The environment – Page 97 – a sibilant intake of breath

The climate impact of pets

A new book estimates that the climate change impact of pets is considerable:

In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.

They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle’s eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog’s.

They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV.

Just another thing that needs to be tallied up when considering one’s individual climate impact. It is also another reason to support carbon pricing, such as through an economy-wide carbon tax. Such a tax would make people consider the climatic impact of their pets more appropriately, and possibly consider smaller and/or vegetarian options.

All that being said, having a pet is a lot less carbon intensive than having a child. For those out there who are using dachshunds or tabbies as alternatives to procreation, carry right along.

Fill the Hill 2009 photos

I don’t usually use Flickr, but that seems to be the default platform for the 350 movement. In any case, here is a slideshow of my photos from today.

Some video is here.

[Update: 2017-10-18] Here’s a normal album for those without Flash to run the old Flickr slideshow.

Fill the Hill 2009 video

Today’s climate change rally on Parliament Hill was a great success, with a huge number of people showing up despite the nasty weather. The speakers were strong, and the mood in the crowd was very positive. It’s great that people have rallied around such a challenging target, with the 350 campaign. Let’s hope that this movement can grow to the point where policies to end deforestation and the use of fossil fuels become mainstream and effective, around the world. That’s the only way we will be able to avoid dangerous climate change.

I don’t have my brother Mica’s talent for editing video. If someone wants access to the unedited files, please let me know and I will provide them. Perhaps they can be incorporated into a more sophisticated product, with music and such.

LED lighting, effectiveness and efficiency

Perhaps the only thing that will ever silence the various overblown objections to compact fluorescent lights is when they are replaced by solid state lighting systems, based on light emitting diodes (LEDs).

Unfortunately, as a post on BoingBoing points out, there is still a way to go before such lighting systems will be viable options for most people. For one thing, they are still expensive. For another, the light they produce may start out not being white, or drift away from being white over time. Worse, it is very difficult for people to distinguish between high and low quality products currently on offer.

Another problem is that LEDs aren’t unambiguously more efficient than fluorescent lighting systems: “The more lumens per watt, the better the energy efficiency. The kind of fluorescent lamps used in offices–the long, narrow ones that are called T-5 or T-8s in Technicalland–regularly get more than 100 lumens per watt. An LED T-8 lamp tested by CALiPER last year got 42.” It seems those of us pushing for more energy efficient lighting may have to continue rebutting claims about mercury and flickering for some time yet.

Growing climate skepticism in the US

In an awfully pathetic development, a recent poll conducted of 1,500 American adults by the Pew Research Center found that the proportion agreeing that “there is strong scientific evidence that the earth has gotten warmer over the past few decades” has fallen from 71% to 57%. Now, only 36% of people agree that human activities are the drivers of temperature increase.

This is an astonishing result, a year after the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report argued that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “[m]ost of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.” It is especially sad given the fact that the supposed scientific debate about the causes of climate change is largely mythical. Despite that, status quo supporting groups have apparently done an excellent job of misleading the public, perhaps aided by the increased concern that now exists about the state of the global economy.

The basics of the situation are quite simple. No competent chemist would disagree that burning fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. Similarly, it is simple to observe that air with more CO2 blocks more outgoing infrared radiation, warming the planet. Both of these things are explained by chemical and physical theory, and observed in practice. Admittedly, it takes more work to understand why this warming could be dangerous; still, the scientific backing for that claim is incredibly robust and based on peer-reviewed scientific work done around the world over the course of many decades.

Obviously, a lot more work needs to be done debunking climate change deniers, both by directly responding to misleading arguments and through other means. The terrifying thing here is that our actions now will have irrevocable consequences, largely beginning a few decades out, but continuing at least for thousands of years. The fact that so many people remain confused about climate – and very few support effort on the scale required to deal with it – is really bad news for future generations.

A trillion tonnes of carbon

Previously, I described how Andrew Weaver used different estimates of how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to greenhouse gasses to determine how many total emissions humanity can have without causing more than 2°C of warming. The 2°C figure is commonly cited as the level of warming that is unambiguously ‘dangerous’ – either because of the harm it would do directly or because warming to that point would kick off positive feedbacks that would then make the planet hotter still.

A new site simplifies this analysis, arguing only that: “If we are to limit global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions to less than 2°C, widely regarded as necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, we need to limit total cumulative emissions to less (possibly much less) than” one trillion tonnes of carbon (equivalent to 3.67 trillion tonnes of CO2). This is probably too high an estimate, given that the IPCC estimates climate sensitivity to be between 3.6°C and 4.5°C. At the low end, that means we need to cap total emissions below 0.661 trillion tonnes of carbon; at the high end, the limit would be 0.484 trillion tonnes. The website estimates that our emissions to date are around 0.555 trillion tonnes.

In the event that actual climate sensitivity is a high but possible 8°C, cumulative emissions of just 0.163 trillion tonnes of carbon would be enough to produce 2°C of warming.

Still, ‘trillionth tonne’ is an accessible concept and it is interesting to watch the numbers update in real time. One especially interesting figure is this one: “We would not release the trillionth tonne if emissions were to start falling immediately and indefinitely at…” At present, their estimate is about 2.1% per year. A higher rate of reduction is necessary if the trillion tonne figure proves overly high.

The Age of Stupid

The Age of Stupid is a poignant and timely film, based around the conceit of sending a warning to people today through fictional retrospective, based on real climatic science and the consequences of continued inaction. It forcefully conveys the point that climate change is the overwhelming moral and political issue of this era. If we deal with it, other things will have importance; if we allow runaway climate change to occur, it will eclipse any other failures. The film is a good example of climate change art, and should especially be watched by those who basically accept the science of climate change but don’t feel the level of motivation necessary to produce real change. It’s not about using fewer plastic bags – it’s about pushing for a new energy basis for human civilization. We need to take personal responsibility – and agitate for systemic change – in ways that go beyond the symbolic and the trivial.

The film makes a number of key points in a convincing and accessible way. Climate change must be managed internationally in a way that respects the importance of poverty reduction in the developing world, as well as the vital point that the pattern of fossil fuel-fired development followed in the West cannot be repeated (contraction and convergence). It stresses how lags in the climate system mean we need to take decisive action long before the full consequences of our choices become visible. On one critical point, the film is both clear and correct: we simply cannot burn all the remaining fossil fuels. There is a maximum level, corresponding at the very most to the lower threshold of runaway climate change. We need to work out what that amount is, and then find a way to divide it among all of humanity, cutting to zero before we exceed it.

The film also stresses how air travel really cannot be part of a sustainable future, when one long flight represents three years’ worth of of acceptable total emissions for a single person, at the levels that need to become ordinary within the next few decades. Especially in the states where per capita emissions are highest (and where the deepest and fastest cuts must be made), we all need to be moving towards lives that do not include such extravagances.

The film also effectively conveys how foolish ‘Not in My Backyard’ (NIMBY) resistance to renewable energy projects really is. People who resist wind farms because they fear their views would be spoiled are completely failing to understand the scale of the challenge we face. While the film doesn’t make the point, the same might be said of those who have a knee-jerk hostile response to big dams, nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, etc. Indeed, it seems inevitable that people fifty years from now would watch this film with interest – either deservingly patting themselves on the back for having achieved a historic transition to zero-carbon energy, or ruefully kicking themselves after being reminded that the consequences of humanity’s selfishness and failure of think at scale were predictable in 2008.

One neat little detail capped off the presentation for me. During a montage showing a succession of years, overlaid with sound and video describing runaway climate change emerging and taking hold, someone around 2030 is quoted asking whether climate change is really happening or not. It is truly frustrating that the understanding of climatic science within the general population is so poor, and has been so effectively confused by the status quo lobby and the failure of individuals to show imagination and empathy.

The Age of Stupid didn’t leave me any more confident that humanity will be able to deal with this problem, but it did re-affirm my commitment to pushing for a sustainable outcome. That would be one that forever replaces the energy basis of our global society, shifting from one based on dwindling hydrocarbons – the by-products of which are wrecking the climate – to one that we can maintain forever.

Smart grid skepticism

The Economist argues that the popularity of so-called ‘smart’ electrical grids is cause for suspicion. The fact that builders of renewable energy plants and operators of dirty coal plants are both on side suggests that the grids will not, in and of themselves, produce a push towards reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, if they reduce the amount of extra capacity required and cut energy prices through greater efficiency they might encourage increased usage and thus increased emissions.

The point is well taken, as is the argument that legislation is required to ensure that new technologies actually lead to climate change mitigation. Without government-created incentives like carbon pricing, we cannot assume that technological advancement and voluntary action will lead to reduced emissions.

Fill the Hill – October 24th

Various environmental groups are supporting a major event on Parliament Hill next Saturday, October 24th. The event begins at noon, with a big photo stunt happening at 2:00pm. 3,559 such events are scheduled around the world, in 161 different countries. Groups involved in this non-partisan event include Oxfam Canada, the Canadian Federation of Students, 350.org, and KYOTOplus.

With the Copenhagen climate change negotiations less than 70 days away, this is a good opportunity to demonstrate that you are concerned about the issue, and hope that Canadian politicians will do more to address it. So far, Canada’s record is very poor. Our emissions are way above where we pledged to be through the Kyoto Protocol. Furthermore, while we do have climate targets for 2020 and 2050, we do not yet have a viable plan for meeting them. Changing that will require showing Canadian politicians that citizens aren’t satisfied with the meagre efforts put forward so far.

Beyond attending the event itself, if anyone wants to help with postering and general awareness raising, they can contact me and I will put them in touch with some of the organizers.

[Update: 18 October 2009] A postcard for the event is available.

[Update: 19 October 2009] Here are some posters in English and French.

[Update: 26 September 2009] I have put my photos and videos from the event online.

Supporters of 350, understand what you are proposing

The 350 movement is a group concerned about climate change that has adopted an upper limit of 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere as their target. The target is a good and extremely ambitious one, and the group is doing well in the media. That said, I worry that some of the 350 proponents don’t understand what they are arguing for.

The carbon cycle

To understand climate change, you need to understand the carbon cycle. In a normal situation, this refers to carbon in sugars being released as CO2 when animals, bacteria, and fungi metabolize them. This adds CO2 to the atmosphere. In turn, green plants use sunlight to make sugars out of CO2, releasing oxygen. These processes happen in a balanced way, with more CO2 emission in the winter (when plants are inactive) and more CO2 absorption in the summer.

Alongside the biological processes are geological ones. Two are key. Volcanoes emit greenhouse gases, and the erosion of certain kinds of rock locks up CO2 underground. The latter process happens very slowly. It is very important to understand that this is the only long-term phenomenon that keeps on drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere. The oceans will suck it up when CO2 accumulates in the air, but only until the seas become more acidic and come into balance. CO2 likewise accumulates in the biomass of living things, but there can only be so many forests and so much plankton on Earth.

When we burn fossil fuels, we add to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Before the Industrial Revolution, it was around 280 ppm. Now, it is about 383 ppm and rising by 2 ppm per year.

What 350 means

It isn’t impossible to get back to 350 ppm. This is because the oceans haven’t caught up with the atmosphere yet. If we suddenly stopped burning coal, oil, and gas the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere would start to fall as more of it went into the sea. That being said, if we keep burning these fuels in the way we are now, getting back to 350 ppm will become impossible.

When you argue to cap the atmospheric concentration at 350, you are arguing to cut the net human emissions of the entire planet to zero – and to do so before we cross the point where the oceans can’t draw us back under the number. The same is true if you argue for stabilizing at a higher level, such as 450 ppm or 550 ppm; those scenarios just give us more time to keep emitting before we reach zero net emissions. When you support 350 ppm, you are committing to keeping the great majority of the carbon bound up in remaining fossil fuels underground and unused by human beings. ‘Net’ human emissions means everything that goes up into the air from burning fossil fuels, minus the trickle of CO2 into rocks (as described above) and possibly minus whatever CO2 we can suck out of the air and bury (a costly and energy-intensive procedure).

Cutting net human emissions to zero is a laudable aim. Indeed, it is the only way concentrations (and global temperatures) can ever be kept stable in perpetuity. I just hope that more 350 supporters will come to understand and accept that, and realize that achieving that ambition requires massive societal change, not just marches and savvy media campaigns.

P.S. If all that isn’t enough of a challenge, remember that there are also positive feedback effects within the climate system where, once we kick off a bit of warming, CO2 concentrations rise on their own in response. These feedbacks include melting permafrost and burning rainforests. Keeping below 350 ppm requires cutting net human emissions to zero before these positive feedbacks commit us to crossing the threshold.

Why Bury Coal? explains this in more detail.