36 to Follow on Climate & Energy Issues: March Update

In 2017,  if I could follow only 36 people or organizations on Twitter to learn about real-time climate and energy issues, this would be my (highly subjective,  purposefully diverse) list.  I disagree completely with many of the opinions of some on the list, others I support fully. I constructed the list to include content expertise, wide-ranging viewpoints, data/infographics access, information and insights on fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear energy, and environmental, climate, economic, security and policy issues from academic, industry, media, NGO, and political perspectives.

I'll update the list periodically ( as with this March update), as no doubt I've inadvertently omitted even some of my own favorites. Your thoughtful recommendations and comments are appreciated. My hope for 2017 is that we learn as much or more from those with whom we disagree as from those who share our opinions.

Morgan Bazilian

David Blackmon
Urs Bolt
Jason Bordoff
Ken Caldeira
Jude Clemente
Daniel Cohan
Energy Collective
Ed Crooks
Alex Epstein
Steve Everley
Alex Gilbert
Amy Harder
IEA
Mark Jacobson
Jesse Jenkins   
John Kemp
Cliff Krauss 
Steve Levine  
Michael Liebreich
Katie Mehnert
Bill McKibben
MIT Energy Initiative
Chris Nelder

Ted Nordhaus

Richard Meyer
Sam Ori
Roger Pielke Jr.
Brad Plumer
Rachel Pritzker 
Andy Revkin
Jigar Shah
Mike Shellenberger

Robert Stavins
Daniel Weiss    

Yale Climate Program    

And one for you to consider:
David Lawrence

This #GivingTuesday Help End Energy Poverty

What can you do to help end energy poverty?

Every week, more than a million new people are born into the world to feed, clothe and shelter.  And the greatest growth in population comes from many of the least developed nations. Today, in this rapidly expanding world, 1.3 billion people have no access to electricity, and nearly 900 million still use unsafe drinking water.  More than 2.5 billion people still rely on biomass, like wood and dung, for cooking.  Energy is crucial to lift people from a life of hardship and poverty.

Traditionally, much of the resource, service provision, investment and technology to address energy poverty is driven by government policy / funding and corporate, institutional and financial sector investment. But as individuals we can each make our own significant contribution - starting now.

For #GivingTuesday,  here is a list of non-profit and charitable organizations all helping to make a difference to help end energy poverty. Consider contributing. The list is not all inclusive nor intended to be a specific endorsement but is a good and efficient starting point.  I hope you find it useful and welcome your additions, critiques and ideas for the list. Thanks in advance for your help.

Select Non-profit Organizations Addressing Energy Poverty:
Ashden Trust: http://www.ashden.org
Energy for All: http://www.energyforall.info
Engineers without Borders http://www.ewb-usa.org/our-story/about-us
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves: http://www.cleancookstoves.org
Grid Alternatives: http://www.gridalternatives.org/where-we-work
ImpactCarbon: http://impactcarbon.org
Innovation: Africa http://www.innoafrica.org/projects.html
Light Foundation: http://www.lightfoundation.org/who-we-are
Practical Action: http://practicalaction.org/energy
Sirona Cares: http://www.sironacares.org
SolarAid: http://www.solar-aid.org
Solar Electric Light Fund: http://self.org
Solar Sister: http://www.solarsister.org
STG International: http://www.stginternational.org
Unite to Light: http://www.unite-to-light.org
US Aid http://www.usaid.gov/powerafrica

Select Non-Profit Agencies and Organizations Addressing General Global Poverty And Energy Poverty
CARE: http://www.care-international.org
ONE: http://www.one.org/us/issues/energy/
Rockefeller Foundation: http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/our-work/current-work/smart-power-india
UNICEF: https://www.unicefusa.org/donate/end-preventable-child-deaths/20281?gclid=CKDsxs_d5sICFc9lfgoddkwAmA
United Nations Foundation: http://www.unfoundation.org/blog/ending-extreme-poverty.html


Diverse Viewpoints and General Information on Energy Poverty:
http://www.cgdev.org/blog/seven-graphics-explain-energy-poverty-and-how-us-can-do-much-more
http://www.one.org/us/energy/
http://www.iea.org/topics/energypoverty/
http://www.se4all.org/our-vision/our-objectives/universal-energy/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2014/07/15/its-time-to-flip-the-switch-on-energy-poverty/
http://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Powering-the-Fight-Against-Poverty
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/sorry-bill-gates-but-you-are-wrong-about-energy-poverty-79861
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus//its-not-about-the-climate/
http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/energy-pragmatism_17.html
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_poverty

One Way to Help Fund Your Contributions to Help End Energy Poverty:
http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-carbon-tax-on-me-how-to-cut-emissions.html

David Lawrence: Shell and Academic External Research Publications 1982-2003

David T. Lawrence

Bibliography of External Publications

Lawrence, D.T., 1982, Influence of transgressive - regressive pulses on coal-bearing strata of the Upper Cretaceous Adaville Formation, southwestern Wyoming: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 118, p. 32-48.

Lawrence, D.T., Kauffman, E.G., Fursich, F., and Ryer, T.A., 1982, Paleobiological refinement of models for Cretaceous coal depositional systems, Western Interior, North America, ( abst.) : Geological Society of America 95th Annual Meeting, Abstracts with Programs.

Lawrence, D.T., 1983, Primary controls on total reserves, thickness, geometry and distribution of coal seams; Upper Cretaceous Adaville Formation, southwestern Wyoming ( abst. ) Geological Society of America 96th Annual Meeting, Abstracts with Programs.

Lawrence, D.T., 1984, Patterns and Dynamics of Late Cretaceous Marginal Marine Sedimentation; Overthrust Belt, Southwestern Wyoming; Yale University Ph.D. Dissertation,  280 p., 5 appendices, 12 plates.

Lawrence David T. (reviewer); 1985: Principles of sedimentary basin analysis by Andrew D. Miall; book review; American Journal of Science 285(3): 282-283

Lawrence, D.T., M. Doyle, S. Snelson, and W.T. Horsfield, 1987, Stratigraphic modeling of sedimentary basins, ( expanded abstract), Society of Exploration Geophysicists 57th Annual International Meeting Expanded Abstracts Volume, p.407-408.

Aigner, T., M. Doyle, D. Lawrence, M. Eating and A.  Van Vliet, 1988, Quantitative modeling of carbonate platforms: some examples: SEPM Special Publication 44, p. 27-37.

Lawrence, D.T., M. Doyle and T. Aigner, 1989, Calibration of Stratigraphic Models in Exploration Settings, ( abstract), AAPG Bulletin Annual Mtg Abstracts.

Lawrence, D.T., M. Doyle, and T. Aigner, 1990, Stratigraphic simulation of sedimentary basins: concepts and calibration: AAPG Bulletin, v. 74, p. 273-295.

Aigner, T.A., A. Brandenburg, A. Van Vliet, M. Doyle, D. Lawrence, and J. Westrich, 1990, Stratigraphic modeling of epicontinental basins: two applications: Sedimentary Geology, v. 69, p. 167-190.

Shuster, M.W., and D.T. Lawrence, 1991, Controls on passive margin stratigraphy: Seismostratigraphic and basin modeling evaluation of Georges Bank Basin, AAPG Bulletin ( abst), v. 75, p. 671-672.

Lawrence, D. T., 1992, Primary Controls on Total Reserves, Thickness, Geometry, and Distribution of Coal Seams. Upper Cretaceous Adaville Formation, Southwestern Wyoming, in McCabe, P.J. and Judith Totman Parish, eds, Controls on the distribution and quality of Cretaceous coals, Geological Society of America Special Paper 267.

Wilson, G.A., C.E. Harvie and D.T. Lawrence, 1992, A model for diagenesis in the Upper Wilcox reservoir sandstones at Fandango Field, south Texas, USA in Kharaka & Maes (eds), Water-Rock Interaction;  Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 1209-1212.

Lawrence, D.T., and R.N. Anderson,1993, Details confirm Gulf of Mexico Deepwater as significant province: Oil and Gas Journal, May 24, p. 93-96.

Westrich, J,  D.T. Lawrence, M.A. Doyle,  T. Aigner, and A. Brandenburg, 1993, SORCER: A Comprehensive Paleogeographic, Stratigraphic, and Geochemical Model for Marine Source Rock Prediction, AAPG Abstracts with programs.

Lawrence, D.T., 1993, Evaluation of eustasy, subsidence, and sediment input as controls on de positional sequence geometries and the synchroneity of sequence boundaries, Chapter 13, in Weimer, P. and  Posamentier, H.W., Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy, AAPG Memoir 58, p. 337-367.

Lawrence, D.T., 1994, Turbidite technical challenges in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico, Gulf Coast Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists 15th Annual Research Conference, p. 217-220.

Prather, B., G. Steffens, D.T. Lawrence, 1996, Turbidite technical challenges: Role of modeling and visualization technologies in assessing reservoir risk in Deepwater plays; West Africa Offshore Conference, Conference Paper, 6p.

Lawrence, D.T., 1997, Gulf of Mexico Shelf: Exploration in a mature province, GCSEPM Foundation 18th Annual Research Conference, Shallow Marine and Nonmarine Reservoirs, p. 149-154.

Lawrence, D.T, 2000, Deepwater production development options in the Gulf of Mexico, 16th World Petroleum Congress Papers, Calgary, Canada. 5p.

Weimer, P., R. M. Slatt, J. L. Coleman, N. Rosen, C. H. Nelson, A. H. Bouma, M. Styzen, and D. T. Lawrence, editors; 2000, Global Deep-Water Reservoirs: Gulf Coast Section-SEPM Twentieth Annual Research Conference, 1104 p.

Lawrence, D.T., 2001, Successful Exploration and Development of Significant Oil Fields in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico, AAPG Abstracts with programs.

Lawrence, D. T., and A. van den Berg, 2003, Successful exploration and development of significant oil fields in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, in M. T. Halbouty, ed., Giant oil and gas fields of the decade 1990–1999, AAPG Memoir 78, p. 155–157.

A Do It Yourself Carbon Tax in 5 Simple Steps

Six weeks ago, I decided to impose a carbon tax on me.  Call it a DIY carbon tax.

I received lots of enthusiastic comments and great ideas for improvement. Many people joined me and together we are reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide, improving our energy efficiency, saving money, investing in cleaner energy and helping to end energy poverty. My thanks for your efforts.

Others were quick to criticize the initiative, suggesting that individuals make little difference, and that it is only through regulation and legislation at a massive scale that CO2 emissions will be reduced. Perhaps. But it is all too easy make demands of others. If you want to see change, you often need to start with yourself.

So, I started with me. You can make the choice to do the same. Then imagine if everyone you know who is concerned about energy, climate and energy poverty initiated their own personal carbon tax.  Imagine the energy savings, the cuts in emissions, the business and research opportunities, the improved lives of people living in energy poverty, and the opportunities for creating wealth and investing in our future.

What is needed now is for a lot more people to actually move beyond imagination - to take up the challenge - and to challenge their friends, family, colleagues and neighbors to do the same.

Here is how my Do It Yourself Carbon Tax works:

• Cut CO2 emissions by 10 percent next year and 50% over the next decade through energy efficiency, conservation, lifestyle choices, and implementation of new technologies.
• Tax yourself with a $40/ ton self-imposed price on carbon (or whatever price you feel is most appropriate).
• Save money through energy efficiency measures to offset or complement the tax.
• Invest your tax and savings in companies, institutions and organizations researching, developing, implementing and deploying clean energy solutions.
• Contribute to organizations and institutions helping to reduce energy poverty around the world.

How you can do it:

Step 1: Determine your current CO2 output
You can calculate your personal  CO2 footprint using any number of widely available, free online calculators. See the full proposal for useful links. With the help of these calculators (there are many others) in less than 30 minutes you can determine your personal CO2 output in tons per year.

Step 2: Establish your carbon reduction target
My goal is a 10 percent reduction in my own CO2 emissions in year one and to cut my emissions in half over the next decade. I plan to review my target range annually. There are many ways you can achieve a reduction in your CO2 emissions. For some useful links to  lists of CO2 reduction measures each of us can take, again refer to the original #carbontaxonme proposal.

Step 3:  Apply a price for carbon to your CO2 output and determine your annual carbon tax
Just this past week, in a well-reasoned article in the Financial Times, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers called for a carbon tax and suggested a price of $25/ton.   I will take a more aggressive approach and impose a personal carbon price of $40/ton CO2 per year on myself. Note that this is well above the price of carbon as traded anywhere in the world.  I will review my personal carbon price annually.

In application then, I simply multiply my carbon price of $40/ton times my calculated CO2 emissions
to arrive at the annual carbon tax.  At the average per capita emissions of CO2 in the US of 17 tons
per annum, the carbon tax would be $680.  With strong energy conservation and efficiency measures you can save money to offset the tax and in many cases will actually come out ahead.  Still, if my proposed $40/ ton carbon tax is too high for your budget, simply consider a lower carbon price, such as Summers' $25 or Microsoft's $6-7. Corporations have disclosed a wide range of prices which you may wish to use as benchmarks:

Step 4:  Save and Invest the tax proceeds
Which brings us to what you can do with your tax proceeds and cost savings? Invest!  As with any investment you can choose between many options, but I will narrow it down to three.

Investment Option 1: Invest in companies that develop, produce and deploy products and services available now to reduce our carbon footprint - solar solutions, efficient wind turbines, high MPGe vehicles, storage, grid and off-grid solutions,  local produce, Socially Responsible Investment funds and energy financing options to name but a few.

Investment Option 2: Invest and support Research and Development with institutions and organizations doing high quality basic and applied research in science and engineering directly related to energy, as well as those addressing broader policy issues.

Investment Option 3: Invest directly in the products and services that reduce your carbon footprint.
Buy solar panels for your home, participate in distributed energy systems, purchase a hybrid or an electric vehicle, support local foods, install efficient lighting. There are many options which will help you save energy and money.

Step 5: Support Organizations Helping to End Energy Poverty:

Use a portion of your tax and savings to invest in organizations that help alleviate energy poverty 
around the world. The world needs energy now, especially in poverty, famine and disease stricken places like sub-Saharan Africa.  Every contribution helps.

Each of us can make a difference. How much of a difference is up to you. Collectively the impact can be massive. Join me now by posting your personal pledge at #carbontaxonme and copy me @lawrence_energy and we'll track our momentum together. Let's watch our contributions add up.

No Time for Energy Complacency

The United States produced 11 million barrels of oil and natural gas liquids per day in the first quarter of 2014,  overtaking Saudi Arabia as the number one producer in the world. Already, in 2010, the US had made its mark as the number one producer of natural gas. This enormous accomplishment, unthinkable just a decade ago, was a product of  technical, operational and commercial tenacity and innovation, coupled with the efforts of a skilled and available workforce, a solid supply chain foundation, the availability of capital and a fiscal and mineral ownership system that incentivizes production.

Meanwhile, this past year,  the world’s reserve base continued to grow,  even while demand continued to increase. According to the BP Statistical Review of 2014, global oil reserves rose by 600 million barrels to 1,688 billion barrels in 2013, an increase of 27% over a decade earlier, despite cumulative production of 332 billion barrels during this same period. Gas reserves grew by 19%,  while production grew by 29%. Resource growth was enabled by unconventional oil and gas success, engineering innovation, delivery of new projects, successful new exploration plays, technical advancements across the entire exploration and production value chain, significant investment over the past decade and improved access to prospective basins.

Global energy consumption growth also accelerated in 2013, from 1.8 percent to 2.3 percent, slightly below the 10 year average growth rate of 2.5 percent.  BP’s annual review revealed that consumption and production increased for all fuels, reaching record levels for every fuel type except nuclear power. Somewhat alarmingly, for all fossil fuels,  global consumption rose more rapidly than production.

Still, with all the success in adding resources and production, and even with significant progress in renewables, it's no time for energy complacency.

Today, some see a future with so much oil and gas resource, and so little need for that resource given its carbon footprint, that trillions of dollars of carbon-rich assets will be left stranded.  Perhaps. But such scenarios heavily discount some elements of current reality: the dominance of oil, gas and coal in today's energy use ( more than 80% of primary energy consumption), the future energy needs of people in undeveloped countries striving to lift themselves from energy poverty ( 1.3 billion people today have no access to electricity), the magnitude of new oil and gas resources required to simply replace existing production decline in developed fields ( ~ 6% per year), and the growth of existing economies and emerging economies built on affordable, available and reliable energy.

World energy demand is likely to increase by around 40% in the next two decades, driven largely by the needs of emerging economies, and despite the best efforts of conservation and energy efficiency.  All energy sources will be required to meet this demand. Energy scenarios which minimize the role of oil, gas,  coal and nuclear to help meet these needs require a rate of market penetration of renewable energy at an unprecedented pace. Even with the welcome possibility of disruptive technologies, breakthrough acceleration of market share for renewable energy is an especially challenging task given 1) the enormity of the global energy scale, 2)  the incumbency and residency times  of planes, trains, automobiles, ships, trucks, heavy equipment, power plants, furnaces, smelters, factories, homes, hospitals, schools, businesses and infrastructure already in place relying on fossil fuels, 3) the magnitude of projects currently under construction ( for example, 1900 coal-power plants planned around the globe), 4) the often lower economic returns of renewable projects relative to other investment opportunities and consequent difficult availability of  large amounts of capital and 5) the low operational and high retirement costs for already built assets. For these reasons (and cost, availability and reliability)  the demand for fossil fuels today is increasing, not decreasing worldwide.

Massively increased research, innovation and investment across the entire energy sector  – solar, wind, battery storage, hydrogen,  coal ( clean coal, CCS), oil, gas and, yes, nuclear – is essential to meet the energy needs of our growing population while reducing the carbon footprint of that necessary energy. Energy pragmatism also helps. Low carbon scenarios become more plausible  when they embrace technologies like CCS and clean coal and step changes in energy efficiency. The scenarios gain more substance when natural gas is considered a key component of the solution rather than a problem, and the revitalization of nuclear power is again placed in the mix. And every new technology and breakthrough in renewable energy implemented on a commercial scale and providing cost competitive power to consumers provides more credibility and momentum than a hundred op-eds. We should support these efforts through investment.

Given the ever expanding energy demands of the world’s growing population, and the energy poverty in which so many live, our greatest concern should be the complacency with which so many view our energy supply. If supplies were constricted, whether by choice, depletion, natural or man-made disasters or geopolitics who would  want to have to choose between the energy haves and have nots?

On the demand side, some low carbon scenarios envision startlingly low levels of energy consumption, especially in the developing world.  Currently, the IEA defines “modern energy access” for those living in energy poverty in places like sub-Saharan Africa as 50 to 100 kWh/person/year - almost enough to power a  60W light bulb for five hours per day for a year. The average American would use that much energy in just three days. So, while a laudible first step on the energy ladder, would you want that for your own children?  Clearly, more energy will be required.

Even the IEA low level of modern energy access is considered high by some searching for more pragmatic energy solutions to help those living in energy poverty. In a recent report from the Sierra Club, Clean Energy Services for All (CES4All),  the first tier of energy access provides a person just 10 kWh of electricity per year -  less than 0.1 % of the  average American’s consumption of 13,000 kWh of electricity per year.  Is it realistic or desirable to assume this kind of level of energy use in energy planning? Shouldn’t we aspire for more?

The CES4All report clearly sees 10kWh per person per year as only a starting point  in alleviating energy poverty, recognizing the urgent need for implementing off grid solutions and the limited availability of investment capital. You have to start someplace.  But the point here is that to truly help those most in need will ultimately require significantly more energy – not less.

The people of the world need energy now. Complacency regarding meeting energy resource requirements when and where they are needed should be a greater concern now than concern over such issues as future stranded assets.  The  great challenge across the energy sector will be meeting continually growing demand in a timely fashion, without significant economic and societal disruption, and while reducing CO2.  The next article in this series will take a deeper look into this challenge, starting with oil and gas.

Additional posts on related topics by David Lawrence:

Energy Pragmatism http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/energy-pragmatism_17.html

Who Determines  Energy Haves and Have Nots http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/who-will-determine-energy-haves-and_23.html

Reserve Life, Resource Life and Meeting World Energy Needs http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/reserve-life-resource-life-and-meeting.htm