Canada – Page 65 – a sibilant intake of breath

Climate change and winter

During the last few days, I have had a depressing number of people approach me quasi-triumphantly, pointing to either the CRU emails or the first winter snowfall as evidence that climate change is nothing to worry about.

Both comments are worrisome, given that we are in the midst of negotiations at Copenhagen that will play a significant role in determining whether we keep temperature rise under 2°C or not. The CRU emails already have a post of their own, but I thought I would say a couple of things about winter.

The latter argument – about the snow – is especially absurd. Climate change is about a shifting distribution of temperatures. There will always be extremes of hot and cold, it’s just that the former are becoming more frequent relative to the latter. That said, I recall reading about a study that found that most Canadians cannot explain why there are seasons at all, with a plurality offering the theory that is has to do with the distance between the Earth and the sun. Of course, our winter is summer in the southern hemisphere, which shows that this hypothesis cannot be valid. Winters are the consequence of the fact that the Earth rotates on an axis that is presently tilted 23.44° off from the direction of our orbit. That makes the length of days variable, and changes how the distribution of temperatures across the globe plays out. That level of tilt varies across geological time due to tidal forces. When the tilt is greater, the variation between the seasons is alo larger; when the tilt is lesser, the weather towards the poles remains more consistent year-round. The level of tilt has an affect on processes like glaciation.

This will continue to happen essentially forever, regardless of how much warming we experience. The distant polar regions will always experience months of darkness, and will thus always be colder than the equator during those spans. Indeed, this is a nice demonstration of what a massive amount of energy the sun adds to the Earth system. None of this disproves the fact that greenhouse gasses being added to the atmosphere warm the planetary system overall.

The two queries also highlight some potentially important psychological issues. People on both sides of the argument are sometimes overly quick to grab at any piece of evidence that seems to support what they already believe. In his book, Greg Craven goes on at some length about the importance of this ‘confirmation bias.’ Such sloppy reasoning is one reason why the climate change debate is so flawed. Hard as it can be to do so, we need to question data and sources of information even when they seem to confirm our existing beliefs – just as we must take into consideration sources and data that seem to contradict what we hold to be true. That doesn’t mean, however, that we should remain paralyzed forever, unable to take action due to uncertainty. We take precautionary action on the basis of uncertain threats all the time. A risk management approach to climate change is one where the preponderance of evidence is sufficient to drive preventative action.

Above and beyond that, I think the fact that people cheerily point to a snowfall to argue that the planet isn’t in danger shows that they don’t yet seriously appreciate how dangerous climate change could be. The fact that it is still often treated as a half-joking matter bodes ill for our ability to put our society on a course where the largest risks of catastrophic or runaway climate change can be avoided.

The Globe and Mail on fossil fuels and the oil sands

In an editorial that is reasonably good overall, The Globe and Mail is nonetheless too quick to assume that the oil sands are good for Canada: “A vital resource, the oil sands, are an economic advantage to Canada, indeed to North America as a whole. Sixty per cent of our natural gas is exported, and Canada is the U.S.’s largest source of crude oil. The fruits of emissions here are often enjoyed elsewhere” and that fossil fuels “remain vital assets that will serve as reliable sources of energy for the foreseeable future.” They also claim that: “Products from the oil sands are necessary and desirable.”

I have argued before that, when all the associated costs are taken into consideration, the oil sands may be net destroyers of human wealth and welfare. The most important of these costs is the degree to which extracting, processing, and burning fuels produced from the oil sands increases the risk of catastrophic climate change. If we use a very high but possible estimate for how sensitive the climate system is to greenhouse gas emissions (8°C of warming for each doubling of CO2 concentrations), burning the 1.7 trillion barrels of oil estimated to exist in the oil sands would alone be sufficient to increase mean global temperatures by 2°C. Even using the probable estimates of 3.5 – 4.5°C of warming, the oil sands represent a contribution to total cumulative human emissions that is seriously out of proportion to Canada’s population, or even the population of those who ultimately consume the fuels produced.

The oil sands represent the last gasp of a fossil fuel powered economy. Either because of hydrocarbon depletion or because of climatic concerns, we are inevitably going to have to give up fossil fuels anyhow. Given what we now know about the climate system and the potential impact humanity could have on it, we should be working on developing zero-carbon sources of energy – not on extracting the oil that is the hardest to reach, or which requires the most processing to be turned into usable fuels or products. Rather than picking at the bones of the fossil fuel carcass, we should be seeking out new forms of sustenance.

The Globe and Mail has a history of assuming that oil sands development is good for Canada. In fact, the best thing we could do for future generations of Canadians (and others around the world) is to leave that dangerous carbon in the ground, while pursuing the development of sustainable forms of energy.

Quoted on climate ethics in the Globe

I am mentioned and briefly quoted in a Globe and Mail article about climate change messaging, and the building of political will: Lowering the doom. Also quoted are James Hoggan, David Suzuki, William Rees, and others.

They quote part of my ‘libertarianism is no longer very liberating’ argument: “If we can accept that climate change causes harm to current and future generations,” he writes, “the argument that polluters have some right to keep behaving as they have in the past weakens considerably.”

Canada as a climate change pariah

Organizations including the World Development Movement, the Polaris Institute, and Greenpeace have suggested that Canada be suspended from the Commonwealth due to its poor climate change policies.

While there is no prospect of that happening now, the situation does make you think about just how long Canada can continue to delay mitigation at home, even in the event that other states reach an agreement to cut their emissions. It doesn’t seem impossible that Canada could be one of the last hold-outs, when most of the world has started taking serious action on the issue. If so, campaigns to suspend Canada’s participation in international organizations, sporting bans, and the like could become both effective and appropriate. Canadians like to think that they are responsible members of the international community. As time goes by, contributing to the global climate change mitigation effort with be an increasingly important yardstick by which countries judge one another.

Monbiot’s open letter to Canada

In Monday’s Globe and Mail, British journalist George Monbiot penned an open letter to Canada about climate change. Monbiot points out how Canada “will be the only [Kyoto Protocol] signatory to wildly miss its targets,” and calls for Canada to curb oil sands development and engage more effectively in international negotiations. He argues that: “The oil-sands industry is causing damage out of all proportion to its value – not only to the world’s ecosystems but also to Canada’s.”

Along with Elizabeth May, he will be debating what action Canada should take on climate change, with Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson arguing that Canada should not undertake a strong response.

Climate Cover-Up

James Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a valuable exposé of the efforts that have been made by self-interested actors to prevent political action on climate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the science. Written by a Canadian public relations professional, and written with a focus on actors and events in Canada, Hoggan’s book examines how the media has been involved in the debate, how companies have worked to create false grassroots campaigns (‘astroturfing’), the role played by think tanks, the use of lawsuits to intimidate and silence critics, the ‘echo chamber’ effect wherein false claims are endlessly repeated by sympathetic sources, and more. Hoggan makes a convincing case that status quo actors – particularly petrochemical firms – have been working for decades to keep the public confused, and keep legislators inactive.

Hoggan provides both logical and documentary evidence to back up his claims – pointing out things like how most of the scientists that actively deny the consensus view of climate change are being funded as advocates, not as scientists:

The Intermountain Rural Electric Association isn’t paying Pat Michaels to go back into his lab and do research helping the world to a better understanding of how human activities are affecting the climate. The coal-fired utility owners are paying him to “stand up against the alarmists and bring a balance to the discussion.”

Hoggan provides many specific examples of malfeasance, and argues that the public relations personal directing the campaign against action on climate change are often indifferent to whether the claims they are making are true or false. They are tested for how well they affect public opinion, not how well they represent the reality of the situation.

Hoggan does sometimes present information in a misleading way. For instance, he compares the risk of climate change with the risk of car and house insurance, and says that: “in both cases the risk of disaster is significantly less than the greater than 90 percent certainty that scientists ascribe to the climate crisis.” He is referring to how the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report concluded that: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” and defined ‘very likely’ as cases where “expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence” support an assessed probability of over 90%. The IPCC was saying that there is a scientific consensus that there is a 90% chance that the unequivocal warming that has been observed has anthropogenic causes, not that the “risk of disaster” is 90%. The question of how serious the consequences of warming will be is distinct from the question of what is causing warming. Another odd error is one sentence written as though the consulting company McKinsey was a person: “When McKinsey talks about a carbon revolution, he strikes the right tone.”

That said, Climate Cover-Up succeeds in its key purpose: revealing that not everyone is engaging in the climate debate in an honest or ethical manner. The scientific consensus that climate change is real and risky is exceedingly strong, and yet the public and policy-makers have been very effectively confused and encouraged to delay action. By revealing the extent to which the debate has been manipulated, Hoggan’s book will hopefully contribute to the eventual improvement of public understanding of climate change, and the development of a will to act sufficiently strong to sort out the problem before the worst potential consequences become inevitable. Hoggan also continues that effort through DeSmogBlog – a site he created to provide ongoing updates on climate change misinformation campaigns.

[Update: 13 October 2010] Another good book on the same topic is Naomi Oreskes’ Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Getting to carbon neutrality

Responding to an unusually poor article, written by Lorrie Goldstein and printed in the Toronto Sun, I wrote that: “If you want high human welfare and prosperity for decades and generations ahead, dealing with climate change is not optional. The longer Canada waits to begin the process of going carbon-neutral, the more costly and painful that process will be.”

The above graphic, included in the recent Copenhagen Diagnosis, illustrates this situation nicely. The graphic shows three different pathways, each of which would give humanity a 75% chance of limiting warming to 2°C – a target that has been widely endorsed by governments, including those of the UK and EU. In a scenario where global emissions peak in 2011, they would only need to fall to about 5 gigatonnes by 2050, a reduction rate of 3.7% per year. Waiting just four more years, and having them peak in 2015, increases that to 5.3% per year. In the scenario with the 2015 peak, humanity as a whole needs to be carbon neutral before 2050, in order to provide the 75% certainty of avoiding more than 2°C of warming. Waiting until 2020 means that emissions need to fall by 9% per year afterwards, with carbon neutrality reached around 2040.

Bear in mind that these are global pathways. Under a contraction and convergence approach, where countries cut emissions while simultaneously becoming more equal in terms of per capita emissions, Canada would need to cut even faster. This illustrates firstly how wrongheaded it is to hope for a few more years of a hydrocarbon boom before we start the process of adjustment. It also illustrates the urgency of getting an effective global agreement in place soon. This isn’t an issue on which we can simply doddle for a decade. If we don’t want to see our children living in a transformed world, humanity needs to act fast and on a massive scale.

On a personal level, this may also bring some clarity to the many discussions we’ve had here about carbon ethics. If we individually want to mirror what the world as a whole needs to do, we should be planning to have our personal emissions peak virtually instantly, and fall every year thereafter. People who are my age should be thinking seriously about the possibility of living carbon-neutral lives by the time they face retirement – and about what accomplishing that would require.

Monbiot speaking in Toronto

On November 28th, British journalist George Monbiot will be giving a talk in Toronto: “Countdown to Copenhagen: Who in Canada is Killing the International Climate Treaty?” The event is partially sponsored by DeSmogBlog.

Monbiot is a good writer and strong climate change campaigner. I suggest those in Toronto consider attending. I once saw him speak at Oxford’s Environmental Change Insitute. I also reviewed his book on climate change.

Date: Saturday, November 28th
Time: 2:00 to 4:00pm

Location: J.J.R. MacLeod Auditorium, Medical Sciences Building, University of Toronto
1 King’s College Circle, Toronto

Admission: suggested donation of $10-$25. Nobody will be turned away for lack of funds.

Seating is limited; come early to guarantee a seat.

Greyhound ticket to Vancouver booked

While it has been surprisingly difficult to acquire credible emissions figures for rail and bus travel, it does seem as though the bus is by far the least emissions-intensive way to travel long distances. It will also mean two more days in Vancouver, compared with taking the train. As such, I have booked two three-day journeys to and from Vancouver:

Ottawa, ON – 10:00am December 19th
North Bay, ON – 3:20pm
Sudbury, ON – 5:45pm
Sault Ste. Marie, ON – 11:55pm
White River, ON – 4:15am December 20th
Schreiber, ON – 6:40am
Thunder Bay, ON – 9:20am
Upsala, ON – 12:05pm
Dryden, ON – 1:45pm
Kenora, ON – 4:00pm
Winnipeg, MB – 6:50pm
Brandon, MB – 2:10am December 21st
Virden, MB – 3:35am
Whitewood, SK – 5:50am
Regina, SK – 7:20am
Swift Current, SK – 11:25am
Medicine Hat, AB – 1:45pm
Calgary, AB – 6:00pm
Golden, BC – 10:30pm
Revelstoke, BC – 11:40pm
Kamloops, BC – 2:35am December 22nd
Vancouver, BC – 8:30am December 22nd to 6:30am January 7th
Kamloops, BC – 11:35am January 7th
Revelstoke, BC – 3:25pm
Golden, BC – 6:30pm
Calgary, AB – 10:45pm
Medicine Hat, AB – 3:30am January 8th
Swift Current, SK – 7:20am
Regina, SK – 10:55am
Whitewood, SK – 2:00pm
Virden, MB – 3:35pm
Brandon, MB – 4:50pm
Winnipeg, MB – 8:30pm
Kenora, ON – 12:45am – January 9th
Dryden, ON – 2:45am
Thunder Bay, ON – 8:20am
Schreiber, ON – 11:45am
Sault Ste. Marie, ON – 7:10pm
Sudbury, ON – 11:50pm
Ottawa, ON – 7:05am – January 10th

The only long stopovers are 1:45 in Sudbury, 1:10 in Thunder Bay, and 4:40 in Winnipeg on the way out – 1:16 in Calgary and 1:45 in Winnipeg on the way back. This will be my first time ever in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

The journey will take some preparation. I will need to bring most or all of the non-truck stop food I want to eat. I will need reading materials and lots of headlamp batteries. I will need a system to run my iPod off AAs, since there is no assurance of electrical outlets on the buses. Other necessities:

Excellent earplugs
Some sort of eye-covering mask
Changes of clothing
Hand sanitizer
Water bottles
Backup headphones?

I probably need other things I haven’t thought of yet (leave comments). There will be little point in bringing a laptop, since there isn’t enough space on a Greyhound to open my 14″ iMac. I will have to rely on my phone and digital camera memory cards.

This will be quite the epic journey, though the payoff of sixteen days in Vancouver is worth it.

[Update: 6 January 2009] A series of updates from the Low Carbon Cross Canada Trip (LC^3T) are online.

Wetlands and greenhouse gas emissions

A recent report from Wetlands International provides a global overview of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from wetlands. Neither their present state nor their total greenhouse gas holdings are comforting. Indonesia is the world’s most substantial emitter of GHGs from peat, with annual emissions of 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2). That is about 2/3 of Canada’s total emissions. When it comes to stock, Canada leads the world with a troubling 155 billion tonnes of CO2 embedded in peat, enough to add 569 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. In total, the 0.3% of the world’s land surface covered by drained peat already generates about 6% of global emissions.

This reinforces two points about climate change mitigation:

Firstly, we need to pay attention to land use changes as well as fossil fuel use, when it comes to cutting down the amount of GHGs humanity is adding to the atmosphere, eventually stabilizing at zero net emissions.
Secondly, if we create enough warming, there are huge stocks of carbon that could be released, pushing that process even further. Pushing the climate system to the point where positive feedbacks become dominant would commit us inescapably to significant additional warming, over and above that created through direct human actions.

While policies like a carbon tax to discourage emissions are a critical part of the solution, humanity needs to accept that our overall physical and biological impact on the planet is so large that we need to give serious consideration to how our collective policies and individuals choices are affecting the future of the climate. Recognizing the carbon intensity of drying marshland is a small but important part of that.