The environment – Page 29 – a sibilant intake of breath

Stopping fossil fuel proliferation

I have said before that only multilateral negotiation can address climate change. Today The Guardian has one proposal: We need a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty – and we need it now.

The article argues:

A new line in the sand is needed to underpin the existing climate agreement, to exert influence over the immediate choices of policymakers. At the very least, the science should mandate a moratorium in rich countries on any further expansion of the fossil fuel industry, or any infrastructure dependent on it.

That sort of ‘keep it in the ground’ approach would be compatible with what rich countries need to do to set a plausible global course. Unfortunately, it’s entirely at odds with what is happening almost everywhere, as the US races ahead with oil and gas fracking, Europe builds new pipelines to Russian hydrocarbons, and Germany and Japan are reverting to coal after the Fukushima disaster.

At least with a multilateral approach competitiveness concerns would be somewhat muted. Right now it’s a very hard sell for governments to tell corporations they will need to follow rules which their international competitors do not. If the rich world can agree to start with contraction and convergence it may be possible to negotiate a global agreement to succeed the Paris Agreement, but which would have serious targets and appropriate measures for meeting them.

one of the great fears is that worsening climate conditions will make people fight instead of cooperate

There’s some hope perhaps that experiences like extreme weather events and wildfires will boost the salience of climate change in the population and shift atittudes toward more robust controls on carbon emissions.

Anecdotally: In North Carolina, hurricanes did what scientists could not: Convince Republicans that climate change is real

Berman on the oil sands and decarbonization

Tzeporah Berman’s comments to the Alberta Teachers Association are well worth reading.

She highlights how Canada keeps operating with an outdated notion of how usable and competitive the bitumen sands are, and that the case for new pipelines collapses when you consider what the world as a whole needs to do to address climate change.

She also discusses the tone of the debate, which she sees as unhelpful, while acknowledging that civility itself cannot produce an answer. Canada is going to learn a hard lesson about the billions we wasted on the bitumen sands. The hope now is that we won’t waste billions more.

How much has been put into the bitumen sands?

Canadians (and especially Canadian politicians) seem to often work from the assumption that so much has been spent on developing Alberta’s oil sands that Canada is now committed to continuing with the project.

There are many problems with the argument. Particularly when it comes to new investments, it could be seen as a case of the sunk cost fallacy at work. When you have an investment which may already be unproductive it can be psychologically appealing but not actually strategically smart to invest more instead of working away from the danger you have set for yourself.

One article estimates that $200 billion has been invested since 1999. For comparison, Canada’s GDP is about US$1.53 trillion. That makes all the investment in nearly 20 years equivalent to 13% of one year of all Canadian economic activity. The Economist recently reported that Americans spent $498 billion per year on cars and car parts. That shows how the bitumen sands investment is really pretty small in global terms (and also how much could be gained from discouraging American car use, breaking up the cycle of cosmetic annual vehicle replacements, and discouraging new automobile infrastructure).

Since climate change literally threatens the economic prosperity of the entire planet, there’s no comparison between the losses associated with shutting down the bitumen sands versus the losses associated with unchecked climate change. Of course, the bitumen sands aren’t the only source of climate change. What they represent, however, is the self-destructive determination of the richest, dirtiest states to keep investing themselves in the most destructive forms of energy. That worsens the collective action problem which we all face and suggests to all other states that there is no point on holding back from realizing short-term profits from fossil fuels for the sake of averting global catastrophe.

We can afford to stop new bitumen sands development, and then to go on to gradually close down existing production, making it possible for Canada to follow an emission reduction pathway that represents a fair share of what the world needs to do to keep below 2 ˚C or 1.5 ˚C of warming. We can afford to help the workers who will need new careers.

Unfortunately, politicians, the banks, and the corporate media are terrified about any future where bitumen sands development and pollution do not continue to rise, making the idea politically impossible in Canada for now. Hence the need to change our politics, media, and perhaps our economic system.

Our appalling legacy

There’s another dire warning from the IPCC: Final call to save the world from ‘climate catastrophe’

There seems little reason to hope that people will react differently to this one than to the 1990, 1996, 2001, 2007, and 2014 reports.

Our collective future is a massive ethical blindspot. People who wouldn’t think about missing a pension contribution or not enrolling their kids in an enriched learning program are collectively deciding by default to ravage the planet which we all depend on, and our political and economic institutions are acting almost exclusively to encourage that outcome.

The right’s anti-carbon-tax hostility

A carbon tax is a liberty-respecting, economically efficient mechanism to help address the threat of climate change and build a sustainable, prosperous society. It ought to be welcomed and supported by policy-savvy fair-minded conservatives who want to live up to their ideals while stewarding the integrity of the planet for future generations.

Meanwhile in Canada: UCP Leader Jason Kenney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford to hold anti-carbon tax rally in Calgary

We’re still losing the fight against climate change

OPEC may not be the most disinterested source, but their projections are nonetheless disheartening:

In a forecast that will dismay environmentalists – and which questions the theory that oil company reserves will become “stranded assets” – Opec’s annual report significantly revised production estimates upwards. Most of the production increase will come from countries outside Opec, led by explosive growth from frackers in the United States, with China and India leading the increase in demand.

Opec expects global oil demand to reach nearly 112m barrels per day by 2040, driven by transportation and petrochemicals. That is up from almost 100m today and higher than last year’s projection.

Coal will continue to be be burned in record amounts, despite concerns about its impact on climate change. Opec estimates that coal usage in the OECD countries will plummet by a third by 2040, but it will increase by 20% in developing countries to reach five times the volumes burned in the west.

The world’s airlines will be the single fastest growing user of oil, increasing consumption by 2.2% a year on average, to 2040. However, the largest absolute growth is expected to come from road transport.

The number of vehicles on roads across the world are expected to leap from 1.1bn now to around 2.4bn in 2040. In its central scenario, Opec expects just 320m of those to be electric, a number that climbs to 720m in a scenario where battery-powered cars take off rapidly.

In short, knowing what a colossal threat climate change poses, and that the critical behaviour for averting the worst is decreasing fossil fuel use, the world seems set to keep burning heedlessly along, damn the consequences.

saganangst — fear of nuclear war, and particularly nuclear winter

We live under constant threat of sudden destruction via nuclear war. It wouldn’t take that many warheads falling on major cities to darken the atmosphere — making the consequences of even a regional exchange (or the payload of a single ‘boomer’ sub) global, and potentially a threat to the integrity of human civilization. The control systems carry a frightening risk of malfunction, particularly in a crisis when nuclear-armed forces may be out of communication with higher level command and at immediate risk of nuclear attack.

The only safe option is to disarm as a global community — spare everyone the costs of the nuclear arms complex, while greatly diminishing the total severity of potential wars.

Open thread: shadow solutions to climate change

In the absence of real political solutions to climate change, Stephen Gardiner argues that: “we are susceptible to proposals for action that do not respond to the real problem. This provides a good explanation of what has gone wrong in the last two decades of climate policy, from Rio to Kyoto to Copenhagen. However, the form of such “shadow solutions” is likely to evolve as a the situation deteriorates. Some recent arguments for pursuing geoengineering may represent such an evolution.”

One example from today: Build walls on seafloor to stop glaciers melting, scientists say

Another example was back when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce suggested we could adapt to climate change by altering our physiology.

American decline on The Agenda

Steve Paikin’s show on TVO is a video equivalent to CBC’s The Current, in that they both tackle matters of going political importance, tend to get into the substantive matters involved, and feature hosts that press guests to go beyond sound bites.

The recent segment with author Chris Hedges on American decline – “The Collapse of the American Empire?” – is a good use for half an hour:

They also had a good recent segment on Ontario’s Ford government undoing carbon pricing and much of the pro-climate legacy of the Liberal Wynne government: The Cost of Ford’s Energy Shake-up. He tries to press the anti-carbon pricing panellist to go beyond criticism and offer solutions, but the other panelists are pretty effective in arguing that right wing critics are privately content to do nothing about climate change (the representative spouts some nonsense about how we can just adapt, regardless of the severity).