Politics – Page 151 – a sibilant intake of breath

Sci-fi as a prescriptive genre

Science fiction may be the most prescriptive fictional genre. Firstly, it forces people to consider the consequences of actions and choices across a long timespan. Secondly, it helps to reveal the core ethical values people have: it presents both our aspirations and things that inspire fear, disgust, and outrage. Finally, it makes statements about contemporary ideologies by presenting them with false hindsight.

As such, though sci-fi has a sometimes deserved reputation as an escapist genre, it can also be among the most directly ethically and politically engaged. It also serves a historically valuable purpose, by revealing how those in the past imagined the future. For instance, look at Asimov’s projection that everything would be nuclear-powered in the distant future, even small toys for children. It is no surprise that today’s sci-fi has ecology as a key focus. It would be fascinating to know how it will be read in a century.

Manhattan airport

An idea so comically bad, one suspects it is an elaborate (and not especially amusing) bit of satire: turning Manhattan’s Central Park into an airport.

Firstly, the last thing the world needs is more airports. We need to be aggressively cutting our greenhouse gas emissions, not building infrastructure that will encourage more.

Secondly, the supporters of the project who describe Central Park as an “underutilized asset,” “relic,” and part of a “vestigial prewar cityscape” are probably not speaking for most New Yorkers. Land that has been set aside for green space is precious stuff. Quite probably, people in the megacities of the future will regret that nobody in the past gave up some development opportunities to give them the equivalent of New York’s Central Park, or Vancouver’s Stanley Park.

Thirdly, there is the matter of the noise that aircraft landing and taking off would produce. The design for the airport shows two runways going north-south along the eastern edge of the former park. That wold mean having planes approaching and leaving over areas of dense high-rise development.

Fourthly, there is the seriousness that a crash would have, if it took place in such a densely packed place.

Fifthly, there is the air pollution that results from jet exhaust. Increasing the level of criteria air contaminants like sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), and ground-level ozone (O3) isn’t a great idea in such a densely populated area.

I doubt the scheme has the slightest chance of success, but it is still disquieting that there are people out there so hell-bent on development that they would consider and propose such a thing, then produce a slick website which includes the laughable assertion that environmentalists are ‘rallying in support” of the plan, because it will employ’ active prevention bird strike programs.’ Absurd.

Carbon-neutral aviation

The climatic impact of aviation

At present, virtually all freight and passenger-carrying aircraft operate in one of two ways: burning kerosene to turn a propeller, generating thrust that the wings partially convert to lift, or generating thrust by burning kerosene in a jet engine. Virtually all of that kerosene is produced by refining petroleum. As such, burning it adds to the stock of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. These include carbon dioxide (CO2) (a basic product of the combustion) and other greenhouse gasses (GHGs), like nitrous oxide (NO2). It is also possible that aircraft have an effect on cloud formation (both by producing vapour trails and inducing cirrus cloud formation), but my understanding of the science is that scientists aren’t sure whether that has a net warming or a net cooling effect. The latest IPCC report says:

Moreover, the uncertainties on some aviation forcings (notably contrail and cirrus) are still high, such that the overall radiative forcing consequences of changing cruise altitudes need to be considered as a time-integrated scenario, which has not yet been done. (p. 355)

Helpfully, the report does identify that, if contrails prove to be a significant problem, they “can be easily avoided – in principle – by relatively small changes in flight level, due to the shallowness of ice supersaturation layers.” There is also some uncertainty about the relative emissions of short-lived but potent GHGs like nitrous oxide, compared with long-lived but less potent ones like carbon dioxide. All told, the report does conclude that aviation has a “larger impact on radiative forcing than that from its CO2 forcing alone.”

Carbon neutral possibilities

A couple of logical possibilities exist for making air travel carbon-neutral, though they differ in practicality. Electric planes are conceptually possible, and small versions exist. As I understand it, the big problem is storing enough energy in light enough batteries. My sense is that we are nowhere near being able to do this for large commercial aircraft. Similar issues exist for hydrogen aircraft, in term of storage, and there is the added question of where we get the hydrogen. To me, biofuels seem like the most plausible near-term option. That being said, there are technical issues to be overcome within aircraft themselves, such as the gelling of biofuels at the low temperatures found at high altitudes. While some airlines have tested multi-engine planes with a single engine running on a biofuel/kerosene mix, as far as I know nobody has flown such a plane exclusively using biofuels.

Additionally, not all biofuels are carbon neutral. Ethanol derived from corn might actually represent more greenhouse gasses than an equivalent amount of gasoline, once you factor in fertilizer production, emissions from farming and farm equipment, ethanol fermentation, etc. The same might be true of palm oil derived biofuels, given how their production can lead to the destruction of rainforests that are major carbon sinks.

My sense is that the air travel industry has yet to demonstrate that it will be able to exist in a carbon neutral world, regardless of how expensive tickets become. That being said, it does make sense to displace emitting activities in order from lowest cost to highest cost. If we can replace fossil fuelled ground vehicles with electric vehicles running on renewable power, we should do so first before pouring enormous effort into trying to produce a carbon neutral aircraft. That being said, there does seem to be a strong moral imperative to reduce emissions generally, including by limiting the amount of long-distance travel we undertake.

As usual, I expect any mention of aviation to produce a lively discussion.

Climate change and the Colorado River

A study conducted by the University of Colorado at Boulder has concluded that there is a 50% chance of the Colorado River system “fully depleting all of its reservoir storage by mid-century assuming current management practices continue on course.” The authors of the study have determined that could reduce average stream flow by 20%, which translates into a 50% chance of fully depleting reservoir storage. That storage capacity amounts to more than 60 million acre feet, nearly four times the ordinary annual flow of the river.

To appreciate the potential significance of such a development, one need only consider that the river powers more than a dozen dams, and serves the water needs of 30 million people. Replacing the electrical output provided by the dams would be a very difficult matter, and the water restrictions that would accompany declined availability would challenge agriculture, industry, and residential development. The study illustrates some key points about climate change:

People in rich developed states are also vulnerable
Serious impacts could arise in the medium term
Significant aspects of our current economic system could be disrupted in the coming decades, if we fail to reduce our emissions

Hopefully, these messages will get through to voters and policy-makers, and the kind of mobilization required to cut emissions will begin.

Carbon-neutral Tuvalu

Tuvalu, one of the small island states that faces a literal threat of obliteration due to climate change, has vowed to generate all of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. The estimated cost of doing so for the nation of 12,000 people is US$20 million.

The approach is a sensible one, given that the only hope for such states is swaying the world’s major emitters into being more aggressive about emissions reductions than they would otherwise be. Nevertheless, the prognosis for states like Tuvalu and the Maldives is pretty bleak. When rich states talk about ‘dangerous’ climate change, they seem to be defining it largely in terms of their own national interest. Furthermore, most states still haven’t adopted targets consistent with stabilizing greenhouse gasses at a level likely to avoid more than 2°C of temperature increase, and none have taken serious steps towards implementing a plan capable of reaching those targets.

Singer on rationing health care

Peter Singer, a prominent utilitarian philospher, has set out a very strong case that ‘rationing’ health care is both inevitable and ethically sound, if done intelligently. The inevitability of rationing arises inescapably from the fact that our resources to do all things are limited, that we don’t want to devote all of our resources to health care, and that no amount of resources can prevent death indefinitely or in all cases. As such, we need to make sure that the rationing is driven by intelligent considerations, rather than morally dubious ones such as the wealth of the person receiving treatment.

If the U.S. system spent less on expensive treatments for those who, with or without the drugs, have at most a few months to live, it would be better able to save the lives of more people who, if they get the treatment they need, might live for several decades.

Pragmatically, it isn’t possible to prevent the wealthy from spending whatever they can on their own health care. Even if you outlaw it domestically, there are plenty of other states that will welcome their cash. What is possible is improving outcomes in situations where risk and resources are being pooled, whether by private ensurers or by government-run insurance schemes. It is in those cases that we need to do a good job of evaluating what expenditures produce benefits sufficiently large to justify them, and which we must decline to undertake.

Ranking the quality of carbon offsets

Carbon offsets have been a contentious subject on this and other environmental blogs. On one side, people argue that their sale produces better outcomes than would otherwise arise, since people voluntarily help to eliminate emissions where it is cheapest to do so. On the other, people argue that many offsets are of dubious quality, and that the very idea of offsetting perpetuates harmful behaviours and the false sense that climate change can be addressed without lifestyle changes. Not everyone can offset, after all.

In response to the former concern, about the quality of offsets, the Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation has produced a survey of 20 Canadian vendors of offsets. According to Pembina, offsets from renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects are the most credible sort available. Others have pointed out that forestry-based offsets and those based on Kyoto Protocol CDM credits are among the most dubious.

In the end, I think buying offsets is a much less worthwhile exercise than reducing your own emissions or lobbying for political action on climate change. That being said, if there is going to be a market in offsets, it is good that the various firms providing them are being subjected to outside scrutiny.

Exporting pollution

The government of Brazil is demanding that the UK take back 1,400 tonnes of hazardous waste that have been shipped to three Brazilian ports. The incident illustrates the broader phenomenon of rich states exporting pollution, both in the form of directly shipping hazardous materials abroad and by eliminating highly polluting industries domestically and importing their products from developing countries. All this helps to sustain the illusion that lifestyles in developed states are sustainable, since both resource and waste problems are shifted to places where they are less immediately visible.

Whether the issue is ozone depleting substances, persistent organic pollutants, or greenhouse gasses, distance alone is no real protection for the population of developed states. Fundamentally global problems like these require coordinated solutions involving states at very different levels of wealth, and with different internal political arrangements. The negotiators at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen this December have quite a challenge ahead of them.

Driving action on climate change in Cambridge

A friend of mine sent me a link to a Guardian article about making people take action on climate change. The article argues that emotional engagement is necessary to translate concern into action:

The psychotherapist Rosemary Randall observed that even among those individuals who fully understand the risks of climate change, very few have taken steps to meaningfully reduce their carbon footprint.

I think focusing on the carbon footprint of participants may be a faulty approach. What we need now is active citizens pushing for government action, not a few isolated individuals making small contributions. Still, it is good to see people working on the issue of turning knowledge into real engagement.

The project being discussed – Carbon Conversations – conducts seminars in Cambridge every two weeks.

The costly nuclear option

Writing in The Toronto Star, Tyler Hamilton reveals that the AECL bid to add two new Advanced CANDU reactors to Ontario’s Darlington nuclear station was approximately $26 billion. That works out to a shocking $10,800 per kilowatt of electricity, compared with the $2,900 per kilowatt reference figure the Ontario Power Authority was using for planning back in 2007. The French firm Areva apparently put in a lower bid – $7,375 per kilowatt – but was unwilling to take on as much risk as AECL. The article also notes the untested nature of the Advanced CANDU design, which is especially worrisome given the failure of AECL to deploy two planned isotope reactors, due to design failures.

If this is the true contemporary cost of nuclear power, it seems plausible that we shouldn’t be bothering with it, given all the other associated risks. For $10,800 per kilowatt, it is quite possible we could get more value by funding energy efficiency, conservation, and renewables. Taking some cost figures from MacKay, we can compare $26 billion for 2,000MW (2GW) of nuclear with other options:

Onshore wind: $2.8 billion for 2GW
Offshore wind: $3.0 billion for 2GW
Concentrating solar in deserts : $31 billion for 2GW
Solar photovoltaic: $14.5 billion for 2GW

We also wouldn’t be taking on the additional risks associated with proliferation, accidents, wastes, and so forth. Admittedly, MacKay’s figures are approximate and there are other considerations to be made. Even so, the staggering cost of the AECL bid has to give pause to anyone who hopes nuclear could be a cheap and relatively easy solution to climate change. It may be that The Economist will be proved correct in saying: “Since the 1970s, far from being ‘too cheap to meter’—as it proponents once blithely claimed—nuclear power has proved too expensive to matter.”