Canada – Page 73 – a sibilant intake of breath

What it means to stabilize climate

This speech, given to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, contains a basic error about the nature of climate stabilization. In part, it reads:

Never losing sight of the ultimate long-term objective of the exercise – stabilizing the level of man-made greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere at non-dangerous levels not in 2020, or even 2030, but 4 decades hence in 2050. Recognizing that we are running a marathon, not a sprint; and acting accordingly. (emphasis in original)

As stated, this is a very ambitious goal. Stabilizing the global concentration of greenhouse gasses by 2050 would mean reaching the point of zero net human emissions in that year. That would require either the total elimination of fossil fuel use and deforestation, or the deployment of technologies that capture greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere and sequester them.

Right now, greenhouse gas concentrations are about 385 parts per million (ppm), and rising at 2 ppm per year. Even if they kept up that rate between now and 2050, concentrations would ‘only’ rise to 469 ppm – a figure not enormously higher than the commonly cited target of 450 ppm. Of course, it is unlikely that emissions per year would stay completely flat until 2050, then drop instantly to zero.

Given the other contents of the speech (such as affirming that 80% of North American electricity will come from oil and gas in 2020), I don’t think the literal meaning of the passage quoted is the one intended. I fear, instead, that rather than talking about stabilizing concentrations of greenhouse gasses, the speaker may have been talking about stabilizing emissions. If so, this is a disastrous suggestion. If we are to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change, global emissions almost certainly need to peak between 2015 and 2020, declining sharply after that.

A simple analogy to personal debt easily explains the difference between concentration and emission stabilization. If you are going into debt because you are spending more each year than you earn, stabilizing your level of spending is not going to get you out of debt. It will just leave you in the position where your level of debt increases by the same amount every year. Stabilizing your debt requires that your expenditures match your income every year. While your level of wealth is lower than it was when you started, it is still stable. So too it will be when humanity reaches the point of zero net greenhouse gas emissions: what we already put in the atmosphere will stay there for hundreds of thousands of years, but at least we will no longer be adding to it.

Armchair iceberg tracking

In July 2008, a 27 square kilometer iceberg calved from the Petermann Glacier: between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. Scientists from the CCGS Amundsen placed radio beacons on the iceberg, which has subsequently shifted position and lost some volume. You can actually track the beacon online. The larger piece remains 22 square kilometers in area, and thus may pose a risk to the offshore oil industry in spring of 2009.

Apparently, with an iceberg of this size normal ‘iceberg management’ techniques cannot be employed. You just have to hope it doesn’t run into something.

Subsidizing Mackenzie Valley gas

It is hard to read the decision of the current government to support the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline as anything aside from a disappointment. To begin with, it was inappropriate to have the decision announced by the minister of the environment. After all, he should be the one in cabinet demanding that the environmental impacts of the plan be fully investigated. Secondly, it seems inappropriate to offer such aid while the Joint Review Panel is still examining the likely social and economic impacts of the plan.

If we are going to successfully address climate change, we are going to need to leave most of the carbon trapped in the planet’s remaining fossil fuels underground. By the same token, we will need to develop energy sources that are compatible with that goal. At this juncture in history, I can see the case for providing government funding to help with the up-front capital costs of concentrating solar, wind, or geothermal plants. It is a lot harder to see why oil and gas companies that were recently pulling in record profits deserve financial support at taxpayer expense.

Greyhound’s pointless security

On my way to Toronto last weekend, I was subjected to Greyhound’s farcical new ‘security screening.’

People were made to stand in a line in front of a roped-off area. One by one, they removed metal objects from their pockets, placed them in a dish, and had a metal detecting wand waved over then. At the same time, another security person spent a couple of second poking around in the top few inches of the person’s carry-on bag. The person then entered the roped-off area, carrying their carry-on and checked bags with them, waiting for the rest of the line to be processed.

Ways to get a weapon past this system:

Get one not made of metal, like a ceramic knife, and put it in your pocket.
Put it below the top few inches of your backpack.
Hide it inside a hollowed-out book, inside a piece of electronics, etc.
Put it in your wallet. With a wallet that can take an unfolded bill, you could fit a few flat throwing knives.
Tape it to the bottom of your shoe.
Put it in your checked baggage, remove it while you are waiting on the far side of the line.
Go through the screening, ask to go use the bathroom, collect your weapon, and return to the ‘screened’ area.
Before entering the bus station, hide a weapon outside, in the vicinity of where your bus will pull in. Pick it up before boarding.
Use a weapon that is both deadly and innocuous: such as a cane, umbrella, or strong rope.
Get on at a rural stop, instead of Ottawa.
Get on in Toronto, instead of Ottawa, since they don’t seem to be bothering with the screening there.
Etc.

I am not saying that people should actually bring weapons on Greyhound buses, and I am most certainly not saying that Greyhound should tighten their security to make these tactics useless. I am saying that the new screening is nothing more than security theatre. It does nothing to make Greyhound buses safer, though it will add needlessly to ticket prices.

On a more philosophical level, it also perpetuates the kind of low-freedom, security-obsessed society that many people seem to expect. It would be far healthier to acknowledge that the world contains risks while also noticing that countermeasures to reduce those risks have real costs, whether in hard currency or in convenience or privacy or liberty.

Polar bears and climate change

From the media coverage, it seems that attitudes at Canada’s recent polar bear summit clustered around two positions: that climate change is a profound threat to the species, and that the species has been doing well in recent times. While a lot of the coverage is focused on supposedly different kinds of knowledge, I am not sure if there is much factual disagreement here. The issue isn’t the current size of the polar bear population, or how it compares with the size a few decades ago. The issue is whether a major threat to the species exists and can be anticipated, as well as how polar bear populations ought to be managed in the next while.

One quote from Harry Flaherty, chair of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, seems rather telling:

[Researchers and environmental groups] are using the polar bear as a tool, a tool to fight climate change. They shouldn’t do that. The polar bear will survive. It has been surviving for thousands of years.

This sits uneasily beside the knowledge that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are already higher than they have been in more than 650,000 years and they are on track to become much higher still. In short, because of climate change, the experience of the last few thousand years may not be very useful for projecting the characteristics of the time ahead. This is especially true in the Arctic, given how the rate of climatic change there is so much higher than elsewhere.

On the matter of polar bear hunting, the appropriate course of action is less clear. Hunting in a way that does not, in and of itself, threaten polar bear populations might be considered sustainable. At the same time, it might be viewed as just another stress on a population that will be severely threatened by climate change. Given the amount of climate change already locked into the planetary system, it does seem quite plausible that the polar ice will be gone in the summertime well before 2100 and that all of Greenland may melt over the course of hundreds or thousands or years. I don’t know whether polar bears would be able to survive in such circumstances. If not, the issue of how many of them are to be hunted in the next few decades isn’t terribly important. It seems a bit like making an effort to ration food on the Titanic.

If we want to save polar bears, we will need to make an extremely aggressive effort to stabilize climate. Meeting the UNFCCC criterion of “avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system” would not be enough, since polar bears are likely to be deeply threatened by a level of overall change that doesn’t meet most people’s interpretations of that standard.

The oil sands and Canada’s national interest

This Globe and Mail article on the oil sands and the new Obama administration makes a very dubious assertion: namely, that it is unambiguously in Canada’s interests for the oil sands to keep expanding and feeding US energy demands. It argues that, while most of Obama’s cabinet seems serious about restricting greenhouse gas emissions, General James Jones “may turn out to be Canada’s best ally,” because he supports the continued use of fuel from the oil sands.

In the long run, I think Canada will be better off if most of that carbon stays sequestered as bitumen an boreal forest. It certainly isn’t in Canada’s interests to see a delayed transition to a low-carbon economy in the US, given the extent to which it would increase the probability of abrupt, dangerous, or runaway climate change.

This is a case where short-term economic incentives have been trumping those based on a long-term view and a risk weighted analysis. In that sense, the oil sands boom is quite a lot like the housing boom that is in the process of unraveling worldwide. Canada would do well to accept how newly prominent environmental concerns (coupled with less access to capital) should combine to curtail the oil sands initiative before it becomes even more harmful.

[Update: 8 March 2010]. BuryCoal.com is a site dedicated to making the case for leaving coal, along with unconventional oil and gas, underground.

For the oil sands, PR is not the problem

In a bizarre story, The Globe and Mail is reporting on how representatives of the oil sands industry are claiming to have “‘dropped the ball’ in engaging with the public about the environmental effects of its energy developments.” This is a bit like saying that the industry has thus far been unsuccessful in deceiving people about the environmental impacts of oil sands operations, which definitely deserve the filthy image they have earned.

The problem with the oil sands certainly isn’t their public relations: it is their greenhouse gas emissions, their destruction of the boreal forest, their contamination of water, and so forth. Altering those aspects of the industry cannot be achieved through media messaging. It is dispiriting – though unsurprising – that the companies involved are keener on giving people the sense that their operations are clean (or at least improving), rather than actually raising standards. While oil sands production cannot be made into an environmentally benign activity, having all facilities adopt the best standards in other existing facilities could make a significant contribution towards reducing the level of harm they produce.

How can the government spend to fight climate change?

Partly for reasons of political acceptability, most approaches to pricing greenhouse gas emissions aim to be revenue neutral. This includes cap and trade and carbon tax systems where new revenues are offset by decreases in existing taxes; it also includes tax-and-dividend systems, in which that process is more fully automated. That being said, fiscal neutrality has gone out the window as governments seek (whether wisely or not) to offset the recessionary consequences of the credit crunch. That leaves us with a question: if you want to spend government money fighting climate change, how should you do so?

One option business is happy with is big subsidies for the development and deployment of big new technologies like next-generation nuclear reactors and carbon capture and storage (CCS). While such an approach may yield long-term benefits, it does risk simply funneling money from taxpayers to polluters in the near and medium term. It is also an approach that firms have already been very effective at advocating for themselves.

A more attractive option is to help finance the up-front costs of projects that both save money and mitigate emissions. This includes all kinds of unglamorous things, such as improving insulation and the efficiency of boilers, capturing waste heat in hot flue gasses, and replacing windows. Such an approach might be especially effective if directed towards public buildings such as schools, hospitals, government offices, and military facilities. That way, the government is investing in something that will improve its own medium-term financial position (important if existing debts are to be repaid, and future crises are to be managed), while also making a start towards a serious greening of government operations.

In the end, a lot of the most effective tools governments can employ cost very little. Improving building codes, requiring that vehicles be more efficient, and implementing carbon taxes all require only modest government expenditures – though they may cause other actors to incur major expenses. Approaches that are light on regulation and heavy on government spending are probably more likely to be wasteful than those based on compulsion through prices and regulation but, given the inevitability of additional fiscal stimulus in much of the world, it seems sensible to devote some of that directly to mitigation activities, while ensuring that spending not directly motivated by climate change doesn’t contradict climate change mitigation goals.

How else should a government that is feeling the urge to loosen the purse strings spend money on reducing emissions? With a new Canadian budget being tabled in ten days, it is a pertinent question.

Evidence of a positive climate change feedback in the Arctic

A study being presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union claims to have found the first concrete evidence of ‘arctic amplification’ – the phenomenon in which the loss of sea ice exposes water that reflects less sunlight than the ice did, thus causing further warming:

Climate-change researchers have found that air temperatures in the region are higher than would be normally expected during the autumn because the increased melting of the summer Arctic sea ice is accumulating heat in the ocean. The phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, was not expected to be seen for at least another 10 or 15 years and the findings will further raise concerns that the Arctic has already passed the climatic tipping-point towards ice-free summers, beyond which it may not recover.

As with many of the other things happening in the Arctic, the phenomenon is not unexpected but the timing is. Partly, that reflects the imperfect (or totally absent) integration of feedback effects into climatic models.

As with so much other Arctic news, one can only hope that this will be a reminder of the urgency of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. It is possible that doing so is more urgent than addressing the ongoing financial crisis and, from a long-term perspective, it is certainly a lot more important.

Carbon pricing and economic freedom

Post-Dion, it will take a bold politician to revive the idea of a carbon tax in Canada. One ironic consequence of that is that it is likely to produce more ‘command and control’ style environmental policies. Whereas an economy-wide carbon tax (or cap-and-trade scheme with auctioning) would encourage every individual decision-maker to examine the cost of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, trying to achieve those reductions based on targetted government initiatives requires that political and bureaucratic decision-makers try to perform that analysis: trying to identify low-cost potential emissions reductions, as well as instruments through which they can be encouraged.

I have argued previously that just putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is not sufficient to drive the change we need, because other market failures and economic structures need to be overcome. With that caveat expressed, it is more than a touch ironic that an anti-tax ‘free market’ ideology that rejects carbon pricing may lead to centrally planned solutions emerging, as opposed to market-directed ones.

A related irony concerns the timing of mitigation. As Joseph Romm has repeatedly pointed out, we have the opportunity today to begin the transition towards a low-carbon economy in a relatively voluntary way. Nobody needs to be banned from doing essential; rationing is not required. All we need are sensible economic instruments and accompanying policies, provided we get started right away. By contrast, if we squander the opportunity we have now, achieving the stabilization of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses will require that far more onerous burdens be placed on individuals. In short, today’s unhampered freedom to emit greenhouse gasses is inexorably linked to the necessity of sharply dimininished freedoms in the future.