Category: The environment

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

The latest nuclear fusion enthusiasm

I have written about nuclear fusion as an energy source before:

Periodically, however, there are news stories about supposed breakthroughs in fusion technology with the potential to be rapidly and affordably deployed, potentially curbing climate change.

I have seen enough of these stories in my life to be pretty skeptical, but this can be a thread for keeping track of and discussing them.

Here’s the latest: Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project

Responding to Kenneth Green on renewable energy

On CBC’s The Current this morning, Kenneth Green – the Senior Director for the Centre for Natural Resources at the Fraser Institute – made quite a string of erroneous claims about climate science, renewable energy, and the climate change activist movement.

His most serious error, I think, was arguing that states like Ontario and Germany are going to regret their decision to invest in climate-safe and renewable forms of energy. Like a lot of mistaken analysis about energy politics, Mr. Green’s ignores the necessity of decarbonizing the global economy if we are not going to cause so much climate change that we completely wreck human prosperity, while simultaneously endangering huge numbers of lives and critically important natural systems.

In the decades ahead, it’s going to be states like Canada that seriously regret the energy choices they made at this time. While others will have begun the necessary transition to energy sources that we can rely on indefinitely, Canada will eventually need to make the same transition more rapidly and at greater expense. We will need to scrap inappropriate high-carbon infrastructure including oil sands projects, pipelines, and tight oil and gas hydraulic fracturing projects – and do so well before the end of what their economically viable lifetimes would be in the absence of climate change. Then, we will need to build appropriate infrastructure at a greater pace and a higher cost, while suffering worse impacts from climate change. These impacts will be worsened both by Canada’s direct contribution to the severity of climate change and by the indirect way through which Canadian inaction has encouraged continued fossil fuel dependence in the rest of the world.

It’s disappointing that quality current events programs like The Current still feel the need to bring on fossil-fuel-enthusiast dinosaurs whenever they discuss climate change. As organizations from the United Nations to the World Bank to the Pentagon have long recognized, the question now is how to succeed in the transition to a climate-safe global economy, not whether there is any viable case for remaining tied to coal, oil, and gas.

Hopefully, this weekend’s People’s Climate March will help instill a sense of urgency and determination in political leaders and the general public. As the major economic assessments of climate change like the Stern Report have concluded unequivocally, the intelligent choice in purely economic terms is to do what states like Germany have begun: to stop investing in high-carbon infrastructure projects that are no longer appropriate for the world in which we live, to phase out fossil-fuel energy beginning with the most harmful forms like coal plants, and to commit to the deployment of a new energy system which is climate-safe and which can be relied upon indefinitely.

PubPol comp written

I wrote the public policy major field exam today, and I feel like it went OK. I have to wait at least two weeks for results, but I would be fairly surprised if I failed. On that basis, I think I will commit to accompanying Toronto350.org to the forthcoming People’s Climate March in Manhattan on September 21st.

Matt Wilder helped me out with some astute reading suggestions.

Limits to a social cost of carbon

In some ways, the idea of a social cost of carbon is fundamentally sound. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere harms people around the world in various ways which can be measured and quantified. Applying that in the form of a carbon price should allow us to better adjudicate between activities where the total benefits exceed the total costs (including climate damage). It should also help us identify where the most cost-effective options are for reducing emissions and mitigating climate change.

At the same time, there are some issues with the approach. For one, it suggests false confidence and draws attention away from the possibility of abrupt, irreversible, and catastrophic outcomes. There are climatic thresholds out there where increased concentrations lead to dramatic global changes and major impacts on human life. Adding $50 (or whatever) to the cost of an activity that adds a tonne of CO2 to the atmosphere conceals these dangers, suggesting that the harm imposed will always be incremental and manageable. Another tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t essentially equivalent to a little fine everybody pays. Rather, it represents a threatening degradation to the stable climatic regime that has accompanied the existence of human civilization. Moving from relative stability into a realm where global weather patterns are rapidly and violently shifting involves experiences that cannot be easily equated to simple monetary costs.

The social cost of carbon approach also conceals some of the costs of carbon that aren’t easily quantifiable in financial terms. It’s a lot easier to work out the additional cost of desalinating drinking water than it is to estimate the financial value we should assign to losing an ecosystem or having an important cultural site permanently immersed in the sea.

Further, using a single price suggests that the damage from every tonne of emissions is the same. This is essentially true for emissions that happen at the same time – the tonne of CO2 emissions you produce by running your gasoline lawn mower affects the climate as much as the tonne of CO2 I produce by running my gas furnace. However, climate science has convincingly demonstrated that the total harm done by carbon accumulating in the atmosphere isn’t linear across time. Warm the planet by a degree or two and human and natural systems can adapt comparatively easily. By the time you are going from 5˚C of warming to 6˚C, you will probably be experiencing catastrophic new forms of harm that nobody can really adapt to. Using a single social cost of carbon may make this idea harder to grasp, a well.

Applied properly, a social cost of carbon may be a useful tool for helping individuals, firms, and countries internalize the climate damage associated with their choices. In the big picture, however, the challenge for humanity is to control fossil fuel use and land use change such that we don’t cause catastrophic damage to the planet’s natural systems. Achieving that requires a sustained effort to abandon fossil fuels as sources of energy, while protecting carbon sinks. Insofar as a social cost of carbon helps encourage that transition, it is to be welcomed. When it contributes to the miscategorization of the problem as a whole, however, there is cause for concern.

Open thread: energy storage

One challenge with energy sources like solar and wind is that their output varies with local environmental conditions, and not necessarily in ways that correspond to energy demand.

Hence, having energy storage capacity makes them easier to integrate into the grid. There are many options: pumped hydroelectric storage, tidal storage, batteries, compressed air, molten salt, and potentially hydrogen.

It is also possible to balance output from different kinds of renewable stations, using biomass, solar, wind, tidal, and other forms of energy to cover one another’s fallow periods.

Thoughts on the Trinity-Spadina by-election

I am deviating from this flowchart for the current Trinity-Spadina by-election.

My riding is clearly contested between the Liberals and the NDP, and I do generally have a preference between candidates from those parties. If the real race is between the Liberal and NDP candidates, and you prefer one to the other, it probably makes sense to vote for the plausible candidate who you prefer.

But for this election, I think both the federal Green platform and the local candidate in Trinity-Spadina are very appealing. I have been volunteering a bit for the campaign. It’s not plausible to think that the Green will win, despite her considerable merits as a potential parliamentarian, but it would be nice to beat the Conservative candidate.

One thing the flowchart in my 2008 post fails to capture is the possibility that only one party has a credible platform on the issue I consider most important. Continuing to expand the oil sands is a really bad investment, and the federal Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP generally support it. Generally speaking, federally, the Liberals are probably better than the NDP on climate. Locally, the NDP candidate seems more concerned than the Liberal.

Greens are great parliamentarians, with Elizabeth May deservedly-acknowledged as the star of the whole place.

Preparing for a comp, working (photography and hotel management), and remaining engaged with Toronto350.org there is only so much I can do for the campaign. At the same time, being peripherally involved so far has been the most engaging encounter with Canadian politics I’ve had in a while, and with voter turnout so lamentable, I think the power of the Greens to inspire those cynical about first-past-the-post Westminster-style electoral politics is a further good reason to support them.