1

therooseveltinstitution

Sana scientia ducit ad sanum consilium

Sound science leads to sound policy
 therooseveltinstitution
2100 M St, NW - Suite 610
Washington, D.C. 20037

Catalyst
Volume 1 • February 2009
Copyright 2009

Editor-in-Chief
Adrian Haimovich - Columbia University

Science Editors
Dan Amrhein - Columbia University
Stephen Cox - Columbia University
Vedant Misra - Columbia University

Policy Editors
Gelseigh Karl-Cannon - Columbia University
Nathaniel Edwards - University of Georgia
Brandon Hammer - Columbia University
Sarah Leonard - Columbia University
Kate Redburn - Columbia University

Recruitment Directors
Anna Brower - Barnard College
Shipra Roy - University of Minnesota

National Policy Director

Caitlin Howarth

National Director of Communications

Nina Coutinho

Faculty

Printed by Mount Vernon Printing Co. to

responsible forestry standards.

The opinions expressed within Catalyst are exclusively those of

the individual authors and do not represent the views of the
editors, the Roosevelt Institution, or any of the organization’s
chapters, centers, advisors, reviewers or affiliates.
 Contents
Leader
Honorable Representative Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)

Letter from the Editor

Adrian Haimovich, Editor-in-Chief

Summaries for Policymakers

Editorial Board
Global Climate Models............................
Desirability of Non-Point CO2 Sequestration Mechanisms...........................
Splitting Water into Hydrogen and Oxygen: a Clean and Abundant
Source of Energy..........................................
Vertical Farming: Bringing the Country to the Concrete.....................

Articles
The Case for a Federal Regulatory Strategy for Solar Power
Blake Carpenter, University of Iowa.............................................
Organic Alternatives to Chemical Fertilizer
Alex Greenspan, University of Colorado......................................
Analysis of Cap-and-Trade
Matthew Tidwell, Johns Hopkins University....................................
Informing Decisions: Greenhouse Gas Inventory at the University of
North Dakota
Anduin Kirkbride McElroy, Shawn O’Neil, Santosh Rijal, Navin
Thapa and Junyu Yang, University of North Dakota...........

Book Reviews
Rising Power, Sinking Planet: the New Geopolitics of Energy by
Michael Klare
James M. A. Hobbs, Colorado College............................................
The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery
Paul Burger, Michigan State University..............................................
 Leader
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.
Unfortunately, many policymakers at all levels of government are not
fully aware of what is at stake if we ignore scientific research and edu-
cation.

It is absolutely critical that the next generation of individu-

als who makes and influences public policy be well-versed in science,
technology, and innovation. I encourage students studying in these
fields to take an active role in policy as they continue their education
and emerge into the workforce. Future policy makers must recognize
the importance of scientific research and encourage innovation if our
nation is to remain competitive.

Innovation has led America to success since the Industrial

Revolution. Previous generations understood that our economy was
built upon investments in the development of new technologies, and
in rapidly moving those technologies from the lab to the marketplace.
We face a new challenge today as foreign countries have learned from
us, and are investing heavily in training and equipping scientists and
engineers at a rate which threatens to exceed America’s dominance in
those areas. New American investment is needed to keep up.

Building a highly skilled and motivated workforce in future

generations, and developing superb research facilities, are the primary
ways to meet the coming challenges. In Congress, I helped facilitate
that by passing the America COMPETES Act. It authorized spending
for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education pro-
grams, which will provide students with the knowledge they need to
pursue jobs in high-tech fields in the United States. The COMPETES Act
also authorizes funds to expand research and education programs at
the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, and the Department of Energy. Also needed is a solid
research and development tax credit to encourage the private sector to
conduct research and development.

In addition to equipping our nation to compete in the global

economy, investments in scientific research and education will help
move our country and the world away from reliance on fossil fuels.
This is essential if we hope to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In par-
ticular, federal investment in basic research will lead to new technolo-
gies that will make generating electricity cleaner and more efficient,
and make cars go farther on a gallon of gasoline, or power them with
8
no gasoline at all. We are already making great strides in harnessing
the sun to power homes and businesses through the use of photovol-
taic technology. This technology is rapidly advancing, and photovoltaic
sheets are currently being affordably used in various ways to gener-
ate power. However, this technology still has far to go before it will be
widely used.

Perhaps the most direct and available way in which the envi-
ronmental impact of generating energy can be addressed is through
nuclear power. Right now, a convoluted regulatory system deters the
establishment 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 single biggest challenge to environmental sustainability. Howev-
er, I believe that, with strong funding for basic research, our nation can
lead the world away from its reliance on fossil fuels and find sustain-
able means to meet our energy needs.

Many young people realize the importance of these issues to the vital-
ity of our nation, and are studying these fields so that they are pre-
pared for highly skilled jobs. In order to encourage even more students
to study these subjects, policy changes are needed at all levels of gov-
ernment, especially state and local, to bolster these areas of education
in school systems and institutions of higher education. Unfortunately,
there are few scientists and engineers actively involved in the shap-
ing of policy, which is why I am constantly appealing to young people
studying these fields to become active in trying to shape public policy.

If I could dictate the agenda of Congress, I would make these is-

sues among the top priorities. The unfortunate reality is that there are
many, many competing interests, and most elected officials are simply
unaware of how profound the effect investments in scientific research
and education can have on America’s economic and social well-being.
I urge scientists and engineers, and people with an interest and un-
derstanding of these issues, to become involved in politics, whether it
be at the local, state or congressional level. Today’s students are the
potential innovators and political leaders needed to solve the energy
challenges.

Far too few scientists and engineers are interested or involved

in public policy efforts. But it is essential to have scientific and techno-
logical components as part of our public policy. It will be impossible to
solve our planet’s extensive environmental and sustainability problems
without solid scientific research and workable technological solutions
developed by knowledgeable and dedicated scientists and engineers.
Please do your part by entering these fields of work and study!

-Honorable Representative Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI)

 9

Letter from the Editor

“For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. ... We will

restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s won-
ders to raise healthcare’s quality and lower its cost. We will har-
ness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run
our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges
and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we
can do. All this we will do.”
– President Barack Obama, Inaugural Address

Welcome to the inaugural edition of Catalyst: Journal of Energy

and Environmental Policy.

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 consequenc-
es. 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 “Sana scientia ducit ad sanum consilium”—Sound

science leads to sound policy. Between the worlds of science and poli-
tics lies an informational barrier that frequently isolates policymaking
from pertinent, cutting-edge research. The journal seeks to bridge the
gap with policy ideas that reflect authoritative technical analysis.

We trace the philosophy of this journal to 1642. The year 1642 saw the
passing of Galileo and the birth of Isaac Newton. Before Galileo, Coper-
nicus’s heliocentric ideas were rejected by the masses; most people
believed the Earth to be the center of the universe. In 1610, Galileo
would take a leap into the scientific and political unknown. On the 7th
of January that year, he observed three moons orbiting Jupiter through
his homemade telescope and at that moment came to the extraordi-
nary conclusion that the Earth was not the axis of rotation for all celes-
tial bodies. Galileo would spend the following years of his life flirting
with political danger until 1632 when, under the guise of a philosophi-
cal discussion, he published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems. The brilliance of Dialogue lies in its presentation. In the text,
two philosophers debate the merits of the Copernican heliocentric
and Ptolemaic geocentric systems while a Venetian layman observes.
The Copernican sways the layman, who, in one of the final lines of the
manuscript, says of the heliocentric arguments, “I must confess that
10
I have not heard anything more admirable than this, nor can I believe
that the human mind has ever penetrated into subtler speculations.”
For writing this text, Galileo was placed under house arrest for the rest
of his life.

Newton, the exemplar of modern physical science, would learn much

from Galileo’s life work and political troubles. Newton once said in
reference to Galileo, “If I have seen farther than others, it is because
I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” For years, Newton amassed
in his personal notes brilliant insights in the areas of optics, analytic
geometry, mechanics, and gravitation. Newton would need coaxing to
publish the seminal work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
commonly known as the Principia. The Principia is a deliberately dense
text. As Newton later explained, “To avoid being baited by little smat-
terers in mathematics I designedly made the Principia abstract, but yet
as to be understood by able mathematicians.” Where Galileo aggres-
sively publicized his ideas, Newton had little interest in the opinions
of the general public. Catalyst has chosen Galileo’s path—scientific
understanding cannot be limited to the few.

In the aggregate, modern science appears as Newton’s did to many:

impenetrable. Understanding scientific writing frequently requires spe-
cialized knowledge in order to interpret and contextualize the informa-
tion in a useful way. This is particularly daunting to policymakers who
must remain current on dozens of complex topics simultaneously.

While students across the world have dedicated themselves to special-

ized scientific fields, a select group is both ready and able to link the
science they study with the pressing policy questions we face. With a
natural disposition for action, a critical stake in shaping the future,
and the ability to study and understand complex problems, these
students are ideal candidates to help bring science and policy closer
together. Catalyst looks to present their work to policymakers and to
the general public.

Inside this journal you will find four types of articles. We open with a
forward from Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI), a leading advocate
for the protection of the Great Lakes and a proponent of alternative en-
ergy sources and energy efficiency. Following the Leader are 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 Policymak-
ers discuss vertical farming, non-point carbon sequestration, global
climate models, and water-to-fuel technology.
 11
This inaugural edition’s four full-length articles reflect the ability of
students, undergraduate and graduate, to engage in research topics
and investigate the policy implications of their work. It is our hope that
policymakers will use this published research to add new perspective
to their legislative work. Matthew Tidwell from Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity presents “Analysis of Cap and Trade,” where he challenges the
effectiveness of a cap and trade scheme and concludes that a carbon
tax provides a better alternative. In “GHG Inventory and Emissions
Analysis at University of North Dakota,” a team of students from UND
describes how academic institutions can take stock of their own green-
house gas emissions. Alex Greenspan from the University of Colorado
discusses better agricultural fertilizer options in “ Organic Alternatives
to Chemical Fertilizer.” “The Case for a Federal Regulatory Strategy for
Solar Power” by Blake Carpenter from The University of Iowa develops
the idea of providing government support in order to improve the com-
petitiveness of solar power. These pieces share a common thread—all
reflect the need that policy ideas be supported by scientific results. We
conclude the journal with reviews of recently published books and re-
ports on current conferences. These reviews are an excellent resource
for those who are interested in learning what different resources are
available in the area of energy and environmental policy.

This generation of students must bring a fresh approach to the policy

questions faced at all levels of government. Through Catalyst, we look
to provide a peer-reviewed resource for creative thinkers, both the
policy-makers of today and the leaders of tomorrow. We aspire to this
goal from our vantage point on the shoulders of the world’s finest
research institutions.

The success of this journal reflects the incredible efforts of the au-
thors, the Catalyst Journal Editorial Board, the leadership of the
Roosevelt Institution, the Faculty Advisory Board, and, of course, our
readers. To all, my most sincere thanks.

Adrian Haimovich
Editor in Chief
12
 13

Summaries
for Policymakers
14
Global Climate Models
Abstract
Global climate models, or GCMs, are a technology that has been in
use for several decades and which forms 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 in-
teractions on a supercomputer. Climate models are useful because
they create laboratories where different conditions and changes
can be simulated. However, they are limited by computer process-
ing 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 usu-
ally 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 resolution cannot
“feel” these phenomena.
•The physics of climate are represented in GCMs via different
climate variables, which are measurable quantities which vary over
time such as the average temperature, precipitation, or barometric
pressure 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 understood or are prohibitively complex and must be
approximated.
•The climate system works in a chaotic and nonlinear way, which
means that the same initial conditions in a model can lead to a
number of different possible futures. Because of this inherent
unpredictability, scientists run models over and over again many
times and look at the average results from the ensemble of model
runs. This technique is known as a 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.
 15
•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 different con-
centrations of particular greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
•Evidence from GCMs is frequently used in forums such as the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFC-
CC) 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 research is currently funded in limited scope by a number
of government agencies, particularly NASA and NOAA. Both of
these agencies are heavily involved not only in the creation of cli-
mate models but also in the procurement of the observational data
needed to make climate science accurate and relevant. At the time
of press, it seemed that funding cuts during the Bush administra-
tion may be seeing some reprieve; the 15 January House Economic
Recovery Bill laid out $140M for climate modeling specifically and
an additional $710M spread between NOAA and NASA for data ac-
quisition2. Further funding for basic research and data acquisition
in this area will ultimately permit the crafting of better-informed
policies.

Sources
Available upon request
16
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 seques-
tration systems at fossil fuel power plants, especially “clean coal”
power plants (van der Zwaan 2005). However, as carbon emissions
continue 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 process that may already be happening (Hansen et al. 2008), the
only recourse will be to capture carbon dioxide that is already in the
atmosphere (Zeman and Lackner 2004). Non-point systems are effi-
cient 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 typi-
cally contain power plants and other sources of carbon emissions.

Talking Points
•Non-point CCS systems will be able to “clean up” CO2 that is al-
ready in the atmosphere, a feature that will be necessary to reduce
atmospheric CO2 to an acceptable level as carbon emissions con-
tinue to increase in the coming years.
•Population centers and polluted low income areas are typical loca-
tions for power plants; these areas would benefit greatly from local
air pollution controls, but the installation of extensive CCS systems
to address a global problem would only exacerbate the already dis-
proportionate impact of industrial development on disadvantaged
communities.
•Non-point CCS systems can be placed away from population cen-
ters. It would be advantageous for enhanced oil recovery to install
them on oil fields, and they could be distributed on agricultural
land in a business model such as the one used successfully for
wind farms. Systems created exclusively for the purpose of seques-
tering 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 indus-
 17
try standardization and the difficulty of retro-fitting older plants
(David and Herzog 2000; Lackner et al. 1999)
•Point capture is not economically feasible for diffuse, low-inten-
sity 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 con-
siderable expense for traditional CCS systems (David and Herzog
2000)
•Small non-point CCS systems can be developed for local CO2 ap-
plications 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 wide-
spread 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 emissions, shrinks
daily as carbon emissions continue. Given that all emerging tech-
nologies (including those advocated here) have uncertain develop-
ment 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 tradi-
tional point-source sequestration and non-point sequestration. Leg-
islators 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 remedy the
current funding deficit that has severely restricted basic scientific
research in the last few decades.

Sources
Available upon request
18
Vertical Farming: Bringing the Country to the
Concrete
Abstract
Vertical Farming modernizes conventional farming practices by build-
ing vertically oriented, highly regulated, interior farms within cities.
Research suggests that conventional methods of farming will have
doubled 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% liv-
ing in urban centers). Conventional methods will be unable to produce
sufficient foodstuffs—approximately 80% of arable land is already in
use, existing water shortages in developing nations are already occur-
ring and will become more severe, climate change will affect growing
seasons globally, urbanization will strain regional production. Vertical
farming promises a more resource efficient and economically efficient
alternative that can meet rising demand, especially in urban centers.
However, 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 technologies
in a conceptually new way—combining advanced greenhouse technol-
ogy with NASA-developed artificial environment technology—to build
multi-storied greenhouses.
•Vertical Farms require significantly more capital to start than a con-
ventional farm does, an estimated $1 billion per building, necessitating
legislative assistance; but, vertical farms are estimated to gross $80
million in profit annually
•Vertical farms provide food security in ways that conventional farms
cannot—reduces foreign dependency, reduces the oil-food relationship,
increases local self-sufficiency, provides regulated, low food prices,
and provides more jobs per farm than
conventional farms.
•Vertical farms utilize NASA artificial environment technology
•NASA has already implemented such technology aboard the Interna-
tional Space Station
•Alleviates the stress on farmland: reducing conventional farming
methods allows for farmland to be naturally reclaimed by local eco-
systems, increasing biodiversity and potentially reducing the effects of
local climate change.
 19

Practical Implications
•Vertical farming provides a highly efficient environment for farming:
•By design, vertical farms make more use of actual land than con-
ventional farms do, meaning that 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 environment of proposed vertical farms makes
use of minimal resource input—water, soil
•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, reduc-
ing transportation costs, packaging costs and resale costs
•Because of a regulated environment, vertical farms can grow exotic
foods locally, significantly reducing international dependence and in-
creasing local and national self-sufficiency
•Vertical farms are 4 times more efficient per acre on average
•Designed to be energy self-sufficient buildings using solar, wind and
other alternative energy production methods; vertical farms could po-
tentially add excess energy back to the grid
•The vertical farm would feed an estimated 50,000+ people on average

Legislative Context
•The “Food, Energy and Conservation Act of 2008” (Public Law 110–
246; “Farm Bill”), has established a goal of modernizing food produc-
tion, 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 Pro-
gram, Environmental Quality Incentives Program
•The $200+ billion allocated to this bill could provide enough devel-
opmental 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 Dr. Despommier
20
Analysis
The actual effectiveness of vertical farms has yet to be seen on such
a large scale. But, vertical farming is not unprecedented; greenhouses
have been used for centuries to grow exotic plants locally. And NASA
has been developing sophisticated technology to regulate artificial
environments for the sake of growing crops for several years now.
The technology itself is readily applicable to multiple locales, and is
not designed for space in particular. Combining the two, and building
farms vertically within a city however is a new idea. The benefits of
modernizing conventional farming practices and building farms closer
to where populations are growing are evident. Indeed the required
capital is significant, but the broad security benefits and economic
profitability of vertical farming are far more significant than capitally
cheap, inefficient conventional farms. However, the existing agriculture
market, most notably its corporate components, are unlikely to pro-
vide its support. Vertical farming, despite its required capital, would
disrupt the existing order or production, distribution and consumption
on which corporate agriculture is based. But, federal support via incen-
tives and developmental assistance could provide enough access to
ease the transition away from conventional practices for both produc-
tion and the market.

Next Steps
To actualize vertical farming on a national, or global scale, a test model
must be built. The first step is to identify where. New York City would
be an optimal choice to test a vertical farm; and in fact, it is where
many of the predictions and models have been theorized. New York
City has a large population, is significantly urban and relies heavily on
agricultural produce to imported into the city, then distributed. Also,
New York City is ranked fourth among the world’s most expensive cit-
ies by UBS, Mercer and EIU surveys, giving a realistic ceiling for what
the actual production costs would be. Summarily, New York City would
provide a rigorous test of practicality and logistical feasibility before
national or global development. Most importantly, Dr. Despommier,
Vertical Farming’s primary developer, teaches and works in New York
City. If a vertical farm could flourish financially in New York City, it is
likely to be adaptable to most other American cities, as well as other
major cities globally.

Sources
Available upon request
 21
Splitting Water into Hydrogen and Oxygen: a
Clean and Abundant Source of Energy
Abstract
The implementation of solar energy on a large scale is hindered by the
limitations of current technology, which allows for the use of solar en-
ergy only when there is sunlight. A new process for using solar energy
to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen is being developed by
researchers at the Nocera Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy. This new process uses 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, making it economical to
use solar energy even when the sun is not shining. Plans are in place
for the new technology, which currently has government, industrial, and
philanthropic funding, to be deployed within ten years.

Talking Points
•Current methods of harnessing solar energy have been “daytime-
only,” because storing solar power for later use has been prohibitively
expensive.
•Existing oxidation catalysts and reactions are expensive and ineffi-
cient. 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-tem-
perature, 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 government
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 photovol-
taic systems.

Analysis
In short, the Nocera group claims that they have developed a catalyst
that can oxidize water at much higher efficiencies than existing tech-
nologies. Oxidation of water is what plants do in photosynthesis, but
unlike current methods, requiring toxic catalysts, plants can split water
under normal atmospheric conditions in neutral pH water. The Nocera
22
catalyst is the first to successfully replicate this nontoxic, highly ef-
ficient, 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 environmentally friendly than existing
processes.

In spite of this promising progress, information about the Nocera

group’s catalyst is not complete. The group’s paper on their discovery
provides very little data on the form of the catalyst and on the mecha-
nism by which water is split. No schematic of the cell setup is provid-
ed, nor is there sufficient information about the electrochemical char-
acter of the cell. Nonetheless, the discovery is promising; if coupled
with a power-generating system like a fuel cell and mass-produced, the
new catalyst would provide for clean, renewable, carbon-free energy.

Next Steps
Before the discovery can be implemented as a viable source of renew-
able 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, environ-
mentally 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.

Any long-term renewable energy policy must make use of a phased

release of new technology. The first step is to establish a committee to
determine the optimal method of carrying out widespread implementa-
tion of not only the Nocera catalyst but also hydrogen fuel cells, which,
in spite of their efficiency and practicality, are usually used only for
supplemental power. It would then be necessary to install the infra-
structure necessary for nationwide use of hydrogen fuel cells. This
would require the construction of oxidation plants and the populariza-
tion of photovoltaic technology.

Sources
Available upon request
 23

Articles
The Case for a Federal Regulatory Strategy for
Solar Power
Blake Carpenter, University of Iowa

During the peak-driving season in 2008, gas prices set new record
highsi and a shocked American public began paying closer attention to
the effect of energy not only on the environment, but also on house-
hold budgets. In fact, by summer 2008, some analysts were arguing
that energy and environmental policy were more important during the
2008 Presidential Race than they had been in any election for a genera-
tion. Both McCain and Obama agreed on the basic science of climate
change and that combating it ought to be a top priority for govern-
ment 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 began 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 regula-
tory 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 financial and eco-
logical 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, encouraging efficiency,
and updating the antiquated electric grid.iii In order to most effectively
promote sound energy policy during these troubled 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 government subvention.

Solar and America’s Energy Mix

This article contends that government money will be used most effec-
tively by targeting solar power. The U.S. Energy Information Admin-
istration (EIA), the statistical agency within the Department of Energy,
estimates that in 2007, only 7% of America’s energy demand was
satisfied through renewable sources. Solar power makes up just 1% of
this figure, meaning only .07% of U.S. energy needs were met by solar
power.iv

Despite having such a slow start, solar is going to grow quickly. The
Climate Change Special Initiative at the consulting firm McKinsey &
Company recently released a study on the economic feasibility of solar
power to compete with fossil fuels. McKinsey’s researchers exam-
ined price trends for non-renewable fuel sources, the rapid growth of
installed solar power capacity, and the pace of technological innova-
tion. The McKinsey paper predicts that by 2020 in ten regions around
the world, the price of solar energy will compete with traditional fuels
without the need for government subsidies.v

The intersection of these conditions—the disparity between solar

power and other forms of renewable energy and the incredible poten-
tial for growth—makes solar a very attractive target for federal subven-
tion. Unlike hydroelectric power, which has been dominant for years,
or biomass, which has already received millions of dollars of support,
solar power is a relative infant. Although solar power has, to date, cap-
tured a relatively small share of the U.S. demand for renewable energy,
recent technological improvements should decrease costs significantly
and stimulate the installation of additional capacity.

Modern Solar Power Technology

Currently, there are two classifications of solar power generation
systems: photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar thermal (CST). PV
power is produced when solar panels convert sunlight directly into
electrical energy. CST, on the other hand, uses mirrors or parabolic
collectors, called heliostats, to focus solar radiation on a liquid heat
exchanger. The heat exchanger is used to produce steam that drives a
turbine and generates electricity. Recent technological developments
are likely to make the price of both types of solar power more (eco-
nomically?) competitive with fossil fuels.

Photovoltaic power has long faced a trade-off between efficiency and

cost that has limited its commercial value. First generation solar
cells were composed of wafers of silicon that absorbed sunlight and
produced electricity with substantial energy losses. In July 2007, a
University of Delaware research team broke the record for solar cell
efficiency by converting 42.8% of sunlight energy into electricity.vi
However, nearly 90% of installed solar capacity is only half as efficient
as the University’s record-breaking designv. Thin-film PV technology is
more commercially viable, but it currently only achieves approximately
10% electrical conversionv. Thin-film was designed to lower the cost
of solar power. Thicker, more efficient solar cells are more expensive
to fabricate than thin-film, since they require a larger volume of ex-
pensive photovoltaic materials. The reduced weight of thin-film PV
also produces a smaller carbon footprint and savings in transportation
costs.

Whether a PV project calls for lower cost or higher efficiency, recent

scientific advances may improve both designs. Researchers at Rennse-
laer Polytechnic Institute in New York used nanotechnology to de-
velop a coating for PV cells that could reduce the amount of light that
bounces off solar cells from about a third of the sun’s available energy
to just 4%.vii If this coating can be commercially applied to existing
designs, it would dramatically increase the electrical output that either
type of solar cell could generate from the same amount of sunlight.

Recent improvements to CST technology also convey decisive benefits

over other forms of renewable power. Many renewable power genera-
tion designs have no efficient mechanism to store energy. For ex-
ample, wind turbines generate electricity when the wind blows, which
may or may not occur when the power is needed. On the other hand,
modern CST plants have begun using molten salts that can store heat
very efficiently. Using the salts as heat exchangers improves the dis-
patchability of the plant by permitting it to generate electricity when it
is needed. Better dispatchability allows CST to be used for base load
in addition to peak load power,viii and has a number of other positive
consequences that improve CTS’s commercial viability. First, CST
power plants that utilize molten salt heat exchange systems are able
to achieve a 65% annual capacity rating; whereas, solar energy plants
without storage systems are limited to 25% annual capacity.ix Second,
engineers are able to design heliostat fields and molten salt storage
tanks that are large enough to permit power generation for up to 13
hours after the sun has stopped shining. In other words, power can be
generated through a rainstorm or all night, until the sun rises the next
morning, and consumers of CST power will not experience blackouts
during periods of heavy cloud cover. CST plants that use molten salts
are able to capture a higher annual percentage of solar energy and
produce power more reliably. Reliability reduces financial risk, adding
to the factors which have positioned CST to grow rapidly as a power
source.

Promoting Economies of Scale

Federal subvention of solar power would amplify the effectiveness of
new technologies by allowing economies of scale, the cost advantages
that a business obtains due to expansion, to be achieved for both PV
and CST solar plants. As more solar operations become economically
feasible due to increased federal support, the incremental cost of in-
stalling new capacity falls, further encouraging additional solar proj-
ects. Federal subvention makes it more economical for solar power
operators to scale-up their operation. Subsidies make it cheaper to buy
land to increase the size of a PV or heliostat field, more cost effective
to include optional efficiency-boosting systems, and more feasible for
investment in higher capacity plants. All of the advantages gaind by
subsidies generate additional power, higher returns for solar power
plant operators, and more green jobs. A recent report on the econom-
ics of solar power calculates that in the past twenty years, the cost of
manufacturing PV cells has been cut by approximately 20% with each
doubling of solar cell installed capacityv, the approximate generating
capability of a project or unit. Similar economies of scale are possible
with CST technology, due to reduced costs of producing heliostats.
Several studies identify the heliostat unit price as the most important
cost driver for CST electricity because building the heliostate field
typically makes up 40 to 50% of the total cost of the power plant.ix x A
comprehensive study of CST technology estimates that heliostat unit
costs will decline by 3% with each doubling of production capacityx, the
volume of the products that can be produced using current resources.
Another study calculated that an increase in annual demand for he-
liostats from 5,000 to 50,000 would reduce the cost of each unit by
approximately 23%.x In addition to focusing support where it will be
most effective, government policy must address and work to reverse
the deleterious effects that the economic downturn has had on pre-
existing federal support for renewable energy.

Energy Subsidies and the Recession

Most operators of renewable power plants are eligible for some form of
financial support. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,
signed into law by President Bush last October 3, included a provision
that extended and expanded various tax credits for alternative energy.
The production tax credit subsidizes wind, geothermal, hydropower,
biomass and other technologies; whereas, solar operations are eligible
to receive the solar investment tax credit.xii

Regrettably, these tax credits were not designed to operate effectively

during a recession. A business tax credit can only be used to offset a
tax liability arising from a profitable year. Therefore, in a year when
the producer of renewable power makes no money, the credit cannot
be claimed. Most renewable energy enterprises are capital intensive
and unprofitable up front, but gradually begin to make money after a
few years of operation. To reap the benefits of the tax credits in years
when the business is unprofitable and therefore not paying taxes, own-
ers of renewable power plants have been collaborating with large “tax
equity partners.” One business structure used to facilitate this part-
nership has been dubbed “the Minnesota Flip.” Under this business
model, equity partners provide a large portion of upfront capital and
own a controlling interest in the plant for the initial ten years. Owner-
ship permits these larger companies with tax liabilities to claim renew-
able energy tax credits and other tax benefits while they are available.
After 10 years the tax credits expire, and ownership flips back to the
plant operator by means of a pre-negotiated sale.xiii Business models
like the Minnesota Flip allow plant operators to effectively sell the
renewable energy tax credits to companies with large enough profits to
make use of them.

The recent financial slowdown has created a two-fold problem for this
system. According to Marty Pasqualini, managing director of a firm
that helps connect plant operators and tax equity partners, “there were
never more than 18 or 19 tax equity investors, historically.” Nonethe-
less, Pasqualini adds, “they had enough budget allocation for invest-
ment that they had an ability to meet what was, year on year, a tremen-
dously growing sector.”xiv Unfortunately, the recession has hit many of
the tax equity partners extremely hard. Among the original pool of in-
vestors are Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, and AIG, all now defunct. Two
other major investors, GE Energy Financial Services and Morgan Stan-
ley, halted new commitments in anticipation of poor earningsxiv. Thus,
the recession has created dual problems. First, tax equity partners are
less likely to have high taxes, giving them little use for the renewable
energy tax credits they already receive. Second, they may also lack the
cash necessary to invest in new installations, limiting the ability of tax
credits to spur new growth in alternative energy.

Several solutions to this issue have been proposed. American Wind En-
ergy Association CEO Denise Bode and Solar Energy Industries Associa-
tion President and CEO Rhone Resch have argued that the tax credits
should be made refundable, allowing them to reduce tax liability below
zero, essentially meaning the Treasury would cut a check to the renew-
able power plant in years of no profit. Bode argues, “we can continue
to grow through this difficult period only if the new Administration
and the 111th Congress act immediately to make renewable tax incen-
tives refundable so they can work as they are intended to — even in
the current financial context.”xv

Another answer could come from decoupling federal subsidies and the
profitability of a renewable energy business. The Spanish government
uses a price support, subsidizing renewable energy producers when
power is sold instead of when a profit is made. The Spanish model
features a carefully structured feed-in-tariff, which allows power from
renewable sources to be sold at above-market prices. The subsidy is
designed to be exceptionally generous at first to hyper-stimulate the
commercialization of solar power. After a few years, the subsidy is re-
duced. In 2007, the Spanish Ministry of Industry, Tourism, and Trade
approved Royal Decree (RD) 661/2007, updating a feed-in-tariff for
renewable energy that is sold to the electric grid. It appears that the
Spanish model is having the desired effect. Presently there are more
than twenty Spanish solar utility plants either in operation, under con-
struction, or in initial project stages. These projects are being financed
and managed by no fewer than five major companies and, in theory,
are expected to produce over a gigawatt of renewable power each
year.xvi The growth of the Spanish solar sector highlights the benefits
of using price supports, and the Spanish industry could provide a
model for U.S. lawmakers who are concerned about increasing the ef-
fectiveness of support for alternative energy during times of economic
trouble.

Non-Monetary Support for Solar Power

In addition to subsidies, there are concrete ways in which a coordi-
nated federal strategy can promote a favorable environment for solar
power. One widely circulated idea involves expanding the network of
power transmission lines to connect utility customers to regions with
high potential for renewable power production (such as the solar-rich
land in the desert southwest). Regulation of PV power provides an-
other opportunity for positive intervention without subsidization. PV
is a complicated technology to regulate; unlike CST power, PV is cost
effective on a much smaller scale. While some utility-scale applications
of PV are being explored, there exists an amazing potential for dis-
tributed generation of PV power. Distributed generation sets PV solar
apart from many alternative energy technologies because it allows the
end user to produce power independent of an electric utility. One ca-
veat, however, is that distributing power generation creates difficulties
that should be addressed through federal regulation:

Trying to connect distributed power to the grid is the biggest hurdle.

One method for overcoming this challenge is called net metering. Net
metering requires utilities to modify their electric meters to monitor
both incoming and outgoing power and to buy renewable power flow-
ing into the grid from privately owned generators. For example, say a
small business outfits the roof of its building with solar panels. Dur-
ing the week, the business may use all of the power provided by the so-
lar paneling and need to purchase additional energy from the electric
utility. On the weekend when the business closes, however, the solar
panels continue operating, even though the company uses minimal
power. Net metering obligates the local electric utility to purchase this
excess power and reduce the business’ electric bill by the appropriate
amount. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 requires all public electric companies to offer net meter-
ing within three years of receiving a request.xvii The result is that net
metering is available in 44 states plus the District of Colombia, under a
variety of different circumstances.xviii While this approach has worked
to some extent, uniform federal regulation could decrease uncertainty
about the availability and extent of net metering and further encourage
PV solar power. Expanding the network of power transmission lines
and standardizing net metering conditions through federal regulation
are just two examples of how the Obama Administration can promote
the development of a sustainable power supply without using subsi-
dies.

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 Ad-
ministration attack the issue of renewable energy from multiple 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 subsi-
dies need to be altered to remain effective during the recession. Final-
ly, 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, envi-
ronmental gains are possible. Favorable regulation can drastically alter
the price and competitiveness of solar-generated electricity 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 green-
house gases. Even though the troubled economy now threatens to
distract attention from the environment, the right balance of targeted
federal support, improvement of existing subvention, and non-mon-
etary 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-
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
32
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.
 33
Organic Alternatives to Chemical Fertilizer
Alex Greenspan, University of Colorado

Abstract
The production and distribution of chemical nitrogen for use as agricul-
tural fertilizer comprises between 1-2 percent of global fossil fuel con-
sumption. Though this direct contribution to energy use seems minimal,
it is unnecessary and unsustainable. On average, American farmers
apply 30-40 percent more chemical N than is needed for optimal crop
yields, thereby wasting 30-40 percent of all chemical N consumed. Ex-
cess nitrogen leaches into ground water causing further environmental
damage.

With fertilizer prices increasing, farmers are already looking for alter-
natives to chemical nitrogen. The USDA offers agricultural price sup-
port primarily through commodity loans to farmers: these should be
provided conditionally, crediting organic soil nitrogen from manure 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 ma-
nure” legumes planted during the winter, whereas farmers in colder
climates will benefit from subsidies to inoculate seeds with nitrogen
fixing rhizobacteria. The USDA can incentivize these practices through
both existing and novel policy mechanisms. These policies will not only
reduce fossil fuel consumption and protect the environment, but help to
stabilize crop prices.

Introduction

The term fertilizer refers to nutrients applied to soil to aid crop

growth. The three most significant nutrients for agricultural crop
yields are phosphorous, potassium, and nitrogen. Soil nitrogen is the
limiting factor of crop growth in most modern agricultural systems.i
American farmers consumed almost 15 million metric tons of nitrogen
fertilizer, nearly three times as much as other primary agricultural
nutrients.ii Global crop yields increased drastically throughout the
20th century following the advent of the Haber-Bosch process of fixing
inert atmospheric nitrogen gas into the reduced forms that plants can
utilize (ammonia and urea). However, this process of manufacturing
chemical sources of nitrogen nutrients is extremely energy intensive,
and chemical fertilizers are highly susceptible to groundwater leach-
ing. Fortunately, organic alternatives to chemical fertilizer can almost
entirely offset agriculture’s synthetic nitrogen requirements.

Given the environmental impacts of chemical nitrogen fertilizer and its

steadily rising price, it is important to seek viable alternatives. Effec-
tive and widespread use of organic fertilizers can substantially reduce
chemical fertilizer use without detrimentally effecting crop yields, and
34
can even serve to stabilize global crop prices. This paper discusses the
environmental impacts of inorganic nitrogen fertilizer, organic alterna-
tives to chemical fertilizer, and policy options for reducing chemical
fertilizer use and incentivizing its alternatives.

Environmental Impacts of Chemical Fertilizer Nitrogen

Watershed Contamination
Nitrogen fertilizer application constitutes the single greatest source of
groundwater contamination in the United States.iii Because nitrogen is
generally the limiting factor in crop growth, farmers apply nitrogen in
excess to ensure maximum yields. Nitrogen leaching refers to the run-
off of excess nitrogen into ground and surface water. Leaching occurs
when precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration in an agricultural sys-
tem, meaning that the input of water into system exceeds the amount
of water that the crop uses.ii The rate of evapotranspiration relative to
precipitation and the amount of nitrogen farmers apply to the soil vary
throughout the growing season; nitrogen leaching varies accordingly.
Leaching tends to be higher early in the season because farmers apply
significantly larger quantities of nitrogen than crops need in order to
ensure safe early growth. Because plants are less developed earlier in
the season, evapotranspiration is relatively low. Later in the cropping
season, leaching tends to decrease because maximum fertilization
becomes less important and evapotranspiration rates increase as the
crops grow.ii

Nitrogen leaching has two major imminent environmental consequenc-

es. The most obvious is nitrate contamination of groundwater, which is
dangerous for humans and other organisms. More significantly, nitro-
gen leaching in surface water also causes eutrophication, an increase
in nutrients within an ecosystem that fuels rapid algal growth in sur-
face waters. The algae quickly die and decompose, exhausting oxygen
in the ecosystem, which in turn kills other organisms in a phenomenon
known as hypoxiaiii. The largest incidence of hypoxia occurs in the Gulf
of Mexico each summer. Nitrogen runoff from farms in the Mississippi
River Basin flows into the gulf creating a stretch of ocean thousands of
kilometers wide, popularly referred to as a “dead zone,” in which little
marine life can survive.iii

Though organic alternative nitrogen sources combined with improved

agricultural practices can reduce nitrogen leaching, the dire situation
posed by the Gulf of Mexico dead zone requires unique solutions.
Booth and Campbell recommend expansion of federal conservation
programs by 2.71 million hectares in the areas of the basin with the
highest rates of nitrate runoff. Such a policy would require both set-
ting aside land and subsidizing farmers to build environmental buffers
to decrease watershed contamination by nitrate leaching.iii Campbell
and Booth predict that such measures could reduce the dead zone by
as much as 60 percent.
 35
Energy Consumption
Production and distribution of nitrogen fertilizer causes 1-2 percent
of global greenhouse gas emissions.ii Gaseous atmospheric nitrogen
is fixed into solid ammonia, or urea, through an industrial procedure
known as the Haber-Bosch process. Fixing one kilogram of ammonia,
the most common form of nitrogen fertilizer, requires 55 megajoules
of energy.ii *

Additionally, the Haber-Bosch process relies directly on fossil fuel con-

sumption. In the process, atmospheric nitrogen gas reacts with hydro-
gen gas to form solid ammonia. Hydrogen gas must be evolved from
natural gas (methane) by reacting methane with steam. In addition to
hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide is produced and then released into the
atmosphere. Approximately 80 percent of the energy used globally in
the Haber-Bosch process derives from natural gas, and most of the re-
mainder comes from coal.ii Sixty percent of the natural gas consumed
goes towards the hydrogen gas feedstock, while 37 percent of the en-
ergy generated by natural gas or coal consumption contributes to the
1200 °C temperatures and 100 to 300 atmosphere pressures required
by the Haber-Bosch process.

Due to the specific energy and feedstock requirements of the Haber-

Bosch process, currently viable renewable energy sources, such as
wind, could not effectively replace fossil fuels for the production of
nitrogen fertilizer. The most likely alternative to using natural gas to
generate hydrogen would be water electrolysis, which releases oxygen
gas instead of carbon dioxide. However, water electrolysis requires
more energy than methane reformation; currently, most of that energy
comes from coal. Therefore, water electrolysis is not, currently, cleaner
or more cost efficient. Furthermore, because the fossil fuels burned in
the Haber-Bosch process contribute directly to the required heating,
alternative sources of energy will not be as efficient as simply burning
fossil fuels. Renewable energy sources could be developed to oper-
ate the Haber-Bosch process in the future; however, the high price of
chemical fertilizer and the existence of viable alternatives make the
latter seem a more prudent policy option.

Alternatives to Chemical Nitrogen Fertilizer

Manure
Animal waste constitutes the most readily abundant alternative source
of soil nitrogen. Manure contains most primary and secondary nutri-
ents needed for plant growth, including high concentrations of nitro-
gen 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.
36
Widespread redistribution of animal waste could significantly impact
American chemical fertilizer nitrogen consumption. However, several
factors limit the effectiveness of any such policy.vi Though animal
waste contains both reduced nitrogen and phosphorous, these nutri-
ents 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 fertilizer use. Furthermore,
rates of nutrient mineralization vary depending on storage methods,
climate, and manure source, complicating the estimation of recover-
able nitrogen in the manure. This assessment is important given that
overuse of manure nitrogen is subject to the same problems of leach-
ing and denitrification as chemical fertilizer.

Nevertheless, manure fertilizer offers benefits over chemical fertilizer.
Manure can act to improve soil quality, decreasing erosion and increas-
ing 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.

Nitrogen Fixing Cover Crops

Certain species of legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen gas into a form
available to both the legume crop and to another crop planted later.
If managed effectively, nitrogen fixing cover crops can fully supply
another crop’s nitrogen needs. Symbiotic microorganisms known
as rhizobacteria grow in the roots of nitrogen fixing legumes, form-
ing root nodules.vii These rhizobacteria fix atmospheric nitrogen gas
into soluble ammonia.vii During the plant’s life, most of the ammonia
produced goes towards the plant’s own growth; when the plant dies,
excess ammonia is released into the soil in a reduced form. In annual
legumes, nitrogen reserves are generally in greatest excess just before
the plant flowers, so tilling the crop shortly before flowering ensures
the greatest soil nitrogen gain.

Cover crops are environmentally favorable in many ways. Biological
nitrogen fixation does not require fossil fuel consumption because the
sole energy input is photosynthesis in the host plant. Growing cover
crops further mitigates CO2 emissions through carbon sequestration
in plant tissue. Though cover crops are still susceptible to nitrogen
leaching, they result in significantly less soil nitrogen loss than chemi-
cal fertilizer (10-15 percent loss instead of 30-40 percent), increase soil
quality, reduce erosion and runoff, and thereby further reduce leaching
over time.ii Furthermore, using cover crops has been shown to reduce a
farm’s total energy consumption by up to 20 percent.ii

Given the rising cost of chemical fertilizer, nitrogen fixing cover crops
also offer significant economic benefits. In 2006, nitrogen fertilizer
 37
prices in the United States had risen to 521 USD per ton.viii That same
year, farmers applied an average of 138 pounds of nitrogen per acre
grown of corn, the most commonly grown crop in the United States
and the most fertilizer intensive.ix Therefore, farmers spent an average
of 36 USD on fertilizer per acre of corn. The nitrogen production of
common nitrogen fixing cover crops is between 72 and 158 pounds of
nitrogen per acre, between 32 and 51 USD.vi These cover crops include
hairy vetch, which produces between 90 and 200 pounds of nitrogen
per acre for 35 to 65 USD per acre, and berseem clover, which pro-
duces 75 to 220 pounds of nitrogen per acre for 22 to 39 USD per acre.
Cover cropping is clearly an economically viable alternative to com-
mercial nitrogen fertilization, particularly given that the cost of chemi-
cal fertilizer will likely continue to rise as the demand for natural gas
rises, whereas the prices of seeds and agricultural labor remain rela-
tively inelastic to market trends.

Microbial inoculation of agricultural crops

Though few plants have naturally evolved nitrogen fixation, strains of
rhizobacteria have been developed to fix nitrogen for non-leguminous
crops and are referred to as biofertilizer. One such commercially
available strain of biofertilizer has been marketed under the name
BioPower. Field trials using BioPower demonstrate that inoculating
the roots of crops can save as much as 70-90 percent of the nitrogen
requirements for legumes, 50 percent for rice, 50 percent for corn, 30
percent for wheat, and even 50 to 70 percent for cotton. These savings
in nutrient requirements translate to 25 to 117 USD per hectare for
legumes, 33 USD for rice, 41 USD for corn, 21 USD for wheat, and 103
USD for cotton.x

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
Agriculture (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 emer-
gency 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 economically 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 autho-
rization 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
38
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 significantly impact chemical
fertilizer consumption. Farmers may have different reasons for over-
applying nutrients, so the same policies 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 ex-
cess because of uncertainty surrounding the level of nutrients already
present in soil. This preemptive action covers unforeseeable events
during the cropping season that may decrease nutrient levels. There-
fore, 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 fertilizer as politically infeasible and economically damag-
ing to farmers.xv Instead, Sheriff suggests policies that help manage
risk, such as crop insurance, and that encourage adoption of environ-
mentally beneficial practices such as upgraded irrigation systems, soil
nitrogen content 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 or-
ganic 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. How-
ever, the program is limited in scope and typically only implements
changes designed to reduce 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 alterna-
tive nitrogen sources.

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 distri-
bution of manure as fertilizer by taxing feedlots that do not distribute
their manure. The USDA can further incentivize alternatives to chemi-
cal fertilizer through expansion of eligibility requirements for direct
payment subsidies to include alternative nitrogen sources. Further-
more, the crops included in direct payment programs should include
nitrogen-fixing crops.*** To encourage the use of biofertilizer in colder
 39
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 ex-
pand 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 sub-
stantially 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, chemical nitro-
gen 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 economi-
cally viable and less susceptible to drastic price changes. Policy makers
must facilitate this transition to protect the environment, farmers, and
global food security.

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.
40
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
 41
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 combus-
tion.

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 anthro-
pogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide, which leads
directly to an increase in the natural rate of warming from the green-
house 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 be-
tween GHG emissions and climate change. Even with this understand-
ing, 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, imposing costs on the polluters of GHG emis-
sions is a goal of climate policy.

If a price were put on GHGs, the economic equation for many busi-
ness 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 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 electric-
ity 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, indi-
42
vidual’s would be affected as higher prices would discourage consump-
tion 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 to 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, heating and industrial processes) makes
up the largest percentage of GHGs emitted annually in the U.S.,iii many
legislative proposals involve 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 trading component
is left to the market as it finds the most cost-effective emission reduc-
tions, theoretically helping to lower compliance costs. Imposing a cap
introduces the forces of supply and demand for available permits re-
sulting 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 pol-
luting 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, legisla-

tors, 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 introduced 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. domes-
tic cap-and-trade regime is problematic because it is 1) based on the
flawed premise of a ‘safe’ concentration of GHG emissions; 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 carbon tax
levied at the point source, or where a fuel enters the market (e.g. at the
 43
coal mine, well head or port), and ratcheted up over time would intro-
duce into the market a clear, stable price on GHG emissions. The ever-
increasing price on GHGs, however, will not be sufficient 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 commercial-
ization of clean technologies that provide 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 maxi-
mum 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 compliance pe-
riod. 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 required for compliance;
those entities can then trade their excess permits 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 increas-
ing 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 Emis-
sions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) created to help the EU reach its reduc-
tion 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 mo-
mentum behind cap-and-trade, however, has blinded policymakers and
much of the public from other options.vii

Flawed Premise
One of the most serious pitfalls of cap-and-trade is that the very prem-
ise of such a regime is flawed. The underlying presumption 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 atmosphere 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 anthropo-
44
genic 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 tar-

get by a given date, it is worth quoting at length Warwick J. McKibbinxii
and Peter J. Wilcoxen:xiii
The risks associated with climate change result from the accu-
mulated stocks of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Each additional ton of emissions increases the risk, although
very slightly, and there is no threshold below which risks are
zero…In the absence of a clear threshold, basing a climate
policy on a rigid emissions target makes little sense: achieving
the target does not eliminate the risk and exceeding the target
does not cause consequences markedly different from achiev-
ing it. Put bluntly, when every ton of emissions contributes
equally to the problem, it is impossible to justify any particular
emission target, other than possibly no emissions at all.xiv

Thus, a domestic cap-and-trade regime that, for example, aims for an

80% reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 has the wrong
goal in mind.xv Since we cannot be sure (and may never be sure) which
threshold level of emissions is “dangerous,” our goal should be to a
wholesale elimination of man-made GHGs from the global economy.
Domestic policy, therefore, should be geared toward “input” measures
rather than “output” measures like an arbitrary emissions level.xvi Pol-
icy makers should explore options within a framework of sustainable
development, such as percentage of electricity generated by non-CO2
emitting sources; these can easily be expanded upon in the future and
create a foundation for future growth.

It is reasonable to argue that the level of a national carbon tax would

also be based on an emissions target, albeit implicitly. Without an
emissions target how would the federal government decide between an
initial tax of $2 per ton of CO2 or $40? The purpose of the tax must
be to provide a clear and stable emissions price that acts principally to
reduce fossil fuel consumption while simultaneously supporting the
other climate policies enacted by the government; it should be a fairly
straightforward economic analysis to determine an initial carbon price
that will have a “motivating” effect without limiting economic
growth.xvii

Price Volatility
The goal of a cap-and-trade regime is to create a market for a hitherto
external cost and turn it into a commodity with a price and institu-
 45
tionalized trading structure. But a price is not all that is needed 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 utilities 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. T first stage of the program was a “trial” period and uncer-
tainty 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 in more project-based cred-
its (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 innovation and behavior change.

Both a cap-and-trade and tax strategy will meet with political resis-
tance; 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 regard-
ing the debate between the “quantities” approach (cap-and-trade) and
the “price” approach (carbon tax): “we cannot be certain about both
46
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

Manipulation and Fraud

Perhaps one of the most alarming aspects of a cap-and-trade regime
is that it would likely be open to significant manipulation and fraud.
Entrenched fossil fuel interests have much at stake concerning climate
policy and tend to favor a cap-and-trade regime. More time is needed
to develop the necessary extensive regulatory framework; therefore,
a cap-and-trade program would only prolong the status quo. Further-
more, under such a regime, windfall profits are possible via allowances
that are handed out for free. One might cynically suggest that several
of the major companies that have joined the bandwagon of support for
a cap-and-trade program did so because of the ability of such a coali-
tion to impact and manipulate a policy scheme that is very difficult
for the average person to understand. As an example, it is doubtful
that many industry members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a
group of businesses and environmental organizations, have had a gen-
uine change of heart about the need for climate action, but rather see
the coalition as a means to secure more favorable climate legislation.
Another sector of the economy that is also particularly supportive of
cap-and-trade is the finance industry because of the focus on trading.xx

The use of offsets within a cap-and-trade regime presents even more of

an opportunity for fraud. Many U.S. congressional climate proposals
allow a certain percentage of offsets to be used for compliance.xxi There
are many valid theoretical reasons for allowing offsets to be included,
such as keeping down costs and mitigating emissions in non-capped
sectors. But offsets are too problematic to provide real emissions re-
ductions because of the “technically and politically impossible task of
making a baseline assessment”xxii and the tenuous notion of “addition-
ality.” The flawed logic of a project being “in addition to” the business-
as-usual scenario is glaring in light of the current financial crisis.
Manipulation and spurious emissions reductions are already in evi-
dence in existing carbon markets with numerous credits having been
generated by what the industry has come to call ‘junk projects.’ Some
analysts and environmental organizations estimate that up to two-
thirds of the credits created under the Clean Development Mecha-
nism—one of the market-mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol—are
fraudulent.xxiii
There is no doubt that a carbon tax is also susceptible to immense po-
litical pressure. If a tax were considered by Congress, industry would
certainly lobby for an initially low tax amount and exemptions, thereby
weakening the regime. There would also be the opportunity for enti-
ties to evade the tax. But once implemented, a carbon tax would pro-
vide relatively fewer opportunities for fraud.
 47
Conclusion
Cap-and-trade is first and foremost a political solution to what is es-
sentially 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:

1. Creating a cap-and-trade regime as a “critical first step forward”

would put into motion an administrative regime with inertia that
would likely prove difficult to change in the event that the policy is
shown to be less than optimal;
2. The political environment in America can and has changed
quickly when the times required it to do so; particularly when a
carbon tax could mean less governmental intervention and smooth-
er operating markets. Our history should serve to undermine the
current anti-tax, anti-regulation fatalism on the Left,
3. If we truly accept what much of contemporary scientific study
suggests about the dangers and consequences of man-made cli-
mate change, there is no time for half measures; and policy makers
or politicians will be judged harshly by history (and their descen-
dents) for failing to act in a bold and decisive manner.

Given the current financial climate calling for regulation and govern-
ment intervention, the significant loss of faith in the power of un-
bridled markets to solve problems, and a new progressive presidential
administration, there could well be a political shift that allows for a
carbon tax if bold policymakers are ready to act.xxiv Yet, a tax alone
would not be enough to meet the challenges of climate change. Much
more will be needed. Both cap-and-trade and a carbon tax have serious
shortcomings, but a domestic carbon tax offers a more efficient and
effective means to put a much-needed price on GHG emissions. To-
gether with aggressive technology and other climate policies, a carbon
tax also provides the U.S. with an opportunity to quickly embrace an
international leadership role on the climate change effort.

Notes

i
Of the $7,435 million (2007 dollars) of U.S. federal fuel-specific energy subsidies
(FY2007), coal and refined coal received a combined total of $3,234 million, or 43.5%
(Energy Information Administration (US). Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies
in Energy Markets 2007 [Internet]. April 2008 [cited 22 November 2008]. Report #:SR/
CNEAF/2008-01. Chapter 5, Table 30, p. 100. Available from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/
oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf).
48 ii
According to the US Energy Information Administration, “Coal combustion emits almost
twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of energy as does the combustion of natural gas,
whereas the amount from crude oil combustion falls between coal and natural gas (Hong
B, Slatick E. Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal. [cited 11 January 2009]. Endnote
1. Available from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html).
iii
For 2006, fossil fuel combustion accounted for 5,637.9 (Tg CO2 Eq.) out of 7,054.2 (Tg
CO2 Eq.) total GHG emissions, or roughly 80% (Environmental Protection Agency (US).
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006 [Internet]. April 2008
[cited 23 November 2008]. USEPA #430-R-08-005. Executive Summary, pp. ES-5 and
ES-6, Table ES-2. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/down-
loads/08_ES.pdf).
iv
For project cost comparisons, see: (Energy Information Administration (US). Assump-
tions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008 [Internet]. June 2008 [cited 20 November
2008]. DOE/EIA-0554(2008). Table 38, p. 79. Available from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/
oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf#page=3). For example, base overnight costs,
defined on page 78 as “the cost estimates to build a plant in a typical region of the coun-
try” (expressed in 2006 dollars per kilowatt), in 2007 were $1,434, $450, $1,340, and
$3,499 for new scrubbed coal, advanced natural gas, wind, and solar thermal, respec-
tively, before investment tax credits are applied.
v
See the website of the United States Climate Action Partnership for a list of businesses
and environmental organizations in favor of a cap-and-trade regime, http://www.us-cap.
org/. See also the Western Climate Initiative, http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/,
and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, http://www.rggi.org/home, for evidence of
state support.
vi
At least six cap-and-trade proposals were introduced in the Senate and five in the House
of Representatives, while two carbon tax proposals were introduced in the House (Larsen
J, Heilmayr R. Comparison of Legislative Climate Change Targets. World Resources In-
stitute. 9 September 2008 [cited 22 November 2008]. Available from: http://pdf.wri.org/
usclimatetargets_2008-09-09.pdf; and Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Carbon Tax
Proposals from the 110th Congress. [cited November 22, 2008] Available from: http://
www.pewclimate.org/congress/110th/carbon_tax). For the Obama-Biden proposal,
Obama for America. Barack Obama and Joe Biden: New Energy for America. [cited 19
November 2008] Available from: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_
speech_080308.pdf.
vii
See footnotes 4 and 5, and the website of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change for country proposals for a “post-2012” international agreement that
are supportive of the cap-and-trade model (Available from: http://unfccc.int/meetings/
ad_hoc_working_groups/lca/items/4578.php [cited 20 November 2008]).
viii
David A. World carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years, says U.S. report. The
Guardian [Internet]. 13 May 2008 [cited 16 October 2008]. Available from: http://www.
guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/13/carbonemissions.climatechange.
ix
Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Available
from: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php).
x
This is the emissions reduction goal for industrialized countries under the Kyoto Proto-
col.
xi
The Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change provides numerous climate scenarios based on different ppm levels
(Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis [Internet]. New York (NY): Cambridge
University Press; c2007 [cited 15 October 2008]. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipc-
creports/ar4-wg1.htm).
xii
Professor of International Economics at the Australian National University.
xiii
Associate Professor of Economics and Public Administration at the Maxwell School of
Syracuse University.
xiv
McKibbin WJ, Wilcoxen PJ. A credible foundation for long-term international coopera-
tion on climate change. In: Aldy JE, Stavins RN, editors. Architectures for Agreement:
Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge
University Press; 2007. p. 189.
xv
Emissions target can be found in Section 702 of Senate bill S.309, introduced on Janu-
ary 16, 2007 (GovTrack.us [Internet]. S. 309--110th Congress (2007): Global Warming
Pollution Reduction Act. [cited 23 November 2008] Available from: http://www.govtrack.
 49
us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-309).
xvi
For a discussion of measures relating to international climate policy, see Barrett S.
A multitrack climate treaty system. In: Aldy JE, Stavins RN, editors. Architectures for
Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World. Cambridge (UK):
Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 237-59.
xvii
House bill H.R. 2069, for example, proposes an initial $10 per ton of carbon and an-
nual increases of $10 per ton (GovTrack.us [Internet]. H.R. 2069--110th Congress (2007):
Save Our Climate Act of 2007. [cited 23 November 2008] Available from: http://www.
govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2069).
xviii
Ellerman DA, Joskow P. The European Union’s Emissions Trading System in Perspec-
tive [Internet]. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. May 2008 [cited
October 15 2008]. Available from: http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/EU-ETS-In-
Perspective-Report.pdf. Rosenthal E. Europe Turns Back to Coal, Raising Climate Fears.
The New York Times [Internet]. 23 April 2008 [cited 12 October 2008]. Available from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23coal.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1209096
000&en=c73a8d0a1cc4dbf6&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin.
xix
Pizer WA. Practical global climate policy. In: Aldy JE, Stavins RN, editors. Architectures
for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World. Cambridge
(UK): Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 289.
xx
See, for example, the membership list of the International Emissions Trading Asso-
ciation for financial institutions and energy companies that are in favor of emissions
trading (IETA Members as of October 2008 [Internet]. International Emissions Trading
Association. [cited 21 November 2008] Available from: http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/
pages/getfile.php?docID=556).
xxi
Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources (US). Climate Legislation Side by Side
[Internet]. [cited 23 November 2008]. Available from: http://energy.senate.gov/public/_
files/ClimateLegislationSidebySide110thCongress.pdf.
xxii
Victor DG. Fragmented carbon markets and reluctant nations. In: Aldy JE, Stavins RN,
editors. Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-
Kyoto World. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 149.
xxiii
McCully P. Discredited Strategy. The Guardian [Internet]. 21 May 2008 [cited 12 Octo-
ber 2008]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/21/envi-
ronment.carbontrading?gusrc=rss&feed=society.
Haya B. Failed Mechanism: How the CDM is subsidizing hydro developers and harming
the Kyoto Protocol [Internet]. International Rivers. November 2007 [cited 10 October
2008]. Available from: http://internationalrivers.org/files/Failed_Mechanism_3.pdf.
xxiv
For a particularly promising carbon tax proposal, see James Hansen’s suggestion for a
“Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend” (4 June 2008 and 29 December 2008 postings. Avail-
able from: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/).
50
 51
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory at the University
of North Dakota
Anduin Kirkbride McElroy, Shawn O’Neil, Santosh Rijal,
Navin Thapa, and Junyu Yang, University of North Dakota

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
collect 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 includes a system for track-
ing 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 cli-
mate action plan to achieve climate neutrality. The climate action plan
committee could use the results to develop recommendations for sustain-
ability, such as replacing the coal-fired steam plant or using bio-fuels in
aviation training.

Introduction
A greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory is arguably the most
important step in the process to reduce emissions. It is the cornerstone
for all further actions, as it provides a system of accountability, meth-
odology, protocol and baseline results, which are used to develop an
action plan and make comparisons and recommendations. It is impor-
tant to perform a GHG emissions inventory correctly so it can serve as
a catalyst to motivate actions and gather real results.

This paper will explain the process used to inventory the GHG emis-
sions at the University of North Dakota (UND). University of North Da-
kota is a public university in Grand Forks, North Dakota, (pop. 50,000),
located on the Minnesota border, and approximately 75 miles from the
Canadian border. University of North Dakota employs 792 faculty and
1,957 staff. There are currently 12,748 students enrolled in 193 fields
of study, including medicine, law and aviation. The campus includes
223 buildings (5.33 million square feet) on 549 acres.i

Some of the university’s emissions may not be typical of all universi-

ties. For example, UND is situated in an area characterized by warm
summers and long, severely cold winters. Heating/cooling degree days
52
are a quantitative index designed to reflect the demand for energy
needed to heat/cool a building. The number of cooling degree days at
UND was 607 in 2007, compared to the national average of 1,217.ii The
number of heating degree days was 8,958, compared to the national
average of 5,094. Though emissions from cooling are less than that of
other universities, this does not outweigh the greater emissions from
winter heating by the coal-fired steam plant. In 2007, UND had 3,254
more degree days than the national average.ii Other unique emissions
sources are energy intensive research programs, such as the Energy
and Environmental Research Center, and training programs, such as
the aviation school. University of North Dakota has the world’s largest
non-military fleet of training aircraft.1 University of North Dakota is
also unique in that more than half of its electricity supply comes from
a hydroelectric dam in western North Dakota.iii The remainder of elec-
tricity is a mixture of coal-power, nuclear, and other sources.

The University of North Dakota has already invested significantly in

energy efficiency projects. Beginning in 2000, it executed a $3.9 mil-
lion comprehensive energy efficiency improvement program reducing
electrical and steam usage.iv The program saves approximately $0.5
million each year, which is used to pay off the improvement cost. An
additional $2.1 million facility energy improvement program reduced
electrical, steam, natural gas and water usage, beginning in 2005.iv
These actions were guided by efforts to reduce energy consumption,
but were not based on a campus-wide survey of energy consumption
and GHG emissions.

The GHG emissions inventory was performed in October 2008 and was
compiled in large part by the authors of this paper, graduate students
in Earth System Science and Policy. The inventory was required as
a part of the university’s commitment to the American College and
University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) to develop a plan
to achieve carbon neutrality.v The climate action plan is dependent on
the results of this inventory, which was the first to be performed by
any college in North Dakota.vi When UND committed to the ACUPCC in
January 2008, it also committed to other sustainability actions, such as
assessing curricula for sustainability coverage and keeping an inven-
tory of all environmentally relevant research projects.iv Most of these
commitments are still pending, but the completion of the inventory
compilation can serve to put these actions into motion.

In the methodology section, this paper explains the methods used to

ensure accuracy. The protocol section explains the process that was
developed to ensure consistent data collection for future inventories.
In the discussion section, this paper uses the inventory results to dem-
onstrate the flow of data acquisition and the consequences of incorrect
protocol. The discussion also includes recommendations based on data
collected in the inventory, which the authors believe would reduce the
 53
university’s GHG emissions.

Methodology
Greenhouse Gas emissions of fiscal years 1993-2007 were calculated
based on data collected in a 2008 project. The emissions were calcu-
lated for UND following the procedures outlined for ACUPCC and using
The Clean Air-Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator as the primary
tool.2 The calculator is a free Excel workbook that facilitates the calcu-
lation 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 invento-
ries and is adapted for use at institutions of higher
education.vii Emissions are reported by metric tons in carbon dioxide
emissions (MTCDE).

  Figure 1: Campus carbon calculator spreadsheet mapii

All data collection, calculations, and estimations were done with the
goal of inputting the appropriate data in the corresponding carbon cal-
culator category. Data was collected across three scopes of emissions,
indicating the level of responsibility and the ownership of emissions:
Scope 1: Direct emissions sources
•On-campus stationary sources (steam plant and generators)
•Transportation
•Fugitive emissions from refrigeration and agriculture.
Scope 2: Indirect sources owned by UND
•Purchased electricity
Scope 3: Sources not owned but financed by UND
•Commuting faculty, staff and students
•Directly financed study abroad air travel
•Solid waste
•Wastewater
•Paper

Once all the data was collected and data gaps were eliminated, the
54
numbers were inputted into the carbon calculator. The carbon calcula-
tor then processed the data by identifying emissions factors, making
calculations, and ultimately, showing detailed results year by year.
These results were made into graphs and other visual instruments
used to demonstrate campus emission trends. After evaluation by sep-
arate parties, minor errors were found in the original data and calcula-
tions. For example, the electricity sources were incorrectly cited. Once
corrected, the yielded results showed UND’s emissions to be much less
than the initial estimation (Table 1).viii

Year On-Campus Purchased All Transporta- Solid Waste & Total Campus

Stationary Electricity tion Sources Wastewater Emissions

Sources

Emissions results in MTCDE 10/30/2008

1993 91,282 43,662 18,070 2,285 160,334

2000 92,777 48,355 22,582 2,130 171,325

2007 95,655 49,432 23,175 2,219 176,205

Emissions results in MTCDE 1/15/2009 after data correction and verification % change

1993 80,691 17,211 23,891 2,587 126,799 -21%

2000 82,186 20,742 22,582 2,130 130,388 -24%

2007 85,588 24,403 23,175 2,219 138,633 -21%

Table 1: Shows the difference between the initial results of the GHG Inven-
tory and the final results, following all data correction and verification. In the
corrected errors and completion of data sets yielded significant changes in
campus emission totals.viii

Protocol
An important part of GHG inventory is developing of a protocol docu-
ment, which details the methodology, standards, and procedures for
data collection, interpretation, analysis, and record-keeping. In addi-
tion, 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. (Possibly move the dependent clause to the
end?)
The format and structure of the protocol is useful for covering a wide
spectrum of issues that becomes evident when compiling an inventory.
The entire protocol document provides an extensive report across ev-
ery category, including contact information, data type, definitions, col-
lection methods, units, entry info, problems with data (missing years
and estimations/inaccuracies), and recommendations for improve-
ment. This specific protocol can be a point of reference for any institu-
tion 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
 55
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 conversion. The categories in
which this occurred were direct transportation, 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 gallons. To account for this discrep-
ancy, a calculation method was developed 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 categories where methodology fills
data gaps. The development of more accurate trends in future data col-
lection will determine the efficacy of the methodology employed in this
inventory.

To ensure that future inventories can collect accurate data, the pro-
tocol recommended changes to some university recordkeeping pro-
cedures. 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 pro-
cedures 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.

Results and Discussion

Results reveal major sources of GHG emissions and provide a basis for
decision-making regarding policies that address these emissions. They
can also motivate institutions to implement policies to reduce GHG
emissions, and are useful for designing climate action plans. Results
can also be used to inform emissions reduction projects through cost-
benefit analyses .

UND’s total emissions increased from 126,799 MTCDE in 1993 to

138,633 MTCDE in 2007, which is a nine percent increase (Figure 2).viii
UND’s emissions peaked in 1994 at 140,503 MTCDE. UND emits on
average 131,738 MTCDE per year.
56
160000

140000 Scope 2 T & D Losses

Fertilizer
120000
Paper

Waste
100000
Air Travel
MTCDE

80000 Commuting

Refrigerants
60000
Direct Transportation

Purchased Electricity
40000
On-Campus Stationary
Sources
20000

0
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Figure 2: UND campus greenhouse gas emissions 1993-2007. Scope 2 T&D
Losses are the losses from transmission and distribution of electricity.viii

The major sources of UND’s emissions in 2007 resulted from on-cam-

pus, stationary sources (62 %), purchased electricity (18 %), and trans-
portation (commuting, air travel, direct transportation, and aviation
school—17 %).viii The coal-fired steam plant is the largest emitter of
GHGs, contributing an average of 62% of campus emissions. Based on
this, UND’s climate action plan should prioritize emissions reductions
projects for the steam plant, electricity, and transportation sources.

Extensive research and data collection will be necessary to provide

project options and to inform the climate action plan committee on
viable alternatives for current practices. Reducing the steam plant’s
emissions will likely be the greatest challenge for the university. UND
researchers are investigating technologies that burn coal more effi-
ciently. The committee will evaluate recommendations ranging from
replacing the coal plant to introducing cogeneration capabilities. Ap-
proximately 45% of UND’s electricity is purchased from coal-producing
suppliers.viii The committee may recommend that UND install wind
energy technology on or near campus in order to harness North Dako-
ta’s abundant wind. A large source of transportation emissions comes
from the UND’s aviation school, which is responsible for approximately
4%of total emissions.viii The committee should recommend that UND
showcase its recent research through the use of biomass-based jet fuel
by the aviation school.ix Such projects would need to be analyzed fur-
ther to determine its viability and effectiveness; nevertheless, the GHG
 57
inventory provides a starting point for generating ideas for emission
reduction.

Comparison with similar institutions can further explain the signifi-

cance of numbers. UND is compared with other institutions in the
region, as well as two local aviation schools (Table 2).vi The emissions
data, which includes all three scopes of emissions and no offsets,
was reported to the ACUPCC. The table shows how these institutions
compare when emissions are normalized by gross MTCDE per 1000
square-feet and gross MTCDE per full-time enrollment. Additionally, it
includes total emissions, and U.S. Department of Energy climate zone
(used to determine building standards). Of the 15 institutions listed
below, the average MTCDE per full time student is 10.2 MTCDE, and
the average MTCDE per 1000 square feet is 18.8 MTCDE.
Institution State USDOE Enroll- Total MTCDE MTCDE
Climate ment MTCDE per FT per 1000
Zone Emissions student sf
South Dakota SD 4 1,734 18,984 10.9 29.5
School of Mines
and Technology
University of OH 4 26,393 372,310 14.1 30.9
Cincinnati
University of ID 5 10,855 39,594 3.6 10.7
Idaho
Boise State ID 5 14,314 49,884 3.5 16.1
University
University of MT 6 1,084 4,265 3.9 11.7
Montana-West-
ern
Macalester Col- MN 6 1,889 26,824 14.2 21.2
lege
Carleton College MN 6 1,986 21,533 10.8 11.9
Saint John’s Uni- MN 6 2,080 47,376 22.8 25.3
versity
College of Saint MN 6 2,087 21,823 10.5 17.8
Benedict
Black Hills State SD 6 2,950 10,698 3.6 14.6
University
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
58
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, iden-
tifying their own unique characteristics and problem areas and taking
the necessary steps toward decision-making.
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 inven-
tory is completed, a request should be sent to each appropriate depart-
ment describing data records that are requested each fiscal year. They
should also designate a contact person responsible for such records.
Additional steps recommend for UND include:
Increase student involvement in project planning
•Graduate research assistants can focus on sustainable
campus projects
•Class projects can be designed to further project research
•Curriculum can be established around the theme of sustainable
campus planning
Establish partnerships between the climate committee and campus
research units
•Develop a centralized energy budget
•Provide annual reports on overall institutional energy
expenditures
•Use data on expenditures to inform future projects and exam-
ine alternatives

Reducing GHG emissions should be a campus-wide approach. Sustain-

able policy decisions can start by establishing proper record-keeping
procedures, involving students in planning and research, and collabo-
rating between disciplines and research units. The promotion of aware-
ness and partnership can benefit any institution hoping to reduce GHG
emissions.

Conclusion
The results gathered from the GHG inventory will be used to prioritize
projects, justify decisions and develop a climate action plan. Informa-
tion 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-benefit analyses. The
calculator will use current results combined with project-specific infor-
mation 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 payback time with
 59
immediate benefits, further informing decisions on environmental
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 inventory
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 sustainable policy decisions within UND, the
North Dakota University System and the North Dakota state govern-
ment.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Randy Bohlman, Soizik Laguette, and Rebec-
ca 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].
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
60
 61

Book Reviews
62
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.

The study of international relations is concerned with power, how it

is derived, and how it is used on the global stage. In his most recent
book, Michael Klare, author of Resource Wars and a professor of Peace
and World Security Studies at the Five Colleges consortium in Massa-
chusetts, turns traditional concepts of power on their head. Military
hard power and economic might shrink in importance as he describes
a new world order where energy is power—and there’s not enough to
go around.

Rising Power, Shrinking Planet: the New Geopolitics of Energy focuses

on three worrisome trends: energy demand is rising faster than ever
before, conventional, nonrenewable energy supplies are nearing a peak
level, and national governments are increasing state and military inter-
vention to secure these shrinking resources. Klare’s new geopolitical
world—evoked in urgent, fact-laden, prose—is marred by international
strife as states struggle for increasingly limited energy.

Skyrocketing demand in China, India, and the rest of the develop-

ing world, paired with as assumption that our ability to find oil has
peaked, has led to strategic state intrusion and caused the “energy
nationalism” that most frightens Klare. His strongest case study is
Russia’s recent power spike under Putin. Putin jailed and politically
overpowered petro-oligarchs to build a nationalized empire of energy
corporations. These moves, utilizing the new power of energy resourc-
es, have increased Russian economic and political influence and have
pushed Russia back into the sphere of legitimate world players.

Klare believes Putin’s is just one case in a global phenomenon. Of the

fifteen corporations with the largest proven oil reserves, thirteen are
controlled by national governments. Klare doesn’t ignore Washington
in his analysis and reveals our own, increasingly statist energy policies.
His prologue chronicles Congress’s defeat of a Chinese firm’s attempt
to buy the American corporation Unocal in 2005. This presents a
dilemma for advocates of new energy in the US. Framing energy as a
national security issue is effective and appeals to wide swaths of vot-
ers, but entangling energy and security can have dangerous destabiliz-
ing effects as states vie for limited resources.

Energy conflicts were historically funneled through political and

business channels, but as pressure and state control increase, Klare
predicts more aggressive energy events. He cites Russia cutting off
natural gas to Ukraine in 2006 (which was repeated in early 2009), and
Japan and China playing naval chicken over the Chunxiao gas fields in
70 63
the East China Sea. Countries are either energy surplus or deficit, and
this new power paradigm creates a zero-sum game where conflict is
inevitable. Implicit in Klare’s argument is the critical need for renew-
able energy. There’s no “peak” in solar power, and utilizing renewable
resources creates a variable-sum world, which subverts the threat of
conflict. American turbines don’t threaten Chinese wind, and in fact,
advances in technology will benefit all users of a particular energy
source.

Klare articulates a possible escape route after pummeling readers with

his dark, realist vision. He prescribes a collaborative, open policy to
ease conflict and promote cooperation, especially focusing on Ameri-
can-Chinese relations. As the world’s largest emitters of CO2 and the
principal users of dirty coal, both nations could benefit from coopera-
tive efforts to ease energy conflict. Klare argues that collaboration
could boost economic growth, speed up technological advances, and
would ease the threat of interstate conflict.

Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet’s strong focus may be Klare’s great-

est weakness because the book flirts with reductionism. In a world
tarnished by religious fundamentalism, nuclear threat, and economic
crisis, is the battle for nonrenewable energy the greatest threat? Es-
pecially after oil prices plummeted, energy seems to shrink in relative
significance.

But the trends which drive Klare’s central argument march on. Non-
renewables are bound to run out. If we continue to demand more and
more energy, and nations seek to meet their needs with force and coer-
cion, conflict will be inevitable. Escaping this trap through alternative
energy is necessary to maintaining peace and stability in international
relations. Paired with the menace of global climate change’s destabiliz-
ing effects, policy makers would be wise to heed Klare’s warnings and
attempt to break from the current dangerous path.

James M. A. Hobbs
Colorado College
64 71
Tim Flannery. 2007. The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing
the Climate and What it Means for Life on Earth. New York: Atlantic
Monthly Press. 384 pages. ISBN-10 0871139359 (hard-back) $24.00.

Tim Flannery, an environmental advisor to the Australian Federal Par-

liament and Professor of Environmental and Life Sciences at Macquerie
University has written a thorough account of the global plague that
is climate change. Both comprehendible and interesting for the non-
scientist, The Weather Makers organizes what some see as a complex
scientific mess into a digestible manual for global warming adherents
and dissenters alike.

Flannery’s experiences in the realms of teaching and environmental sci-

ences blend together harmoniously to provide readers with a complete
and clear understanding of the scientific and political spheres regard-
ing climate change in the 21st century.

He begins with the Earth’s climactic history, detailing the significant

shifts in climate patterns since the industrial revolution. In accor-
dance with this historical outline, Flannery provides an explicatory yet
barely daunting science-based argument for human’s role in chang-
ing climates. By catering to individuals without deep scientific roots,
Flannery enlightens the average reader to the startling albeit widely
accepted scientific theories associated with this phenomenon.

Referring to the GAIA hypothesis, Flannery shows the reader how

humans, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, have significantly
changed the Earth’s complex environmental make-up, how the Earth
will respond, and how these changes may very well affect the equilib-
rium that we have created between ourselves and our planet within our
lives. While he points out that the future effects of climate change are
largely unclear today, he stresses that they will severely impede upon
the wellness of many across the globe unless strong action is taken.

Despite his gloomy outlook, Flannery emphasizes to readers that sig-

nificant changes can be made by everyone, parents to politicians. From
the Kyoto Protocol to our world’s widespread political apathy to the
current status of green technologies, Flannery supplements the GAIA-
based science lesson with an analysis of proposed solutions, informing
readers of almost all significant currents of the day.

Overall, Flannery has created an intelligible yet detailed argument that

can be understood and utilized by anyone interested in climate change.
From past history, to present day, to our future, The Weather Makers is
a complete scholarly work on climate change, presented specifically for
the non-scientist.

Paul Burger
Michigan State University