Category: The environment

Atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, etc – everything about life and the state of this planet

Nuclear power and passive safety

One thing all the world’s nuclear reactors have in common is that – unless they are constantly cooled with large volumes of water – they will eventually explode. This is because even after nuclear fission has been stopped, the decay heat from the fuel rods is sufficient to melt them and prompt dangerous interactions between water and their zircaloy cladding.

It seems highly likely that many more nuclear reactors will be built around the world, prompted by factors including concern about climate change, worries about fossil fuel availability, and the enthusiasm of states for nuclear technology. Today’s reactor designs suffer from the risks mentioned above. I don’t know how feasible it would be to design reactors which are passively safe (and which will automatically enter a safe state, without human action, after a major accident), but it seems worth investigating seriously. It seems much more prudent to build machines that slow down and cool off when left alone, rather than those that heat up unstoppably until their liquified contents melt through the containment around them and poison the nearby environment.

Space tourism is pointless and damaging

Henry Shue has written convincingly about the moral importance of the rich giving up luxuries for the sake of fighting climate change, before the poor are asked to give up necessities. As he explains it, even in an emergency you sell the jewelry before you sell the blankets.

The ultimate example of luxury emissions is probably private spaceflight, as described in Nature recently. All that fuel gets burned so that a few really rich people can get to a high altitude and gawk for a while before returning to Earth.

Surely, our climate policies should curb such behaviours.

Beacon op-ed on climate

Cheryl McNamara wrote a good op-ed on climate change for The Calgary Beacon. She does a good job of making the economic case for action:

Either lock into an insecure high-carbon system, or legislate a mechanism that sends a clear market signal to nourish an industry poised to surge, bring new life back to our ailing manufacturing sector, create an abundance of quality jobs, and create healthier communities.

Change is difficult. But not when it generates great benefits. By putting a price on carbon that increases annually and giving the proceeds back to citizens to stimulate the economy we can develop a sustainable society for our kids and grandkids. Isn’t that what true conservatism is all about?

Carbon pricing is a policy that we should have implemented decades ago to kick off a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy. The earlier we get started, the less chance that transition will cost, the less infrastructure we will need to scrap prematurely, and the lower the odds that the world will suffer from dangerous climate change.

McNamara is the leader of the Toronto chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby. It’s a group that has sound strategies and seems to be making a difference through political advocacy, intelligent interaction with the media, and direct communication with politicians.

If you have some time to spare and a desire to be part of the solution on climate change, CCL is a good group to get involved with. They have introductory conference calls frequently.

Unproductive investments that harm the world

Since the 2008 credit crunch, the governments of the world have been obsessed with economic conditions: trying to find ways to increase growth, improve the stability of the financial system, and cut unemployment. All other societal projects have taken a back seat. Given reasonable concerns about the economic future of the world, it seems like common sense to say that governments and societies should be investing their wealth and effort into things that will yield a beneficial return in the future. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the course Canada is following. We are making big investments in things that are bad for our own economic health, and even worse for the world at large.

Take the F-35 stealth fighter jets. They have no conceivable use. Canada is not going to war with any country that is capable of shooting down lesser jets, at least at any time in the foreseeable future. In the longer term, the jets still look useless, as it is increasingly clear that the age of manned combat aircraft is ending. Canada is spending tens of billions of dollars on weapons we do not need now, and which will probably be obsolete long before they go out of service. We should just skip this generation of killing machines, and perhaps invest later if some credible threat to Canadian security actually emerges.

The new crime bill is an even worse example of putting good money to counterproductive uses. There is no crime epidemic that requires a government response. There is no evidence that imprisoning more people will reduce crime below the already-low level where it is now. Indeed, the only things we can be sure about is that imprisoning people for longer will do more to wreck their chances of living a productive life, while harming their families and communities.

The oil sands may be the biggest example of Canada’s misplaced priorities. Look at the big picture. There are two possible futures for the world:

  • A world where we do nothing about climate change, and warming of well over 4˚C takes place
  • A world where we wake up and begin the process of aggressively phasing out fossil fuels

The first possibility is a suicide pact. We would probably be condemning the world to radically destabilizing climate change, with sea level rise of many metres, dramatic changes in precipitation patterns, and enormous human suffering as a consequence. In the second possibility, there is no place for an industry like the oil sands. Indeed, unconventional oil and gas production serves only to lengthen humanity’s dependence on fossil fuels. The smart investment is figuring out how to live on carbon-neutral sources of energy. Spending billions of dollars on an industry that will either be dismantled soon or will persist as a witness to a burning planet doesn’t make either economic or moral sense.

Even if Canada never wakes up and takes the obligation to address climate change seriously, it is quite possible that the rest of the world will do so. The people who say that oil sands extraction are inevitable are the same people who said that the Keystone XL pipeline was a sure thing. As people become aware of the dangers of climate change and the ethical imperatives that flow from them, they will be less and less inclined to invest in the suicidal fossil fuel industry, and less and less willing to buy its lethal products. The billions Canada is investing in fossil fuel infrastructure may end up rusting unused. Leaving the Kyoto Protocol is just one indication that Canada is out of step with the international community, and risks becoming an international pariah based on its selfish focus on fossil fuel profits.

There are so many things we could be spending money more usefully on. We could be investing in the skills and training of the Canadian workforce. That would be a sensible recognition of how global patterns of trade and production continue to change. We could be investing in sustainable infrastructure: buildings, transport links, power generation and storage facilities, and an agricultural system that can function without fossil fuels. We could be investing in assistance to those who are suffering from extreme poverty, both in Canada and around the world, as well as those who struggle with serious mental illnesses.

Canada can make smarter choices, not to mention choices that cause less needless harm. We just need to think a bit more about what sort of world we want for our children and examine whether our current priorities are aligned well with those goals.

Precision and avoiding error

It is fundamental to the nature of truth as accessed by human beings that there is a trade-off between how precise a view we express about a particular subject and how certain we can be of avoiding error.

This can be expressed in a basic way by thinking about estimation. If we are asked to guess how many years Genghis Khan lived for, it is safe to say ‘between 1 and 1000’. It’s not very precise, but the real figure is in there somewhere. Every time we specify a narrower band, we increase the risk of missing the target.There is an inescapable connection between providing a more precise answer and running a greater risk of excluding the answer that is true.

This remains true when it comes to questions that are much more complex and abstract, such as “what is likely to happen in Afghanistan after NATO leaves” or “what are the likely consequences of climate change on international security”. In responding to complex questions, we probably need to acknowledge the limits of what is really knowable. We have limited information, and often a limited span of time in which to make choices. Dealing with that probably requires an awareness of the precision/certainty trade-off, along with a willingness to keep all possibilities in mind, even if they are unproven.

Quite possibly, we should be more willing to err on the side of caution when the level of uncertainty is high and at least some large credible risks seem to exist. When a nuclear reactor may be melting down, it may be a good idea to inject the core with seawater. Doing so ruins the reactor for future electricity generation, but reduces the risk of a terrible outcome in which a meltdown is coupled with a large-scale containment failure. Excluding the worst possibilities usually involves real costs of various sorts, but it is probably better to accept the certainty of a known loss to significantly reduce the probability of an unknown but potentially much worse outcome. In short, it pays to play it safe on important matters.

Boycott Canada over climate?

As Canada’s statement at the UNFCCC conference in Durban demonstrates, Canada’s political system is currently working for those groups that want Canadian greenhouse gas pollution to remain unlimited, ignoring the costs it imposes on other people around the world. Contrary to the slogan of market-based liberal environmentalism, the slogan of the current approach could be interpreted as: “Keep externalities external”.

Dealing with climate change requires a more productive attitude.

How, then, can Canada’s position be changed so as to be compatible with avoiding dangerous or catastrophic climate change? Right now, the political debate is being dominated by groups that see reducing greenhouse gas pollution as harmful to their business interests – particularly the oil and gas industry. If the rest of the world wants to put pressure on Canada to stop being such an environmental laggard, they may need to convince the rest of Canadian business that it doesn’t pay to be an environmental pariah.

What sort of boycott, I wonder, might be able to achieve that outcome? Something that would catch the attention of the majority of Canadian businesses that do not depend fundamentally on increasing pollution for their continued growth. General economic sanctions might be reasonable: increased tariffs on all Canadian exports, along with a reduced willingness to do trade deals, for as long as Canada refuses to do its fair share in dealing with climate change. After all, the flaws in Kyoto are not a license for inaction.

It would be very reasonable for states with domestic carbon pricing schemes to impose carbon tariffs on states like Canada that do not. As long as the tariff level for emissions embedded in imports is set at the same level as the domestic carbon price, such a policy would be compatible with World Trade Organization rules.

What do other people think?

Kyoto has problems, but Canada must still act

On BuryCoal, I have written a quick post on why people are wrong when they argue that the problems with the Kyoto Protocol mean that Canada should not participate meaningfully and in good faith in ongoing international climate negotiations. The failure of Kyoto to curb the rise in global emissions strengthens rather than diminishes the case for coordinated international action.