climate change activist and science communicator; photographer; mapmaker — advocate for a stable global climate, reduced nuclear weapon risks, and safe human-AI interaction
As reported on Tristan’s blog, my friend Mike is in the process of traveling from Vancouver to Portland, by public transit alone. Apparently, this is possible because the transit systems of successive places overlap.
You can follow the journey via Twitter, or through the blog they have been updating several times a day: The I-5 Chronicles
Responding to a Nature article mentioned here before, George Monbiot has raised the issue of limiting fossil fuel extraction as a way to gauge the seriousness of governments in fighting climate change. It’s an idea with some virtues, both on climate change and energy security grounds.
Targeting emissions means keeping track of a mind-boggling array of activities: from cement manufacture to vehicle use to landfill gasses. By contrast, targeting fossil fuels would mean dealing with a modest number of firms. Instead of applying a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system to emissions, the alternative would be to use those instruments for fossil fuel imports and production. Doing so would require only that the output from gas fields, oil fields, and coal mines be recorded, along with imports of fuels. In the tax scenario, each fuel would require payments proportional to the greenhouse gasses it will produce when burned. In a cap-and-trade scheme, a set amount of carbon would be permitted to be extracted from the ground or imported, with firms competing for the permits in auctions. This would have the same prioritization effect as a carbon tax on emissions: firms that absolutely needed particular fuels would be willing to bid for permits, while those with alternatives would start to employ them.
Ideally, the scheme would also incorporate land-use change. Those wanting to convert land rich in biomass into something else would need to pay a tax or buy credits equivalent to the gasses being released. Conversely, firms planting forests on land previously poor in biomass could be given grants (under a tax scheme) or permits (under a cap-and-trade scheme).
It might also make political sense to differentiate between imports and domestic production, with the former getting stricter treatment. That would somewhat lessen the opposition of domestic industry, while also accelerating the movement of the state imposing the policy towards energy independence. It would probably be less economically and environmentally effective, but it might be a mechanism for gaining domestic support, while still making it clear that the overall objective is to reduce fossil fuel use to zero. Such a policy could also be justified with reference to higher volatility in fossil fuel prices and availability from abroad, as well as the implicit subsidies to users of imported fossil fuels in the form of military aid and military operations in oil-producing regions. Of course, there is a good chance that it would violate the equal treatment provisions in agreements like NAFTA and the enabling legislation for the WTO.
In the event that carbon capture and storage proves to be a safe, economically viable, and effective technology, it could easily be incorporated into such a system. You would simply make payments or grant permits to firms doing the storing, contingent on them providing whatever maintenance the sites require.
By creating incentives for an unending push towards the non-use of fossil fuels, such policies would make it clear that our ultimate objective must be complete global carbon neutrality. Nothing else is compatible with long-term climatic stability.
[Update: 8 March 2010]. BuryCoal.com is a site dedicated to making the case for leaving coal, along with unconventional oil and gas, underground.
Writing in The Globe and Mail Thomas Homer-Dixon and Julio Friedman put forward a misleading argument about coal. Specifically, they argue that converting it to gas below ground makes it more acceptable as a fuel source, because underground coal gassification “uses an inaccessible, dirty resource for largely clean energy.” This is only remotely true when the technology is used with (as yet non-existent) carbon capture and storage technology. Until such technologies are proven to be safe, economical, and effective, it is not acceptable to contemplate the further use of coal as an energy source.
Simply put, the carbon trapped in coal absolutely must be kept in the ground, if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. Trumpeting any coal-based technology that will add greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is simply irresponsible, especially in a developed country like Canada that already has a shockingly high level of emissions.
One key tenet of ecological economics is that we need to move from a political and economic system focused on the growth of production (GDP) to one focused on constant biophysical throughput. The latter concept is basically an amalgamation of everything humanity takes from the physical world and all the wastes that are returned to it. On the first side of the ledger are withdrawals like ore and hydrocarbons; on the other are wastes including greenhouse gasses and other forms of pollution. While it could not be expressed in the form of a single number, it is fairly easy to imagine a suite of key physical and energy flows through which the aggregate size of human throughput could be summarized.
The basic idea has appeal for several reasons. Most obviously, it addresses the concerns that exist about how much impact humanity can have on the world without causing key biological and physical systems to fail. It also partially addresses the question of how to ensure that human lives become sustainable without becoming unnecessarily unpleasant. It’s the human throughput that actually weighs on the world, not GDP. Even in a situation where the throughput was constant, welfare per person could still increase in many ways: things could become more technologically advanced, better designed, more elegant, etc. They could also be improved significantly by more effectively eliminating situations of needless suffering, as with the treatable diseases that continue to take a terrible toll in the developing world. Of course, per-capita improvements could also be achieved with constant throughput and a falling population.
One objection to the idea is that, when it comes to renewable power, we are nowhere near the physical limits of what is possible. The total quantity of solar, wind, and tidal energy available is momentous, and it doesn’t seem sensible to focus on the total size of human withdrawals from those flows. As such, perhaps the steady-state approach is better suited to non-energy resources, while on the topic of energy, the drive must be from unsustainable forms (oil, gas, coal) to semi-sustainable forms (nuclear fission, etc) and eventually to fully sustainable options like concentrating solar thermal, hydroelectric, and geothermal.
In the end, the prescription for humanity seems to resemble a cheesy grocery store magazine diet: avoid carbon-intensive fuels, manage resource use and waste flows, and feel free to use all the renewable energy and carbon- and resource-neutral technological advancement as you can manage.
For a while, I have been thinking about buying a Kill-a-Watt electrical meter, in order to test how much is used by various household appliances and electronics. The problem is, it doesn’t make hugely much sense to spend $30 to $50 on a device that you only really need to use once. As such, I was happy to discover that the Ottawa Public Library system actually has 142 of them available to be borrowed for free. There seem to be at least a few at every branch.
I plan to pick one up sometime this week and test the power usage of my computer, stereo, microwave, etc. I don’t think it will work with my washer or dryer, unfortunately.
[Update: 6 May 2009] I picked up a library Kill-a-Watt tonight, one week loan, no fuss, no deposit. I will post data when I have collected it.
In preparation for the upcoming UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen, various parties to the agreement have made submissions, outlining their perspectives on the negotiations. The position of the United States (PDF) is now available.
I don’t personally have time to keep track of the details of all the various proposals. Furthermore, the alliances formed between negotiating parties may prove to be the most important element in determining the outcome of the meeting. Nonetheless, I thought it would be of interest.
When Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd came to power, it was hailed as a victory against climate change, given the inaction of his predecessor and the contents of the Rudd platform. Disappointingly, a key element of that has how been put on hold for a year, supposedly because of the ongoing economic crisis. Australia’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) will now launch in 2011, rather than July 2010, as originally planned.
Personally, I think it is foolish to delay carbon pricing on account of the credit crunch. We want to be rebuilding national economies in a manner complimentary to climatic stability. Also, the less time we give ourselves to increase carbon prices to the necessary levels, the more painful the eventual adjustment will be. Given that prices were to be set at $7 per tonne for the first year, the policy would not have been an excessive burden on industry, even if the funds weren’t recycled back via tax cuts elsewhere or investments in low-carbon infrastructure. A moderate carbon price now thus serves the dual purpose of alignment economic redevelopment more with environmental goals, while stretching out the total timeline across which adjustments will be made.
Like Canada, Australia has some of the highest per-capita emissions in the world. That means they bear special historical responsibility for the climate change problem. It also means they should have more opportunities for low-cost reductions in emissions. Both ethical and economic logic suggest that this delay is a mistake.
Speaking with people involved in the Ontario school system, I was surprised to learn that they do not have provincial exams for courses in the last years of high school. To me, this seems like a mistake. Provincial exams provide vital information to university application departments: specifically, they let you gauge how much grade inflation is happening at any particular school. A school where the mean class mark is 90%, but where the mean provincial mark is 60%, is clearly inflating grades. Conversely, a school where the mean class grade is 60% but where students get 90% on the provincial exam clearly has high standards.
Given that individual schools and teachers have a strong incentive to inflate the grades of their students, provincial (or federal) exams seem to be a key mechanism for keeping them honest. Otherwise, there is simply far too much opportunity to call mediocrity excellence, without anyone else being the wiser.
I very much hope B.C. retains the provincial exam system, and that it becomes universal across Canada.
Helping with Furniture is a group of Ottawa volunteers who collect gently used furniture that is unwanted and deliver it to refugees living in the Ottawa area. They provide a pick up service every Wednesday night, funded entirely out of the pockets of the people running the program.
Those who have unwanted or unneeded items in their basements or garages should consider making some donations using the form on their website.
I found out about this via Green Living Ottawa.
[Update: 19 July 2009] Let me stress one thing: posting a comment on this post will not lead to your furniture being picked up. I have no affiliation with Helping with Furniture. If you want them to collect something from you, phone them directly at 613-745-1348.
Some interesting evidence has emerged about the artificial ‘debate’ that has been created about the reality of human-induced climate change. Documents filed in a federal lawsuit reveal that the scientists working for the Global Climate Coalition – a fossil fuel industry front group that sought to prevent action on climate change – were themselves convinced of the reality of the problem. Back in 1995, they advised in an internal paper that: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”
This contrasts sharply with what the group said in public, and what they probably said to politicians while lobbying. It helps to demonstrate that the tactic here isn’t appropriate scientific skepticism, but simply a rearguard action to delay climate change mitigation policies. They have certainly succeeded in confusing some politicians with an ideological bent that predisposes them to rejecting climate policies. For instance, Republican Representative for Minesota Michele Bachmann has publicly expressed an absurd position on the science of climate change, while also calling for those who are opposed to climate legislation to be “armed and dangerous” and ready to “fight back hard” against legislation like the Waxman-Markey bill.