Category: The environment

Atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, etc – everything about life and the state of this planet

The coming auto bailout

North America’s auto manufacturers seem to be next on the list for a big government bailout. As with other bailouts of private sector firms, there are legitimate worries about the public at large bearing the cost of losses, while gains had accrued to private individuals. In the case of the auto industry, there is the further risk that a bailout will permit North American firms to continue with their existing mode of operations, which had clearly failed before the credit crunch made the situation acute.

That being said, a case can be made that a bailout is the least problematic option. It can also be pragmatically recognized that governments are likely to provide the cash, rather than allow one of more of the firms to fall into bankruptcy.

Perhaps the best way this situation can be turned somewhat positive is to mandate tougher efficiency standards for vehicles, as partial public recompense for the funds. The biggest gains can be made in improving the least fuel efficient vehicles. According to calculations posted on Gristmill, improving the fuel efficiency of dire vehicles like the Hummer H3 (15 mpg), Yukon Denali (14 mpg), and Chevy Trailblazer (13 mpg) is a more promising initial strategy than trying to push the efficiency of cars like Honda Civics (29 mpg) upward.

This strategy is likely to be politically problematic. For one thing, it impinges on the flawed notion that people have a right to drive whatever they want and can afford. For another, the production of highly inefficient, high-margin vehicles is concentrated in North America. Nonetheless, if this is to be a one-off rehabilitation, rather than a temporary reprieve from systemic problems, the North American auto industry needs to shed much of its past philosophy and approach. It is remarkable that no automobile assembled in North America meets China’s fuel-efficiency standard. Along with the structural financial problems in the industry, that is a situation that will need to change.

Sierra Club legal victory on coal in the US

In an exciting development, the Environmental Appeals Board of the U.S. Environmental Protection agency has handed down a ruling that effectively freezes construction of as many as 100 new coal-fired power plants around the U.S. The ruling requires new coal plants and expansions of existing ones to include “Best Available Control Technology,” and it seems that it will be up to the next administration to define what that means. The ruling directly impacts permits for 30 new plants in the seven states directly regulated by the EPA planning process, as well as all projects on Indian Reservations.

This will be a good opportunity for the Obama administration to demonstrate its commitment to building a low-carbon economy. That being said, it will also be a major challenge. The coal industry is large and powerful in the United States, and some regions are more than 90% dependent on coal power. Forcing them to introduce expensive (and, in some cases, largely untested) new greenhouse gas mitigation technologies will require a lot of political courage.

The full decision (PDF) is available online.

Ethanol and energy independence

Writing in Slate, Robert Bryce has produced a rebuttal of the idea that ethanol is part of the road to energy independence. Essentially, this is because it can only displace a portion of the demand for petroleum products in general:

The corn ethanol scam cannot, has not, and will not significantly reduce overall oil use or significantly cut oil imports because it only replaces one segment of the crude-oil barrel. Furthermore, all the talk about “cellulosic ethanol,” a substance that, in theory, can be profitably produced in commercial quantities from grass, wood chips, or other biomass, is largely misplaced because, like corn ethanol, it will only supplant gasoline.

If this analysis is correct, yet another problem can be lain at the feet of ethanol, alongside the low energy return on investment and dubious climate change benefits.

The world’s biggest coal reserves

In the absense of effective and affordable carbon capture and storage, coal has no future compatible with a stable climate. Eliminating conventional coal plants and preventing the construction of new ones is thus an important front in the effort to fight climate change.

To get a sense of where to concentrate that effort, it is worth examining where the world’s biggest reserves of coal actually are:

  1. The United States – 242.6 billion tonnes (gigatonnes) – 28.6% of the global total
  2. Russia – 157 gigatonnes – 18.5%
  3. China – 114.5 gigatonnes – 13.5%
  4. Australia – 76.5 gigatonnes – 9%
  5. India – 56.6 gigatonnes – 6.7%
  6. South Africa – 48 gigatonnes – 5.7%

According to the Energy Information Administration, burning one tonne of coal produces between 1.40 and 2.84 tonnes of carbon dioxide. That means that burning all these reserves would add between 973 and 1,974 gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. By comparison, the total quantity of human emissions to date is about 488 gigatonnes.

Ken Caldeira on geoengineering as contingency

In testimony before the British Parliament, Ken Caldeira has done a good job of expressing what I consider to be the appropriate perspective on geoengineering: the deliberate modification of the climate system, intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change. While it may well be possible to reduce the degree of temperature increase – or even reduce atmospheric levels of greenhouse gasses – though geoengineering, it seems nearly certain that doing so will produce harmful and unintended effects. There is also the danger that simply exploring the prospect of geoengineering will encourage us to use it as a perceived quick fix, rather than actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Those things being said, there is a strong counter-argument. We know from the paloeclimatic record that there have been times in history when climate changed violently, over the span of decades. We also know that we are pushing the climate system farther and farther from the equilibrium it was at prior to the Industrial Revolution. As such, the risk of abrupt or runaway climate change is very real and potentially catastrophic. This is especially true if the climate system is actually as sensitive as climatologist James Hansen has suggested in his recent work.

For the sole purpose of having a fall-back if disaster seems imminent, it seems sensible to investigate possible geoengineering technologies, assessing them in terms of probable effectiveness, secondary consequences, and overall risks. As Caldeira explains:

“Only fools find joy in the prospect of climate engineering. It’s also foolish to think that risk of significant climate damage can be denied or wished away. Perhaps we can depend on the transcendent human capacity for self-sacrifice when faced with unprecedented, shared, long-term risk, and therefore can depend on future reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But just in case, we’d better have a plan.”

If we find ourselves suddenly on the cusp of the disintegration of Greenland or West Antarctica, the abrupt drying and burning of the Amazon, or the failure of the Asian monsoon, we may find ourselves glad to have conducted this research in advance, even if the ultimate result of that research is the knowledge that geoengineering is actually technically impossible or unacceptably risky. Better to learn that in advance than to roll the die at a time when no room for deliberation remains.

Failures in fish identification

Making an ethical decision about what kind of seafood to eat is very challenging. Considerations include environmental sustainability, the problems with different forms of fishing gear, and the maintenance of ecosystems and viable fish stocks. As this Vancouver Sun article points out, actually making good choices may be impossible for consumers in many cases because they are being lied to about what sort of fish they are buying.

In some cases, the guidelines for what you can call a fish are so loose as to be almost meaningless. In other cases, people simply lie. According to a study cited in the article, DNA tests of 91 seafood samples purchased in Toronto and New York revealed that 23 (25%) were mislabelled. In other cases, fish from depleted waters are labelled as originating in fisheries that are being more sustainably managed.

All this poses a big problem to the school of thought that suggests that educating consumers to make their own ethical choices is the best way forward. Even for those willing to put in the effort to investigate the state of various fisheries, as well as willing to pay more in time and money to find ethical fish, the failure to properly label products may make their efforts fruitless or counterproductive.

As with many other problems in food integrity, the solution may be a shorter chain from source to consumer, coupled with more stringent regulations and enforcement.

The article, along with several others in its series, was linked and discussed on Jennifer Jacquet’s blog.

Gore’s five point climate plan

Al Gore has an op-ed in The New York Times in which he argues that energy security and climate change can both be addressed through the same bold set of policies. He highlights five key areas for action:

  1. Incentives for concentrating solar in the Southwest, wind farms from Texas to the Dakotas, and new geothermal capacity.
  2. A national smart grid, including high voltage direct current transmission.
  3. Plug-in hybrids, capable of acting as an energy storage system for the grid.
  4. More efficiently heated, cooled, and lit buildings.
  5. A price on carbon, and an international agreement to succeed Kyoto.

Gore also highlights the importance that those who are now young will play in bringing this about: “The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.” While comparisons to Apollo can be misleading, the exhortation is a convincing one.

Hopefully, Obama realizes the seriousness of this problem and has the political skill to start the rapid transition to a low-carbon economy, and help lead the rest of the world along that path.

Recyclable packaging from Amazon

A recent decision by Amazon.com deserves to be applauded. They are collaborating with manufacturers to reduce the use of bulky and hard-to-open plastic packaging. In place, they are making products available in streamlined packaging made from recyclable cardboard.

It’s a small step, but a sensible one. It also demonstrates the degree to which big retailers can play a role in setting standards. A similar push from someone like Wal-Mart could have a pronounced effect.

Misunderstanding Antarctic science

The other day, a friend of mine directed me towards a blog post by Chris Mounsey that does an excellent job of misunderstanding the recent scientific study that found a discernable influence from anthropogenic warming in Antarctica. The study used 100 years of Arctic data, 50 years of Antarctic data, and four computer models to demonstrate that the observations that have been made in those regions are consistent with models in which human emissions are causing mean global warming, and inconsistent with models that include only natural forcings.

As in a great many other cases, the blog author confuses different types of certainty about climatic science. For example, while we definitely know that greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere cause more of the sun’s energy to be absorbed by the Earth, it isn’t clear what effect the inter-relationships between temperature, soil moisture, evaporation, clouds, and reflected sunlight are. The climate system includes a massive number of elements that have complex inter-relations. When it is reported that a scientific study “help[ed] reveal what drives climate change,” the claim being made is that our understanding of that whole complex system has been deepened.

The blog post questions whether warming is happening (it is), whether it might not be a good thing (above a certain level, extremely unlikely), and whether this is just a repeat of the Medieval Warm Period (it isn’t).

In general, it follows the same “toss everything into the pot” strategy found in many pieces of writing that question the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. I have previously written about the inconsistency of simultaneously denying warming, denying that warming is caused by humans, and denying that warming is bad. This blog also connects to another argument made previously on this site. The blog is written by a self-identified libertarian. The need to disprove the fact that all sorts of human economic activities have important consequences on third parties is essential if climate change is not to render that entire political philosophy nonsensical.

The oil sands in the Obama era

With the election of Barack Obama, Canadian politicians seem to be taking the initiative in raising the issue of future climate change policy in North America. The situation is a complicated one, particularly given tensions between climate change mitigation objectives and aspirations for energy security. A further complication arises because of overlapping jurisdictions. US states, Canadian provinces, and regional initiatives are all working on climate change mitigation. To some extent, this federal government-to-government bid seems designed to supplant that. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon has expressed the hope that a Canada-US deal could “provide uniformity and supplant the patchwork of plans that are being implemented in various states and provinces.” While uniformly good policies would certainly be a step forward, there is the distinct danger that more innovative and committed jurisdictions will be forced down towards mediocrity, and that time will be wasted as reorganization occurs.

In the end, the oil sands are both a huge financial temptation and a hugely sensitive regional issue. How they end up being treated will have a lot to do with the extent to which national governments are willing to consider overall societal welfare, as opposed to the more volatile interests of specific groups, as well as the degree to which either government is willing to bear political risks in order to achieve their existing mitigation targets. I don’t think it can be realistically argued that current oil sands policy is anything other than selfish and reckless. That is on account of both the near-term ecological damage arising from oil sands extraction and refining, as well as the long-term climatic threats associated with using such dirty fuels.

One element of the Globe and Mail reporting is rather misleading. It says that “the oil sands are comparable to conventional sources of oil, if the companies implement so-called carbon-capture-and-storage technology.” It is a bit laughable to say that two things are comparable, provided an entirely untested technology is instantly deployed in a widespread fashion. Particularly given the falling price of oil, the possibility that oil sands extraction with carbon capture and storage has the potential to be a low-carbon and economically attractive source of energy seems very dubious.