This has not been a good news year for the world’s oceans. Scientists found an increase in the number of dead zones, documented acidification along the Pacific coast of North America, produced a startling map of the human impact on the global oceans, warned about the decline of Caribbean coral reefs, and detected an increase in the unproductive mid-ocean "deserts". The UNEP Rapid Response Report on the status of the world's fisheries, released in February, had the ominous title "In Dead Water".
For a change, here is a story about the recovery of a marine ecosystem from the most extreme of disturbances. A team of scientists conducted a survey of the coral communities of infamous Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The results were published earlier this year in a fascinating paper by Richards et al. in the journal Marine Pollution Bulletin that I finally had the chance to read.
Between 1946 and 1958, the U.S. government conducted 23 nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll. You can easily see some of the impact craters using Google Earth the photo at right is a 23 kton test in 1946). The Bikinians were forcibly removed, a story that cannot be told enough.
The Bikinians today live on Majuro Atoll, the capital of now independent Marshall islands. I took this photo of the displaced Bikini Town Hall during a short stay in Majuro a few years back. (It's a a long story; if your only way home involves the only plane of Air Nauru, a bankrupt airline from a rapidly depopulating island nation, you do what the ticket says).
The experience of the Bikinians – or the people of Rongelap, or the Banabans forced to buy an island in Fiji, or the i-Kiribati moved to the Phoenix Islands and back – is a lesson to all those who think it would be “easy” to move communities from islands threatened by climate change. Forced resettlements, whether due to colonial management, World War II, or environmental degradation, have been in many cases disastrous for those leaving their home, those already living in the new home, and the more powerful actors “orchestrating” the migration. But that's an issue for another day. Back to the corals.
A taxonomic study before the nuclear tests found 172 species of hard corals. Richards et al. equated this to 126 species according modern coral taxonomy. The nuclear tests, no surprise, devastated the coral communities. From Richards et al.:
Post-test descriptions of environmental impacts include: surface seawater temperatures raised by 55,000 C after air-borne tests; blast waves with speeds of up to 8 m/s; and shock and surface waves up to 30 m high with blast columns reaching the floor of the lagoon... Coral fragments were reported to have landed on the decks of the target fleet deployed within the lagoon... The most publicized of the Bikini tests, ‘Bravo’... destroyed three islands causing millions of tonnes of sand, coral, plant and sea life from Bikini’s reef to become airborne. The sediment regime in Bikini was fundamentally altered by the nuclear events because millions of tonnes of sediment were pulverized, suspended, transported and then deposited throughout the lagoon by wind-driven lagoonal current patterns.
Five decades later, Richards et al. found 183 species of hard corals living around Bikini (note: the increase from the pre-tests results is likely due to more thorough surveys and better taxonomic knowledge). It is a remarkable recovery considering the complete devastation caused by the nuclear tests. The study concluded that 28 species were lost. Most of those were calm (lagoon) water specialists, whose habitat was most severely and permanently disturbed by the nuclear tests.
The authors find a tragic irony in this tale of recovery:
If the disturbance event were to be repeated in the modern day, recovery would not be expected to be as high, due to the combination of additional stressors associated with climate change (Anthony et al., 2007; Lesser, 2007) and a possibly much altered atoll environment due to an additional 50 years of human occupation. Thus, in a twist of fate, the radioactive contamination of northern Marshall Island Atolls has enabled the recovery of the reefs of Bikini Atoll to take place in the absence of further anthropogenic pressure. Today Bikini Atoll provides a diverse coral reef community and a convincing example of partial resilience of coral biodiversity to non-chronic disturbance events.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Corals return to Bikini
Monday, June 09, 2008
Where can we find that $45 trillion?
The International Energy Agency released a report that examines what it will take to reduce GHG emissions by 50% by the year 2050. The message of the media coverage: It'll cost US$45 trillion.
The economists and energy experts can debate the details of their projections. See Romm and Pielke for early reactions (which I don't necessarily endorse). Here, I'll only quote the key passage from the executive summary that led to the "45 trillion" headlines. The bold is mine:
"Additional investment needs in the BLUE Map scenario are USD 45 trillion over the period up to 2050. They cover additional R&D, larger deployment investment in technologies not yet market-competitive (even with CO2 reduction incentives), and commercial investment in low-carbon options (stimulated by CO2 reduction incentives). The total is about USD 1.1 trillion per year. This is roughly equivalent to the current GDP of Italy. It represents an averageof some 1.1% of global GDP each year from now until 2050. This expenditure reflects a re-direction of economic activity and employment, and not necessarily a reduction of GDP. While there will be impacts on global GDP, these are hard to predict and beyond the scope of this analysis."
The last bit seems important, no?
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The personal cost of the gas price increase
Yesterday's decision by GM to cut SUV and truck production will costs thousands of people their jobs.
Let's not for a moment pretend that shifting to a more energy efficient transportation system in North America will benefit every North American, especially in the short-term. Imagine though, for a moment, that this shift had been happening as a result of a proactive government policy to price carbon or increase efficiency standards. The automakers could be working with the government to transition plants for manufacturing newer efficient vehicles and to retrain workers, rather than closing plants and laying off workers.
A price on carbon. Yes we can?
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
More fallout from high gas prices
With all the focus on the US Senate debate Lieberman-Warner climate bill climate legislation (which awaits a presidential veto) and the pledge by the "central" Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec pledge to co-operate on cap-and trade, you might miss this news piece.
From the NY Times:
Responding to a consumer shift to more fuel-efficient vehicles, General Motors said Tuesday that it would stop making pickup trucks and big S.U.V.s at four North American assembly plants and would consider selling its Hummer brand.
Are we continuing to move along the elastic part of the gas tax equation?
(And, on a separate note, are we maybe being a wee bit loose with the definition of "central"? What map is Jean Charest using?)
Friday, May 30, 2008
A blip in the temperature record
An article in Nature concludes that a previously unexplained dip in global sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the 1945 is actually due to a change in the way measurements were taken at the end of WWII. You can see the dip in the IPCC's temperature plots - look at the global ocean's observed line.
Until we developed global satellite coverage in the 1980s, SST was measured by ships and the methods - buckets brought on deck, buckets dropped in the ocean, etc. - changed over time. The people who put together the global SST datasets expend a ton of effort analysing and accounting for the measurement bias caused by the different methods. As RealClimate explains, this discovery did not come out of the blue, to use some ocean lingo. It is builds upon the ongoing analysis of bias in different measurement methods.
The article and the accompanying News and Views summary in Nature explains the likely implications for the global temperature record. The 0.3 C blip due to the 1945 switch in methodology likely means the immediate post-war SSTs were underestimated. In that case, it would reduce or eliminate the "observed" cooling in the late 40s and the 50s, a period that has flummoxed climate modelers, not alter the entire post-war temperature record. As the News and Views opens: "An unseen measurement bias has been identified in global records of sea surface temperature. The discrepancy will need correction, but will not affect conclusions about an overall warming trend."
Nonetheless, some have jumped on the paper as possible evidence of a problem with the basic conclusions of the IPCC. It is not. Once again, what we have is a case of impatience, of not looking (or reading the whole paper), before leaping.
The time to discuss a carbon tax
It is “Bike to Work week" here in Vancouver. The timing, you might argue, is perfect, and not only because the infamous Pacific Northwest rains have petered out for the summer. Evidence is mounting that we are approaching the elastic part of the gas price equation.
The increase in gas and oil prices – and especially the threat of a continued increase – is beginning to impact North American driving habits.
These are the sort of behavioural shifts that may be encouraged by a tax on the carbon content of fuels. That does not mean that anyone should celebrate the current rise in gas prices. The problem right now is that the proceeds from the gas price increase is going almost entirely to the oil companies (see Salon's Andrew Leonard for a terrific breakdown of the cost of gasoline). This is essentially subsidizing exploration in regions previously deemed unprofitable, in effect opposing the very initiatives necessary to reduce our reliance on oil. If, on the other hand, gas prices had increased because of taxation, the proceeds could go towards public transit, increasing fleet fuel efficiency and alternative fuel development, initiatives that could reduce our reliance on oil and relieve the burden on the public.
Adding a tax based on carbon content of fuels, even a revenue neutral one like that suggested by Canada's Liberal Party, is politically challenging at a time when oil prices are already high. But if we do not add a tax, then the oil companies remain the sole beneficiaries. That's just one reason the time is right to seriously consider a federal tax on carbon as the key part of a carbon pricing policy.
The Liberals floated a trial balloon, presumably to test public opinion and the response of the other parties. The discussion since then has been dominated by politics. There are serious arguments one could make against a carbon tax: you will not find them in the blatantly manipulative Conservative response or, for that matter, the surprisingly negative NDP response. The signs suggest the public is ready to accept a carbon pricing policy. Is it naive to hope the choice - a tax, a cap-and-trade system, or a combination of the two - is based on the policy itself, not the politics?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
King Corn and the food crisis
Last weekend, I was asked to answer a few questions after a local screening the film "King Corn", an offbeat documentary by a couple young college grads who decided to move to Iowa and try growing the crop that fuels us all. The audience questions centered around the usual public fears about food. Is all corn GMO? What animals can eat corn? What else are they fed? Where can I learn more? And, my favourite, is the "glucose-frutcose" listed on my bottle of Arizona Iced Tea made from corn?
I'm not an expert on all those subjects - and I admitted as much at the screening. I can say that the answer to that last one - yes - got me thinking more about the uses of our crops and the causes of the world food crisis.
Frankly, any ingredient that you do not recognize on the label of a processed food or beverage is probably made from corn. Xathan gum? A fermented sugar made from corn. Lecithin? Made from corn. Vanilla extract? Vanilla and corn syrup. Malt extract? Often made from corn, not barley. Dextrin? As Michael Pollan would say, corn, corn, corn.
Corn is so ubiquitous in our food today, that it is natural to assume that food is the reason we grow so much corn. But all those food additives and sugars made from corn, including the bane of nutritionists and foodies, high-fructose corn syrup (I highly recommend the scene in King Corn where the protagonists try to make some in their kitchen), still only make up a small fraction of the corn crop. The US don't produce corn to make high-fructose corn syrup, it produces high-fructose corn syrup because it has developed an agricultural system that profits on producing large volumes of corn anyway. The majority of that corn, until very recently, was bring to animals, largely beef cattle.
The graph to the left shows the end use of US corn over the past six years (all data that follows is from the Foreign Agriculture Service and the Economic Research Service of the USDA). The big pink block in the middle is domestic feed use (~60%, down to 47% last year). The top category is exports, most of which is also used as feed (19%). The dreaded high-fructose corn syrup has been around 7% (5% last year) of the corn crop, glucose / dextrose around 2-3%, beverage alcohol (yep, there's corn in that Bud Light) around 1-2%. Cereals and other foods? 2%.
The one area of growth (in blue) is fuel alcohol, or ethanol. Last year, 24% of all US corn production (29% of non-export corn) was used for ethanol. The percent breakdown of corn use changed the last few years as a result of the ethanol surge. But the other uses of corn, in terms of raw numbers did not. Exports and feed use were relatively flat (an assumption made in our paper on the subject). The US simply grew more corn to produce ethanol. As many have been arguing, that is why US production of corn-based ethanol has not played a role in the global food crisis. No harm, no foul, right?
Tempting, but there are two holes in that argument.
First, the extra corn for ethanol has to be planted on productive croplands, lands with the right soils, and most of that land is being used. In 2007, soybean planting - the other major feed crop grown in the midwest US - went down 16% in the US to make space for more corn. Soybean exports and use remained the same, but the ending stocks were down 72%. In other words, we've been cleaning out the cupboards.
Soy planting is back up to 2006 levels this year, as prices rose and farmer rotate those fields full of corn back to soy, as is common practice. If the US to keep up ethanol production, soy planting will probably drop again the following year, or corn exports will go down. In other words, if corn ethanol production is to continue or increase, the US is most likely going to have to i) export less corn, ii) export less soybean, or iii) produce less domestic feed.
Complicated business - and potentially very profitable business. If you are a speculative investor with a fast computer, there's a lot of money to be made betting on crop production. The world relies on a very small number of staple crops for food and feed: corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and other regional crops like cassava. The planted area, production and price of one can affects the others. The ethanol surge in the US paved the way for more speculative investment in commodities, which has helped drive up prices.
Second, the US is the world's largest producer of corn and soybeans. The demand for both has been rising for years because of rising meat consumption in Asia.
. The US produced 43% of world’s corn in 2007/2008 (right). The US is also responsible for two-thirds of all the global corn exports. If you need to buy some corn, there are few other places to shop. Last year, the amount of corn used for ethanol in the US in 2007/2008 is greater than the domestic corn production of every other country in the world, save China. That's taking a lot of potential grain off the market. Now, yes, exports remained steady last year. But to meet the growing demand - feed consumption in China alone is rising a few percent a year - exports should be growing. The signs point to, at best, exports remaining constant, or at worst, exports decreasing.
There are a lot of causes of the current food price crisis - I recommend the FAO's website for information. Many have called it a perfect storm of oil prices, ethanol production, rising meat consumption, drought, price speculation, rising population. The corn-based ethanol surge in the US is not the sole cause, by any means, but it has played a role.
The global food system may have been a dam that was ready to break. The growing population and growing demand for animal feed had filled the reservoir up to capacity. The US ethanol policy helped crack some holes in the concrete.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Shifting diets vs. eating local
I finally had the chance to read this terrific paper by Christopher Weber and Scott Matthews of Carnegie Mellon that compares greenhouse gas emissions from the production different types of food and the delivery of that food to your plate. As was reported by some news agencies and blogs, Weber and Matthews conclude that transportation represents only 11% - on average, it depends on the food – of the total life-cycle GHG emissions of U.S. food (there’s little reason to expect a dramatically different result in Canada).
The take home message is shifting your diet will do far more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than buying local. From the paper:
The results of this analysis show that for the average American household, “buying local” could achieve, at maximum, around a 4-5% reduction in GHG emissions due to large sources of both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions in the production of food. Shifting less than 1 day per week’s (i.e., 1/7 of total calories) consumption of red meat and/or dairy to other protein sources or a vegetable-based diet could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers.
The authors did some simple calculations to demonstrate this point:
To put these figures into perspective, driving a 25 mi/gal (9.4 L/100 km) automobile 12 000 miles/yr (19 000 km/yr) produces around 4.4 t CO2/ yr. Expressed in this manner, a totally “localized” diet reduces GHG emissions per household equivalent to 1000 miles/yr
(1600 km/yr) driven, while shifting just one day per week’s calories from red meat and dairy to chicken/fish/eggs or a vegetable-based diet reduces GHG emissions equivalent to 760 miles/yr (1230 km/yr) or 1160 miles/yr (1860 km/yr), respectively. Shifting totally away from red meat and dairy toward chicken/fish/eggs or a vegetable-based diet reduces GHG emissions equivalent to 5340 mi/yr (8590 km/yr) or 8100 mi/yr (13 000 km/yr), respectively.
It is important to note that macro-scale GHG “accounting” studies always come with a number of caveats. The calculations or model requires a number of simplifying assumptions and often some more complicated factors are often excluded. The two central limitations to this particular study appear to be the simple treatment of direct GHG emissions from animal and crop production (i.e. N2O from manure, fertilizer and the animals themselves) and the exclusion of land use impacts and the “land use cascade” (i.e. carbon released from directly or indirectly transforming land for crop or animal production). Improving those components of their mode should increase the share of GHG emissions from food production and the relative GHG emissions from red meat production. In other words, that provides even more support for the conclusion that eating less beef is one of the best ways to reduce personal greenhouse gas emissions.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The globe is warming, except in the headlines
"Global cooling theories put scientists on guard"
Reuters publishes a more or less reasonable article about the controversy surrounding the Keenlyside et al decadal modelling paper. No problem with that.
But the headline? Abominable.
There is no reputable theory - or theories - that the planet has been cooling or will be cooling [update: see RealClimate's deconstruction of the IPCC model simulations]. Even the paper in question does not assert as much. The paper is about a possible leveling off of temperatures over the next decade due to internal or background climate variability. The paper confirms the widespread scientific consensus about global warming.
Headlines like this only continue this ongoing, ridiculous meme about that global warming has stopped, a meme based on confusion between weather and climate, impatience for news, and the misuse and abuse of statistics, rather than any serious evidence. The above figure from the UK Hadley Centre (thanks to Joe Romm for the reminder of this one) ranks global temperatures over the past 157 years. Your top ten, in order? 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997, 1995.
Will Canada vote for a carbon tax?
The news came this week, via one of those not-so-subtly leaked trial balloons, that Canada's Liberal Party may advocate a revenue-neutral carbon tax. It may seem like political suicide for embattled Liberal leader Stephane Dion to even casually mention a tax on fuels at a time when gas prices are soaring. The Canadian political pundits I've heard have used the example of the way northern BC communities and opposition parties responded to the BC government's upcoming carbon tax, a tax that will add only 2 to 7 cents per litre at the pump, less than the price of gas increased in the past week at the Esso station down the street from my house!
That's why we need fewer political pundits.
Is there a better time to redirect federal tax code to stress fuels, rather than income? The signals are all pointing in that direction. Cars are outselling trucks and SUVs for the first time in years. Goldman Sachs reported this week that oil could reach $150 to $200 a barrel. Public transit usage is on the rise. A carbon tax on transportation and heating fuels would only further nudge our economy towards higher energy efficiency and lower per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Most importantly, even if 100% revenue neutral the tax will allow the government the political room to direct revenues to programs to further invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy and new technologies.
As for the politics: evidence from the US primaries, where Hillary Clinton's obvious pandering over a gas tax holiday appears to have sunk what was left of her presidential campaign, that people do appreciate honest on the complex issues of today. Dion is in the strange position of being seen by Canadians as "weak, uninspiring and unintelligible" but still more likable than PM Stephen Harper. Voters across the spectrum might just respect Dion more for making seemingly risky and groundbreaking political move of pushing for a carbon tax.
But, hey, I'm no pundit.
Monday, May 05, 2008
More global cooling lunacy
I recently cautioned patience in the reporting of each month's climate data or every new study, as if they were proof or disproof of climate change. Sadly, we didn't have to wait long for an example of the problem. The media bungling and flagrant online abuse of a study on decadal climate prediction published in last week's Nature is a textbook case of pouncing on - and twisting - every new scrap of data related to climate change. This reporting and blogging train wreck is so textbook that I already plan to use it as a case study in my climate class next year (which limits what I can write here...)
The study by Keenlyside et al. tested whether a simplified climate model could make decadal (short-term by climate standards) forecasts. At issue is realistically simulating the many internal variations in the climate system - oscillations like the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (why people claim Atlantic hurricane activity 'naturally' varies over time) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation - that make some decades warmer or cooler than others. The authors developed a modeling approach that exhibited some 'skill', to use the meteorologists term, in hindcasting previous ten-year periods. All in all, it is a reasonable effort; I'll spare a detailed analysis of the limits of their methodology here (but see William Connolley for a critical reading).
At the end of the manuscript, it was used to forecast temperatures over the next ten years (figure). The model forecasts a leveling off in the global temperature rise over the next decade (green / black lines), due to these internal variations in the climate system, followed by a continuation of the temperature rise.
Nowhere does it say climate change is over. This is a paper about whether models can make decadal predictions. The results confirm what we know, that internal variability is superimposed on any long-term warming trend. The global warming projections you see often look smooth or monotonic because they are averages of many individual model simulations or "realizations" of the climate (averaging them together reduces the "noise" in the data). So the paper doesn't contradict the existing consensus on a long-term rise in temperatures.
Their model forecasts the possibility that temperatures will not increase in some decades like the next decade - which is NOT the same as saying that temperatures will decrease - but will increase more in other decades. Look at the figure: the next decade is WARMER than any of the previous decades. Nothing about the end of global warming. Yet the story that hit the press was "scientists predict global warming may stop" (Telegraph).
As with the Darfur lake fiasco last year, the authors of the press release may shoulder some of the blame. The opening "Global warming may take a short break" played up an angle sure to draw interest from the media. That does not absolve the authors of the global warming may stop silliness, both in the traditional media and that grand echo-chamber we call the blogosphere. It is not clear many of them read the press release, let alone the paper, (Pielke's flubbing the numbers seems proof of that) as the release very clearly states that the goal of the study was to look at decadal variability, and included this important quote from the authors:
"Just to make things clear: we are not stating that anthropogenic climate change won’t be as bad as previously thought”, explains Prof. Mojib Latif from IFM-GEOMAR. “What we are saying is that on top of the warming trend there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years”, adds Latif. “That is like driving from the coast to a mountainous area and crossing some hills and valleys before you reach the top”, explains Dr. Johann Jungclaus from the MPI for Meteorology. “In some years trends of both phenomena, the anthropogenic climate change and the natural decadal variation will add leading to a much stronger temperature rise."
The good news is that there are people like Andy Revkin of the NY Times (Dot Earth) out there, who tends to avoid the cheap stunt headlines and stories. Revkin's NY Times piece was like a pre-empitive strike against all the silliness to come.
[Update: For more, try this post from the prolific Joe Romm.]
Friday, May 02, 2008
China's CO2 emissions
USA Today reports that a trio of new studies all conclude that China has become the number one industrial emitter of CO2, ahead of the United States.
The article - and all the other news coverage I've seen - fails to mention the salient point that there are, at last count, 1.323 billion people in China and 304 million people in the US. Per capita, US CO2 emissions remain four times that of China.
Even with the new results, if you ranked countries by their per capita greenhouse gas emissions emissions, China would rank somewhere around 75th, close to the French Guiana and American Samoa. And a substantial fraction of China's emissions are generated while producing stuff for North Americans.
China's greenhouse gas emissions are a serious matter for the climate and for international climate policy. But can we stop pretending that the average person in China is living like the average North American?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Friedman - Dumb as we wanna be
NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman has a great op-ed on the farce that is US energy policy (I get the sense a book is coming). In addition to timely remarks on subsidies for wind and solar, he calls Clinton's and McCain's promise to cut the federal gas tax for the summer what it really is: political pandering. This election in particular has fallen prey to the opportunistic notion that scoring a favourable headline in the morning paper on the issue of the day is more important than presenting an integrated vision for the country. The result is fragmented political platforms in which environmental issues are the big losers. The high price of gasoline provides a perfect opportunity to promote the need for higher automotive fuel efficiency, more funding for public transit, and reduced smog in our cities. These are issues of interest to all Canadians; dealing with them would help reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the debate focuses entirely on which party can deliver lower gas prices.
Sadly, the phenomena is neither new nor unique to the US. This is what I wrote in a Globe and Mail op-ed about the 2004 federal election in Canada:
The disappearance of prominent environmental issues at election time is hardly a new phenomenon. In the battle for votes, everyone longs to appear green, but will not advocate any policy that might be perceived, correctly or not, as damaging to the voter's wallet.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
The pine beetle and carbon cycle feedbacks
An important study from in last week’s Nature concluded that the mountain pine beetle infestation that have devastated the forest industry out here has also converted western Canadian forest from a carbon sink to a carbon source. In the simplest possible terms, the beetles kill the trees, decreasing carbon uptake (photosynthesis) and increase carbon loss (decomposition). This is not a new suggestion. The Kurtz et al. paper is, however, the most complete accounting to date.
A lot of people are labelling this a ‘positive feedback’ from climate change (e.g. like how warming melts sea ice, which reduces reflection of solar radiation, which accelerates the warming). The logic is that warmer weather promotes the beetle outbreak, which releases carbon from the forest, which further warms the climate.
The assertion appears correct. But be wary of the hyperbole. Not all positive feedbacks are made equal. There are only so many pines, the beetles can only do so much damage. At some point, they run out of trees to eat, and the infestation recedes. As the authors of the Nature study have said, the betters have almost eaten themselves out of house and home. And re-forestation initiatives could return the forests to being a carbon sink.
The type of positive feedback that should be included in carbon cycle assessments? Yes. Runaway positive feedback that will send the atmosphere to 1500 ppm? Probably not.
There is a sadly ironic policy twist to the beetle infestation. For one, the forests now might pump out more carbon than the entire BC economy, throwing a wrench into regional GHG reduction agreements. The Canadian government lobbied hard to include forest carbon sinks under the Kyoto process, under the expectation that our boreal forest would provide a big carbon credit and reduce the need to address emissions themselves. Safe to say, that stance has softened in recent years.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Patience, my friends
It has been an unseasonably cool spring here in British Columbia. Frosts in the Okanagan Valley have damaged the fruit crops. Skiers are fuming that the ski areas are sticking to previously scheduled closing dates, despite ample snow depths.
On Saturday morning, I awoke to the sight of snow. The flurries caused much consternation in coastal city. Never mind that the snow was only a dusting, even by the the standard of this mutant, ever-green corner of Canada.
So, naturally, the questions came: "What happened to global warming?"
By now, with daily coverage of climate change, pretty much everyone understands, that climate is the long-term average of the weather. Most of understand, on principle, that one warm day, and one cold day, does not a trend make, or break. Yet, whenever the mercury dips, for a day, a week or a month, doubts about climate change resurface in paper, on the web and in casual conversation.
The tendency among scientists and the environmental community is to blame the climate ‘skeptics’. And they are playing a part. Just look at the ridiculous op-eds about ice ages and global cooling. The only redeeming value of the recent global cooling meme is that it provided a timely case study for my Global Climate System class on how climate science gets twisted in the press (balance quotes from scientists with quotes from skeptics, giving the impression of a debate; flaunt impressive sounding professional affiliations; exploit minor uncertainties in the science to cast doubt on the general, long-proven conclusions).
We can’t just blame the skeptics. In a few short years, our information culture has shifted from the morning paper and the nightly news to a 24 hour online and cable news and entertainment circus. Our impatience for information has elevated small fluctuations in the weather or the stock market or the polls to the level of breaking news.
The US presidential campaign is exhibit A in this circus. There has been plenty of air time and blog space to fill during those long gaps between the Democratic primaries. With no important events to discuss, the media and the followers of the election dissect every word in every speech given by the candidates and their surrogates like forensic scientists. The candidate’s use of a single word at a single event gets elevated to a scandal along the lines of Watergate. The candidates themselves are forced to respond to the faux scandals and upticks in daily tracking polls rather than the core issues.
This exact same phenomenon plagues the coverage of climate change. We're now analyzing the release of each month's global temperature data as if one month could provide some statistically meaningful insight on the long-term picture. These monthly episodes of CSI: Climate only lead to a sequence of confusing headlines and misguided op-eds. Remember February’s “Coldest winter since 2001” episode? It was followed by “Second warmest March in history”. Stay tuned for April.
Do we all need to stop and breathe a little bit? Reporting and blogging the breaking climate news - whether last month's climate data or the results of a new scientific study - without providing context distracts us from the massive body of scientific evidence supporting climate change and the observed long-term warming trend (and seven years is not long-term!). It also sets unrealistic expectations that every month will set a temperature record, that every new study will conclude climate change is more dangerous than the last study did.
Just like the US Presidential campaign, we risk being led into arguments about minutia rather than a much-needed conversation about the great challenges that lie ahead.
There is an undeniable warming signal. The climate is warming and it will continue to warm long into the future unless we drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no reputable counter argument.
There is, however, also undeniable climate noise, variability in climate from year to year that has existed for time immemorial. The noise matters to our lives. It is what we experience day to day, month to month. We need to pay attention to the noise. But you don’t listen for the noise when twisting a dial in search of a radio station. You listen for the signal.
If only we could use our impatience in talking about climate change, and apply it to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Signs your climate policy is weak
Chinese participant Su Wei [at Paris meeting on climate change] said it was good news that Bush was talking about emissions at all. But he added, "to take measures to slow down the increase in emissions is not enough." CNN
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
US President Bush speaks about climate change
There is a lot to parse in today's speech, including more of this false dichotomy between emissions policy and technology policy (try the Ecogeek drinking game). I've included the full text after the bump. [Dot Earth has a breakdown of the speech]
US President's stated goal is to stop greenhouse gas emissions growth by 2025.
Let's put that the goal in perspective. If emissions continue to rise (from 2006 levels) at the rate since 1990 (0.88%/year), the U.S. 2025 emissions will be 8363 Mt CO2-eq or 36% above 1990 levels. If we assume a emissions grow at only half that rate, the 2025 emission will be 7691 Mt CO2-eq or 25% above 1990 levels. These are the blue lines in the graph.
The little green line? The US Kyoto target.
When US President Bush speaks about climate change - as he did at the APEC summit and the last G8 summit - the world is left arguing whether some action is better than no action at all. It is tempting to say the mere fact that the US President felt it necessary to deliver a speech on climate change and to announce new goals related to climate change could be seen as a step forward.
The problem here is that the step is so small as to be inconsequential, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Today's statement implies the US that by 2025 - almost 15 years later - the US will still be 35-46% off the old Kyoto target. Will think European countries will be happy? [That's a no] Does this sets a good precedent for China and India?
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Welcome. Thank you all for coming. I particularly want to thank members of my Cabinet for joining me here today in the Rose Garden.
Tomorrow represents — representatives of the world’s major economies will gather in Paris to discuss climate change. Here in Washington, the debate about climate change is intensifying. Today, I’ll share some views on this important issue to advance discussions both at home and abroad.
Climate change involves complicated science and generates vigorous debate. Many are concerned about the effect of climate change on our environment. Many are concerned about the effect of climate change policies on our economy. I share these concerns, and I believe they can be sensibly reconciled.
Over the past seven years, my administration has taken a rational, balanced approach to these serious challenges. We believe we need to protect our environment. We believe we need to strengthen our energy security. We believe we need to grow our economy. And we believe the only way to achieve these goals is through continued advances in technology. So we’ve pursued a series of policies aimed at encouraging the rise of innovative as well as more cost-effective clean energy technologies that can help America and developing nations reduce greenhouse gases, reduce our dependence on oil, and keep our economies vibrant and strong for decades to come.
I have put our nation on a path to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002, I announced our first step: to reduce America’s greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through 2012. I’m pleased to say that we remain on track to meet this goal even as our economy has grown 17 percent.
As we take these steps here at home, we’re also working internationally on a rational path to addressing global climate change. When I took office seven years ago, we faced a problem. A number of nations around the world were preparing to implement the flawed approach of Kyoto Protocol. In 1997, the United States Senate took a look at the Kyoto approach and passed a resolution opposing this approach by a 95 to nothing vote.
The Kyoto Protocol would have required the United States to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of this agreement, however, would have been to limit our economic growth and to shift American jobs to other countries — while allowing major developing nations to increase their emissions. Countries like China and India are experiencing rapid economic growth — and that’s good for their people and it’s good for the world. This also means that they are emitting increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases — which has consequences for the entire global climate.
So the United States has launched — and the G8 has embraced — a new process that brings together the countries responsible for most of the world’s emissions. We’re working toward a climate agreement that includes the meaningful participation of every major economy — and gives none a free ride.
In support of this process, and based on technology advances and strong new policy, it is now time for the U.S. to look beyond 2012 and to take the next step. We’ve shown that we can slow emissions growth. Today, I’m announcing a new national goal: to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.
To reach this goal, we will pursue an economy-wide strategy that builds on the solid foundation that we have in place. As part of this strategy, we worked with Congress to pass energy legislation that specifies a new fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and requires fuel producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. This should provide an incentive for shifting to a new generation of fuels like cellulosic ethanol that will reduce concerns about food prices and the environment.
We also mandated new objectives for the coming decade to increase the efficiency of lighting and appliances. We’re helping states achieve their goals for increasing renewable power and building code efficiency by sharing new technologies and providing tax incentives. We’re working to implement a new international agreement that will accelerate cuts in potent HCFC emissions. Taken together, these landmark actions will prevent billions of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere.
These objectives are backed by a combination of new market-based regulations, new government incentives, and new funding for technology research. We’ve provided billions of dollars for next generation nuclear energy technologies. Along with the private sector, we’ve invested billions more to research, develop and commercially deploy renewable fuels, hydrogen fuel cells, advanced batteries, and other technologies to enable a new generation of vehicles and more reliable renewable power systems.
In 2009 alone, the government and the private sector plan to dedicate nearly a billion dollars to clean coal research and development. Our incentives for power production from wind and solar energy have helped to more than quadruple its use. We have worked with Congress to make available more than $40 billion in loan guarantees to support investments that will avoid, reduce, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions or air pollutants. And our farmers can now compete for substantial new conservation incentives to restore land and forests in ways that help cut greenhouse gases.
We’re doing a lot to protect this environment. We’ve laid a solid foundation for further progress. But these measures — while these measures will bring us a long way to achieving our new goal, we’ve got to do more in the power generation sector. To reach our 2025 goal, we’ll need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so they peak within 10 to 15 years, and decline thereafter. By doing so, we’ll reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002.
There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies.
As we approach this challenge, we face a growing problem here at home. Some courts are taking laws written more than 30 years ago — to primarily address local and regional environmental effects — and applying them to global climate change. The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate. For example, under a Supreme Court decision last year, the Clean Air Act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. This would automatically trigger regulation under the Clean Air Act of greenhouse gases all across our economy — leading to what Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell last week called, “a glorious mess.”
If these laws are stretched beyond their original intent, they could override the programs Congress just adopted, and force the government to regulate more than just power plant emissions. They could also force the government to regulate smaller users and producers of energy — from schools and stores to hospitals and apartment buildings. This would make the federal government act like a local planning and zoning board, have crippling effects on our entire economy.
Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges. Such decisions should be opened — debated openly; such decisions should be made by the elected representatives of the people they affect. The American people deserve an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution.
This is the approach Congress properly took last year on mandatory policies that will reduce emissions from cars and trucks, and improve the efficiency of lighting and appliances. This year, Congress will soon be considering additional legislation that will affect global climate change. I believe that Congressional debate should be guided by certain core principles and a clear appreciation that there is a wrong way and a right way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy and on American families without accomplishing the important climate change goals we share.
The wrong way is to raise taxes, duplicate mandates, or demand sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy. The right way is to set realistic goals for reducing emissions consistent with advances in technology, while increasing our energy security and ensuring our economy can continue to prosper and grow.
The wrong way is to sharply increase gasoline prices, home heating bills for American families and the cost of energy for American businesses.
The right way is to adopt policies that spur investment in the new technologies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more cost-effectively in the longer term without placing unreasonable burdens on American consumers and workers in the short term.
The wrong way is to jeopardize our energy and economic security by abandoning nuclear power and our nation’s huge reserves of coal. The right way is to promote more emission-free nuclear power and encourage the investments necessary to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon into the air.
The wrong way is to unilaterally impose regulatory costs that put American businesses at a disadvantage with their competitors abroad — which would simply drive American jobs overseas and increase emissions there. The right way is to ensure that all major economies are bound to take action and to work cooperatively with our partners for a fair and effective international climate agreement.
The wrong way is to threaten punitive tariffs and protectionist barriers, start a carbon-based global trade war, and to stifle the diffusion of new technologies. The right way is to work to make advanced technology affordable and available in the developing world — by lowering trade barriers, creating a global free market for clean energy technologies, and enhancing international cooperation and technology investment.
We must all recognize that in the long run, new technologies are the key to addressing climate change. But in the short run, they can be more expensive. And that is why I believe part of any solution means reforming today’s complicated mix of incentives to make the commercialization and use of new, lower emission technologies more competitive. Today we have different incentives for different technologies — from nuclear power, to clean coal, to wind and solar energy. What we need to do is consolidate them into a single, expanded program with the following features.
First, the incentive should be carbon-weighted to make lower emission power sources less expensive relative to higher emissions sources — and it should take into account our nation’s energy security needs.
Second, the incentive should be technology-neutral because the government should not be picking winners and losers in this emerging market.
Third, the incentive should be long-lasting. It should provide a positive and reliable market signal not only for the investment in a technology, but also for the investments in domestic manufacturing capacity and infrastructure that will help lower costs and scale up availability.
Even with strong new incentives, many new technologies face regulatory and political barriers. To pave the way for a new generation of nuclear power plants, we must provide greater certainty on issues from licensing to responsible management of spent fuel. The promise of carbon capture and storage depends on new pipelines and liability rules. Large-scale renewable energy installations are most likely to be built in sparsely populated areas — which will require advanced, interstate transmission systems to deliver this power to major population centers. If we’re serious about confronting climate change, then we have to be serious about addressing these obstacles.
If we fully implement our new strong laws, adhere to the principles that I’ve outlined, and adopt appropriate incentives, we will put America on an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions. The growth in emissions will slow over the next decade, stop by 2025, and begin to reverse thereafter, so long as technology continues to advance.
Our new 2025 goal marks a major step forward in America’s efforts to address climate change. Yet even if we reduced our own emissions to zero tomorrow, we would not make a meaningful dent in solving the problem without concerted action by all major economies. So in connection with the major economies process we launched, we’re urging each country to develop its own national goals and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Like many other countries, America’s national plan will be a comprehensive blend of market incentives and regulations to reduce emissions by encouraging clean and efficient energy technologies. We’re willing to include this plan in a binding international agreement, so long as our fellow major economies are prepared to include their plans in such an agreement. We recognize that different nations will design different strategies, with goals and policies that reflect their unique energy resources and economic circumstances. But we can only make progress if their plans will make a real difference as well.
The next step in the major economies process is a meeting this week in Paris — and I want to thank my friend, President Sarkozy, for hosting it. There, representatives of all participating nations will lay the groundwork for a leaders’ meeting in conjunction with the G8 summit in July. Our objective is to come together on a common approach that will contribute to the negotiations under the U.N. Framework Convention of global climate once the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. This approach must be environmentally effective and economically sustainable.
To be effective, this approach will — this approach will require commitments by all major economies to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. To be economically sustainable, this approach must foster the economic growth necessary to pay for investments in new technology and to raise living standards. We must help countries in the developing world gain access to the technologies, as well as financing that will enable them to take a lower carbon path to economic growth.
And then there will be the major economies leader meeting in July — that’s the one I’ll be going to — where we will seek agreement on a long-term global goal for emissions reductions, as well as an agreement on how national plans will be part of the post-2012 approach. We’ll also seek to increase international cooperation among private firms and governments in key sectors such as power generation, auto manufacturing, renewable fuels, and aluminum and steel.
We will work toward the creation of an international clean technology fund that will help finance low-emissions energy projects in the developing world. We’ll call on all nations to help spark a global clean energy revolution by agreeing immediately to eliminate trade barriers on clean energy goods and services.
The strategy I have laid out today shows faith in the ingenuity and enterprise of the American people — and that’s a resource that will never run out. I’m confident that with sensible and balanced policies from Washington, American innovators and entrepreneurs will pioneer a new generation of technology that improves our environment, strengthens our economy, and continues to amaze the world.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Food prices and the use of corn
The rise in food prices is finally garnering serious attention from the media and from world governments. The latest NY Times piece has this precious quote from Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa:
“You make ethanol out of corn,” he said. “I bet if I set a bushel of corn in front of any of those delegates, not one of them would eat it.”
Never mind the fact that a bushel is more than 25 kg of corn, Sen. Grassley (in claiming that the diversion of corn for ethanol is not affecting food prices) rather accidentally describes the exact problem. We don't eat the corn. In the U.S., the majority of the subsidized crops corn and soybeans (~75% in our most recent look at the economic data) are used for animal feed. And it is the rise in demand for meat, together with biofuel demand, high oil prices and droughts overseas, that is driving up food prices.
The practice of shark finning
Last week, Andrew Sharpless wrote a Gristmill post about legislation before the US Congress that will tighten the restriction on selling shark fins. I was initially reluctant to comment, as the legislation is outside my area of expertise. But, as someone that has spent a lot of time in boats with indigenous fishermn in the tropics, I can say with confidence that we should support any effort to stop the practice of shark 'finning'. And not only for the obvious reason - the effect on shark populations and marine ecosystems - but because, from what I've seen, it can hurt the local fishing communities as well.
The one argument I've heard (in the Pacific, in Madagascar, and here at home) in defense of cutting off the fins and leaving the sharks to die is that the prized fins fetch a high price and provide the fisherman in impoverished areas with a solid source of income. My informal observations in the field - these are anecdotal comments, so should be read with caution - suggest there is little basis for that argument. Only the middlemen or the distributors seem to be getting rich off the practice.
The fishermen I've met who are encouraged to take shark fins end up fishing only for shark fins rather than engaging in their customary subsistence fishing or small income fishing practices. Catching sharks often means going farther, which costs more, and means being away from family for multiple days. They only see a fraction of the money fetched in the end by the seller of a fin, because the fishermen - we're talking about people in small villages in places like Madagascar - have no personal access to the market for shark fins (Asia) and have no leverage. There's not enough space in the boat, so even if the fishermen wanted to take the entire shark back for food, they can't. Add in the fact that the local shark populations are being depleted, and the destructive practice also turns out to be bad business for the local fishers.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The new Al Gore presentation
Gore delivered a "new" slideshow at the TED in March (thanks to James H for this). He finally addresses the gaping hole in the slideshow that anchored An Inconvenient Truth: namely, that we need to do more than change a few lightbulbs to slow climate change.
Here, in addition to expounding on recent ice data and emissions trajectories, he touches on the need for policies that place a price on carbon. Hallelujah. "Place a price on carbon" should be on the tip of every candidates tongue, north and south of the border.
Take a look:
Any thoughts on the new message? Or, to don my scientist hat again, his use of the ice data?
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
More on Earth Hour participation
The new poll reports that the majority of Canadians think Earth Hour should happen more often. One third of respondents said Earth Hour should be a monthly event, 10% said a weekly event, and 12% said the hour of darkness and quiet should be a daily event.
Almost half (46%) of the respondents participated in Earth Hour. The participation split partly along political lines: Green party (69%), Liberals (64%), NDP (58%), the Conservatives (53%) and the Bloc Quebecois votes coming in last (39%). Maybe that result also suggests where the Greens, rising in the poles, are getting those votes?
Growing ethanol on conservation lands
One of the assumptions in our recent paper on the impact of increasing corn ethanol production on the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone is that farmers could start to plant crops on land enrolled in a federal conservation program.
The latest data shows that may be happening. The area of U.S. croplands enrolled in the federal Conservation Reserve Program decreased from by 2.12 million acres since July of last year (using February data), a drop of 6%. The NY Times reports that the drop was caused by high commodity prices, driven in part by the ethanol boom.
Farmers sign a ten-year contract when entering land in the CRP. As it stands, that land cannot be returned to cultivation until the contract expires. It is worth remembering that, despite the headlines and echoing blog posts, the area of CRP lands had been increasing for the past ten year, reaching an all-time high last year. This recent drop does not negate those changes. So the real question is what happens to the 9.5 million acres of land for which the contracts expire in the next three years.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Do the IPCC scenarios underestimate future emissions?
A commentary in this week's Nature by Roger Pielke Jr. and colleagues about whether the future scenarios used by the IPCC underestimate future emissions has caused all sorts of fits, defenses and sighs. The journal itself went so far as to include rebuttals from climate and energy experts in the same issue.
One of the causes of the furor is Pielke's reputation. The lead author's previous writings stressing adaptation to climate change give some the impression he is either climate skeptic/denier or a Lomborg-esque "delayer" (and drive many other people crazy). This is the problem with applying broad labels, especially ones with, intentional or not, serious historical overtones.
Let's be fair: Pielke (and his colleagues) don't question the basic science behind climate change, rather whether we should spend more effort on mitigation or adaptation. Like many, I'm troubled by some of the pro-adaptation arguments, both because of the particular way the science is interpreted in those arguments, and in the way that they can create soft bigotry of low expectations (we can't reduce emissions, so we won't reduce emissions). But, it is not like Pielke et al. ever argue that cosmic rays are to blame or that CO2 was higher in the mid-1800s.
The basic premise of the commentary is that all of the future scenarios used by the IPCC presume there will be substantial technological advances in the future, and that without that assumption, emissions would actually be much higher. The authors calculate how much future emissions are "reduced" in the scenarios by the technology assumption by comparing with a case in which technology is effectively frozen over time. The result is some big numbers.
The argument comes down to rates of technology change, measured here by the emissions "efficiency" of energy production, and whether we just naturally become more efficient. Graphs of declining energy intensity (energy/GDP) or emissions intensity (emissions/GDP) over the past century show that we're now producing far more "stuff" per unit of energy and per unit of emissions. That happened naturally, without any emissions or climate policy.
Pielke and colleagues argue the energy intensity cannot continue to drop as such rates, especially with the growth of China, and that's where the scenarios used by the IPCC go wrong. Either way, the real issue, I would think, is not the energy intensity but what's buried within it, the "GHG intensity".
If you look at the energy intensity plot, it is clear that the energy intensity improvements in the past have happened from producing more "stuff" (GDP) per unit of energy, not from emitting fewer GHGs per unit of energy. In other words, there's not been much advance in the GHG intensity. In fact, it is currently decreasing because so much GDP is being produced by coal burning in China.
Under a business-as-usual scenario, it is reasonable to assume the world will keep trying to produce more stuff per unit of energy, so energy intensity would continue to fall. That's the "technological advance" the authors of the scenarios supposedly assumed. One can -- and should -- debate the numbers. But the basic assumption the world would go in that general direction without prompting by policy follows from history. Under a mitigation scenario, I'd think the reduction in emissions should come more from producing far fewer emissions per unit of energy (or from dramatically cutting energy use), because we'd already naturally be trying to produce more per unit of energy.
In the end, whether one agrees with the logic of the commentary or not, or whether one likes the tone, it is hard to figure out what the take-home message of such an argument should be for policy. The authors are members of the Breakthrough Institute, which arguments in favour of funding new energy technologies, without much mention of climate change or emissions targets. The paper and the Institute present their arguments set up a false dichotomy between technology and climate or emissions policy, as if talking about climate change distracts us from developing new energy technologies, or other in the community think we can magically reduce emissions without any technological advances. I've argued about this before. There's no reason that a technology policy and emissions targets have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, the entire purpose of the binding emissions targets is to force things like the development of cleaner energy technologies.
At least the commentary has people talking about these issues. That we can all support.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Tax AND trade in British Columbia
British Columbia has announced a cap and trade system aimed at reducing GHG emissions from the large final emitters. Details are still in the works. The Globe and Mail reports that some industries have already expressed concern.
The province's philosophy is sensible. Rather than get mired in the ongoing tax vs. cap-and-trade debate, try 'em both. The policies are by no means mutually exclusive: the tax will address consumers and the cap-and-trade system will address industry. Done well, the two pronged approach could be more equitable and more effective than many other proposed policies.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
The effect of Earth Hour
Leaving aside the debate about the value of eco-gimmicks like l'heure de terre, you have to be impressed, or at least surprised, by the level of participation.
Check out the drop in electricity demand in these cities between 8-9 pm last Saturday:
Christchurch, NZ 13.1%
Canberra, Aus 11.4%
Melbourne, Aus 10.1%
Toronto 8.7% (from typical for that time)
Syndey, Aus 8.4%
North Vancouver 7.0%
Port Coquitlam, BC 6.7%
London, Ont 5.9%
Ottawa 4.0%
Vancouver 3.4%
Seems that parts of the Commonwealth really took this initiative to heart.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The silly season (in climate)
It is quite easy to get all self-righteous about the Democratic nomination process descending into an ugly, childish battle, the sort of thing usually reserved for the general elections or WWE Raw. It is not clear who is actually doing battle – the candidates, the advisors or the bobble-heads on cable – and it is not clear that most people actually care. It is all about the spectacle, the appearance of a dispute, the air of scandal. The facts, the issues, are secondary, probably even tertiary.
I like to think we are better than that. And by “we” I don’t mean Canadians – our own Liberal party has elevated political fratricide to a national art form that should be featured in future national museums alongside exhibits about the Group of Seven, the Winnipeg General Strike and the Burgess Shale. I mean those of us who hope to increase science literacy and use of science in public decision-making.
Yet those of us in the online or public science discussion community, myself included, spend a lot of our time stuck in petty arguments that from the outside appear no different that the disputes that populate what Barrack Obama called the “silly season” in politics.
There was plenty of online coverage of the Heartland Institute’s conference of climate skepticism and Fred Singer’s “non-IPCC report”. The conference and the report, in particular, were so silly, so obviously wrong as to be comical, like an alternate universe where the IPCC was composed of writers from the Daily Show, the Onion and Saturday Night Live. The goal of these efforts is not to present a rational counterargument to the prevailing scientific wisdom, but to muddy it up, just like many say is happening to Obama, and arguably, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion.
Then, there was this even sillier meme about “global cooling” (see Stoat). Our collective impatience for news has led to the bizarre phenomena of following the monthly global temperature data, like, say, they were the daily tracking polls, as if this month’s data could possibly convey some valuable information about the long-term trend. Whether January was warm or cold isn’t going to prove or disprove that the climate is warming. Take a three-year snippet out the global temperature record and you can conclude anything, that the planet is destined for another ice age or for a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect. The same goes in politics. Take a three-day short snippet out of the polling data and you can conclude the Obama’s finished, Hillary’s finished, or even that Ron Paul’s Libertarian bid will be the deciding factor. Each of these conclusions is equally ridiculous.
If you stop and think about it, the real triumph of the IPCC, in its very existence and its receiving of the Nobel Prize, is the recognition that we need to thoroughly evaluate all the evidence and that wide agreement among the community on the basics is what matters. As Stephen Schneider explains in this fine lecture, you should mistrust any overly simplistic analysis claiming to debunk the general conclusions of the IPCC, whether that analysis is ‘skeptical’ and calls climate change a hoax or whether that analysis is ‘environmental’ claims all life on the planet is at threat of extinction. We abandon this reasoned thinking, that, as Schneider puts it, it is“the preponderance of evidence, stupid”, when we descend into debates about the meaning of a cold January in parts of the northern hemisphere, or a three-day dip in Obama’s polling among middle-class white factory workers in SE Pennsylvania, rather than use our time and energy to talk about the greater issues at hand, whether it be the need to improve understanding of ice sheet processes or the need for a comprehensive national climate policy.
The most recent example of this muddying of the discussion is the recent dust-up over the release of the pro-creationism movie “Expelled”, during which evolutionary biologist PZ Meyers was expelled from the screening, and his reaction led to further reaction by the scientific blogosphere, including Matt Nisbet, Meyers again, Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s the Intersection, and countless others. Now, everyone involved agrees on the basic issues - evolution good, intelligent design bad - they disagree only on style (sound familiar?) Just like the campaign trail, bad things were said, calls for apologies or resignations followed, etc. etc.
It doesn’t matter who was right, or who was wrong. What matters was our, that's the greater we again, collective reaction. The phone lines lit up, as they’d say in the old days. The blogs in question had a record number of readers, a record number of comments. Just like the Democratic campaign, we were drawn by the mud, by the blood, not by the issues.
I'm not immune to the pull of the day-to-day fight, over that the long-term battle. And I'll admit, this may be new age Vancouver neighbourhood talking, the sort of place where many people walk down the street with a yoga mat in one hand (and a mug of coffee in the other, that absurd caffeinated contradiction common to the culture of gentrified North American cities). But I think sometimes we need to shut off the 24-hour news and blog cycle, sit still and just breathe a little bit. After calming down, maybe we can climb out of the mud and get back to working to improve public and political understanding of science and to talking about the issues.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Is energy expensive?
With the price of oil surging well past US$100, Michael Tobis reminds us that energy is actually quite cheap:
A hundred dollars a barrel. A barrel! Energy is unbelievably cheap.
That's about six million BTUs. One point seven megawatt hours. With that $100 barrel you can power your laptop for two years. You can ship hundreds of pounds of bananas from Guatemala. You can microwave a hundred and two thousand cups of tea to steaming warmth. You can power the digital clock on your microwave for seven million years!
Tobis and commenter John Mashey relate oil prices to the debate over buying local food.
So how much does it cost to carry a tomato from California to Maine?
It's about 3000 miles. It's about 1/4000 of a ton. So its about 3/4 of a ton mile. OK, make it a nice big juicy tomato. It's a ton-mile. So that costs about 1/200 of a gallon of fuel, or about a penny and a half.
Suppose the price of fuel quadruples. Your tomato will cost almost an extra nickel. Big deal.
The bottom line of many life cycle analyses is that buying local is not always the most efficient choice. One must weigh the energy required to produce the local food with the energy required to produce and ship the "global" food (including the indirect costs of maintaining the shipping network).
Monday, March 17, 2008
Hypoxic zones around the world
The World Resources Institute and scientist Bob Diaz of Virginia Marine Institute have compiled a new map of the world's coastal hypoxia zones like the famous Gulf of Mexico "Dead Zone" we discuss in the recent PNAS paper on nitrogen pollution and corn production for ethanol. The new map includes 169 documented hypoxic areas, 233 are areas of concern and 13 areas in recovery.
Bottom-water hypoxia can develop when high input of nutrients like nitrogen promote the excessive algae growth. When algae eventually dies and sinks to the bottom, it decomposes, and that process depletes oxygen from the water.
It is worth noting hypoxia will not arise anywhere simply because nutrients are added. To get things started, you still need to feed the algae, and nutrient pollution does the trick. But certain
coastal areas are more naturally prone to hypoxia.
If, for example, the water column is highly "stratified", by that I mean less dense water lying above more dense water there is little mixing between the surface and the bottom waters (think of making a simple oil and vinegar salad dressing). It is then difficult for oxygen from the air to diffuse to the bottom and replace the oxygen consumed by decomposition.
The outlet of big rivers like the Mississippi can be ideal for hypoxia development because the fresh and therefore lighter water introduced by the river creates a stratified water column. That explains some of the year-to-year dynamics of the hypoxic zones like the Gulf Dead Zone. First, hypoxia development can be much worse in a wet or flood year because of the addition of more nutrients and the increased stratification. Second, if a hurricane blows through the Gulf, it encourages mixing just like you do by shaking that bottle of salad dressing, and can break-up the Dead Zone.
The new map supposedly includes only human-driven cases of hypoxia. Which raise the question, what is the cause of the zone between very sparsely populated Somerset and Cornwallis Islands in Nunavut, in the Canadian Arctic? If you have an answer, let me know.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Corn ethanol production will worsen the Dead Zone
A new paper by my colleague Chris Kucharik and I looks at the new US Energy Policy, will calls for growing more corn to produce ethanol, will affect the "Dead Zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. For a quick summary, see Reuters, the CBC or AFP (or my 15 Minuten ruhm on German ARD). Wired and Scientific American go into more detail.
The Mississippi dumps a massive amount of nitrogen, largely in the form of the soluble ion nitrate, into the Gulf each spring. It promotes the growth of a lot of algae, which eventually sinks to the bottom and decomposes. This consumes much of the oxygen in the bottom waters, making life tough for bottom-dwelling fish and creatures like shrimp. The Dead Zone has reached over 20,000 km2 in recent years.
The primary source of all that nitrogen is fertilizer applied to corn grown in the Midwest and Central US. Reducing the Dead Zone to less than 5000 km2 in size, as is suggested in US policy, will require up to a 55% decrease in nitrogen levels in the Mississippi.
The new US Energy Policy calls for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by the year 2022. Of that, 15 billion can be produced from corn starch. Our study found meeting those would cause a 10-34% increase in nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico.
Meeting the hypoxia reduction goal was already a difficult challenge. If the US pursues this biofuels strategy, it will be impossible to shrink the Dead Zone without radically changing the US food production system. The one option would be to dramatically reduce the non-ethanol uses of corn. Since the majority of corn grain is used as animal feed, a trade-off between using corn to fuel animals and using corn to fuel cars could emerge.
Friday, March 07, 2008
How times have changed
And, no, I'm not talking about Canadian politics and government becoming so feckless and uninspiring that we must stoop to meddling in the US primary campaign for attention.
This can be found in the 2008 Canadian federal budget under the heading "Ensuring a Cleaner, Healthier Environment":
Investing $300 million to support nuclear energy
