Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
therooseveltinstitution
Catalyst
Volume 1 • February 2009
Copyright 2009
Editor-in-Chief
Adrian Haimovich - Columbia University
Science Editors
Dan Amrhein Stephen Cox Vedant Misra
Columbia University Columbia University Columbia University
Policy Editors
Dario Abramskiehn Nathaniel Edwards Sarah Leonard
Columbia University University of Georgia Columbia University
Gelseigh Karl-Cannon Brandon Hammer Kate Redburn
Columbia University Columbia University Columbia University
Recruitment Directors
Anna Brower Shipra Roy
Barnard College University of Minnesota
National Staff
Executive Director National Policy Director
Nate Loewentheil Caitlin Howarth
Communications Director Energy & the Environment Policy Strategist
Nina Coutinho Riley Wyman
Articles
The Case for a Federal Regulatory Strategy for Solar Power 25
Blake Carpenter, The University of Iowa
Organic Alternatives to Chemical Fertilizer 33
Alex Greenspan, The University of Colorado
Analysis of Cap-and-Trade 41
Matthew Tidwell, Johns Hopkins University
Informing Decisions: Greenhouse Gas Inventory at the 51
University of North Dakota
Anduin Kirkbride McElroy, Shawn O’Neil,
Santosh Rijal, Navin Thapa and Junyu Yang,
The University of North Dakota
Book Reviews
Rising Power, Sinking Planet: the New Geopolitics of Energy by 62
Michael Klare
James M. A. Hobbs, Colorado College
The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery 64
Paul Burger, Michigan State University
Preface
As a scientist, I have long known the value of scientific research and
technological innovation to the vitality of the United States. Now that
our country is increasingly competing in the global marketplace, these
issues are more important than ever to America’s future success. Un-
fortunately, many policymakers at all levels of government are not fully
aware of what is at stake if we ignore scientific research and education.
Perhaps the most direct and available way in which the environ-
mental impact of generating energy can be addressed is through nuclear
power. Right now, a convoluted regulatory system deters the establish-
ment of new nuclear power plants, making coal and natural gas more
practical – and environmentally detrimental – alternatives for utilities.
Moving away from coal as our primary source of energy may be our sin-
gle biggest challenge to environmental sustainability. However, I believe
that, with strong funding for basic research, our nation can lead the
world away from its reliance on fossil fuels and find sustainable means
to meet our energy needs.
This is a time of great concern for the state of our planet, but
also one of great hope for the future. The exigencies of drastic climate
change and ecosystem collapse threaten dire social and political conse-
quences. At the Roosevelt Institution’s Catalyst Journal, we believe that
by working to build bridges between science and policy formulation,
this generation of students can contribute to the solutions that will
meet our present challenges.
Our tag line reads Sound science leads to sound policy. Between the
worlds of science and politics lies an informational barrier that frequent-
ly isolates policymaking from pertinent, cutting-edge research. The jour-
nal seeks to bridge the gap with policy ideas that reflect authoritative
technical analysis.
Inside this journal you will find three types of articles. We open
with a series of short articles called Summaries for Policymakers. In the
Summaries for Policymakers, our Editorial Board looks to make more
accessible the technologies and research areas most relevant to policy.
We shed light on the basic terms and ideas in scientific debate through a
format that highlights facts useful to policymakers. Our Summaries for
Policymakers discuss vertical farming, non-point carbon sequestration,
global climate models, and water-to-fuel technology.
The success of this journal reflects the incredible efforts of the au-
thors, the Catalyst Editorial Board, the leadership of the Roosevelt Insti-
tution, and the Faculty Advisory Board. To all, my most sincere thanks.
Adrian Haimovich
Editor-in-Chief
Summaries
for Policymakers
Global Climate Models
Abstract
Global climate models, or GCMs, have been used for several decades
and form the basis of many climate projections and assessments.
GCMs are used to predict long-term changes in the earth’s climate
though the calculation of physical interactions on a supercomputer.
Climate models are useful because they create laboratories where dif-
ferent conditions and changes can be simulated. However, they are
limited by computer processing speed and by the finite complexity of
the models, and as such all climate model results have a predictive
error associated with them. Because they are very complex and labor-
intensive, GCMs are usually the product of scores of scientists, and a
number of these models from around the world compete for greater
accuracy and detail.
Talking Points
•Climate models work by placing the earth’s land, ocean, and at-
mosphere on a three-dimensional grid and treating each grid box
as a point in a computer simulation. Models with more or fewer
grid points are said to have a higher or lower spatial resolution.
Higher-resolution models are necessary to reproduce smaller
weather patterns like thunderstorms; models with lower resolu-
tion cannot “feel” these phenomena.
•The physics of climate are represented in GCMs via different
climate variables. These variables are measurable quantities
(average temperature, precipitation, etc.) that vary at some point
on the earth at a given time. Sometimes the ways in which some
measurable quantities affect or give rise to others – for instance,
the conditions leading to cloud formation – are not well under-
stood or are prohibitively complex and must be approximated.
•Because of this inherent unpredictability, scientists run models
many times and look at the average results from the ensemble of
model runs. This technique is known as the Monte Carlo method.
If the results are consistently in favor of one outcome, then that
outcome is said to be predicted with a high degree of statistical
confidence.
•Another way that models are tested and verified is through the
use of hindcasting. This is like forecasting except that scientists
put past conditions into a model – for example, the state of the
global climate ten years ago – and then see whether or not the
model is able to accurately recreate and report past climate.
Practical Implications
•Global Climate Models (GCMs) provide climate projections for
the near and far future for different conditions, e.g. given differ-
ent concentrations of particular greenhouse gases in the atmo-
sphere.
•Evidence from GCMs is frequently used in forums such as the Unit-
ed Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
•Results from climate models have been used to argue that global
warming is anthropogenici.
•GCMs are limited by computer power and by scientific under-
standing of some climate phenomena.
Analysis
Climate models are able to give us a robust general picture of climate
over the next decades, even if they are unable to predict the future
with absolute certainty. The ability of these models to provide error
estimations and confidence levels is important to the incorporation
of climate model results into policymaking decisions.
Next Steps
Climate modeling research is currently funded by a number of gov-
ernment agencies, particularly NASA, NOAA, and NSF. All of these
agencies are involved not only in the creation of climate models
but also in the procurement of the observational data needed to
make climate science accurate and relevant. At the time of press,
funding for climate modeling has substantially increased via the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which promised
substantial spending increases at these agencies ($2.5B for NSF,
$836M for NOAA, and $400M for NASA)ii. Further funding for basic
research and data acquisition in this area will ultimately permit the
crafting of better-informed policies.
Notes
i
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and
H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA, 996 pp.
ii
American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009, H.R. 1, 111th Cong., 1st Sess. (2009).
15
Desirability of Non-Point CO2
Sequestration Mechanisms
Abstract
Many policymakers assume that the simplest mechanisms for carbon
capture and storage (CCS) will be point capture and on-site sequestra-
tion systems at fossil fuel power plants, especially “clean coal” power
plants (van der Zwaan 2005). However, as carbon emissions con-
tinue unabated, CCS systems that do not rely on capture at the point
of emissions (non-point systems) will become necessary. Once total
emissions reach levels that threaten disastrous climate change, a pro-
cess that may already be happening (Hansen et al. 2008), the only
recourse will be to capture carbon dioxide that is already in the atmo-
sphere (Zeman and Lackner 2004). Non-point systems are efficient
because they can be distributed near sites at which CO2 will be either
used or stored and are also desirable politically because they remove
the CCS infrastructure from the population centers that typically
contain power plants and other sources of carbon emissions.
Talking Points
•Non-point CCS systems will be able to “clean up” CO2 that is
already in the atmosphere, a feature that will be necessary to
reduce atmospheric CO2 to an acceptable level as carbon
emissions continue to increase in the coming years.
•Population centers and polluted low income areas are typical lo-
cations for power plants. These areas would benefit greatly from
local air pollution controls, but the installation of extensive CCS
systems would only exacerbatethe disproportionate impact of in-
dustrial development on disadvantaged communities.
•Non-point CCS systems can be placed away from population
centers. It would be advantageous for enhanced oil recovery to
install them on oil fields, and they could be distributed on
agricultural land with a business model similar to the one used
successfully for wind farms. Systems created exclusively for the
purpose of sequestering carbon could be placed anywhere.
Practical Implications
•Non-point CCS systems are able to capture previously emitted
CO2 (Lackner et al. 1999)
•Adding new carbon sequestration technology to pre-existing
power plants will be difficult and expensive due to a lack of
industry standardization and the difficulty of retrofitting older
plants (David and Herzog 2000; Lackner et al. 1999)
•Point capture is not economically feasible for diffuse,
low-intensity sources like gasoline automobiles, which are not
likely to be made obsolete soon (Lackner et al. 2001)
•Transportation to remote storage or consumption sites is a
considerable expense for traditional CCS systems (David and
Herzog 2000)
•Small non-point CCS systems can be developed for local CO2 appli-
cations such as agricultural enhancement (e.g., Keith et al 2006)
•CCS operations of arbitrary size can be assembled from small
non-point CCS components and can be easily expanded
Analysis
Non-point CCS systems require further development before
widespread deployment, but researchers have demonstrated
that such systems are technically feasible (Lackner et al. 2001).
Especially in light of mounting evidence that widely-touted
technologies like clean coal carbon capture systems and hydrogen
fuel cells will not be mature for quite some time, it makes sense to
invest heavily in a wide array of solutions to the problem of global
climate change. The share of the solution that will come from these
zero-emission technologies, which do nothing to address past emis-
sions, shrinks daily as carbon emissions continue. Given that all emerg-
ing technologies (including those advocated here) have uncertain
development timetables, it is important to provide funding for
negative-emissions technologies that can mitigate climate change
due to carbon emissions regardless of the source or time of
emission.
Next Steps
Congress should increase incentives for further research into
all promising methods of carbon capture and storage, including
traditional point-source sequestration and non-point sequestration.
Legislators must also help create a public-private research
partnership by increasing funding specifically for scientific research
into CCS as part of the effort under the Obama administration to bet-
ter fund basic scientific research.
Abstract
With approximately 80% of our arable land already in use, water
shortages increasing in frequency and severity, rapid urbanization
straining regional production and climate change affecting weather,
conventional farming will not produce sufficient foodstuffs to feed
the world’s ever-growing population. Vertical farming, an idea de-
veloped by Dr. Dickson Despommier, professor of Public Health in
Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia University, modernizes
conventional farming practices by building vertically oriented, highly
regulated, interior farms within cities. Research suggests that con-
ventional methods of farming will have to double by 2030 in order
to meet the rising global demand for food (as the global population
reaches 7.9 billion people by 2025, over 50% living in urban centers).
Vertical farming promises a more resource and economically effi-
cient alternative that can meet rising demand, especially in urban
centers. Vertical farms require significant start-up capital and deviate
from commercial practices, and therefore require legislative support.
Without such support, vertical farms are unlikely to develop within
the next decade, at which point, farming practices may already be
strained to a critical point.
Talking Points
•Vertical farming is a matter of implementing existing technolo-
gies in a conceptually new way, combining advanced green-
house technology with NASA-developed artificial environment
technology to build multi-storied greenhouses.
•Vertical farms require significantly more start-up capital, an
estimated $1 billion per building, than do conventional farms.
While this makes state assistance initially necessary, vertical
farms are estimated to gross $80 million in annual profit.
•Vertical farms provide food security in ways that conventional
farms cannot by reducing foreign dependency, lessening the oil-
food relationship, increasing local self-sufficiency, providing reg-
ulated low food prices, and providing more jobs per farm than
conventional farms.
•Vertical farms utilize NASA artificial environment technology that
has already been implemented aboard the International Space
Station.
•Vertical farms alleviate stress on farmland by allowing the land
to be naturally reclaimed by local ecosystems. This increases
biodiversity and potentially reduces the effects of local climate
change
Practical Implications
•Vertical farming provides a highly efficient environment for farm-
ing. By design, these farms make more efficient use of actual
land than conventional farms; a thirty-story vertical farm on a
one-acre plot is equivalent to thirty acres of farm land.
•Interior farming, especially the highly regulated (climate-con-
trolled) interior environments of proposed vertical farms, makes
use of minimal resource input
•Vertical farms are designed to be fertilizer-free
•Interior farms provide a regulated climate system, avoiding the
uncertainties of natural disasters and a changing climate
•Vertical farms located in cities provide local food production,
thereby reducing transportation costs, packaging costs and
resale costs
•Because of their regulated environments, vertical farms can
grow exotic foods locally, significantly reducing international
dependence and increasing local and national self-sufficiency
•Through their design as energy self-sufficient buildings, vertical
farms could potentially add excess energy back to the grid
•The vertical farm feeds, on average an estimated 50,000+ people
Legislative Context
•The “Food, Energy and Conservation Act of 2008” (Public Law
110–246; “Farm Bill”), has established a goal of modernizing
food production, increasing energy efficiency and increasing
conservation and ecosystem reclamation.
•The Bill appropriates $20 billion annually, from 2008 to
2012
•The Bill was implemented to maintain several programs, for
which Vertical Farming funding would be applicable
•Farmland Protection Program, Conservation Stewardship
Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program
•The $200+ billion allocated to this bill could provide enough
developmental assistance to feed 20 million people with food
from vertical farms
•Based on the production cost estimates for a vertical farm
in New York City, (developed by Despommier at Columbia
University)
19
Analysis
Growing exotic plants locally is not a new idea; greenhouses have
been used for this purpose for centuries. Vertical farming takes that
process one step further, combining multiple cutting edge technolo-
gies and enabling cities to grow any crop, year round, close to their
growing urban populations. The benefits of modernizing conven-
tional farming practices and building farms closer to where popula-
tions are growing are evident, and this innovative alternative should
be considered.
Next Steps
To actualize vertical farming on a national, or global scale, a test
model must be built. New York City, home to Columbia University
and birthplace of the vertical farming project, would be an optimal
choice to test a vertical farm. New York City has a large population, is
significantly urban and relies heavily on agricultural produce import-
ed into the city, then distributed. The city is ranked fourth among
the world’s most expensive cities by UBS, Mercer and EIU surveys,
giving a realistic ceiling for what production costs would be. New
York City would provide a rigorous test of practicality and logistical
feasibility before national or global development. If a vertical farm
could succeed in New York City, it is likely to be adaptable to most
other American cities, as well as other major cities globally.
Talking Points
•Current methods of harnessing solar energy have been “daytime-
only,” because storing solar power for later use has been prohibi-
tively expensive.
•Existing oxidation catalysts and reactions are expensive and inef-
ficient. The inexpensive, easy-to-produce catalyst allows for the
use of sunlight to split water into oxygen and hydrogen, which
may be used to generate power in a fuel cell
•The new catalyst produces oxygen and hydrogen gas from room-
temperature, neutral pH water, making it both inexpensive and
non-toxic.
•Can be used to generate clean, carbon-free energy on “a massive
scale.”
Legislative Context
•The Nocera lab, which developed the new catalyst, has govern-
ment funding from the National Science Foundation as well as
industrial and philanthropic support.
•Research on the implementation of the new technology must be
well-funded so that it can be successfully integrated with existing
photovoltaic systems.
21
Analysis
In short, the Nocera group claims that they have developed a cata-
lyst that can oxidize water at much higher efficiencies than exist-
ing technologies. Oxidation of water is what plants do in photosyn-
thesis, but unlike current methods, requiring toxic catalysts, plants
can split water under normal atmospheric conditions in neutral pH
water. The Nocera catalyst is the first to successfully replicate this
nontoxic, highly efficient, natural process. Furthermore, the new
process uses electrodes made of Cobalt and Phosphorus instead of
Platinum, which means that it is both cheaper and more environmen-
tally friendly than existing processes.
Next Steps
Before the discovery can be implemented as a viable source of re-
newable energy, it must be coupled with a device that can generate
power, like a fuel cell. Recombining hydrogen and oxygen currently
requires platinum electrodes. There is a need to develop inexpensive,
environmentally friendly catalysts to expedite fuel cell reactions.
Without funding for projects seeking to develop these new catalysts,
the Nocera group’s development cannot see widespread use. In the
short term, it is therefore necessary to fund both fuel cell research
and projects seeking to improve upon or mass-produce the Nocera
catalyst.
During the peak-driving season in 2008, gas prices set new record
highsi and a shocked American public began paying closer attention
to the impact of energy consumption not only on the environment,
but also on household budgets. In fact, by summer 2008, some ana-
lysts were arguing that energy and environmental policy were more
important during the 2008 Presidential Race than they had been in
any election for a generation. Both McCain and Obama agreed on
the basic science of climate change and that combating it ought to
be a top priority for government action, allowing the debate to focus
on the specific measures that should to be taken to address global
warming.ii All that changed, however, when financial institutions be-
gan to flounder and fail, home values and stock markets took a dive,
and oil prices fell, breathing new life into fossil fuels.
Hope for a more sustainable energy policy is not lost, but if any
regulatory support for alternative energy is to be provided, it must
be in line with the new economic reality. Even before being sworn in,
President Obama began outlining policy to address both the finan-
cial and ecological crises. Obama proposed an economic recovery
package that would, in part, also address climate change by creating
“green-collar jobs.” Obama’s plan is designed to create or save some
5 million jobs by investing in alternative energy production, encour-
aging efficiency, and updating the antiquated electric grid.iii In order
to most effectively promote sound energy policy during these trou-
bled economic times, President Obama’s efforts in renewable energy
must focus monetary support where it will be most effective, retool
existing subsidies so that they can be useful during the economic
recession, and explore ways to achieve positive results without gov-
ernment subvention.
Conclusion
Since the beginning of the economic slowdown, support for a change
to U.S. energy policy has begun to wane. It is important that the
new Administration attack the issue of renewable energy from mul-
tiple angles that would be most effective in the dampened economic
climate. Any new federal subsidies should target technologies, such
as solar, that are likely to yield the most results for taxpayer money.
Existing subsidies need to be altered to remain effective during the
recession. Finally, the government should consider other regulation
to address issues that may be hindering the growth of the alternative
energy sector.
Whatever the combination of federal regulatory support, clearly,
environmental gains are possible. Favorable regulation can drasti-
cally alter the price and competitiveness of solar-generated electrici-
ty in ways that have positive environmental impacts. A report by the
SolarPACES project of the International Energy Agency estimates
that by 2025, worldwide installed solar capacity will reach nearly
37 GW of power, satisfy 5% of global energy demand, and offset 362
million metric tons of CO2 emissions yearly.xix If those estimates
hold true, government regulation, accelerating the competitiveness
of solar power by just a few years, will offset hundreds of millions
more metric tons of greenhouse gases. Even though the troubled
economy now threatens to distract attention from the environ-
ment, the right balance of targeted federal support, improvement of
existing subvention, and non-monetary assistance will permit the
new government to have a dramatic impact on climate change.
References
i
Isidore C. Ike’s aftermath: The return of $4 gas. CNN [Internet]. 2008 Sept 14 [cited 2008
Nov 4]; [about 6 screens]. Available from: http://money.cnn.com/
2008/09/13/news/economy/ike_effect/index.htm
ii
Resources Magazine. Energy, Environment, and Elections: Mapping Voter Behavior in
2008. A Conversation with Jon Krosnik. Resources for the Future [Internet]. 2008. Sum-
mer. [cited 2009 Jan 17]; 169: [about 7 screens]. Available from: http://www.rff.org/Pub-
lications/Resources/Pages/EnergyEnvironmentandElections.aspx
iii
Dickerson, M. Why Obama’s green jobs plan might work. LA Times [Internet]. 2009 Jan 4
[cited 2009 Jan 17]; [about 7 screens]. Available from: http://www.latimes.com/business/
la-fi-greenjobs4-2009jan04,0,2453747,full.story
iv
The U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. How much renew-
31
able energy do we use? Energy in Brief Series. 2008 Aug 21. [cited 2008 10 Nov]; [about 4
screens]. Available from: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/
renewable_energy.cfm
v
McKinsey & Company. The economics of solar power. McKinsey Quar. Lorenz P, Pinner
D, and Seitz T. 2008 Jun. [cited 2008 Sept 1]. Available from: http://www.mckinsey.com/
clientservice/ccsi
vi
UD-led team sets solar cell record, joins DuPont on $100 million project. UDaily [Inter-
net]. 2007 Jul 23 [cited 2008 Nov 12]; [about 5 screens]. Available from: http://www.udel.
edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/solar072307.html
vii
Patel-Predd P. Making silicon less reflective. Technology Review [Internet]. 2008 Nov
11 [cited 2008 Nov 12]; [about 5 screens]. Available from http://www.technologyreview.
com/ energy/21655/?a=f
viii
SolarPACES. Spain pioneers grid-connected solar-tower thermal power. Mancini T and
Geyer M. [cited 2008 Nov 10]. Available from: http://www.iea.org/impagr/cip/pdf/ is-
sue36solarp.pdf.
ix
SolarPACES. Technology characterization solar power towers. [cited 2008 Nov 7]. Avail-
able from: http://www.solarpaces.org/CSP_Technology/ csp_technology.htm
x
Sandia National Laboratories (US). Heliostat cost reduction study. Sandia Report series.
Albuquerque (NM): Sandia National Laboratories (US); 2007 Jun. SAND2007-3293. Avail-
able from: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service, Spring-
field, VA 22161. Available from: www.prod.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-control.
pl/2007/073293.pdf
xi
Sargent & Lundy, LLC. Assessment of concentrating solar power technology cost and
performance forecasts. Charles RP, Davis KW, and Smith JL. In: Electric Power 2005; 2005
Apr 5-7; Chicago, IL. [cited 2008 Nov 5]. Available from http://www.sargentlundy.com/
news-publications/publications-2005.html
xii
Union of Concerned Scientists [Internet]. Cambridge (MA): The Union; c2008. Produc-
tion Tax Credit for Renewable Energy; 2008 Nov 14 [cited 2009 Jan 18]; [about 3 screens].
Available from: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/solutions/big_picture_solutions/
production-tax-credit-for.html
xiii
Great Plains Windustry Project [Internet]. Minneapolis (MN): Windustry; c2007. Commu-
nity Wind Toolbox Chapter 12: The Minnesota Flip Business Model. 2007 [cited 2009 Jan
16]; [about 15 screens]. Available from: http://www.windustry.org/your-wind-project/
community-wind/community-wind-toolbox/chapter-12-the-minnesota-flip-business-
model
xiv
Mandel, J. Hit hard by financial crisis, industry seeks help again from Congress.
Greenwire [Internet]. 2008 Nov 13 [cited 2009 Jan 16]; [about 4 screens]. Available from:
http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MzIzOTQ
xv
Jesmer, G. AWEA and SEIA Call for Refundable Renewable Energy Tax Credits. Renew-
ableEnergyWorld.com [Internet]. 2009 Jan 15 [cited 2009 Jan 18]; [about 9 screens]. Avail-
able from: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/ story?id=54497&src=rss
xvi
Solar power – utility-scale sun power. Power Engineering International [Internet]. 2007
Jun [cited 2008 Nov 12]; [about 7 screens]. Available from: http://pepei.pennnet.com/dis-
play_article/297264/17/ARTCL/none/none/Solar-Power---Ultility-scale-sun-power/%3E
xvii
U.S. Department of Energy. State energy alternatives: net metering. Information
resources. 2008 Feb 29 [cited 2008 Nov 12]; [about 2 screens]. Available from: http://
apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/net_metering.cfm
xviii
North Carolina Solar Center. United States. Net metering [map of availability on Inter-
net]. Raleigh (NC): North Carolina Solar Center. 2008 Nov. [cited 2008 Nov 13]; [1 slide].
Available from: http://dsireusa.org/library/includes/
topic.cfm?TopicCategoryID=6&CurrentPageID=10&EE=1&RE=1
xix
SolarPACES. Spain pioneers grid-connected solar-tower thermal power. Mancini T and
Geyer M. [cited 2008 Nov 10]. Available from: http://www.iea.org/impagr/cip/pdf/ is-
sue36solarp.pdf.
Organic Alternatives to
Chemical Fertilizer
Alex Greenspan, The University of Colorado
Abstract
The production and distribution of chemical nitrogen for use as agri-
cultural fertilizer comprises between 1-2 percent of global fossil fuel
consumption. Though this direct contribution to energy use seems
minimal, it is unnecessary and unsustainable. On average, Ameri-
can farmers apply 24-32 percent more chemical nitrogen than is
needed for optimal crop yields, thereby wasting 30-40 percent of all
chemical nitrogen consumed. Excess nitrogen leaches into ground wa-
ter causing further environmental damage.
With fertilizer prices increasing, farmers are already looking for
alternatives to chemical nitrogen. The USDA offers agricultural price
support primarily through commodity loans to farmers: these should
be provided conditionally, crediting organic soil nitrogen from ma-
nure and nitrogen fixing cover crops. The mechanisms of crediting
organically fixed nitrogen must be tailored to individual regions;
farmers in warmer climates should receive credit for soil nitrogen
fixed from “green manure” legumes planted during the winter,
whereas farmers in colder climates will benefit from subsidies to
inoculate seeds with nitrogen fixing rhizobacteria. The USDA can
ncentivize these practices through both existing and novel pol-
icy mechanisms. These policies will not only reduce fossil fuel
consumption and protect the environment, but help to stabilize crop
prices.
35
Alternatives to Chemical Nitrogen Fertilizer
Manure
Animal waste constitutes the most readily abundant alternative
source of soil nitrogen. Manure contains most primary and second-
ary nutrients needed for plant growth, including high concentrations
of nitrogen and phosphorous. In 1997, confined livestock operations
produced manure containing 1.12 million metric tons of recoverable
nitrogen.v The farms that produced this waste collectively controlled
29.6 million hectares of cropland. The 1997 census of agriculture
estimated that, at maximum, these same farms could feasibly utilize
only 40 percent of the nitrogen they produced.
Widespread redistribution of animal waste could significantly
impact American chemical fertilizer nitrogen consumption. Howev-
er, several factors limit the effectiveness of any such policy.vi Though
animal waste contains both reduced nitrogen and phosphorous,
these nutrients can often take several years to mineralize into a form
useful for agriculture. Distribution policies recently implemented
may therefore require several years to significantly impact fertiliz-
er use. Furthermore, rates of nutrient mineralization vary depend-
ing on storage methods, climate, and manure source, complicating
the estimation of recoverable nitrogen in the manure. This assess-
ment is important given that overuse of manure nitrogen is subject
to the same problems of leaching and denitrification as chemical
fertilizer.
Nevertheless, manure fertilizer offers benefits over chemical
fertilizer. Manure can act to improve soil quality, decreasing erosion
and increasing water retention, thereby reducing nutrient leaching.
Furthermore, in addition to supplementing soil nitrogen, manure
contains other primary plant nutrients, phosphorous and potassium,
and secondary nutrients such as calcium, magnesium, and sulfur,
and macromolecular organic material.
37
Policy Options to Reduce Inorganic Nitrogen Consumption
Currently, no federal policy directly addresses chemical fertilizer
consumption. In the status quo, the United States Department of Ag-
riculture (USDA) offers financial support to farmers through farm
loans and through subsidies, referred to as direct payments.xi, xii, xiii
Most USDA loans take the form of low interest commodity finances
to insure against farmers selling their stocks when prices are low at
harvest. The USDA only offers direct fertilizer price support through
emergency farm loans and direct farm loans to disadvantaged
(minority and beginning) farmers. With this, farmers eligible for
the loans can use the financial resources to buy agricultural inputs
including fertilizer. The USDA also distributes direct payments to
farmers in possession of “base acres”** for certain economical-
ly significant crops, including corn and soy. Due to World Trade
Organization restrictions, the USDA cannot directly subsidize
fertilizer for producers or consumers. The only explicit reference in
the 2008 Farm Bill to fertilizer is the authorization of one million
dollars in funding for research on renewable energy for chemical
fertilizer production.xiv Reforming USDA policy to reduce chemical
fertilizer dependence will require the creation of new programs and
awareness of variation between regions and individual farms.
Agronomic data suggests that farmers use between 24 and
32 percent more nitrogen than needed for optimal crop yields.xv
Therefore, simple and cost efficient policy options can signifi-
cantly impact chemical fertilizer consumption. Farmers may have
ifferent reasons for over-applying nutrients, so the same poli-
cies may have different impacts in different regions.xv The most
effective policies will be implemented on the local level. Still, all
farmers fundamentally apply nutrients in excess because of
uncertainty surrounding the level of nutrients al-
ready present in soil. This preemptive action covers
unforeseeable events during the cropping season that may
decrease nutrient levels. Therefore, farmers perceive nutrient
over-application as favorable, despite increased costs. Policy
solutions must reduce uncertainty about local nutrient demands
and create incentives for conservation. Glen Sheriff warns against
disincentives such as input taxes and regulations on chemical fertil-
izer as politically infeasible and economically damaging to farmers.xv
Instead, Sheriff suggests policies that help manage risk, such as crop
insurance, and that encourage adoption of environmentally benefi-
cial practices such as upgraded irrigation systems, soil nitrogen con-
tent tests, and organic nitrogen crediting.
These win-win policies could and should be implemented
through existing policy mechanisms. The 2008 Farm Bill reduces
subsidies to farm insurance companies; these subsidies should
be reinstated to alleviate the cost of insurance to farmers, which
will reduce risk to farmers and thus reduce economic uncertainty.
The USDA should also encourage soil nitrogen content tests and
subsidize nitrogen from organic sources through expansion of the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which provides voluntary
technical and financial assistance to farms seeking to reduce their
environmental impact.iii This assistance already includes estimation
of soil quality and nutrient content. However, the program is lim-
ited in scope and typically only implements changes designed to re-
duce runoff from chemical fertilizer. The CRP should be expanded to
assist more farms by providing estimates of existing soil nutrients
and financial assistance for farms to use alternative nitrogen sourc-
es.
However, directly incentivizing the use of alternative
nitrogen sources is more complex. Because most excess manure is
produced on confined livestock operations, the federal government
can encourage the distribution of manure as fertilizer by taxing
feedlots that do not distribute their manure. The USDA can further
incentivize alternatives to chemical fertilizer through expansion of
eligibility requirements for direct payment subsidies to include
alternative nitrogen sources. Furthermore, the crops included in
direct payment programs should include nitrogen-fixing crops.***
To encourage the use of biofertilizer in colder climates, where
cover cropping is economically unviable, the USDA should create new
subsidy programs for the inoculation of cash crops with
nitrogen fixing microbes. Additionally, the USDA should either expand
emergency assistance loans to include farmers transitioning from
chemical fertilizer to organic fertilizer sources or create a new
category of loans for the cost of cover cropping and microbe
inoculation.
Through coordinated and comprehensive policy, the USDA can
substantially reduce agricultural consumption of inorganic nitrogen
fertilizer. In addition to causing water contamination, the production
of nitrogen fertilizer represents agriculture’s greatest contribution
to fossil fuel consumption, totaling 1-2 percent of all global fossil
fuel use. While this contribution appears relatively minor, chemi-
cal nitrogen fertilizer is wasteful and often unnecessary. Reducing
agricultural dependence on inorganic nitrogen can help stabilize
crop prices, which have risen proportionally to fertilizer prices in
recent years.xvi Crop prices are currently falling, but fertilizer prices
will continue to rise with the price of natural gas, creating potential
for further crop price volatility and crop shortages. Farmers have
already begun to search for organic alternatives to chemical
fertilizer that are now economically viable and less susceptible to
drastic price changes. Policy makers must facilitate this transition to
protect the environment, farmers, and global food security.
39
Notes
*For perspective, 55 megajoules is equivalent to the amount of energy required to run an
average car 25 milesiv.
**“Base acres” refers to farmlands on which certain crops have historically already been
grownxi
***Currently Direct Payment subsidies are offered for barley, corn, sorghum, oats, cano-
la, crambe, flaxseed, mustard seed, rapeseed, safflower, sesame seed, sunflower seed,
peanuts, rice, soybeans, upland cotton, and wheat, of which only soy fixes any nitrogen.
References
i
Jensen, E. and Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. How can increased use of biological N2 fixation in
agriculture benefit the environment? Plant and Soil 2004; 252(1): 177-186.
ii
[FAOSTAT] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics Division.
Consumption in Nutrient in the United States and the World in 2006 [Internet]. Fertiliz-
ers: FAOSTAT; 2008, June. Available from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/
iii
Booth, M. and Campbell, C. Spring Nitrate Flux in the Mississippi River Basin: A Land-
scape Model with Conservation Applications. Environmental Science and Technology
2007; 41(15): 5410 -5418.
iv
Lux, Jim. Comparison of relative energies and powers [Internet]. Jim Lux’s Website;
2000, Feb. Available from: http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/energies.htm
v
Economic Research Service (US). Confined animal production and manure nutrients.
United States Department of Agriculture; 2001, June. Agriculture Information Bulletin
No. (AIB771). Available from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/aib771/
vi
Trachtenberg, E. and Ogg, C. Potential for reducing nitrogen pollution through improved
agronomic practices. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 1994; 30(6):
1109-1118.
vii
Managing Cover Crops Profitably (3rd ed.). Beltsville, MD: Sustainable Agriculture Net-
work; 2007
viii
Economic Research Service (US). Impact of rising natural gas price on U.S. ammonia
supply. United States Department of Agriculture. Outlook report no. WRS 0702. Available
from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/WRS0702/
ix
Economic Research Service(US). Nitrogen used on corn, rate per fertilized acre receiv-
ing nitrogen, selected states [Internet]. US Fertilizer Use and Price Data Set: United States
Department of Agriculture; 2007, Oct. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/
FertilizerUse/
x
Malik, K., Hafeez, F.Y., Mirza, M.S., Hameed, S., Rasul, G., Bilal, R. Rhizospheric plant-mi-
crobe interactions for sustainable agriculture. In: Wang, Y., Lin, M., Tian, Z., Elmerich, C.,
Newton, W., editors, Biological nitrogen fixation, sustainable agriculture and the environ-
ment. The Netherlands: Springer; 2005. p.257-260.
xi
Farm Service Agency. News and Events [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: USDA: 2008; USDA
issues advanced direct payments; 7 Jul, 2008 [cited Nov 13, 2008];[about 2 screens].
Available from http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=lan
ding&topic= ner&newstype=newsrel&type=detail&item=nr_20080707_rel_0178.html
xii
Farm Service Agency. Farm Loans Program [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: USDA: 2008;
Direct farm loans; 5 Sep, 2007 [cited Nov 13, 2008];[about 2 screens]. Available from
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=fmlp&topic=dfl
xiii
Farm Service Agency. Price Support [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: USDA: 2008; Market
loss assistance payment program; 20 Mar, 2008 [cited Nov 13, 2008];[about 2 screens].
Available from http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=prsu&topic=
mpp
xiv
Economic Research Service. 2008 Farm Bill Side-By-Side [Internet]. Washington, D.C.:
USDA: 2008; 2008 farm bill side-by-side; 2 Oct, 2008 [cited Nov 13, 2008]. Available from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/
xv
Sheriff, G. Efficient waste? Why farmers over-apply nutrients and the implications for
policy design. Review of Agricultural Economics. 2005; 27(4): 542-557.
xvi
Bradsher, K. Martin, Andrew. Shortages threaten farmers’ key tool: fertilizer. New
York Times (World Business). 2008 Apr 30. Available from: http://www.nytimes.
com/2008/04/30/business/worldbusiness/30fertilizer.html?_r=1
Analysis of Cap-and-Trade
Matthew Tidwell, Johns Hopkins University
Abstract
Cap-and-trade is often touted as the most effective and politically ten-
able policy proposal to address global climate change. This article
attempts to address these widely held beliefs by exploring the implica-
tions and pitfalls of adopting a federal greenhouse gas cap-and-trade
program in the United States. It argues that a cap-and-trade regime
is problematic because it would be: 1) based on the flawed premise
of a ‘safe’ concentration of greenhouse gas emissions; 2) unable to
provide a clear, stable price on greenhouse gases; and 3) open to
manipulation and fraud. By comparing cap-and-trade to a carbon
tax, it concludes that a carbon tax offers a more efficient and effective
means to put a much-needed price on GHG emissions resulting from
fossil fuel combustion.
Introduction
Global climate change poses a serious threat to the prosperity of the
United States and every other nation on Earth. The principal cause
of climate change is the emission into the Earth’s atmosphere of
anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon diox-
ide, which leads directly to an increase in the natural rate of
warming from the greenhouse effect. Burning fossil fuels and
deforestation are two of the primary reasons for the increase in
atmospheric GHG concentrations since the Industrial Revolution. It
was not until fossil fuels began to drive our economic machine that
scientists understood the link between GHG emissions and climate
change. Even with this understanding, GHGs continue to be emitted
because there is no economic price on GHGs or the damage they
cause. The ‘external’ costs of polluting are borne by society rather
than those who are responsible for the emissions; therefore, impos-
ing costs on the polluters of GHG emissions is a goal of climate pol-
icy.
If a price were put on GHGs, the economic equation for many
business activities would change as entities would have to include
the new ‘costs’ of carbon and other GHGs into their profit equations.
Using an old coal-fired power plant, as a simplified example, helps
illustrate this. Without a price on GHG emissions, the plant’s costs
are low, requiring only overhead costs and the cost of purchasing
the coal. Given its abundance and U.S. federal subsidiesi, coal is a
cheap fossil fuel, which makes running the relatively inefficient plant
profitable. If a price were imposed on carbon emissions, the costs
41
of running such a plant would rise dramatically, due to coal’s very
high carbon content.ii Although the plant could continue operations,
the price of its electricity would increase, driving away customers.
Competitors with lower or no GHG emissions like natural gas-fired
power plants or wind farms would see monetary benefits. Similarly,
with a price on GHGs, individuals would be affected as higher prices
would discourage consumption of fossil fuels (and, at some point,
adoption of new technologies).
The goal of having a price on GHGs is to inform our decisions
based on their true impact on the environment, and by extension
society. When we see the true costs, we make different choices,
for example, using less energy, generating energy with cleaner
resources, and finding alternatives to existing business practices.
Climate change legislation, therefore, is needed at the federal level
to help create a message in the form of price signaling to increase
supply or reduce demand. Given the numerous causes of climate
change, legislation must implement a multi-faceted policy approach,
including reducing or eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels. Because
burning fossil fuels (for electricity generation, transportation, heat-
ing and industrial processes) makes up the largest percentage of
GHGs emitted annually in the U.S.,iii many legislative proposals in-
volve reducing emissions from these sectors of the economy.
The most popular GHG reduction model is a market-based
cap-and-trade regime. The principal objective of this policy proposal
is to put a declining cap on emissions of carbon and other GHGs,
while still allowing polluters to trade allowance permits. The trad-
ing component is left to the market as it finds the most cost-effec-
tive emission reductions, theoretically helping to lower compliance
costs. Imposing a cap introduces the forces of supply and demand
for available permits resulting in a price for ‘the right to pollute.’
Because the cap is set below the business-as-usual level of emissions,
permit scarcity would make it more expensive to use fossil fuels;
therefore reducing the usage of polluting fuels and emission levels.
Concurrently, the increased costs of fossil fuels make it easier for
alternative energy sources to reach price parity with fossil fuels,
boosting the economic viability of alternative energy.iv
In the United States, the consensus among many states,
legislators, businesses and environmental groups is that cap-and-
trade is the most effective and politically tenable policy proposal to
address global climate change.v In fact, almost all proposals intro-
duced in the 110th United States Congress proposed cap-and-trade;
and, during his presidential campaign, Barack Obama pledged to
implement an economy-wide program.vi This paper will argue that
a U.S. domestic cap-and-trade regime is problematic because it is 1)
based on the flawed premise of a ‘safe’ concentration of GHG emis-
sions; 2) unable to provide a clear, stable price on greenhouse gases;
and 3) open to manipulation and fraud.
While no climate policy is perfect, on balance, a more efficient
and sound policy would be an upstream carbon tax. A national car-
bon tax levied at the point source, or where a fuel enters the market
(e.g. at the coal mine, well head or port), and ratcheted up over time
would introduce into the market a clear, stable price on GHG emis-
sions. The ever-increasing price on GHGs, however, will not be suffi-
cient to facilitate the ‘breakthrough’ technologies needed to prevent
catastrophic climate change. Therefore, the tax must be coupled
with ambitious technology policies geared toward the development,
deployment and commercialization of clean technologies that pro-
vide the services citizens want with minimal contribution to climate
change.
Background on Cap-and-Trade
A U.S. GHG cap-and-trade regime would likely entail a regulatory au-
thority, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, setting a max-
imum level of emissions allowable under the regime (the national
cap) and distributing pollution permits that regulated entities would
have to surrender for each ton of pollution emitted during a compli-
ance period. Depending on the regime, these entities could be either
upstream (factories, producers) or downstream (end-users).
Regulated entities would be able to purchase the permits through an
auction-like process, or the regulating body could distribute them for
free. Some regulated entities will purchase more permits than are re-
quired for compliance; those entities can then trade their excess per-
mits to other entities in need of additional permits. As the regime’s
cap ratchets down, so too would the number of permits available in
the market, thereby increasing over time the cost to pollute.
The cap-and-trade model is based on the success of the U.S.
1990 Clean Air Act amendments aimed at reducing acid rain by
establishing a regulatory regime involving the buying and selling
of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution permits. Currently,
the largest existing GHG cap-and-trade regime in the world is the
European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) created to
help the EU reach its reduction targets as defined by the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol. Because of the success of the acid rain program, U.S. treaty
negotiators pushed hard and successfully to base the Kyoto Protocol
on cap-and-trade. The momentum behind cap-and-trade, however,
has blinded policymakers and much of the public from other op-
tions.vii
Flawed Premise
One of the most serious pitfalls of cap-and-trade is that the very
premise of such a regime is flawed. The underlying presumption
43
behind the premise is that there is a “safe” threshold level of
greenhouse gases that would prevent catastrophic global climate
change. The level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmo-
sphere is currently more than 380 ppm (parts per million), which
is a 40% higher concentration than before the industrial revolution
and, some say, the highest in the last 650,000 years.viii The most
commonly cited goal most often behind cap-and-trade programs is to
stabilize “greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level
that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system.”ix In policy terms, this is often expressed as a goal
that reflects a percentage reduction of GHG emissions compared
to a base year, e.g. a reduction of 5.2% percent compared to 1990
emissions levels.x Therefore, the goal is to reach a concentration
level that is considered “safe”, or at the very least, will not cause
catastrophic climate change.xi
To illustrate the problem with trying to reach a specified
emission target by a given date, it is worth quoting at length Warwick
J. McKibbinxii and Peter J. Wilcoxen:xiii
Price Volatility
The goal of a cap-and-trade regime is to create a market for a hith-
erto external cost and turn it into a commodity with a price and
institutionalized trading structure. But a price is not all that is need-
ed in order to incentivize behavior and investment change; a stable
price is essential as well. If, for example, one of the goals of the
regimes is to influence the investment decisions of electric utilities,
it is critical that a stable and transparent price exist so that utili-
ties can incorporate the carbon price into their long-term investment
decisions. A cap-and-trade regime, however, is unlikely to deliver a
stable price. In the first place, it will be difficult to make the market truly
transparent because of the unknown number of market players
at any one time and the time lags with reporting and compliance.
Second, the potential for the regulatory body to increase the number
of allowances into the system, change the regime’s cap or otherwise
affect the supply and demand of allowances over time would create
a high level of uncertainty in the market. If the regime disperses
too many (i.e. set the cap too high), the market will result in too low
a price; if it does not disperse enough (i.e. sets the cap too low) the
market will yield too high a price. The result is a market marked by
price volatility, the very thing that will limit long term investment.
The EU ETS provides a case study illustrating the problem of
price volatility coupled with an absence of a significant change in
investment decisions. The first stage of the program was a “trial”
period and uncertainty has continued to plague the ETS. It is the
perfect example of how a carbon cap-and-trade system does not
necessarily result in behavior and investment change.xviii
Another consideration concerning the carbon price is that
currently proposed GHG cap-and-trade regimes may not generate a
sufficiently high carbon price to affect business practice. In order
to ensure that a given regime will not lead to politically unpalatable
price increases (for electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, etc.), proposed
regimes often include a ‘price ceiling.’ If the market price of carbon
reaches or surpasses a certain price level for a sustained period of
time, then the regulatory body has to issue more allowances, allow
45
in more project-based credits (offsets), or allow foreign emission
credits from outside the regime (to increase supply and thereby drive
down the price). Regardless of the mechanism, the cap is broken and
the regime is that much further from reaching its target. Critics will
argue that a carbon tax will inflate the cost of carbon, but a high
carbon price is precisely what is needed in order to achieve price
parity for alternative, clean technologies and to incentivize innova-
tion and behavior change.
Both a cap-and-trade and tax strategy will meet with political
resistance; we should aim for the carbon tax that, at least, is more
likely to provide the necessary price stability and transparency. As
William A. Pizer, Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future, points out
regarding the debate between the “quantities” approach (cap-and-
trade) and the “price” approach (carbon tax): “we cannot be certain
about both a policy’s cost and its environmental outcome. Economic
efficiency, however, based on relatively constant marginal damages,
argues for cost certainty over emissions certainty.”xix
Conclusion
Cap-and-trade is first and foremost a political solution to what is
essentially an economic problem. A principal reason why cap-and-
trade has more political traction and environmental support in the
U.S. than other policy proposals, such as a carbon tax, is because of
the general notion that any policy advocating for any sort of tax is
“dead upon arrival.” Within such a political climate, advocates for
climate action from all spectrums are pushing for “something” since
the U.S. has gone so long with nothing. Supporters return to the old
adage, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” But this is no
time for timidity. Policy makers should consider the following:
Abstract
Analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data collected by students
is meant to facilitate sustainable policy decisions within the University
of North Dakota, the North Dakota University System and the state
government. The authors, UND graduate students, compiled the first
GHG emissions inventory in October 2008 as part of the pledge to the
American Colleges and University Presidents Climate Commitment.
The authors developed specific methodology and data collection
protocol to assemble the data and interpret emissions trends, using
the Clean Air-Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator. The protocol
sets standards for problem areas identified by the authors; this in-
cludes a system for tracking diesel gallons for the state fleet and the
need for tracking air travel miles. It also includes recommendations
for university policy that would improve data collection. The protocol
would pave the way for other state entities to implement their own
GHG inventory and climate action plans. The final report will provide
baseline information used to develop a climate action plan to achieve
climate neutrality. The climate action plan committee could use the
results to develop recommendations for sustainability, such as replac-
ing the coal-fired steam plant or using bio-fuels in aviation training.
Methodology
Greenhouse Gas emissions of fiscal years 1993-2007 were calculat-
ed based on data collected in a 2008 project. The emissions were
calculated for UND following the procedures outlined for ACUPCC
and using The Clean Air-Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator
as the primary tool.ii The calculator is a free Excel workbook that
facilitates the calculation of project emissions from 1990-2060 and
produces charts and graphs which illustrate changes and emission
trends. The calculator includes all six greenhouse gases specified
by the Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, and SF6. It is based
on workbooks provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change for national-level inventories and is adapted for use at
institutions of higher education.vii Emissions are reported by metric
Once all the data was collected and data gaps were eliminat-
ed, the numbers were inputted into the carbon calculator. Tnum-
bers were inputted into the carbon calculator, which processed the
data by identifying emissions factors and detailing emissions results
for each year. These results were made into graphs and other visual
instruments used to demonstrate campus emission trends. After
evaluation by separate parties, minor errors were found in the
original input data and subsequent calculations. For example, the
electricity sources were incorrectly cited. Once corrected, the yielded
results showed UND’s emissions to be much less than the initial es-
timation (Table 1).viii
Protocol
An important part of GHG inventory is developing of a protocol doc-
ument, which details the methodology, standards, and procedures
for data collection, interpretation, analysis, and record-keeping.
In addition, the 2008 protocol for UND provided a framework of
suggestions and recommendations for improving these procedures,
making future inventories more efficient and accurate. To ensure
consistent data and emissions results, the protocol should be
monitored closely each year the inventory is updated.
The format and structure of the protocol is useful for cover-
ing a wide spectrum of issues that becomes evident when compiling
an inventory. The entire protocol document provides an extensive
report across every category, including contact information, data
type, definitions, collection methods, units, entry info, problems
with data (missing years and estimations/inaccuracies), and recom-
mendations for improvement. This specific protocol can be a point
of reference for any institution interested in making a GHG inventory
and can generate a climate action plan, using the carbon calculator.
Building a protocol for the UND inventory was challenging
because of problem areas associated with the first campus GHG
inventory project. Similar to other GHG inventories, some 1993 data
sets were found to be incomplete, inaccurate, or in need of conver-
sion. The categories in which this occurred were direct transporta-
tion, commuting, air travel, waste, paper purchasing, and fertilizer.
For example, UND is part of the state fleet, which evaluates gasoline
in miles and diesel in hours, yet the calculator only measures in gal-
lons. To account for this discrepancy, a calculation method was de-
veloped to convert data into gallons.
Ultimately, it was deemed important to compile a
comprehensive picture of UND’s emissions over time. In cases where
the data was incomplete, methodology was developed to estimate
numbers based on trends, averages, or other methodology approved
by the ACUPCC. The protocol is especially important for catego-
ries where methodology fills data gaps. The development of more
accurate trends in future data collection will determine the efficacy
of the methodology employed in this inventory.
To ensure that future inventories can collect accurate data,
the protocol recommended changes to some university record-
keeping procedures. For example, a suggestion was made that the
Department of Transportation keep exact records of the fuel
consumed directly from the fleet gas station. The university’s
utilization of North Dakota state fleet poses a challenge, as a
change in university recordkeeping procedures would also require
a change in state procedures. These, and other, recommendations
were condensed into a separate document and submitted to the staff
in charge of the inventory and the climate action plan.
!
Figure 2: UND campus greenhouse gas emissions 1993-2007. Scope 2 T&D Loss-
es are the losses from transmission and distribution of electricity.viii
57
Winona State MN 6 7,792 2,097 2.8 12.2
University
University of WY 6 8,659 155,634 18.0 22.0
Wyoming
University of MT 6 11,186 42,687 3.8 11.1
Montana-
Missoula
Cornell NY 6 19,800 319,000 16.1 21.4
University
University of ND 7 9,976 138,633 13.9 26.0
North Dakota
Table 2: Comparison of emissions of other institutions, as reported to the
ACUPCC.vi
While the results would be unique for each institution, they
can be standardized according to demographics like dollars spent,
students, and building space. Comparisons provide a basis for
generating ideas and making decisions regarding policies that
address emissions. Other institutions can use the results of their
inventories accordingly, identifying their own unique characteristics and
problem areas and taking the necessary steps toward decision-mak-
ing.Because the GHG inventory is updated annually, the university
should take the proper steps toward making the data collection more
efficient and accurate. UND should mandate record-keeping
procedures which comply with the needs of the carbon calculator,
and ultimately the GHG inventory. As described in the protocol
section, after the inventory is completed, a request should be sent
to each appropriate department describing data records that are
requested each fiscal year. They should also designate a contact person
responsible for such records. Additional steps recommended for
UND include:
Conclusion
The results gathered from the GHG inventory will be used to
prioritize projects, justify decisions and develop a climate action
plan. Information gathered from the analysis of results will provide
the basis for policy decisions aimed at reducing emissions. Results
can also be used in the carbon calculator to demonstrate cost-bene-
fit analyses. The calculator will use current results combined with
project-specific information on the cost of projects and overall
payback time. The calculator can use these results, combined with
information on overall reduction of emissions from a potential
project, to compare the long-term cost of an investment or project
with its immediate benefits, further informing decisions on environ-
mental sustainability policies.
As this is the first GHG emissions inventory performed by a North
Dakota college or university, publishing the methodology, protocol and
recommendations paves the way for other institutions to conduct sim-
ilar inventories of their own emissions and develop their own climate
action plans. UND is part of the North Dakota University System,
so the tools developed specifically here will be made available for
use among the 10 other campuses within the system. Additionally,
the leadership exemplified by UND may encourage these schools to
follow suit. UND is also part of the state government fleet system;
any record keeping or other policies implemented at UND would also
need to be implemented uniformly across the state fleet system. In
this way, the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions data collected
by the students is pervasive, and can be expected to facilitate sus-
tainable policy decisions within UND, the North Dakota University
System and the North Dakota state government.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Randy Bohlman, Soizik Laguette, and
Rebecca Romsdahl for their guidance in collecting and interpreting
data and for their reviews and comments on this article.
References
i
University of North Dakota. About UND [Internet]. Grand Forks, North Dakota. 2008.
[cited 2008 October 30]. Available from: http://www.und.edu/aboutund/
ii
Clean Air-Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator v6.0. 2008. [cited 2008 October 30].
59
Available from: http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/toolkit/inv-calculator.php
iii
Bohlman, R. UND electrical use data. October 10, 2008. From personal communication.
iv
Orvik, J. UND president Kupchella signs climate commitment; UND pledges to continue
reducing carbon footprint, energy consumption. 29 January 2008. [cited 2008 October
20]. Available from: http://www2.und.edu/our/news/story.php?id=2240
v
American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. 2008. [cited 2008
October 20]. Available from: www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/html/commitment.
php
vi
American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment. ACUPCC Reporting
System. [cited 2009 January 16). Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in
Higher Education. Available from: http://www.aashe.org/pcc/reports/.
vii
Clean Air-Cool Planet. Campus carbon calculator user’s guide, version 6. August 2008
viii
University of North Dakota Facilities Management. “Greenhouse Gas Inventory Re-
port: 1993-2007.” January 2009. Available from: http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-report.
php?id=690
ix
Walters, D. “EERC creates first 100% renewable jet fuel.” [cited 2008 September 29].
Available from: http://www.undeerc.org/news/newsitem.aspx?id=327
Book Reviews
Michael T. Klare. 2008. Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet : The
New Geopolitics of Energy. New York: Metropolitan Books. 352
pages. ISBN-13 978-0805080643 (hard-back) $26.00; ISBN-13:
9780805089219 (paperback) $16.00.
63
Tim Flannery. 2007. The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing
the Climate and What it Means for Life on Earth. New York: At-
lantic Monthly Press. 384 pages. ISBN-10 0871139359 (hard-back)
$24.00.
www.rooseveltinstitution.org/policy/energy
energy &
the environment
www.rooseveltinstitution.org/catalyst2009