Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila on climate change

I was present when Jorma Ollila, who serves as chairman of both Royal Dutch Shell and Nokia, spoke to delegates attending the IPI World Congress in Helsinki in early June 2009. In this post, I present my "jots" from Orilla's prepared statement. I was struck by Ollila's unequivocal support for meaningful action at the policy level. Ollila delivered a concise statement that reduced a complicated issue down to several key points. I thought his statement worth thinking about.

I live-blogged the entire panel discussion (see here) which included a lively question and answer session. The other panelists included Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara; Ali Sayigh of WREN, and moderator Curtis Brainard of Columbia University.

Jorma Ollila: I will address the question as to whether it is possible to decarbonize in a viable way.

I will assume technological innovations can be successful. Let's assume that is the case. I'm clearly not wanting to minimize the vast challenges that lie ahead. In fact, the more daunting challenge is to manage how we produce energy and allow a raise in living standards.

Developed economies have used up the atmosphere's capacity to absorb CO2; now developing countries are entering a phase where their need for energy is becoming intensive.

Let's acknowledge three truths:

1. The demand for energy will continue to surge.
2. Energy supply will struggle to keep pace.
3. There will be increasing climate stress based on the current consumption pattern.

We need to obtain as much energy as possible from renewable sources -- and more. We need to strive toward fewer emissions in a "business as usual" pattern. Business-as-usual means that emissions would double by 2050. But in reality we can't continue to consume more than the current level. An 80 percent reduction from current levels is a reasonable goal. Thus, these two alternatives lie ahead. One is socially and morally unacceptable.

Therefore, policies and incentives must be put forward so we get it right.

Firstly, we need a cap and trade system that a puts a cost on emissions, that credibly commits us to a path of energy reductions by creating incentives to cut emissions.

Second, we need government support for changes. Government support is critical over the course of next decade -- to deploy by 2020s. We have it in the lab, we do not have commercial projects. This process is not viable without the right kind of government support.

Looking at the Obama government's actions, related to the stimulus package: I see significant and commendable R&D support. Europe took some significant decision earlier this spring -- the US will go there too I understand.

The points are mutually reinforcing, not exclusive. Emissions caps will become more popular as costs get reduced of meeting caps.

In addition to policy angle, there is a geopolitical angle: significant change with regards to emerging markets. Advanced economies must lead by example. This will necessitate resource transfers from developing to emerging markets. But transfers from govt to govt are problematic. Consider the position of a US political leader who proposed such a transfer. He would face political problems.

Cap and trade is a politically feasible way to make the transfers. CDM is a license to do arbitrage -- create opportunities between developed and developing economies. [Jotman: Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) "is an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialised countries to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries as an alternative to more expensive emission reductions in their own countries."] HFC reduction projects, for example. [Jotman: "by destroying the HFCs factories can earn carbon credits"]

Pace of change is limited by the trillions of dollars tied up in US capital investments. For example, a car lasts 20 years. A power plants last 40 years. To speed up the pace of change would mean premature scrapping of capital investments. In the recent Shell Energy Scenarios, that is. [Jotman: presumably, by scrapping investments prematurely you waste a certain amount of energy].

Blueprints: The projected climate outcome would require stabilization at 650ppm in the second half of century. Renewable energy would consist of about 60% of energy. CCS on all new power plants 2020 (West) and elsewhere (2030). That's based on Shell and MIT modeling. Clearly we need this kind of scenario at a minimum. We need better, but we face severe constraints.

Hence the need to increase pace of policy reform.

Ollila also responded to questions from the audience. See my post Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?

Is the Supreme Court anti-environmental?

Lately the Supreme Court of the United States has sided exclusively with industry, observes Barbara O’Brian:

For environmentalists, the recent Supreme Court term was a shutout — 0 for 5. That is, all five of the “green” cases argued before the Court this term were decided against the environmentalists’ positions.
The defeats were especially painful in that all five decisions reversed lower court decisions in favor of the “greens.”

One decision which the court overturned -- "riverkeeper" -- was by Sotomayor (I blogged about that here), another concerned the Court's support for the navy's use of sonar (here), and in a third, the court decided a mining company could poison an Alaskan lake (here).

In the fourth case (described in some detail by O'Brien), the court ruled Shell was not responsible for paying for the cleanup of wastes it sold to another company even though it had known that the waste was not being properly disposed of (so much for "corporate citizenship"). In the fifth case, the high court ruled "that environmental groups lacked standing to challenge certain U.S. Forest Service regulations."

How many dead lakes Sarah Palin?

Sarah Palin's policies as mayor of Wasilla likely contributed to the death of Lake Lucille and its fish.

But that wasn't the only lovey lake in Alaska to be sentenced to death under Sarah Palin's watch. Juneau Empire reports that

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Coeur Alaska and the state of Alaska on Monday, meaning tailings mine waste from the Kensington gold mine can be dumped into Lower Slate Lake.

It's the first time in 30 years a U.S. mine will be allowed to transform a natural lake into a tailings pond.

According to the Washington Independent,

At least one voice, however, is joining the mining industry to cheer the decision. Pointing to the 370 local jobs the mine will sustain, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) said yesterday that the ruling is “great news for Alaska.”

Juneau Empire noted:

Gov. Sarah Palin's statement talked about the state's support of Coeur and said the ruling was "a green light for responsible resource development."

Rosehips posted this video about the destruction of the Alaskan lake at CNN's I-Report:



The Washington Independent reported on the dubious US Supreme court decision:

The ruling extends from a 2002 rule change, with which the Bush administration redefined mining debris — even toxic mining debris — as “fill” rather than “waste.” That seemingly subtle change had the wide-sweeping consequence of shifting mine-waste disposal decisions from the Environmental Protection Agency to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — a switch that also helped fuel the popularity of mountaintop mining operations in the Appalachian states in the last decade.

The Obama administration has taken steps in recent weeks to reassert the powers of the EPA to protect waterways surrounding mountaintop sites, but those changes, up to now, are limited to Appalachian projects. Alaskan mines just aren’t subject to the new scrutiny.

That spells bad news for Tongass National Forest’s Lower Slate Lake. In 2005, the Corps had approved permits for the Alaskan gold mine company, Coeur Alaska Inc., to dump 210,00 gallons of waste per day into Lower Slate — waste containing aluminum, copper, lead, and mercury. It was those permits that the Supreme Court upheld 6-3 Monday, overturning an earlier ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The reasoning from the court’s majority goes something like this: Because (1) the dumping is expected to raise the bottom of the lake bed by 50 feet over the lifespan of the mine; (2) waste that raises the bottom elevation of waterways is defined as “fill;” and (3) the Corps has sole jurisdiction to issue permits to dump “fill” — then by the transitive properties of jurisprudence the 2005 permits are legitimate, and the EPA is powerless to step in despite the undisputed environmental damage set to be visited upon the lake.

Sarah Palin's dead fish

Nah, only dead fish go with the flow.

- Sarah Palin

UPDATED

Palin has been involved in a number of environmental controversies. These have included species such as Alaskan polar bears, beluga whales, and wolves. But fish?

Palin's decision -- back when she was mayor of Wasilla -- to open her small town to strip-mall development may have led to the death of fish in her town's lake. It's not just a rumor. Apparently the lake has long been considered "dead" by environmentalists.

An article in Salon described the situation.

. . . . the lake Sarah Palin lives on is dead.

"Lake Lucille is basically a dead lake -- it can't support a fish population," said Michelle Church, a Mat-Su Valley borough assembly member and environmentalist. "It's a runway for floatplanes."

Palin recently told the New Yorker magazine that Alaskans "have such a love, a respect for our environment, for our lands, for our wildlife, for our clean water and our clean air. We know what we've got up here and we want to protect that, so we're gonna make sure that our developments up here do not adversely affect that environment at all. I don't want development if there's going to be that threat to harming our environment."

But as mayor of her hometown, say many local critics, Palin showed no such stewardship.

"Sarah's legacy as mayor was big-box stores and runaway growth," said Patty Stoll, a retired Wasilla schoolteacher who once worked in the same school with Palin's parents, Chuck and Sally Heath. "The truth is, Wasilla is just plain ugly, it's not a pleasant place to live. It's not thought out. And that's a shame.

"Sarah fouled her own nest, and I can't understand why. I hate to think it was simply greed or ambition."

Among the environmental casualties of Wasilla's frenzied development was Palin's own front yard, Lake Lucille. The lake was listed as "impaired" in 1994 by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and it still carries that grim label. State environmental officials say that leaching sewer lines and fertilizer runoff caused an explosion of plant growth in the lake, which sucked the oxygen out of the water and led to periodic fish kills.

Sadly, we must add Lake Lucille fish to our list of animal species that Sarah Palin has failed to save. Once again, I will have to update the Palin Timeline.

UPDATE: As if it couldn't get any worse, Jot Green has just learned that as governor, Sarah Palin approved the execution of another lake.

International Space Station over errupting volcano

"A fortuitous orbit of the International Space Station allowed the astronauts this striking view of Sarychev Volcano (Kuril Islands, northeast of Japan) in an early stage of eruption on June 12, 2009. Sarychev Peak is one of the most active volcanoes in the Kuril Island chain, and it is located on the northwestern end of Matua Island."