Technology will save us. Won’t it? (2)

Following on from my previous post about simplistic technological fixes, dk.au at LP found a similar limitation in the debate about an Australian emissions trading system:

We also need to start discussing energy demands as social things, rather than simply a matter of correct pricing or installing a well timed deus ex machina [Ed: improbable solution to an intractable problem], if we’re going to make any real headway on climate change. As we point out, quoting Nicholas Stern and Cameron Hepburn, ‘[c]limate change policy … raises questions that are fundamentally and inescapably ethical’

He expands on this argument in a more academic article here.

Technology will save us. Won’t it?

The Economist is running an interesting debate about the energy crisis (by which they mean climate change, not energy security or peak oil), for those arguing for and against the proposition that:

We can solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations.

My first reaction was that this was a bit of an empty discussion, like arguing about which is more important – eating or breathing? Obviously we need both, and relying solely on one or the other is a recipe for failure. Why must we think one-dimensionally? Reality is rarely so simple.

The other limiting aspect of this debate is the embedded and unspoken assumption of purely technological solutions and innovations. This is a dangerous fantasy. The reality is that social and cultural factors must be part of any coherent solution to the energy crisis. Our attitudes to the way we consume energy, transport ourselves, organise our economies and arrange our cities are just as important as the technologies we use.

Fred Steward, one of my favorite academics, points out in this paper that we need a much broader concept of innovation than pure technological advancement. The challenges of environmental sustainability are vast and complex are we cannot make the complacent assumption that some entrepreneurial inventor or well-funded research lab will deliver us a quick fix. Steward argues for a more integrated approach:

Policy and research attention has traditionally been limited to profit-oriented science-based innovation with a consequent emphasis on generic technologies such as machine tools or microelectronics pushing change upon society. Sustainability policy has been divided into two camps: one promising a breakthrough technical solution that will allow us to continue to live as ever before; and another that suggests we all change our behaviour, boiling only half a kettle and cutting down on flights.

However a new model of ‘sociotechnical’ transition has emerged, giving greater weight to the interaction between many actors in achieving such large-scale changes. In this, technical developments and social change combine to displace the incumbent companies, principles and priorities with a new arrangement.

This kind of nuance is conspicuously absent from most debates about innovation and the future of energy.

Coal – when too much is never enough

Richard Heinberg posted an interesting article last week about the possibility of future declines in coal production, and the implications this might have for climate change.

Although it is by far the most abundant fossil fuel resource, our reserves of coal obviously will not last forever, and some estimates suggest that it may be only a decade or two before we start seeing the sort of supply restrictions we are seeing now with oil.

Whether you see this as a good or a bad thing depends on your perspective. Either way the results could be dramatic. Most climate activasts are coming to see coal as the main bad guy in the climate war. Prominent UK environmentalist George Monbiot, for example, recently declared that he “no longer cared” about being anti-nuclear, as the fight against new coal plants was more important. On the other hand, with oil and gas production on the decline and renewables disappointingly slow on the uptake, policy makers in all of the world’s largest economies are likely to see coal as vital to ensuring the lights stay on. Despite the rhetoric, when the policy objectives of energy security and climate change are in conflict, there is no doubt which will triumph.

Climate change or global warming? And who cares the most?

Who cares about climate change? And what should we call it?

I decided to answer these grand questions, using Google Trends, a tool which allows you to plot search frequency over time and compare different search terms and different countries. It’s a great little tool although it still lacks some important functionality and sometimes the results are a little… unexpected.

The first thing I wanted to know was what terms people are searching for on the topic of climate change. My impression was that the term greenhouse effect was used when the science first started floating around in the 70s and 80s, then global warming came to describe the overall problem, and more recently climate change took over as the dominant phrase. Google trends is the perfect tool to test this hypothesis (although unfortunately it doesn’t go back earlier than 2004). This graph shows the search volume of the three terms over time:

global warming

climate change

greenhouse effect

So, searches for greenhouse effect are small and declining, searches for global warming are large, erratic and increasing, and searches for climate change are somewhere in between. Not quite what I was expecting. The News volume graph (the second graph above) is a bit closer to what I expected – although the scale is too squashed to see very clearly, the two main terms appear to be fairly close together, but climate change has overtaken since the end of 2007.

There are some interesting variations over time. It’s impossible not to notice the sudden dips at the end of each year, and the longer dips mid-year. No-one cares about these serious topics when they’re on holidays. The big spike in climate change in 2006 corresponds to the release of the Stern Review on 30 Oct, which marks the beginning of the turning point in world interest. This was followed by the release of the IPCC’s alarming Fourth Assessment Report on 2 Feb 2007, generating another spike, and then the Bali climate change conference in Nov 2007, when negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto treaty began.

Google Trends can also show which countries are the most prolific searchers for these terms. For global warming for example, the top country is, of course, Indonesia.

Huh? Let’s take a closer look at that. Here are the top ten countries for GW and CC:

Position	Global Warming	Climate Change
1	Indonesia	Australia
2	Philippines	New Zealand
3	South Africa	South Africa
4	India	United Kingdom
5	Australia	Canada
6	New Zealand	Ireland
7	Singapore	Singapore
8	United States	Philippines
9	Malaysia	India
10	Canada	United States

It’s difficult to decode what’s happening here, but I’ll do my best. Indonesia, when plotted on its own, had basically no interest at all in global warming until mid-2006, presumably when preparations and press coverage for the Bali conference began. There is of course a huge spike in November of that year. Indonesia actually has a great deal to loose – and gain – from the current international negotiations. As a vast archipelago of islands it is more vulnerable than many other countries to rising sea levels; on the other hand, if they are able to claim carbon credits for their vast forests, it would bring substantial economic benefits to the country.

The swell of interest in the Philippines is even more of a mystery. Like Indonesia they have thousands of tiny islands which will be threatened by rising seas… perhaps fear is driving them into a desperate search for information?

As for climate change, my chest puffs out in pride to see Australia at the top of that list. It’s good to see we care about something. The US comes a paltry and unsurprising tenth. Tsk tsk – time for some grass roots action, guys.

Of course these comparisons are not entirely fair for linguistic reasons. Most non-english speaking countries have their own translation of global warming – apparently Indonesia and the Philippines just use the english words. Google Trends doesn’t allow any kind of multi-lingual comparison.

Speaking of linguistics, I’m tempted to return to the climate change / global warming distinction. Looking just at Australia (same colours as previously) we get the following graph:

This is pretty much as I expected. CC was virtually unknown before 2004, but has since grown to be just as, if not more important than GW. The UK gives a similar result, whereas the US lookes more like the first graph above. I’m not sure if there is much significance in this other than cultural preference.

Where did the term climate change come from? Here is the Wikipedia explanation:

The term “global warming” refers to the warming in recent decades and its projected continuation, and implies a human influence. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term “climate change” for human-caused change, and “climate variability” for other changes. The term “climate change” recognizes that rising temperatures are not the only effect.

I seem to recall a conspiracy theory a while back that suggested that the term climate change was invented by spin doctors from [insert evil organisation of your choice here] because it sounded more benign than global warming. That’s almost certainly nonsense (Update: Or not. See comments). CC is a more scientifically accurate term, and it more accurately describes the probable negative effects. If the only consequence was the warming of the earth, then the worst we would have to put with would be rising sea levels, diminishing sources of fresh water in some regions and disease epidemics. But focusing on these events, utterly catastrophic though they will be, is only part of the story. The climate will also change in ways that we are only now beginning to be able to predict – floods, droughts, cyclones and hurricanes will become more frequent, and once-reliable rainfall patterns will change, threatening our food production. Climate change, for me, is a more all-encompassing term.

Nevertheless, the (mostly Indonesian?) people have spoken, and they chose global warming. For some reason, that doesn’t satisfy me. I’m going to settle this with a straight, no frills Google search:

Climate change – 55,600,000

Global warming – 52,200,000

CC wins it by a nose!

Burn Up review – simplistic, apocalyptic, trashy, but I like it

Environmental thriller. There’s two words you don’t often see next to each other. But that’s exactly how the BBC is describing its new mini series Burn Up:

This topical thriller sees oil company executives, environmental activists and politicians collide in the battle between economic success and ecological responsibility.

I have just finished watching the first part (see below for 2nd part update), and I was moderately impressed. Environmental problems, generally, are not fast, exciting and sexy; they’re slow, boring and technical. To make something like climate change fit into the “thriller” format you either have to exaggerate it ridiculously (like The Day After Tomorrow) or weave in the Big Bad Oil Company theme. Burn Up does a little of the first and a lot of the second.

Brad Whitford, who was my favourite character Josh in my favourite show The West Wing, takes care of much of the corporate skulduggery single-handedly, in a very insidious role. Apart from Whitford, the acting, plot, and dialogue are all fairly pedestrian, but what do you expect form a made-for-TV mini series? The love story sub-plot, in particular, made my eyes roll so far it hurt.

Overall, a moderately compelling and engaging show, and enjoyable enough. I just wish they had resisted the temptation to run the theme “the fate of civilisation is in your hands, you just have to have the courage to do the right thing”. Why do they have to boil everything down to such a simplistic good vs evil, utopia vs apocalypse theme? The complexities of reality are far more interesting. Or maybe that’s just me.

Update (Part 2): The second part built on the themes and style of the first. Whitford again shone through. Both the character he played and his acting showed real depth, and just kept growing as the show reached its climate. Not a masterpiece by any means, but ultimately it worked. It was gripping, and I cared.

The most interesting thing for me was the shift in themes in the second part of Burn Up. While the first part was all about global warming (or should I say “climate change”?) and tipping points, the second part left the science alone and moved on to the international politics of a climate change agreement (Kyoto 2) and peak oil.

The treatment of the climate change politics was (sadly but understandably) pretty woeful. Trying to dramatise something so complex and convoluted as a subplot within a mini-series was a big mistake. What we ended up with was a large number of paper cut-out stereotypes played by some fairly average actors giving laughably bad performances.

But then (ironically) along comes peak oil to save the show – and the world. This plot element lacked a full explanation, but at least it worked dramatically, helping to build some real tension. Our intrepid hero gets hold of some secret geological data that shows that oil is running out – will he release it, ending Big Oil’s terrible hegemony, whilst simultaneously throwing the world economy into ruins? It’s the first time the show moves away from the simplistic good vs evil dichotomy and starts giving us some dilemmas and shades of grey.

But surely that peak oil stuff is all guff, right? That couldn’t happen in real life… could it?

Well, I think it can. Specifically on 12 November 2008. I’ll explain why in the next post – click here to read it.

Responsible economic policy, political compromise, or a victory for big business?

The proposed introduction of an Emissions Trading System in Australia is generating a significant amount of attention. And quite rightly too, as it is the biggest reform of the Australian economy in decades, and will have a significant impact on our government’s ability to negotiate a new global framework on climate change.

Broadly, I think that the proposed system is satisfactory as a national cap-and-trade carbon reduction system. Most of the elements you would expect to see in an ETS are present. It is a genuine attempt at reducing Australia’s carbon emissions on a planned (though yet to be specified) trajectory at least cost to the economy. There were, however, three significant compromises, which I’ll describe below.

Petrol

Perhaps the least significant compromise was the pledge to effectively exempt petrol from the ETS in the short term by providing a cent-for-cent reduction in the petrol excise. As I have said before, this will make little difference as there is already a significant price signal from the current record prices for consumers to reduce their petrol consumption, and this situation is unlikely to change in the short or medium term.

Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed industries

The second compromise was to provide support for Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed industries, by issuing free permits. Around 20% of the carbon permits will be given to companies involved in trade-exposed activities for free, rather than being auctioned. At first glance this seems like a triumph for the big business lobby and a heavy loss for environmentalists. But I’m not so sure. The green paper justifies that:

“trade-exposed industries may not be able to pass on the costs as they face prices set in international markets, and compete against firms that do not at this stage have comparable carbon constraints.”

The assistance will remain in place at least until 2020, unless:

“broadly comparable carbon constraints are introduced in key competitor economies, in which case assistance be withdrawn.”

The concern here is about carbon leakage. If the costs we impose on companies that must compete in international markets are too high, they will simply move their operations off shore, to countries that do not impose carbon constraints. That is the reality of our globalised economy. For example if our aluminum producers move their production facilities to China as a result of our ETS, our national carbon emissions will reduce but the global emissions will stay the same or possibly increase. That’s not a win for the environment.

Assistance for coal-fired power stations

The third compromise is the one that has worried left-leaning commentators and environmentalists the most. The Green Paper is foreshadowing assistance for “strongly-affected” industries, in particular for coal-fired power generators. This is a one-off injection of an as yet unspecified amount of cash. The justification is that investors in power stations, who have significant sunk capital costs, were not aware of this government policy when they made their investment. Therefore, to “ameliorate the risk of adversely affecting the investment environment”, the government will compensate those who stand to lose the most.

I won’t go as far as to call this gutless, but it is a difficult argument to make, given that coal generators must have seen the writing on the wall long ago.

Moreover, we must accept that there will be winners and losers from the introduction of an ETS. Moving to a low-carbon society involves radical innovation in many respects – in the way we use energy, in the technologies we use to produce energy, in our behaviours and attitudes. Radical innovation has another important aspect, described by Joseph Shrumpter as creative destruction. This is the process by which incumbents, trapped in the paradigm of the old, are pushed aside by new entrants. It is a painful, but necessary process, and to deny it is to deny the need for change.

One important point to make, though, is that compensating the “strongly affected” industries does not influence the overall effectiveness of the scheme, which will still be driven by the total carbon that is permitted to be released per year. The big polluters (at least the ones that aren’t trade exposed) will still have to purchase their permits in the auctions, same as everyone else, and the are still incentivised to reduce their emissions over time.

Questions

However, given that we are not about to scrap our coal-fired power stations and replace them with wind farms overnight, a la Al Gore’s challenge for America, the more important question for me is the effect this will have on the implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. Currently, while the government is keen to wave a big carrot in the form of the $500 million Clean Coal Fund, it is reluctant to wield the regulatory stick. They are continuing with their softly, softly approach with this decision to compensate our heaviest polluters prior to the introduction of the ETS. Overall, this sends a mixed message – “we want you to do the right thing, but we’ll protect you if you don’t”.

Another interesting question is whether the compromises I have described here were made in the interests of pursuing “responsible economic policies”, as claimed by the Green Paper, or in the interests of getting the legislation through the senate. We might never know the answer to that. For me, these are much more likely explanations than claiming that the government is in the thrall of the big bad lobbyists who are directing things from behind the scenes.

While I’m asking questions, here’s another thorny one. The ETS covers emissions from fossil fuels burnt within our borders. What about the carbon emissions produced from the coal and gas that we export? Are we responsible for them? And while we’re at it, what about the carbon released from the manufacture of the products that we import? I’ll try to address these in future posts.

A convenient solution to an inconvenient truth

Al Gore’s call for America to develop 100% of its electricity from renewables within 10 years has a quintessentially American character. It’s bold, grand, inspiring and arrogant. It contains no half measures or compromises. It’s an epic, all-in-one solution. It is not for America to bend meekly to the will of world opinion – that is not the American way. They will show strong and courageous leadership, outperforming all other countries and saving the world at the same time. It is the Hollywood ending to Climate Change: The Movie.

Gore compares this challenge to landing a man on the moon, and concludes:

“We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.”

Unfortunately, space exploration and the complete transformation of a nation’s electricity generation and distribution network are two very different challenges. The Apollo Project was an impressive triumph of science and engineering backed by a big injection of money. But it was effectively a demonstration project, a showcase of American ingenuity in the midst of the Cold War. It did not, however, attempt to shift the economy or transform people’s lives in any meaningful way. A grand project for the world’s biggest energy consumer to change the way it produces electricity is on a scale several orders of magnitude bigger.

Apart from the size of the problem, there is a more fundamental distinction. Creating something new is relatively easy. Transforming something old is far more difficult. To expect a country to produce a huge number of new wind turbines, well beyond the current world manufacturing capacity, is one thing. To ask it to scrap 1493 coal plants, along with the jobs and companies that keep them running, is much harder. The term “vested interests” comes to mind.

The implication of Gore’s challenge is essentially that scientists and entrepreneurs can save us, all we need is to have sufficient political will. This is a dangerously simplistic claim. It is easily lampooned by opponents, and creates unrealistic expectations for the supporters of climate action.

Moreover, for the vast majority of Americans, whose current way of life is “non-negotiable” (as very accurately expressed by Dick Cheney), it is an excuse for complacency. No need to worry, we’ll just build some windmills and drive electric cars; problem solved. Gore does admit, very briefly, that some other things might have to change:

“At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That’s the best investment we can make.”

You would have missed it if you blinked. Nothing else in his 3259 word speech is so bold as to suggest that Americans may have to curb their insatiable demand for energy. That would be too inconvenient to contemplate…

An oily red herring

The government’s decision to effectively exempt petrol for 3 years from the Emissions Trading System was criticised from several angles – by the Greens as being anti-environment, and by the Liberals, who claim that the government copied their policy. Much of the ideologically pure left blogosphere condemned the decision as political opportunism. More sensibly, Tim has wisely pointed out that to have done otherwise would have condemned the policy to death in the senate.

Despite all the fuss, I agree with Tim that we are missing the point. The reason for establishing an ETS is to provide a price signal for consumers to reduce their carbon emissions. It is hard to imagine a bigger price signal than a seven-fold increase in the price of a barrel of oil since the 1990’s. Adding the price of carbon to the current record pump prices would have an almost laughably small effect of about 4.5c per litre (assuming the government’s reference case of $20/tonne). If the message that we have to reduce our fuel consumption is not getting through already, a few percent extra will make little difference.

Furthermore, the signs are growing that the current high prices are not a temporary situation. The CSIRO recently warned about the possibility of $8/litre petrol. Even the normally optimistic International Energy Agency has predicted that the oil market will remain tight until at least 2013.

That’s market fundamentals. But what about the fundamentalists? Threatening noises from Iran and Israel are also keeping traders wary and prices high. With the next US election looking tight, it must be tempting for Bush to pull a war out of his big Texan hat and save the day for his party. There’s nothing like a good war to scare people away from the Democrats. Nobody would want that totally inexperienced Muslim guy, Barak Osama, holding the reigns if the situation with Iran deteriorates. But surely a US president wouldn’t manufacture a war for political gain, would he?

But I digress. Our obsession with petrol is irrelevant for another reason. That reason is coal. James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute and one of the most prominent scientific voices for climate change mitigation, points out that coal is king when it comes to the transformation of our climate. He wrote an open letter to our PM in April that makes for some interesting reading. He points out that burning all of the world’s known reserves of oil and gas would take us close to the realm of dangerous climate effects; burning all of our known coal reserves, on the other hand would:

“produce a vastly different planet, a more dangerous and desolate planet, from the one on which civilization developed, a planet without Arctic sea ice, with crumbling ice sheets that ensure sea level catastrophes for our children and grandchildren, with shifting climate zones that cause great hardship for the world’s poor and drive countless species to extinction, and with intensified hydrologic extremes that cause increased drought and wildfires but also stronger rain, floods, and storms.”

This stark vision makes Garnaut’s supposedly alarmist views sound like utopia. Hansen’s main recommendation is for Australia to take a leadership role by phasing out coal use that does not capture and store CO₂. Green campaigners who oppose carbon capture and sequestration on the grounds that it “might not work” should take note. It simply must work, and fast.

The discussion about and ETS for petrol is a distraction. Petrol is already expensive, and coal is the main problem anyway. It’s great to see these issues being debated in the main stream, but we should be careful not to be distracted by those oily red herrings.