The environment – Page 113 – a sibilant intake of breath

The geological plausibility of CCS

Two articles on the April 2nd issue of Nature look into some of the physics, chemistry, and geology associated with carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a possible form of greenhouse gas mitigation. The first largely summarizes the results of the second. Each stresses how significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) are already trapped in groundwater in the subsurface environment, suggesting that the artificial addition of more may be safe and effective. Leaks are avoided due to the “presence of sealing, low-permeability rock formations above the targeted layer,” such as those found above natural gas fields. The article considers CO2-rich natural gas fields in North America, China and Europe as natural analogs for future CCS sites. It concludes that relatively little (about 10%) of the CO2 gets incorporated into rocks, from which it is unlikely to escape. Most remains in water, from which future emissions are more possible. It concludes that the hydrogeological characteristics of future CCS sites will need to be carefully considered, bearing in mind that most of the CO2 will apparently end up saturated in water.

None of this provides definitive support for CCS as a mitigation option. Rather, it provides some guidance into the further research necessary to determine if it can be safe and environmentally effective. Notably, this research also gives no consideration to the economics of CCS deployment, nor to the timelines across which it can be achieved. Indeed, these articles could be taken as evidence of the relative infancy of the scientific consideration of subsurface disposal of carbon dioxide, something that governments assuming its near-term commercial viability should note.

Waxman-Markey climate change bill

Democrats in the American House of Represenatives released a 648-page climate change and energy bill today. The bill is centred around a cap-and-trade system that is intended to reduce American greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, and to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. Other provisions include “a nationwide renewable electricity standard that reaches 25 percent by 2025, new energy efficiency programs and limits on the carbon content of motor fuels, and requires greenhouse gas standards for new heavy duty vehicles and engines.” Overall, the targets are a bit tougher than the ones in the Obama platform were, though this is much more of an opening offer than a final draft. One huge issue which the bill does not yet specify is whether emissions credits will be auctioned or simply given away. Obama’s platform included a very clear call for 100% auctioning, which would be ideal from an environmental perspective.

It will be a long road from introduction through negotiation in both houses towards eventual ratification, and this bill may not make it. Even getting the bill out of the committee Waxman chairs may be a challenge. That being said, it is urgently necessary for a price on carbon to be established and for reductions to begin. Hopefully, legislators will be far-thinking enough to speed that process along, while also establishing a regulatory framework that can be built upon during the coming years and decades.

Rethinking abstinence

Given the character of the modern world, it seems sensible to re-evaluate some of our assumptions. For instance, the importance of sexual abstinence. Arguably, it derives from three considerations: the danger of pregnancy, the risk of disease, and the social concept of sin. In modern society, good tools are available for dealing with all of these. Among them, hormonal birth control systems, condoms, and atheism. Arguably, much of the case for sexual abstinence has vanished.

Contrast that with the (barely existent) public case for reproductive abstinence. Given that society is grossly unsustainable, we don’t even have evidence that the number of people currently alive can continue to live at the level of material welfare they do. Despite this, most governments push fertility. There is parental leave, there are often tax breaks for marriage and having children, and house ownership is encouraged through public subsidy.

Perhaps the world would be a better place if governments became significantly more lax in their efforts to discourage sexual abstinence, while simultaneously shifting towards encouraging reproductive abstinence. Given the degree to which our gross over-use of the natural resources and adaptive capacities of the planet is threatening the future of the human species, it seems quite rational, in the end. Obviously, governments with some respect for personal liberty cannot actually curtail reproduction. Of course, they couldn’t curtail sex either. The idea is to shift from efforts in the latter area to efforts in the former one. That need not involve anything too restrictive: just making sure that those who don’t want children have the tools required to avoid it, while reducing the degree to which society at large helps finance the reproduction of those who choose to undertake it.

April climate summit in Washington

Apparently, President Obama has announced a summit of world leaders to discuss climate change, to occur in April as partial preparation for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in December. The summit will include Canada, the US, China, India, and twelve others.

Quite possibly, it will offer a useful glimpse into the national positions being adopted for Copenhagen, and the possibility of a strong agreement emerging there. Arguably, the most important issue is the degree of bilateral cooperation likely to emerge between the US and China. If they can agree to something that is acceptable for the European Union and Japan, everybody else might fall into line.

Oil sands, game theory, and jobs

If we are going to prevent catastrophic climate change, every major country in the world will need to have policies that put a price on carbon and encourage the transition to a low-carbon economy. If the range of estimates for safe concentrations is approximately right (350 – 550ppm, very broadly), such policies will need to be in place within a period of years to, at most, decades. In such a world, projects like Canada’s oil sands would be enough to make the state permitting them an international pariah. It seems quite legitimate to expect harsh trade sanctions against a state that is so blatantly ignoring the need for the world to cut emissions, once many other states have seriously begun to do so. Given that I don’t think Canada has the stomach to be another North Korea, it seems like we would eventually give in to pressure to bring our policies in line with those of the United States and our other allies and trading partners.

As such, there are two possible long-term outcomes that can be envisioned. Either catastrophic climate change will occur or Canada will be forced to cut emissions like everybody else. In the former case, I suppose our current climate policies are not hugely relevant. If the rest of the world doesn’t get its act together, human civilization will probably snuff itself out. In the latter case, further investment in the oil sands will just increase the medium-term economic losses associated with the abandonment of the project. Such investment will also make it more and more politically difficult for the government of Alberta to support sane climate policies, turning it into more and more of an active ‘spoiler’ in domestic climate change negotiations between different levels of government.

Unfortunately, the ‘bite’ in this analysis doesn’t come into effect for some time, probably beyond the political horizons of most Canadian policy-makers today. As a further consequence, it is very hard to get people to take such long-term considerations into account. That being said, if a large majority of Canadians came to understand the issue in these terms – that we are pouring effort into a project that will ultimately need to be abandoned – the political landscape might shift considerably. The discussion may then be less about jobs now versus climatic stability in the future, and more about directing the ongoing development of the economy towards jobs that will still be viable in ten years, instead of ones that will be extinguished along any effective path to a sustainable future.

Renewables, land, and trade-offs

Whether it is solar power, wind farms, dams, or biofuel crops, renewable energy tends to be land-intensive. Indeed, that is one of the major reasons for which improving efficiency in sectors like buildings and vehicles is some important. Improving their efficiency can allow us to reduce our fossil fuel use, both out of concern for climate change and in response to their inevitable depletion, while engaging in the decades-long project of deploying the kind of renewable infrastructure we are going to need to power human civilization in the future. If we want to have an acceptable balance between areas used for energy generation, those used for all other human purposes, and those where nature is meant to be dominant, we will need to improve the efficiency of both our energy production and our energy use.

There are many trade-offs to be considered. For instance, the best sites for wind farms and solar facilities are often far away from centres of energy demand. That establishes a trade-off between producing power at the best sites and managing losses across long distances. While there is a lot of excitement about highly distributed forms of electrical generation, it may well prove to be the case that the most economically and ecologically sound approach is based on big renewable facilities linked to cities through efficient transmission systems, such as high voltage direct current (HVDC) lines.

There are also ecosystem trade-offs: dams block rivers, biofuel plantations are generally sterile monocultures that can lead to deforestation, and solar facilities crowd the dessert. That being said, fossil fuel extraction certainly causes harm to ecosystems, a well. There is direct harm from both deliberate actions (open pit oil sands extraction, coal mining, etc), near-term indirect harm from accidents like oil and coal ash spills, and the potentially massive long-term harm associated with climate change. Indeed, that final issue alone may be a strong justification for converting large amounts of land towards renewable energy generation; in that way, ecosystem harm can be made to occur in a planned way within large but controlled spaces, rather than globally and chaotically as the consequence of temperature increases, precipitation changes, and ocean acidfication.

Dams and climate change

In the past, environmental groups have often opposed hydroelectric projects, both in the form of large dams and smaller run-of-river projects. Now, I think the seriousness of climate change overrides past objections about destroying habitat and disrupting ecosystems in rivers. While we should definitely take cost-effective measures to reduce the harmful impacts of dams (for instance, removing trees from the area that is to be flooded), I think we need to accept more dam construction as a necessarily part of moving to a sustainable low-carbon economy.

Dams have virtues as a consistent source of energy for electrical generation. Their variable output also means they can be used to balance out production from sources like wind farms and solar facilities. With pumped hydroelectric storage, dams can also save energy at times when production exceeds demand, and do so in a way that is reasonably efficient.

Climate change impacts also support the call for more dams. The loss of glaciers and snowpack mean that natural water flows are going to become more variable. More and larger dams could help to smooth that out, as well as compensate for how our current hydroelectric infrastructure will face challenges as a result of decreased summer water flow.

Climate change is making many people re-think nuclear power, a source of electricity with a lot more black marks against it than hydroelectricity has. As such, I think we should be glad that many past attempts by environmentalists to block dams have failed, and we should strive to support their further development where suitable sites exist.

Visiting Vancouver in summer 2009, by land?

In the past, this blog has featured some discussion of trans- and inter-continental travel by means other than aircraft. This summer, I am thinking about actually giving it a try, going from Ottawa to Vancouver by train. If I could take two consecutive weeks off work, the three-day journey in each direction wouldn’t be excessively long in comparison with my time in Vancouver. It would also give me the chance to see quite a bit of Canada from ground level.

Given that wireless internet access is available on the trains, and I am actually quite good at working while on them, the time need not even be terribly unproductive. The biggest drawback of the train is the outrageous expense of the sleeper cars. Going in a two-berth room with a stranger would cost more than $3000, round-trip. By contrast, traveling in an ordinary seat would probably be under $700, with the Sierra Youth Coalition 40% discount. While I definitely cannot shell out three grand for the trip, I am also not sure whether I could tolerate three days of trying to sleep in a semi-reclining chair, eating whatever I brought along with me, and hunting for laptop-charging electrical outlets in cars designated for richer people.

While the train would be aesthetically appealing, I am not opposed to considering other lower-carbon options. Some kind of ride-share, for instance, could be interesting as well. It would also probably be a lot cheaper, though it would probably take significantly more than three days each way.

Ocean iron fertilization for geoengineering

The idea behind iron fertilization as a form of geoengineering is this: organisms in the ocean often have a rate of growth that is confined by the availability of a single nutrient. It’s like assembling laptops when there is only a limited amount of silicon around for processors. No matter how many cases, keyboards, and screens you can build, you can’t make finished laptops until you get more silicon. Since iron is often a growth-limiting nutrient in the ocean, the hope is that humans could add it to the sea, causing a bloom in ocean plant life. Those living things would draw carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and then, hopefully, sink to the bottom of the sea and keep the carbon trapped there for a long time.

Recently, scientists tried adding six tonnes of iron to the Southern Ocean, around Antarctica. The idea was to test whether such an approach could help draw down the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. As reported by the BBC, the experiment was not very successful. They quote Victor Smetacek as saying:

There’s been hope that one could remove some of the excess carbon dioxide – put it back where it came from, in a sense, because the petroleum we’re burning was originally made by the algae. But our results show this is going to be a small amount, almost negligible.

Basically, the problem seems to be that the algae get eaten by animals near the surface, rather than sinking undigested to the cold ocean floor. That means the carbon remains within the Earth’s physical and biological cycles, rather than sinking down to where it won’t have medium-term effects. It may be that fertilization experiments in other locations, or with other nutrients, prove more successful.

Some odd game theory surrounds geoengineering. One possibility is that no type of geoengineering will not work at all. Another is that it might lower temperatures, but have unacceptable other effects. People also worry that the very possibility of geoengineering makes policy-makers more reckless, since they see it as a possible long-term solution that eliminates the need to reduce emissions. From an environmental standpoint, it would be useful to know that geoengineering certainly would not work, since it would help avoid a dead-end technology and would make it even more clear that emissions must be sharply reduced. That being said, it may be environmentally harmful to learn that it is possible, especially if the harmful consequences will mostly be borne by people living in poor states with relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. Powerful states may be tempted to geoengineer their way out of the climate problem, even if the consequences for those in other parts of the world are appalling. Given how appalling the consequences of our greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be for future generations within our own states, it would not be surprising if voters and governments opt for such a negligent course of action. The fact that we are cheerfully committing suicide suggests that we will probably commit murder without the slightest concern or consideration. Of course, knowing that geoengineering is possible would give us one last desperate option, in the event that abrupt and catastrophic climate change begins.

As it stands, the world simply isn’t coordinated enough to prevent any research into geoengineering. All we can do is fight to ensure the information and techniques that are acquired be used in a responsible way: taking into account the welfare of people around the world, in both this generation and those that will follow.

Competitive games and collaborative results

Because it was recommended in a blog I read (though I cannot remember which), I am reading Herb Cohen’s You Can Negotiate Anything. While the book is quite dated in terms of views on race and sex, it does contain some interesting observations, many of which relate closely to politics and international relations. For instance, the author asserts that: “In order to achieve a collaborative result in a competitive environment, you have to play the game.”

What this suggests is that approaches that are superficially unifying, like Obama’s call for post-partisanship, are either naive or ploys in a system where trust is always conditional and ephemeral, as it is between political parties. It also speaks to the game theory reality that, in a situation where one party is considering only their own interests, while the other is trying to strike an equitable balance, the outcome will tilt in the direction of the selfish party: after all, people on both sides of the negotiation are thinking about the selfish party’s interests, while those of their counterparty are only getting half the attention.

When it comes to climate change, it does seem necessary to ‘play the game.’ Voters and politicians have been exposed to the chilling scientific projections ad nauseum, and yet very little real action has been undertaken at a global level. North America and Australia are particularly laggard, when it comes to doing something concrete. Of course, recognizing the need to engage in ‘game playing’ doesn’t put one much closer to having an effective strategy to overcome status quo opposition and bring the behaviour of firms, states, and individuals in line with what basic sanity demands.