The environment – Page 121 – a sibilant intake of breath

Book on communicating climate science

Over at RealClimate, they are encouraging people to read a free book on communicating climate science: Communicating on Climate Change: An Essential Resource for Journalists, Scientists, and Educators. It was written by Bud Ward for the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting. It is available online as a PDF, and printed copies are available by mail for US$8.00.

Given how much public communication on climate change is of low quality, we should hope that good books on this topic get the attention of authors and editors.

The Economist on the dire state of the world’s oceans

A recent issue of The Economist features a leader and a special report on the state of the world’s oceans. As with a lot of their environmental coverage, it sits awkwardly beside the rest of their analysis. It is astonishing that the newspaper can argue that “the mass extinction, however remote, that should be concentrating minds is that of mankind” while not doing a lot more to advocate effective action. Like most of the policy-making community, they haven’t really internalized the fact that climate change is an issue of over-riding importance, and that nothing else can be durably achieved until it has been addressed. In addition to highlighting the dangers of climate change, their coverage includes discussion of how overfising risks rendering sharks and tuna extinct; how the oceans would require tens of thousands of years to recover from the pollution already released into them; how the Greenland is “on track” to melt completely, raising sea levels by seven metres; and how acidification, pollution, and climate change threaten to eliminate coral reefs.

Clearly, it is one thing to have accepted the collective judgment of the scientific community. It is quite another to have fully incorporated the consequences of that judgment into your structure of beliefs and behaviour.

The carbon footprint of this blog

According to Slate, the energy usage associated with running a blog is between 9 and 16 kWh per gigabyte of data transferred. That is based on data about “electricity needed to run the servers hosting the data, the Internet backbone over which those data travel, and the network connections through which the data flow.”

Since sindark.com became active in 2007, the total data transferred has been about 67.7 gigabytes. Based on the high estimate, that suggests about 1,080 kWh of total electricity usage – worth about $54.16 at Ontario energy prices. That equates to greenhouse gas emissions of between 430 and 1,126kg, depending on the source of the electricity. In all probability, the emissions associated with all the computers people used to access the site are considerably larger.

A human spider, climate change, and economic systems

Alain Robert – a man famous for climbing absurdly tall buildings with his bare hands – is also something of a climate change campaigner. A website he runs endorses a three-stage plan for dealing with the problem:

Stop Cutting Down Trees. Plant More Trees.
Make Everything Energy Efficient.
Only Make Clean Energy.

What this speaks to is a central question of the climate change debate: how much do the economic and philosophical bases of society need to change in order to deal with it? Can climate change be successfully addressed through targetted policies that do not fundamentally alter liberal capitalist democracy, or is it only possible to address it through something more ambitious, such as switching from an economic system based on growth to one based on a steady state of wealth?

In some ways, this debate is reminiscent of other debates about capitalism. It certainly seems as though some of the harmful aspects of capitalism can be curbed through good laws, without eliminating the capitalist system itself. Such problems include things like local air pollution and child labour – if we really care about eliminating them, it is entirely possible within our current general economic approach.

For the oil sands, PR is not the problem

In a bizarre story, The Globe and Mail is reporting on how representatives of the oil sands industry are claiming to have “‘dropped the ball’ in engaging with the public about the environmental effects of its energy developments.” This is a bit like saying that the industry has thus far been unsuccessful in deceiving people about the environmental impacts of oil sands operations, which definitely deserve the filthy image they have earned.

The problem with the oil sands certainly isn’t their public relations: it is their greenhouse gas emissions, their destruction of the boreal forest, their contamination of water, and so forth. Altering those aspects of the industry cannot be achieved through media messaging. It is dispiriting – though unsurprising – that the companies involved are keener on giving people the sense that their operations are clean (or at least improving), rather than actually raising standards. While oil sands production cannot be made into an environmentally benign activity, having all facilities adopt the best standards in other existing facilities could make a significant contribution towards reducing the level of harm they produce.

A new Antarctic ice core

A new research station in Antarctica, being constructed by a Chinese expedition 4,093 metres above sea level, could significantly increase the length of the paloeclimatic record available to scientists. The longest previous Antarctic ice core – discussed in Richard Alley’s book The Two Mile Time Machine – provided information on temperatures and atmospheric composition going back more than 800,000 years. Given RADAR images suggesting that the ice at the new site is more than 3,000 metres deep (and the slow rate of snowfall at this location), it could lengthen that record to as much as 1.5 million years.

Having as much paleoclimatic data as possible is very important for understanding the climate system. It allows more scope for unravelling the interconnections between different feedback cycles within the climate, as well as more data on how the system responded to various kinds of forcings: from changes in the orbital characteristics of the Earth to volcanic eruptions.

While the basic physics of climate change are extremely well understood (just as the flammable properties of gasoline are very well understood), the full workings of the machine in which it is taking place remain mysterious (as the characteristics of a complex gasoline-powered machine might be). This is especially true when something unprecedented is altering the dynamics of that system. Regrettably, one piece of data that cannot be extracted from past climatic records is precisely what consequences the human emission of greenhouse gasses will have. That said, by shedding light on the history and dynamics of the climate system, better paleoclimatic data could play an important role in evolving the climatic models that provide our most informed projections.

The station from which the new core will be drilled should be finished by the end of this month.

How can the government spend to fight climate change?

Partly for reasons of political acceptability, most approaches to pricing greenhouse gas emissions aim to be revenue neutral. This includes cap and trade and carbon tax systems where new revenues are offset by decreases in existing taxes; it also includes tax-and-dividend systems, in which that process is more fully automated. That being said, fiscal neutrality has gone out the window as governments seek (whether wisely or not) to offset the recessionary consequences of the credit crunch. That leaves us with a question: if you want to spend government money fighting climate change, how should you do so?

One option business is happy with is big subsidies for the development and deployment of big new technologies like next-generation nuclear reactors and carbon capture and storage (CCS). While such an approach may yield long-term benefits, it does risk simply funneling money from taxpayers to polluters in the near and medium term. It is also an approach that firms have already been very effective at advocating for themselves.

A more attractive option is to help finance the up-front costs of projects that both save money and mitigate emissions. This includes all kinds of unglamorous things, such as improving insulation and the efficiency of boilers, capturing waste heat in hot flue gasses, and replacing windows. Such an approach might be especially effective if directed towards public buildings such as schools, hospitals, government offices, and military facilities. That way, the government is investing in something that will improve its own medium-term financial position (important if existing debts are to be repaid, and future crises are to be managed), while also making a start towards a serious greening of government operations.

In the end, a lot of the most effective tools governments can employ cost very little. Improving building codes, requiring that vehicles be more efficient, and implementing carbon taxes all require only modest government expenditures – though they may cause other actors to incur major expenses. Approaches that are light on regulation and heavy on government spending are probably more likely to be wasteful than those based on compulsion through prices and regulation but, given the inevitability of additional fiscal stimulus in much of the world, it seems sensible to devote some of that directly to mitigation activities, while ensuring that spending not directly motivated by climate change doesn’t contradict climate change mitigation goals.

How else should a government that is feeling the urge to loosen the purse strings spend money on reducing emissions? With a new Canadian budget being tabled in ten days, it is a pertinent question.

Climate in 2009: predictions

Two related events are likely to dominate climate news for 2009: the first year of the Obama administration and the UNFCCC negotiations in Copenhagen. Arguably, the biggest open question is just how dedicated Obama will be to domestic and international climate change action. It may be that he lives up to the high expectations of the environmental community, setting the stage for the rapid deployment of a cap-and-trade carbon pricing system in the United States and playing a constructive role in the creation of an international legal instrument to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. It may also be that his focus lies elsewhere, or that Congressional opposition makes his platform harder to implement. The Obama administration failing to make climate a priority issue from the outset is probably the most likely ‘bad news’ climate story of 2009, whereas successful domestic and international engagement is probably the most likely ‘good news’ story.

American re-engagement with the UNFCCC process is a necessary condition for progress, but it will not be sufficient in itself. Much depends on whether India and China can be brought into the agreement, as well as whether deforestation can be successfully incorporated into a new accord. Given the urgency of reducing emissions (starting the long path to stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses), it must be hoped that all the key states will rise to the challenge and develop a fair and effective approach.

If there are going to be big climatic surprises in 2009, they are more likely to be physical than political. It is nearly certain that there will be strange and destructive weather somewhere, and that at least some people will attribute it to climate change (whether plausibly or not). A big surprise could take the form of an extreme weather event, or simply the sharp acceleration of a tend such as glacier loss, permafrost melting, or changes in precipitation patterns.

With luck, 2009 will be seen as the year in which the world really began turning the corner towards emissions reductions. Most of the governments most bitterly opposed to action on climate change have been eliminated, and an accord between the big players (the US, China, Japan, Europe, etc) would have the momentum to drag everyone else along. The road ahead will continue to include shifts in policy – as well as very active debates on who should bear which costs – but the general outlines could be affirmed this year and global implementation could begin in earnest. Those broad outlines include the need for both total and per-capita emissions to start falling globally (perhaps with a brief period of residual growth in very poor states), that per-capita emissions should converge between all states, and that many of the costs of global mitigation and adaptation be borne by the societies that have created the problem.

For the sake of all future generations, let’s hope this will be a year of great progress.

Grid technologies to support renewable power

The MIT Technology Review has a good article about renewable energy and the ways electrical grids will need to change in order to accomodate it. Both key points have been discussed here before. Firstly, we need high voltage low-loss power lines from areas with lots of renewable potential (sunny parts of the southern US, windy parts of Europe, etc) to areas with lots of electrical demand. Secondly, we need a more intelligent grid that can manage demand and store some energy in periods of excess, for use in times when renewable output falters.

The article highlights how the advantages of a revamped grid are economic as well as environmental:

Smart-grid technologies could reduce overall electricity consumption by 6 percent and peak demand by as much as 27 percent. The peak-demand reductions alone would save between $175 billion and $332 billion over 20 years, according to the Brattle Group, a consultancy in Cambridge, MA. Not only would lower demand free up transmission capacity, but the capital investment that would otherwise be needed for new conventional power plants could be redirected to renewables. That’s because smart-grid technologies would make small installations of wind turbines and photovoltaic panels much more practical. “They will enable much larger amounts of renewables to be integrated on the grid and lower the effective overall system-wide cost of those renewables,” says the Brattle Group’s Peter Fox-Penner.

In short, a smarter grid holds out the prospect of overcoming the biggest limitation of electricity: that supply must always be exactly matched to demand, and that prospects for efficient storage have hitherto been limited. The storage issue, in particular, could be profoundly affected by the deployment of large numbers of electric vehicles with batteries that could be used in part as an electricity reserve for the grid.

Providing incentives for the development of a next-generation grid (as well as removing some of the legal and economic disincentives that prevent it) is an important role for governments – above and beyond the need to put a price on carbon. While carbon pricing can theoretically address the externalities associated with climatic harm from emissions, it cannot automatically deal with the externalities holding back grid development, which include the monopoly status of many of the firms involved, issues concerning economies of scale, the fact that the absence of transmission capacity restricts the emergence of renewable generation capacity (and vice versa).

The full article is definitely worth reading.

The Pope on homosexuality and the environment

Recently, the Pope announced that fighting homosexuality is just as important as protecting the rainforest. These comments have been rightly attacked from many angles. For me, what it highlights most is the ways in which religion can produce poor prioritization of issues. By according certain things sacred or venerated status, they can become a disproportionate focus for attention, a spark for conflicts, and an obstacle to the completion of more important work. Because religions elevate acts that are purely symbolic (say, baptism) to having a high level of perceived practical importance, they can get in the way of the achievement of practical goals, like enhancing and protecting human health and welfare, as well as that of the natural world. To those who say that religion is necessary to make the majority of people act in moral ways, it can be riposted that many of the supposedly moral issues that get the most attention are basically distractions from the real challenges being confronted by humanity.

This is precisely the property of religion that is satirized by Jonathan Swift in the conflict between the Big Enders and the Little Enders in Gulliver’s Travels. Ultimately, the issue of what gender of people a person is attracted to (or wishes to marry) has as much relevance for other people as which side they choose to crack their boiled eggs on. In spite of that, there are those who successfully employ emotions stirred up over such trivial issues as means to bolster their own support by turning people against one another.

Religion isn’t the only force within society that elevates the symbolic to the practical in a potentially harmful or distorting way. Certainly, there are comparable transformations within politics: in which symbols come to be more important than the things they represent, and their defence comes to be a distraction from more important endeavours. Whatever the cause of such instances of ‘missing the point,’ it is to be lamented. It must be hoped that people in a few hundred years will have learned enough to laugh at an idea so silly that protecting the environment and reinforcing traditional gender norms are (a) both desirable ends or (b) equally worthy of attention.