Category: The environment

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

British, EU, and US negotiators expect little from Copenhagen

Apparently, the United States has now made clear that they do not expect a climate deal to emerge at Copenhagen this year, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) gathering is to take place. This isn’t really news, but it is certainly disappointing. In a few years, I think people will look back regretfully at how much time, money and political energy were directed at the credit crunch, while the much more important problem of climate change mitigation was neglected.

A big part of the reason for the delay is certainly the difficulty the Obama administration has had getting a climate change bill through Congress. The Republicans deserve a lot of criticism for their caveman mentality on this issue. Their united opposition to meaningful action on climate change is irresponsible and a dereliction of duty, insofar as they are charged with defending the long-term welfare of the United States. While pricing carbon will cause short-term harm to certain industries now, it is the only way to kick off the sustained transition to a low-carbon economy that long-term prosperity ultimately depends upon.

Cruise ship size record reset

At the end of October, the MS Oasis of the Seas was launched in Finland. It is the world’s largest cruise ship, 360 metres long, with capacity for 6,296 passengers. In November of next year, a second ship of the same class is expected to be launched: the MS Allure of the Seas. The ship is powered by three 13.9 megawatt (MW) engines and three 18.5 MW engines, with propulsion from three 20 MW Azipods.

I cannot help but think that if the advocates of the peak oil hypothesis are correct, these vessels will end up being viewed as the height of fossil-driven folly. The ship is also a reminder of how international waters remain the part of the planet with the most lax environmental standards, whether the pollutant in question is sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, or anything else. Indeed, large oceangoing vessels generally need to carry two types of fuel: one that is legal for use in the domestic waters of states with air pollution laws, and another that can only be used on the open ocean.

Octane and gasoline engines

Smashed wooden wall

I am learning a lot about hydrocarbon fuels from Morgan Downey’s Oil 101. For instance, that the common understanding of the phrase ‘high octane’ is somewhat misleading. In the context of gasoline-powered internal combustion engines, such as those in cars, the octane rating of a fuel refers to how much it can be compressed along with air before it will spontaneously ignite. In these engines, fuel and air are mixed together and compressed in a cylinder. They are then ignited at a precisely controlled time by a spark plug. Cases where the mixture explodes before then are called ‘engine knock’ and are damaging. As such, engines are designed to use fuel above a certain octane number, in order to be confident that knocking will not occur.

When it comes to choosing fuel to buy, this means it is appropriate to use a grade with an octane rating as high as cited in the operating manual of a vehicle. Going higher, however, may be a waste of money for two independent reasons. Firstly, higher octane fuels are more expensive because they cost more for refineries to produce. Unless your engine is tuned to take advantage of the extra opportunity for compression, no additional power will be generated. Secondly, higher octane fuels often contain less energy per litre, because the hydrocarbons that comprise them have less energy in their chemical bonds. As such, a litre of more-expensive high octane fuel likely will not take a vehicle as far as a cheaper litre of adequate-octane fuel.

Octane numbers are assigned based on how a fuel compares to two specific hydrocarbons: isooctane (which is hard to ignite by compression) and n-heptane (which is easy to ignite that way). 90 octane fuel is thus as resistant to pressure-induced ignition as a mixture of 90% isooctane and 10% n-heptane. Some fuels are even better at resisting pressure-induced ignition than isooctane, and can therefore have octane numbers over 100.

In diesel engines, this is reversed. They do not have spark plugs and rely upon the ability of fuel to ignite spontaneously in the presence of pressurized air. In diesel, the cetane number refers to the propensity of fuel to autoignite on compression. Here, a higher number is more desirable.

One other thing I didn’t know about liquid transport fuels is that the fuel used by piston-driven aircraft, such as small propeller planes, still uses tetra ethyl lead to increase its octane rating. This practice has been discontinued in cars both because it interferes with catalytic converters and because it was massively increasing human exposure to lead – a known cause of brain damage. In aviation gasoline, tetra ethyl lead is used instead of alcohols to boost octane. This is because alcohol-blended fuels are less energy dense, more prone to vapour lock, liable to separate at low temperatures, as vulnerable to corrosion. Such aircraft are a relatively tiny share of the total market for hydrocarbon fuels; still, it isn’t particularly comforting to know that they continuously disperse lead on whatever is below them.

Fighting oil sands emissions by burning natural gas?

According to Morgan Downey’s Oil 101, it actually takes more energy to produce a barrel of synthetic crude oil from the oil sands than the barrel of crude contains. Most of that extra energy comes from natural gas. It is worth paying that energy cost because crude oil is a valuable product that can be turned into gasoline, kerosene, etc, whereas unprocessed bitumen laden sand has no value. Note that even more energy is required to run the refineries that turn synthetic crude into usable fuels.

As a result of this, the economic viability of the oil sands depends on natural gas remaining cheap enough for synthetic crude to compete. As such, it is arguably the case the promoting natural gas as a fuel for vehicles and electricity generation is a smart climatic move. It is a relatively clean fuel in those applications, and using it in that way might keep a larger share of it from being used to upgrade bitumen – thus leaving the carbon contained therein safely buried.

In Scenario A (cheap gas), a lot of Canada’s northern natural gas goes towards liquefying and upgrading bitumen, thus liberating the carbon it contains into the atmosphere, both during upgrading and refining processes and when the resultant fuels are burned.

In Scenario B (expensive gas), the natural gas is used for higher-value purposes like electricity generation, and more of the carbon in the bitumen never ends up in the atmosphere. Other forms of environmental damage associated with the oil sands – including air and water pollution, habitat destruction, etc – are also lessened.

Greenhouse gases other than CO2

Rusty metal pipes

A recent Newsweek article discussing Al Gore’s new book made reference to recently published work on how different gases are contributing to anthropogenic climate change: Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions, written by scientists from NASA’s Goddard Institute including Drew Shindell and Gavin Schmidt.

Two especially notable points are made. Firstly, the researchers estimate that carbon dioxide (CO2) is ‘only’ responsible for 43% of observed warming, once interactions between gases and aerosols were taken into account. At the same time, methane accounts for 27% of warming, halocarbons 8%, black carbon 12%, and carbon monoxide and volatile organics 7%. Secondly, there are the policy implications that flow from this. Preventing CO2 emissions basically requires reducing deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels – with the latter being an especially challenging thing to do in a world as promiscuous with energy as ours. Reducing methane, by contrast, may be as simple as capturing and burning gases from landfills, and adopting other comparatively low-cost and low-sacrifice strategies. The authors conclude that strategies that incorporate all greenhouse gases (GHGs) are “likely to be much more cost-effective than CO2-only strategies.”

There are other complications involving GHGs, including atmospheric lifetime. CO2 is removed by various means, across different timescales. Methane doesn’t last as long, but does cause more warming than CO2 when present and often breaks down into it later. Black carbon is washed out of the atmosphere quite quickly, meaning that eliminating its production could yield reduced radiative forcing relatively quickly.

The greater importance of non-CO2 gases described in this study is potentially good news for climate change mitigation, given how challenging it has been to convince governments to accept even very minor costs in order to reduce the risks associated with climate change. Developing an improved understanding of exactly how much various GHGs alter the climate should also allow for more efficient carbon pricing, where the incentives to reduce the most harmful GHGs are the strongest.

Mapping 4°C of warming

The UK’s Met Office has released an interesting interactive map showing what the world would be like with a 4°C rise in global temperatures. Impacts considered include fires, agricultural impacts, water availability, sea level rise, loss of permafrost, extreme weather, health, and more.

The map also shows how Canada’s high latitude location will mean more than average temperature increases across the country, ranging from around 7°C to more than 10°C.

There is more information about the map over at World Changing Canada.

Water in California

A briefing on the state of water policy in California contains a passage that I think is illuminating when it comes to the relationship between humanity and the natural environment in general:

Californians hate rain but love water, so three-quarters of them live in the arid south, spurn the wet north where three-quarters of the rain falls, and expect water to come to them by pipe, canal or aquifer, preferably courtesy of the taxpayer.

That sort of brute force approach will become harder and harder to sustain as we give up fossil fuels, both because of their growing scarcity and because of the damage they do to the climate.

U.S. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu has already raised questions about what climate change will do to California’s water supply, particularly as higher temperatures lead to a loss of summer snowpack.

Can Canada meet the Conservative GHG targets?

Small red apples

The Globe and Mail is full of coverage of a ‘landmark’ new report, considering whether and how Canada could meet the stated greenhouse gas reductions of the current government (20% below 2006 levels by 2020, 60-70% below by 2050). The report was paid for by the Toronto Dominion Bank and compiled by the Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation. Economic modelling was done by M.K. Jaccard and Associates Inc, Canada’s ubiquitous non-governmental providers of projections on climate plans.

The report includes estimates of what the GDP cost of meeting the government’s targets would be, for each province. Overall, the cost is estimated at 1.5% of GDP in 2020. Alberta would be the most affected, with an economy 8.5% smaller than it would be in a scenario with new restrictions on emissions. Saskatchewan is projected at -2.8% and B.C at -2.5%. Ontario would actually be 0.9% richer with regulation, while Quebec would be 0.3% poorer. Given the risks associated with climate change, such an investment seems appropriate. That is especially true when you recognize that we will inevitably have to abandon fossil fuels anyhow.

Of course, much depends on the precise methodology used to compile the report. It isn’t clear how the government’s Regulatory Framework would actually operate in practice – for instance, which compliance options firms would choose to employ, and how much of an effect that would have. The plan also assumes that carbon capture and storage (CCS) will rapidly emerge as an effective and affordable technology, though it isn’t quite as dependent on that outcome as Alberta’s even more worrisome climate plan. In an editorial by Jeffrey Simpson, he claims that:

The government must know its policies will fail. But if the Conservatives expect people can be fooled or will tune out because they don’t care or the issue’s too complicated, why not?

Another editorial argues that the targets were set without a plan for achieving them established. Very disappointingly, it then goes on to argue that since meeting Canada’s targets would involve “unacceptable damage to Canada’s economy and national unity,” the targets should be further loosened. What this ignores is the critical issue of dealing with climate change. If Canada and the world fail to adopt effective mitigation policies, the alternative isn’t going to be unity and prosperity amidst ever-higher greenhouse gas concentrations and temperatures. The future of Canadian and global prosperity depends on maintaining a climate that is compatible with human prosperity. Furthermore, it seems absurd to say that growth of 8.5% below business-as-usual is a terrifically awful thing to inflict on Alberta. That’s the kind of impact that might arise as the result of some modest global economic blip or disruption in fossil fuel markets. Only in this case, the cost would be borne in order to help Canada make a credible start on the critical path to a low-carbon economy.

The ethics of letting Alberta and the oil sands off the hook are also highly dubious. People don’t have the fundamental right to keep doing what they have been, even when it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that their actions are harming others. Aside from those suffering now from the air and water pollution associated with rampant oil sands development, there is the key issue of the defenceless and innocent members of future generations who will suffer as the result of these emissions. Indeed, extracting and burning just 10% of the oil sands resource would release 15 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, a quantity sufficient to have a significant temperature effect in and of itself. In addition, continued failure to act on the part of Canada makes it less likely that a strong international agreement will emerge. Given the importance of reaching such an agreement soon, and setting the world on the path to decarbonization, more foot-dragging from Canada is shameful and inappropriate.

Among others, I have long argued that the targets lacked a credible plan for implementation. The government seems to be banking on the fact that they won’t be around in 2020 or 2050 to be held to account. As such, nearer term targets – such as those in the 10:10 campaign – could be usefully adopted in Canada. Anything else leaves too much of a gap between promises and mechanisms of accountability.

The full report is available online (PDF).

Climate change and food production

A recent report from the International Food Policy Research Institute highlighted the degree to which climate change threatens global agricultural output:

In parts of the developing world some crop yields in 2050 could be only half of their 2000 levels. Irrigation may not help: climate change will hit irrigated systems harder than rain-fed ones. And the hope that gainers from climate change will outweigh losers looks vain: the damage from higher temperatures and erratic rainfall will be too big.

Couple that with ever-increasing population, and you have a recipe for a lot of suffering and strife.