The environment – Page 103 – a sibilant intake of breath

Short-term versus long-term resource economics

The Globe and Mail is reporting on a letter send by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell. It complains about acid mine drainage from the Tulsequah Chief Mine in northwest B.C. Similar problems with the long-term leaching of acid and heavy metal affect many mines in Canada and around the world, including the former copper mine at Britannia, between Vancouver and Whistler.

The general pattern here is one that Frederic Bastiat would have appreciated. People can readily see the apparent economic gains associated with an operating mine, in the form of tax revenues, jobs, foreign exchange earnings, etc. What cannot be clearly seen are the long-term costs associated with all the consequences of that mining. In some cases, these significantly exceed the short-term benefits, meaning the mine has actually been a net destroyer of wealth and human welfare. Jared Diamond’s Collapse also makes this point forcefully, with many examples. Quite possibly, this is the case with fossil fuel industries today, particularly those exploiting unconventional sources of hydrocarbons like the oil sands. By tapping into hydrocarbon reserves that would otherwise remain dormant, they increase the total quantity of greenhouse gasses humanity will add to the atmosphere, increasing the severity of climate change and the probability of abrupt, catastrophic, or runaway warming. Of course, there are also the toxic effects of pollution at the sites of fossil fuel production and use, as well as the destruction of habitat and any associated reclamation costs.

The problem is not one that can be easily solved. Politicians will always be more swayed by apparent and immediate gains and losses than by distant and concealed ones. That being said, we do have the opportunity to counter some of the flawed arguments used to justify harmful practices. Next time someone claims that exports from the oil sands are crucial to Canada’s economic development, consider raising the possibility that their exploitation probably destroys wealth in the bigger picture.

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.

The Desertec solar plan

As reported in The Economist, Munich Re has invited 20 large companies to form a consortium, intended to build concentrating solar power stations in Africa and the Middle East, as well as the high voltage direct current (HVDC) lines required to bring that power to Europe. The stations will use molten salt heat storage, so as to be able to generate power day and night. Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer, is motivated by concern about its exposure to climate change. Fully implemented, the scheme would cost $560 billion and provide 15% of Europe’s projected energy demand in 2050. The complete system would cover 17,000 square kilometres of territory.

Desert solar as a renewable energy option has come up here before.

All told, the plan is very promising. It is refreshing to see companies thinking strategically about the long-term harm climate change could do to them, as well as the long-term opportunities associated with renewable energy. A report produced by the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy and the Club of Rome determined that the project could produce 240,000 jobs in Germany, as well as €2 trillion worth of electricity by 2050.

Even more importantly, it could demonstrate the feasibility of the desert concentrating solar / HVDC option, which could be extended to the Southern US and elsewhere. As David MacKay explains, this is one of the renewable options where the figures add up, and it could be possible to generate the kind of energy societies demand. Here’s hoping the Desertec plan helps lead the way.

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.

Projecting sea ice minimums

Over at RealClimate, there is a discussion about projecting the summer sea ice minimum in the Arctic. As readers may recall, the 2007 minimum was unexpectedly low. 2008 was still worse than projected by the IPCC, but not as bad as 2007. All indications are that this year’s minimum will still be below even the most pessimistic IPCC projections.

In addition to being less extensive than before, the Arctic sea ice is also thinner and newer – less and less consists of multi-year ice, and an increasing share consists of ice that forms in the winter and vanishes during the summer months. All this is bad news for species that depend on the sea ice, such as polar bears.

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.