Sloppy reporting in The New York Times

In an article on refrigerants and climate change, New York Times reporter Irwin Arieff uses some rather misleading language to describe the warming effect associated with HFCs:

Environmentalists, meanwhile, say the shift to HFC-410A is only a halfway measure because the new refrigerant, while good for the ozone, still throws off heat, contributing to global warming.

As explained here before, greenhouse gasses (GHGs) do not cause the planet to warm because they themselves are warm or ‘throw off heat.’ Rather, they are opaque to the wavelengths of infrared light the planet radiates, and thus prevent some of that energy from escaping into space.

That said, it’s good to see that refrigerants are getting some attention as a category of GHGs, given how powerful they are relative to carbon dioxide and the special challenges involved in incorporating their management into an overall mitigation strategy. (See: Problems with carbon markets)

The Bridge at the Edge of the World

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), near the Ottawa River

The basic contention of James Gustave Speth’s The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability is that dealing with climate change – and environmental crises more generally – requires a major project of societal reform. This includes rejecting economic growth as a major objective, and focusing instead on improving the non-material factors that determine happiness. It also involves major economic and political reforms: severely curtailing the autonomy of corporations and sharply altering the relationships between business and government. While Speth’s vision is a coherent one, I don’t think he makes the case convincingly that it is the only alternative to ecological collapse. Indeed, implementing elements of his broader social program may well involve political battles that delay effective action on climate change.

One basic idea that Speth expresses well is a two-phased understanding of human civilization. In the first stage, exponential growth occurs and the proper mentality is that of the frontier or entrepreneurship. The second phase, basically the death of libertarianism, is when population and ecological strain become so significant that society and world level planning become necessary. It is clear that we are moving from the first to the second, as a civilization, though it remains unclear whether we will be able to manage that transition well, and avoid most of the damage and suffering that would result from getting it wrong.

Speth’s chapters on government and corporations seem like they were taken directly from AdBusters or Naomi Klein. That is not to say their analysis is wholly incorrect, but I do think it seriously overstates the power of corporations. Ultimately, they are subject to the will of governments. Of course, they have a strong ability to influence governments: both directly and by manipulating voters. Nonetheless, the authority and capability necessary to solve the world’s most pressing environmental problems lies with governments, and the process of achieving that will be all about altering their internal thinking and incentives. Speth’s analysis is also almost entirely focused on political and economic reform, in the sense of corporate governance. He pays relatively little attention to technological development and deployment, or to the economic instruments through which both can be advanced.

Speth is clearly well-read on the subject of the environmental movement. Indeed, his book is so riddled with quotations that his own voice and perspective are sometimes obscured. It isn’t always clear whether he is wholeheartedly endorsing someone’s idea, or introducing it as a partial contrast to his own point. Despite that, Speth’s writing is concise, clear, and often compelling. While readers may not find themselves in total agreement at all points, Speth at least provides some solid concepts and arguments to respond to.

Ultimately, the approach described in The Bridge at the Edge of the World comes across as somewhat unfocused. The author presents a package of reforms as through each is integral to all the others, but doesn’t make a strong enough case for why that is so. Indeed, the book also fails to present a coherent path from the present forward into a reformed world, indicating which elements are better primed to emerge soon. It may be sensible to argue for more progressive taxation, banning advertising to children, supporting sports and hobbies, providing free child care, etc, but some of these things are clearly secondary to the process of reconciling human civilization with the physical and biological limits of the planet.

Indeed, a strong case can be made that climate change will only be truly solved when it becomes post-ideological: when all the major political ideologies in states with serious greenhouse gas emissions come to accept the fact that they must be reduced and ultimately eliminated. Without that consensus, it seems unreasonable to expect the process of mitigation to continue for decade after decade. By tying the need to mitigate into an overly specific political framework, Speth puts forward a proposal that could obstruct that process, or lead to it sputtering out with the political ascendacy of a group with different perspectives and priorities.

David MacKay’s sustainable energy calculations

For all the readers on this site interesting in climate change, policy, and technology, David MacKay’s book Sustainable Energy – without the hot air is a text that could be very profitably incorporated into our discussions. It seeks to evaluate whether (and how) society could operate without fossil fuels. It does so systematically, with all work shown, allowing you to question the methods and perform your own calculations for different circumstances. Another nice feature is that it is available online for free, though you may find it worthwhile to buy a professionally printed and bound copy.

The book is all about what is physically possible, rather than what is economical. As such, it sets a kind of base standard for sustainability. It evaluates whether something can be done at any cost, a pre-requisite to it being possible at a reasonable one.

To begin with, here is the methodology (p. 22 -28). It explains the exercise being undertaken and explains the key units to be used. The main unit of power selected is the somewhat unusual kilowatt-hour per day (kWh/d) per person (/p). While watts are more conventional, this unit does have some virtues in making things easily comparable and comprehensible. After all, if a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity costs me about five cents, it is easy to start thinking about the economics of an activity that requires 30 or 40 kWh/d.

Here are a few chapters that touch directly on debates that have occurred (sometimes raged) on this site:

All the other chapters are relevant, as well, but these seem especially likely to inject some new information and thinking into long-running discussions.

The United Kingdom seems to be spoiled with people who are willing to perform comprehensive analyses of how their whole societal energy system could be rendered comparable with a stable climate (George Monbiot’s book is another example). It almost seems worth going through this entire text and re-performing the calculations with Canadian figures as inputs.

Somewhat short of that, would anyone be interested in going through the book chapter by chapter?

How to be safe around cyclists

Gull (Larus), near the Ottawa River

In my own experience, the situations that endanger cyclists and the operators of other vehicles near them usually arise because of a lack of awareness about making movements perpendicular to the flow of traffic. In front of a cyclist, imagine a cylinder projected forward, with a length corresponding to the distance it would take that cyclist to stop safely. If you move into that cylinder, there is likely to be a collision.

To avoid this, I suggest two basic practices:

  1. Move in a clearly signaled and predictable manner. When making turns, always signal them. Do not make turns from lanes where it is not allowed. When opening a car door beside traffic, do so slowly. When changing lanes, signal and do it in a smooth and controlled way. When entering the flow of traffic, do so in a controlled and visible way.
  2. Check your blind spots, whenever moving more than half a lane to the left or right. In particular, make sure to check the blind spot to your right when you are making right hand turns (even if you are in the rightmost lane) and make sure to check your left blind spot when opening a car door beside traffic. Those two habits can help you avoid the two most common cyclist fatalities: the ‘door prize,’ which occurs when a car door gets opened in front of a cyclist and they collide, and the ‘right hook,’ where a vehicle makes a right turn in front of a cyclist and they collide.

None of this is to say that cyclists are not responsible for safety, as well. Indeed, all the behaviours above apply to cyclists dealing with other cyclists.

In addition to these, cyclists should be highly visible, signal clearly, obey traffic rules, and move in a clear and predictable manner. Don’t cycle within door range of parked cars and, if safety requires it, feel free to occupy a whole lane. Cars behind you might start going nuts, but it is a smarter option that cycling on some marginal pavement or in an unsafe position. For example, there are a number of roads in Ottawa where the pavement on the rightmost extreme is in a very bad state of repair – so much so that it might make you fall or force you to swerve. In these situations, I find it sensible to make sure there isn’t a car just a couple of feet to the left of me.

Going back to the safe stopping cylinder for a moment, it is true that a cyclist can stop very quickly if absolutely necessary – though the process is chaotic and unpleasant. It consists of braking so hard you lock your front wheel, then going flying over your handlebars. It is better than colliding with a car, but it is far from pleasant and can generate other unexpected movements or collisions. Helping cyclists avoid these kind of stops is one of the more important things you can do as someone sharing a road or path with them.

Bicycle physics

For those with an interest in both cycling and physics, the Wikipedia article “Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics” is well worth reading. It is interesting to note that lateral movements of bicycles (basically, those involving turning) are so mathematically complex that they require “two coupled, second-order differential equations… to capture the principle motions” and that these equations cannot produce exact solutions.

That contrasts in an interesting way with the experience of making turns at speed on a bicycle, and the appreciation one gains for the relationship between body movements, bicycle movements, and the condition of the ground.

Energy efficiency and Ottawa’s Dominion Observatory

Dominion Observatory - NRCan Office of Energy Efficiency

Wandering around the experimental farm, I ran across one of my new favourite buildings in Ottawa. Natural Resources Canada has an Office of Energy Efficiency housed in an old observatory that would look at home in Oxford, Myst, or a neo-Victorian steampunk fantasy. It has great brickwork, an attractive green copper dome, interesting detailing, and a nice setting uphill from Dow’s Lake. The building is called the Dominion Observatory, and served in that capacity from 1905 to 1974, with a 15″ refracting telescope installed in the main dome.

I will need to find some pretense for getting invited in. I will also need to go back at a time when the lighting is more favourable, and when I have a tripod with me.

Photos of Ontario and Quebec birds

Here is a list of the birds I have photographed so far as part of my open-ended project. The links go back to the posts in which the photos originally appeared. Eventually, I might sub-divide this list according to type or location.

Presently unidentified birds: none.

Soft rules for the oil sands means harder targets for others

Canadian Goose (Branta canadensis), near the Ottawa River

Environmental Defence has put out a new report on the oil sands that speaks well to both a general and a specific issue. Climate change policy is often about deciding on a total permissible quantity, then haggling over how it gets divided, with everyone asserting that their special circumstances justify lenient treatment. For instance, Canada argues that it should be able to cut its emissions by less than other states because it is large, cold, an energy exporter, etc. By contrast, other states argue for more generous targets on the basis of past action, ongoing extreme poverty, and many other reasons.

Of course, for everyone who gets lenient treatment, someone else needs to pick up the slack, if you are going to meet your targets. What the Environmental Defence report highlights is how giving an easy ride to the oil sands will mean higher costs for everyone else, if Canada is to hit its 2020 and 2050 mitigation targets.* The report – entitled Divided We Fall: The Tar Sands vs. The Rest of Canada – highlights how placing a disproportionate reduction burden on Ontario and Quebec could be harmful for their economic prospects, especially given how greater opportunities for mitigation exist in the fossil-fuel intensive western industries. Also, given the degree to which resource windfalls (in terms of both tax revenues and jobs) tend to accrue provincially, Ontario and Quebec have an even stronger case against allowing a weaker carbon pricing system for hydrocarbon production in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Domestically, this is just one of the innumerable issues of Canadian federalism. Regional interests generate tensions that can sap the ability of Canada as a whole to achieve good outcomes. Certainly, some provinces will find it much easier than others to recognize and accept the fact that the fossil fuel industry has no long-term future. It’s a one-off bonanza that our legal and moral obligations on climate change will not permit us to fully realize. Instead of continuing to invest in a dead end, Canada needs to get serious about building an economy that can thrive in a low- and ultimately zero-carbon future.

The report is also available in French (PDF).

* It is worth remembering that, while the 2020 and 2050 targets have received much more media attention recently, the original announcement of the current government’s Turning the Corner climate change plan promised that total Canadian emissions would peak no later than 2012. Most people seem to have forgotten about the third promise.

Colour-based Google image searches

Google Image Search now lets you search for images that are predominantly similar to twelve different colours. For instance, the set of all photos from my site they have indexed can be restricted to just those with red highlights or those dominated by blue.

All told, Google currently includes 204 images from my site in their index. Here is the colour breakdown:

  • Red: 10
  • Teal: 7
  • White: 11
  • Orange: 17
  • Blue: 25 (lots of the sky)
  • Grey: 41 (many of them in black and white)
  • Yellow: 2
  • Purple: 2
  • Black: 47
  • Green: 8
  • Pink: 0
  • Brown: 45

You can also search for various image types: news content, faces, clip art, line drawings, and photo content.

As ever, Google Image Search is a somewhat perplexing creation. It’s not clear why it selects the photos it does or how it ranks them. I look forward to further improvements in the service.

New fuel efficiency standards in the US

Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) in a tree, near the Ottawa River

Obama’s decision to extend California-style fuel efficiency standards across the US is a very welcome one, not least because it seems likely that Canada’s government will copy them. The US rules take effect in 2012 and create a federal fuel efficiency standard. The aim is to push the efficiency of the US car and light truck fleet to 35.5 miles per gallon (6.63 L/100km) by 2016: 40% better than now. Such a move is long overdue, given the poor efficiency of the US vehicle fleet, the huge amounts of oil imported by the United States in order to keep them running, climate change concerns, and reasonable doubts about the availability of low-cost hydrocarbons in the near to medium future.

While the new standards are a marked improvement, it is worth thinking about them in context. They will not bring the US up to speed with Australia, China, the European Union, or Japan. Indeed, even in 2020, the planned American standards lag behind where the EU and Japan were in 2002. Given the degree to which North American taxpayers now own the big car companies, it may well have been possible to demand more progressive action from them.

Toughening standards may seem even more prescient if the end of the economic slump brings back high oil prices, as some are predicting. As reported in The Economist, the Saudi oil minister is concerned that a sharp increase in oil prices could slow or stop an economic recovery, while attendees at an OPEC summit apparently expect oil to return to $150-per-barrel territory:

The explanation is simple. Oilmen are worried because they believe that many of the factors behind the record-breaking ascent last year remain in place. Much of the world’s “easy” oil has already been extracted, or is in the hands of nationalist governments that will not allow foreigners to exploit it. That leaves firms to hunt for new reserves in ever more inhospitable and inaccessible places, such as the deep waters off Africa or the frozen oceans of the Arctic. Such fields take a long time and a lot of expensive technology to develop. Worse, new discoveries tend to be smaller than in the past and to run dry faster.

More efficient vehicles make sense as a near-term mechanism for dealing with the linked problems of climate change and energy security, but they are only an incremental step. Rather than being able to rely on increasing the efficiency of an unsustainable practice, we need to alter the basis on which that practice occurs, so as to make it both efficient and sustainable. By all means, we need to increase the efficiency with which vehicles of all kinds transport people and freight, but we must remember that we will only have attained our basic goals when those efficient vehicles operate using zero-carbon, sustainable electricity or sustainably grown, carbon-neutral biofuels as their fuel sources.