The environment – Page 95 – a sibilant intake of breath

Growing climate skepticism in the US

In an awfully pathetic development, a recent poll conducted of 1,500 American adults by the Pew Research Center found that the proportion agreeing that “there is strong scientific evidence that the earth has gotten warmer over the past few decades” has fallen from 71% to 57%. Now, only 36% of people agree that human activities are the drivers of temperature increase.

This is an astonishing result, a year after the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report argued that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “[m]ost of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.” It is especially sad given the fact that the supposed scientific debate about the causes of climate change is largely mythical. Despite that, status quo supporting groups have apparently done an excellent job of misleading the public, perhaps aided by the increased concern that now exists about the state of the global economy.

The basics of the situation are quite simple. No competent chemist would disagree that burning fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. Similarly, it is simple to observe that air with more CO2 blocks more outgoing infrared radiation, warming the planet. Both of these things are explained by chemical and physical theory, and observed in practice. Admittedly, it takes more work to understand why this warming could be dangerous; still, the scientific backing for that claim is incredibly robust and based on peer-reviewed scientific work done around the world over the course of many decades.

Obviously, a lot more work needs to be done debunking climate change deniers, both by directly responding to misleading arguments and through other means. The terrifying thing here is that our actions now will have irrevocable consequences, largely beginning a few decades out, but continuing at least for thousands of years. The fact that so many people remain confused about climate – and very few support effort on the scale required to deal with it – is really bad news for future generations.

A trillion tonnes of carbon

Previously, I described how Andrew Weaver used different estimates of how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to greenhouse gasses to determine how many total emissions humanity can have without causing more than 2°C of warming. The 2°C figure is commonly cited as the level of warming that is unambiguously ‘dangerous’ – either because of the harm it would do directly or because warming to that point would kick off positive feedbacks that would then make the planet hotter still.

A new site simplifies this analysis, arguing only that: “If we are to limit global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions to less than 2°C, widely regarded as necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, we need to limit total cumulative emissions to less (possibly much less) than” one trillion tonnes of carbon (equivalent to 3.67 trillion tonnes of CO2). This is probably too high an estimate, given that the IPCC estimates climate sensitivity to be between 3.6°C and 4.5°C. At the low end, that means we need to cap total emissions below 0.661 trillion tonnes of carbon; at the high end, the limit would be 0.484 trillion tonnes. The website estimates that our emissions to date are around 0.555 trillion tonnes.

In the event that actual climate sensitivity is a high but possible 8°C, cumulative emissions of just 0.163 trillion tonnes of carbon would be enough to produce 2°C of warming.

Still, ‘trillionth tonne’ is an accessible concept and it is interesting to watch the numbers update in real time. One especially interesting figure is this one: “We would not release the trillionth tonne if emissions were to start falling immediately and indefinitely at…” At present, their estimate is about 2.1% per year. A higher rate of reduction is necessary if the trillion tonne figure proves overly high.

The Age of Stupid

The Age of Stupid is a poignant and timely film, based around the conceit of sending a warning to people today through fictional retrospective, based on real climatic science and the consequences of continued inaction. It forcefully conveys the point that climate change is the overwhelming moral and political issue of this era. If we deal with it, other things will have importance; if we allow runaway climate change to occur, it will eclipse any other failures. The film is a good example of climate change art, and should especially be watched by those who basically accept the science of climate change but don’t feel the level of motivation necessary to produce real change. It’s not about using fewer plastic bags – it’s about pushing for a new energy basis for human civilization. We need to take personal responsibility – and agitate for systemic change – in ways that go beyond the symbolic and the trivial.

The film makes a number of key points in a convincing and accessible way. Climate change must be managed internationally in a way that respects the importance of poverty reduction in the developing world, as well as the vital point that the pattern of fossil fuel-fired development followed in the West cannot be repeated (contraction and convergence). It stresses how lags in the climate system mean we need to take decisive action long before the full consequences of our choices become visible. On one critical point, the film is both clear and correct: we simply cannot burn all the remaining fossil fuels. There is a maximum level, corresponding at the very most to the lower threshold of runaway climate change. We need to work out what that amount is, and then find a way to divide it among all of humanity, cutting to zero before we exceed it.

The film also stresses how air travel really cannot be part of a sustainable future, when one long flight represents three years’ worth of of acceptable total emissions for a single person, at the levels that need to become ordinary within the next few decades. Especially in the states where per capita emissions are highest (and where the deepest and fastest cuts must be made), we all need to be moving towards lives that do not include such extravagances.

The film also effectively conveys how foolish ‘Not in My Backyard’ (NIMBY) resistance to renewable energy projects really is. People who resist wind farms because they fear their views would be spoiled are completely failing to understand the scale of the challenge we face. While the film doesn’t make the point, the same might be said of those who have a knee-jerk hostile response to big dams, nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, etc. Indeed, it seems inevitable that people fifty years from now would watch this film with interest – either deservingly patting themselves on the back for having achieved a historic transition to zero-carbon energy, or ruefully kicking themselves after being reminded that the consequences of humanity’s selfishness and failure of think at scale were predictable in 2008.

One neat little detail capped off the presentation for me. During a montage showing a succession of years, overlaid with sound and video describing runaway climate change emerging and taking hold, someone around 2030 is quoted asking whether climate change is really happening or not. It is truly frustrating that the understanding of climatic science within the general population is so poor, and has been so effectively confused by the status quo lobby and the failure of individuals to show imagination and empathy.

The Age of Stupid didn’t leave me any more confident that humanity will be able to deal with this problem, but it did re-affirm my commitment to pushing for a sustainable outcome. That would be one that forever replaces the energy basis of our global society, shifting from one based on dwindling hydrocarbons – the by-products of which are wrecking the climate – to one that we can maintain forever.

Smart grid skepticism

The Economist argues that the popularity of so-called ‘smart’ electrical grids is cause for suspicion. The fact that builders of renewable energy plants and operators of dirty coal plants are both on side suggests that the grids will not, in and of themselves, produce a push towards reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, if they reduce the amount of extra capacity required and cut energy prices through greater efficiency they might encourage increased usage and thus increased emissions.

The point is well taken, as is the argument that legislation is required to ensure that new technologies actually lead to climate change mitigation. Without government-created incentives like carbon pricing, we cannot assume that technological advancement and voluntary action will lead to reduced emissions.

Fill the Hill – October 24th

Various environmental groups are supporting a major event on Parliament Hill next Saturday, October 24th. The event begins at noon, with a big photo stunt happening at 2:00pm. 3,559 such events are scheduled around the world, in 161 different countries. Groups involved in this non-partisan event include Oxfam Canada, the Canadian Federation of Students, 350.org, and KYOTOplus.

With the Copenhagen climate change negotiations less than 70 days away, this is a good opportunity to demonstrate that you are concerned about the issue, and hope that Canadian politicians will do more to address it. So far, Canada’s record is very poor. Our emissions are way above where we pledged to be through the Kyoto Protocol. Furthermore, while we do have climate targets for 2020 and 2050, we do not yet have a viable plan for meeting them. Changing that will require showing Canadian politicians that citizens aren’t satisfied with the meagre efforts put forward so far.

Beyond attending the event itself, if anyone wants to help with postering and general awareness raising, they can contact me and I will put them in touch with some of the organizers.

[Update: 18 October 2009] A postcard for the event is available.

[Update: 19 October 2009] Here are some posters in English and French.

[Update: 26 September 2009] I have put my photos and videos from the event online.

Supporters of 350, understand what you are proposing

The 350 movement is a group concerned about climate change that has adopted an upper limit of 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere as their target. The target is a good and extremely ambitious one, and the group is doing well in the media. That said, I worry that some of the 350 proponents don’t understand what they are arguing for.

The carbon cycle

To understand climate change, you need to understand the carbon cycle. In a normal situation, this refers to carbon in sugars being released as CO2 when animals, bacteria, and fungi metabolize them. This adds CO2 to the atmosphere. In turn, green plants use sunlight to make sugars out of CO2, releasing oxygen. These processes happen in a balanced way, with more CO2 emission in the winter (when plants are inactive) and more CO2 absorption in the summer.

Alongside the biological processes are geological ones. Two are key. Volcanoes emit greenhouse gases, and the erosion of certain kinds of rock locks up CO2 underground. The latter process happens very slowly. It is very important to understand that this is the only long-term phenomenon that keeps on drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere. The oceans will suck it up when CO2 accumulates in the air, but only until the seas become more acidic and come into balance. CO2 likewise accumulates in the biomass of living things, but there can only be so many forests and so much plankton on Earth.

When we burn fossil fuels, we add to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Before the Industrial Revolution, it was around 280 ppm. Now, it is about 383 ppm and rising by 2 ppm per year.

What 350 means

It isn’t impossible to get back to 350 ppm. This is because the oceans haven’t caught up with the atmosphere yet. If we suddenly stopped burning coal, oil, and gas the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere would start to fall as more of it went into the sea. That being said, if we keep burning these fuels in the way we are now, getting back to 350 ppm will become impossible.

When you argue to cap the atmospheric concentration at 350, you are arguing to cut the net human emissions of the entire planet to zero – and to do so before we cross the point where the oceans can’t draw us back under the number. The same is true if you argue for stabilizing at a higher level, such as 450 ppm or 550 ppm; those scenarios just give us more time to keep emitting before we reach zero net emissions. When you support 350 ppm, you are committing to keeping the great majority of the carbon bound up in remaining fossil fuels underground and unused by human beings. ‘Net’ human emissions means everything that goes up into the air from burning fossil fuels, minus the trickle of CO2 into rocks (as described above) and possibly minus whatever CO2 we can suck out of the air and bury (a costly and energy-intensive procedure).

Cutting net human emissions to zero is a laudable aim. Indeed, it is the only way concentrations (and global temperatures) can ever be kept stable in perpetuity. I just hope that more 350 supporters will come to understand and accept that, and realize that achieving that ambition requires massive societal change, not just marches and savvy media campaigns.

P.S. If all that isn’t enough of a challenge, remember that there are also positive feedback effects within the climate system where, once we kick off a bit of warming, CO2 concentrations rise on their own in response. These feedbacks include melting permafrost and burning rainforests. Keeping below 350 ppm requires cutting net human emissions to zero before these positive feedbacks commit us to crossing the threshold.

Why Bury Coal? explains this in more detail.

Edgy campaign from the Young Greens

The Young Greens of Canada recently launched a new website emblazoned with the slogan “[Y]our parents f*cked up the planet – [I]t’s time to do something about it. [L]ive green, vote green.” Obviously, it is intended to provoke controversy, and it is arguably a tactical mistake. That being said, it is certainly factually true. The ancestors of those now alive helped to expand the fossil-fuel-driven society that is the fundamental cause of climate change. Most of them did so in ignorance of what the consequences would be, but that is no longer a legitimate possibility for those now alive. Faulty arguments from deniers aside, we all now know that climate change is real, dangerous, and caused by us. We have to stop. That being said, it would be more correct to say “our parents” or “all our parents” and to mention that, so far, we are all doing the same thing.

We certainly need a diversity in media campaigns to address climate change and, even if some people object to this one, I think there is some cause for raising the issue of responsibility. We need to move from a mindset where we pat ourselves on the back for walking to the grocery store or using a compact fluorescent light to one where we recognize the harm our emissions will cause to other people and take major steps to reduce them (while also demanding change in the economic and political structures within which we live).

Canada’s political system forces the Greens to engage from the outside. Whether you think this communication strategy will alienate more than it educates or not, that is clearly what the Young Greens are trying to accomplish here.

Promoting responsible mining

Previously, I described the phenomenon where mining companies leave behind messes that would eliminate their profits if they were obliged to clean them up. Often, however, these liabilities end up being borne by taxpayers in general, who either fund the cleanup or live with the consequences of the contamination.

Now, a private members bill proposes sanctions on Canadian mining companies that violate good governance and environmental standards abroad. Bill C-300 was proposed by Liberal MP John McKay, and has already passed through second reading in the House of Commons.

Extractive industries, including mining, certainly have a checkered history of international operations. While there are certainly examples of projects that take into account governance and environmental concerns, legal reforms that make these more typical are welcome.

Patio heaters

The photo above illustrates part of why Canada has greenhouse gas emissions of about 24 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per person per year (about three times as much as Sweden). It also shows the extent to which we take the easy energy embedded in fossil fuels for granted: gas powered heaters, running in Ottawa in October, to warm a patio with nobody on it.

I doubt renewable energy will ever become cheap enough for this kind of excess to make sense.

More misrepresentation of climate science

A YouTube user called greenman3610 sometimes puts up videos in a series called the ‘climate change crock of the week.’ One that he put up recently is illustrative of how scientific information about climate change is misrepresented in the media.

The initial remarks concerned how there is always random variation around the overall warming trend being caused by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The featured later media discussion suggests that the original speaker has now abandoned the view that greenhouse gasses cause warming – something that is blatantly contradicted by the original transcript.

The fact that such misrepresentation occurs is depressing for two reasons. First, it shows how low the ethical and journalistic of at least some media outlets have become. Second, it reveals the extent to which people in general are too ignorant of climatic science to identify which claims are credible and which are absurd.

Thankfully, sources like DeSmogBlog and RealClimate put a lot of effort into rebutting faulty arguments that find purchase in the media.