now for Free | Learn more