The environment – Page 155 – a sibilant intake of breath

European expansion and energy policy

The European Union is in the midst of a big internal fight about how to divide climate change mitigation obligations between members. The poorer states that joined recently say they should have easier targets so their economies will be able to grow more rapidly. States that have already made big investments in renewable technology think they should be called upon to improve by a lesser margin. France wants credit for its determined use of nuclear power. In many ways, the arguments are global disagreements writ small – an excellent illustration of which is Poland.

Poland has by far the biggest coal reserves in the EU – about fourteen billion tonnes worth. Germany is in second place with about six billion. The German GDP per capita is also US$39,650 at market exchange rates, compared to US$10,858 for Poland. Thankfully, the European Union has much more robust mechanisms for dealing with these distributional questions than exist in the world at large. There are European courts and European laws; there are also funds for regional development. Perhaps equally important is the recognition that interaction between EU states will be relatively intense for the indefinite future. This creates a stronger incentive to come to an acceptable settlement.

As such, the EU is an interesting test case for broader ideas. Given the lack of global institutions with similar strength, it is far from certain whether EU approaches could be applied worldwide. What does seem fair to say is that if Europe – with its relative wealth and strong institutions – cannot devise a system of burden-sharing for climate change mitigation, it will probably prove impossibly difficult on a global scale.

Google’s commitment to renewables

Google.org – the philanthropic arm of the internet search giant – is seeking to use the cognitive and financial resources of its parent to improve the world. Google has promised to eventually fund the organization using 1% of its equity, profit, and employee time. The real question is whether they will prove able to leverage their particular advantages and achieve outcomes of real significance. There is much reason to hope that they will.

From an environmental perspective, the awkwardly named “RE<C” initiative is the most exciting. The goal is to “develop electricity from renewable energy sources that is cheaper than electricity produced from coal… producing one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity – enough to power a city the size of San Francisco – in years, not decades.” This is certainly an ambitious undertaking. One reason for that is because the true price of coal is not being paid: all the environmental pollution associated with coal mining and burning is being left off the balance sheet, at least in America. If Google can produce renewable technologies that outperform coal economically even in the absence of carbon pricing, it will start to look feasible to begin dismantling the global fossil fuel economy.

It is probably fair to say that meeting this goal would be a more significant contribution to human welfare than everything Google has done so far. Here’s hoping all those brains and dollars come together brilliantly. Of course, as much as we might hope for such a technological rescue, it’s not something to bet on. Even in the absence of breakthrough technologies in renewables, the path to a low-carbon future is pretty well marked out: carbon pricing, regulation in demand inelastic sectors, energy conservation, and massive deployment of existing low-carbon technology.

But why drives on that ship so fast / Without or wave or wind?

A company called SkySails is hoping to reduce fuel usage by large shipping vessels by supplementing their fossil fuel engines with wind power. They estimate that a kite of 160 square metres could, when tethered to a ship, reduce fuel usage by 20%. The company has a video explaining the idea.

It would be very interesting to know (a) what proportion of a time such a system could be used during real-world shipping and (b) how long it would take to pay back the total cost of the system through lower fuel bills.

Earth Flotilla

The 1997 and 1998 LIFEboat Flotillas were exceptional undertakings that I was privileged to participate in. Organized by Leadership Initiative for Earth, each centred around a week-long sailing experience in the Gulf Islands of British Columbia, intended to help make young people more aware of environmental issues and better connected with those similarly interested.

In March of this year, a smaller but similar expedition is taking place, organized by the World Wildlife Fund, in cooperation with some of the people involved in the original flotillas. Applicants must be residents of British Columbia between 13 and 17. They must be interested in environmental issues and willing to put in the time required.

As someone lucky enough to do something similar in the past, I recommend the opportunity wholeheartedly. If any readers of this blog match the description – or know people who do – application information is online.

[Update: 11 February 2008] I am pleased to report that Tristan’s brother will be participating in the Earth Flotilla, and because his family found out about it from this site, no less.

Radiation types and units

Types of radiation

Radiation is categorized in several different ways. One is on the basis of energy levels: ionizing radiation is sufficiently energetic that it can cause an atom or molecule to be stripped of an electron, turning it into an ion. This depends on the energy level of the individual particles or waves and has nothing to do with the total number of them. Non-ionizing radiation is simply that which doesn’t have enough energy to liberate an electron.

Another way to classify radiation is in terms of whether it is electromagnetic (consisting of photons) or particle radiation. There are three types of particle radiation: alpha decay, based on the emission of two protons and neutrons bound together in a helium nucleus, beta decay, wherein the particle emitted is an electron, and neutron radiation, where atoms release neutrons. Alpha particles are not generally very dangerous, because they are unable to penetrate much of substance. Even a few centimetres of air can have a strong protective effect. That said, ingestion can still be highly dangerous. The Polonium-210 that killed Alexander Litvinenko is an alpha emitter. Beta particles can usually be shielded from using a few milimetres of lead. Neutron radiation is unusual insofar as it is capable of producing radioactivity in the atoms it encounters. Shielding consists of a large mass of hydrogen rich materials.

Electromagnetic radiation with sufficient energy to be ionizing cosists of x-rays and gamma rays. Both consist of high-energy photons (those with short wavelengths), with gamma rays having shorter wavelengths than x-rays (10^(-12)m rather than 10^(-10)m). Shielding, especially for gamma rays, must be dense and fairly extensive.

Measuring radiation

Radiation is also measured in a variety of ways: important ones being Roentgens, rads, rems (Roentgen equivalent in man), Curies, Becquerels, and Sieverts.

Becquerels are a unit of radioactive decay based only on the number of decays per second. A Curie is equal to 3.7 x 10^10 Becquerels, and is approximately equivalent to the activity of 1 gram of Radium isotope. These units reflect the number of emissions only – not their physical or biological effects.

A Roentgen is a measure of ionizing radiation based on the ratio between charge and unit mass. Rads are a largely obselete unit of radiation dose, equal to 100 ergs of energy being absorbed by one gram of matter. Rems are the product of the number of Roentgens absorbed, multiplied by the biological efficiency of the radiation. Rems are also considered highly dated as a measure of radiation. 450 rems is an approximate lethal dose (LD50), for those who do not receive prompt treatment.

Sieverts are the recommended replacemend, “found by multiplying the absorbed dose, in grays, by a dimensionless “quality factor” Q, dependent upon radiation type, and by another dimensionless factor N, dependent on all other pertinent factors.” The LD50 for ionizing radiation is about 5 grays or about 3-5 Sieverts. If the biological efficiency used to calculate rems equals one, one Sievert is 100 rems.

Water and nuclear power

Once the heat generated by nuclear fission has finished spinning the turbines in nuclear power plants, it must somehow be dissipated into the wider environment. Almost invariably, this is done using large amounts of water drawn from nearby rivers and lakes. Now, for plants located in drought-struck regions such as the southeast United States, possible water scarcity threatens to shut down plants, forcing the costly purchase of energy from other jurisdictions.

The Associated Press estimates that 24 of America’s 104 nuclear reactors are located in areas currently experiencing severe drought. On reactor outside Raleigh, North Carolina will need to be shut down if water levels in the lake fall by another 3 1/2 feet. In total, nuclear power provides about 10% of the American supply of electricity. All but two American nuclear plants are cooled using water from lakes and rivers. Some plants evaporate large amounts of water from cooling towers, while others are designed to return the warmed water to the body that originally provided it. Immersing collection pipes at lower levels risks being costly, as well as increasing problems from sediment intake into the cooling system.

All this demonstrates the degree to which many forms of low-carbon energy generation are themselves vulnerable to climate change. Concern about water being a limiting factor in energy production is already acute in Australia. Dams face risks from both drought and the loss of snowpack in mountain ranges (leading to too much water at some times of year and not enough at others). Even wind turbines may be vulnerable to changes in dominant patterns of air circulation. Designing future infrastructure with possible climate changes in mind is essential, if we are not to find ourselves with a lot of expensive hardware rendered useless by changed conditions.

You must do the heaviest / So many shall do none

When it comes to reducing personal environmental impact in any sphere (pollution, climate change, resource depletion, etc), there comes a point where each individual says: “That is too great a sacrifice.” Some people would refuse to give up incandescent bulbs; some, eating meat; some, driving their cars; some, flying in jets. The question arises of what to do when there is a fundamental conflict between an ethical requirement and a person’s will. In the modern world, this applies perhaps most harshly to air travel.

We know that very substantial emissions are associated with flying. We also know that substantial emissions will definitely cause human suffering and death in the future. One flight emits significantly more than a single person can sustainably emit in a year. Every year emissions are above sustainable levels, the concentration of greenhouse gases rises; each year in which that happens, the mean energy absorbed by the planet increases. At some point in the future, it is inevitable that this process would cause massive harm to human beings and non-human living things. It is also plausible that positive feedbacks could create abrupt or runaway climate change, either of which could cause human extinction or the end of humanity as a species with civilization. In the face of that, it is difficult to say that flying isn’t morally wrong.

At the same time, it is impossible for most people to say it is. Partly, this is because of a failure of imagination. They cannot imagine a world where people don’t fly. Mostly, though, it is reflective of the powerful kind of denial that lets people continue to live as they do, even when convincing evidence of the wrongness of their behaviour is revealed. Rationalizations are myriad: (a) Why should I stop when others will just continue? (b) There has to be a balance between acting ethically and getting what I want. Neither of these has any ethical strength in the face of a known and significant wrong. At the same time, it is implausible that people will abandon their self-deception or that external forces will constrain their behaviour effectively. If that is true, our future really isn’t in our hands. We are slaves to fate, in terms of what technological innovation might bring and in terms of how sensitive the climate really is to greenhouse gasses.

Fishing should never be subsidized

The economic case for government subsidies can be made in one of two ways. The first is the argument based on externalities: the idea being that one person’s behaviour creates benefits for others, but that those others do not compensate the actor. An example might be a landowner who refrains from cutting down trees uphill from rivers. All river users benefit from the flood control and lack of silt. In this case, it might make sense for the government to pay the landowner to save the trees – in providing the subsidy, the government encourages a more socially optimal behaviour. This justification doesn’t work for fisheries. Fisheries are a common property resource and, as such, tend towards over-exploitation. Having fishers catch more does not provide anyone else with benefits; indeed, it harms the ability of everyone else to use marine resources. Subsidizing fishing pushes fishers to continue catching fish even beyond the point where it would normally be unprofitable, leading to further depletion.

The second argument for subsidies is the ‘infant industries’ argument. The idea here is that it can take a while for a new business to reach the level of existing businesses in the field. A brand new textile industry in an African state may not initially be able to produce goods at a cost and level of quality competitive with existing industries in Asia. In such cases, you can justify a temporary program of subsidy, intended to get the industry running. Once again, this doesn’t apply to fisheries. If anything, there is too much fishing capacity in the states that subsidize heavily (North America, Europe, and Japan). Excess fishing capacity is being exported into developing states, depleting the resources there.

The one form of subsidy that can be justified in relation to the fishing industry is subsidized training to get out of it. We can recognize that fishers are having an increasingly difficult time making a living, while also recognizing that subsidizing their fuel or equipment will just batter fish stocks further. The solution is to help people to transition into other industries where they can sustain themselves without depleting pools of resources common to everyone. It is always hard for politicians to say that an industry should be smaller, or should not exist at all, but, in the case of fisheries, that is probably the only position that makes economic and ecological sense.

A partial defence of carbon offsets

Everybody compares carbon offsets with the indulgences of the medieval Catholic Church. Indeed, a good number of people seem to treat the comparison as the decisive point against them. Offsets allow one person to ‘sin’ by flying or driving a big car, then pay for it by having someone else reduce emissions by a similar amount. While there is certainly potential for abuse, the real issue here is about the intuitive sense of fairness people possess.

Obviously, if someone buys an offset that produces no real reduction in emissions, they have been bilked and the climate has suffered. There are plenty of cases of dubious offsets, including all those based around planting trees. Furthermore, it is necessary not only for the sale of the offset to lead to reduced emissions: it must lead to a reduction of emissions equivalent to the face value of the offset and, crucially, these must consist entirely of reductions that would not otherwise occur. The perfect offset is something like this: (a) a farm releases large amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (b) in the normal run of things, the farm would have no incentive to stop doing so (c) the sale of offsets changes the economics of the situation, making it most economically efficient to capture the methane, perhaps using it to generate electricity (d) this produces a quantity of real and verifiable reductions that can be sold at the marginal cost of capturing the methane.

In this situation, the argument of ineffectiveness does not apply. What we are left with is the offence against fairness – allowing one person to ‘take more than their share.’ While there is intuitive force behind this position, I don’t think it is very convincing. While it would be better to both moderate one’s consumption and help others to do so, it does seem less objectionable to emit and purchase credible offsets than to emit and simply ignore the consequences of your actions. The critical difference between offsets and indulgences is that offsets (when used properly) actually have a mitigating effect on total greenhouse gas emissions; indulgences never did anything at all, except raise money for those selling them and the ire of those opposed.

Carbon tariffs

It is only a matter of time before the first state imposes an import tariff on goods from countries that are not taking action on climate change. On one level, that is fair enough. If domestic manufacturers are paying for their CO2 emissions through a cap-and-trade scheme or carbon tax, they have some legitimate objections against imports from foreign competitors who are not doing so. That said, the actual experience with the first such tariffs is likely to be a huge legal and political mess.

Membership in the World Trade Organization – something common to most big emitters – carries a number of obligations of varying levels of obscurity and enforcement. You can bet that countries that have such tariffs applied to them will protest such treatment aggressively. It would also be fair to bet that the winner of the contest will be determined on the basis of economic power, rather than the rightness or wrongness of arguments. It is even possible that the resulting compromise will be worse from a greenhouse gas mitigation standpoint than if the argument had never begun.

That said, it is at least logically possible for the global trading system to help in the development of an effective global regime of rules, norms, and decision-making procedures around the issue of climate change. It obviously won’t have an effect on countries that don’t do a lot of trading, but they are probably not the most essential ones to get on board anyhow. What will matter most is which of the two biggest economic blocs will triumph: the United States, still in denial about what solving climate change will require, or Europe, where at least some leading states are starting to get serious.