The environment – Page 115 – a sibilant intake of breath

Diatoms as solar cell material

Scientists in Oregon are working on a process to make solar panels with the help of single-celled marine organisms called diatoms. By providing the diatoms with titanium dioxide, rather than the silicon dioxide with which they normally make their shells, a material is produced that can be rendered photovoltaic through the application of dyes. Supposedly, this material is three times more efficient than similar dye-based thin-film cells made without the diatoms. While the resulting cells are still experimental, and more expensive than conventional thin-film dye cells, the possible efficiency gains may eventually render them more commercially viable and effective, especially in situations of relative low light.

Certainly, microorganisms are a sensible place to look if you want to be able to consistently produce precise nanoscale structures. Hopefully, techniques like this will speed the pace at which renewably generated power displaces that from fossil fuels.

Dubious ‘Clean Energy Dialogue’ appointment

If Canada’s government was serious about having a Clean Energy Dialogue with the United States, it probably would not have appointed a former oil sands executive to head one of the three working groups. According to DeSmogBlog, the appointee – Charlie Fischer – has 500,000 shares in Nexen, a firm that owns 7% of Syncrude, a major player in the Athabasca oil sands. That is about as clear a conflict of interest as a participant in a ‘Clean Energy Dialogue’ could have.

The logic of subjecting the oil sands to the same carbon price as the rest of the economy is very strong. Firstly, it means that low-cost emissions reduction opportunities in the sector will be realized. Secondly, with an appropriately set carbon price, it will help discourage economic activities that have negative value, once the effects of climate change are taken into account.

The logic gets even stronger when you consider a future integrated North American carbon market: the bigger the market, the more opportunity there is for a single clear price signal to induce the lowest-possible cost emissions reductions throughout the economy.

Big potential for offshore wind

A new report from the US Interior Department concludes that offshore wind power could be more than sufficient for meeting the current level of American demand for electricity. They estimate that the Atlantic coast alone could provide 1,000 gigawatts of electricity: as much as 1,000 Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors. The report also estimates that wind power in shallow waters (less than 30m deep) could provide 20% of the electricity required by coastal states.

While the report also stresses the oil and gas resources that could be taken advantage of in these continental waters, it is encouraging to see that it takes renewables seriously. The report’s executive summary is online.

Lost Antarctic ice bridge

The BBC is reporting that a stretch of ice between the Charcot and Latady islands has collapsed. Further, the bridge was apparently an important structure holding the remaining portion of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in place. The shelf, which is the size of Jamaica, has been suffering major recorded losses since 2008, and its total disappearance would represent the largest loss of ice in the Antarctic region in recorded history.

Three satellites are monitoring the shelf either daily or more often: the European Space Agency’s Envisat, and NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. Uncertainty about the ice dynamics of western Antarctica is a major source of uncertainty in projections of future sea level rise associated with climate change.

Adapting to +4˚C

New Scientist has an interesting piece on what might be involved in adapting to a 4˚C increase in mean global temperature – a level twice that considered by most to be the threshold of danger. Some of the more dramatic projections include: “Alligators basking off the English coast; a vast Brazilian desert; the mythical lost cities of Saigon, New Orleans, Venice and Mumbai; and 90 per cent of humanity vanished.” The piece rightly stresses that the adaptation challenge depends on both the speed of change and the degree, and that some levels of climate change are not compatible with maintaining populations or civilizations comparable to those that exist today. It focuses intensely on water availability as a key determinant for the habitability of large parts of the globe.

While the details of this assessment are far more speculative than the science that shows a 4˚C rise to be possible, given continued fossil fuel use, it does seem worthwhile to be seriously contemplating what different future scenarios might involve. On the one hand, doing so might help us prepare. On the other, it should help us more viscerally comprehend the consequences of inaction.

The geological plausibility of CCS

Two articles on the April 2nd issue of Nature look into some of the physics, chemistry, and geology associated with carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a possible form of greenhouse gas mitigation. The first largely summarizes the results of the second. Each stresses how significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) are already trapped in groundwater in the subsurface environment, suggesting that the artificial addition of more may be safe and effective. Leaks are avoided due to the “presence of sealing, low-permeability rock formations above the targeted layer,” such as those found above natural gas fields. The article considers CO2-rich natural gas fields in North America, China and Europe as natural analogs for future CCS sites. It concludes that relatively little (about 10%) of the CO2 gets incorporated into rocks, from which it is unlikely to escape. Most remains in water, from which future emissions are more possible. It concludes that the hydrogeological characteristics of future CCS sites will need to be carefully considered, bearing in mind that most of the CO2 will apparently end up saturated in water.

None of this provides definitive support for CCS as a mitigation option. Rather, it provides some guidance into the further research necessary to determine if it can be safe and environmentally effective. Notably, this research also gives no consideration to the economics of CCS deployment, nor to the timelines across which it can be achieved. Indeed, these articles could be taken as evidence of the relative infancy of the scientific consideration of subsurface disposal of carbon dioxide, something that governments assuming its near-term commercial viability should note.

Waxman-Markey climate change bill

Democrats in the American House of Represenatives released a 648-page climate change and energy bill today. The bill is centred around a cap-and-trade system that is intended to reduce American greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, and to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. Other provisions include “a nationwide renewable electricity standard that reaches 25 percent by 2025, new energy efficiency programs and limits on the carbon content of motor fuels, and requires greenhouse gas standards for new heavy duty vehicles and engines.” Overall, the targets are a bit tougher than the ones in the Obama platform were, though this is much more of an opening offer than a final draft. One huge issue which the bill does not yet specify is whether emissions credits will be auctioned or simply given away. Obama’s platform included a very clear call for 100% auctioning, which would be ideal from an environmental perspective.

It will be a long road from introduction through negotiation in both houses towards eventual ratification, and this bill may not make it. Even getting the bill out of the committee Waxman chairs may be a challenge. That being said, it is urgently necessary for a price on carbon to be established and for reductions to begin. Hopefully, legislators will be far-thinking enough to speed that process along, while also establishing a regulatory framework that can be built upon during the coming years and decades.

Rethinking abstinence

Given the character of the modern world, it seems sensible to re-evaluate some of our assumptions. For instance, the importance of sexual abstinence. Arguably, it derives from three considerations: the danger of pregnancy, the risk of disease, and the social concept of sin. In modern society, good tools are available for dealing with all of these. Among them, hormonal birth control systems, condoms, and atheism. Arguably, much of the case for sexual abstinence has vanished.

Contrast that with the (barely existent) public case for reproductive abstinence. Given that society is grossly unsustainable, we don’t even have evidence that the number of people currently alive can continue to live at the level of material welfare they do. Despite this, most governments push fertility. There is parental leave, there are often tax breaks for marriage and having children, and house ownership is encouraged through public subsidy.

Perhaps the world would be a better place if governments became significantly more lax in their efforts to discourage sexual abstinence, while simultaneously shifting towards encouraging reproductive abstinence. Given the degree to which our gross over-use of the natural resources and adaptive capacities of the planet is threatening the future of the human species, it seems quite rational, in the end. Obviously, governments with some respect for personal liberty cannot actually curtail reproduction. Of course, they couldn’t curtail sex either. The idea is to shift from efforts in the latter area to efforts in the former one. That need not involve anything too restrictive: just making sure that those who don’t want children have the tools required to avoid it, while reducing the degree to which society at large helps finance the reproduction of those who choose to undertake it.

April climate summit in Washington

Apparently, President Obama has announced a summit of world leaders to discuss climate change, to occur in April as partial preparation for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in December. The summit will include Canada, the US, China, India, and twelve others.

Quite possibly, it will offer a useful glimpse into the national positions being adopted for Copenhagen, and the possibility of a strong agreement emerging there. Arguably, the most important issue is the degree of bilateral cooperation likely to emerge between the US and China. If they can agree to something that is acceptable for the European Union and Japan, everybody else might fall into line.

Oil sands, game theory, and jobs

If we are going to prevent catastrophic climate change, every major country in the world will need to have policies that put a price on carbon and encourage the transition to a low-carbon economy. If the range of estimates for safe concentrations is approximately right (350 – 550ppm, very broadly), such policies will need to be in place within a period of years to, at most, decades. In such a world, projects like Canada’s oil sands would be enough to make the state permitting them an international pariah. It seems quite legitimate to expect harsh trade sanctions against a state that is so blatantly ignoring the need for the world to cut emissions, once many other states have seriously begun to do so. Given that I don’t think Canada has the stomach to be another North Korea, it seems like we would eventually give in to pressure to bring our policies in line with those of the United States and our other allies and trading partners.

As such, there are two possible long-term outcomes that can be envisioned. Either catastrophic climate change will occur or Canada will be forced to cut emissions like everybody else. In the former case, I suppose our current climate policies are not hugely relevant. If the rest of the world doesn’t get its act together, human civilization will probably snuff itself out. In the latter case, further investment in the oil sands will just increase the medium-term economic losses associated with the abandonment of the project. Such investment will also make it more and more politically difficult for the government of Alberta to support sane climate policies, turning it into more and more of an active ‘spoiler’ in domestic climate change negotiations between different levels of government.

Unfortunately, the ‘bite’ in this analysis doesn’t come into effect for some time, probably beyond the political horizons of most Canadian policy-makers today. As a further consequence, it is very hard to get people to take such long-term considerations into account. That being said, if a large majority of Canadians came to understand the issue in these terms – that we are pouring effort into a project that will ultimately need to be abandoned – the political landscape might shift considerably. The discussion may then be less about jobs now versus climatic stability in the future, and more about directing the ongoing development of the economy towards jobs that will still be viable in ten years, instead of ones that will be extinguished along any effective path to a sustainable future.