Writing this kind of blog post tends to freeze my
brain. I find it astounding sometimes to
be trying to present in a logical and calm fashion a description of
horrors. But there it is.
I noticed in perusing comments in various
climate-change-related web sites that even among fairly well-informed folks
there seems to be a misperception, which runs something like this: The job of combating climate change is about
slowing carbon emissions, preferably as quickly as possible. As I understand it, that is half right. There is another distinct task: leaving at least a significant amount of
carbon-emitting “fossil fuels” in the ground – forever, or at least for the
next 100-1000 years. Moreover, that task
assumes that we do not discover major new sources of oil, natural gas, and
coal. If we do, then we need to leave
the equivalent of a significant amount of present “reserves” plus all reserves discovered in the future in
the ground.
One implication of this:
we need to understand that there is a Hard Stop somewhere in the future,
a point beyond which we dare not use even one milligram more of fossil fuels. If we cut carbon emissions drastically in the
near future, and keep them cut, that Hard Stop almost certainly will never
arrive – instead, we will suffer various degrees of what Joe Romm calls “Hell
and High Water”, involving at worst the decimation (not in the Roman sense – in
the sense that 9/10ths of humanity will die, mostly of starvation, disease, and
poisoned air) of humankind. If we
continue on the present path of fossil-fuel use increases and minor moves
towards “sustainability”, the so-called “business as usual”, that Hard Stop may
even arrive by the end of this century.
That Hard Stop represents absolutely no further use of fossil fuels because
the alternative might be the end of all life on earth, forever.
How can I say this?
How can I not be wildly exaggerating, in Mark Twain’s sense (“the
reports of my death are wildly exaggerated”)?
Keystone and Game Over
It may strike people as odd that there is such an
environmental furor over one oil pipeline project in the US (the Keystone XL
proposal). Here’s a frequently cited
quote (paraphrased) by Dr. James Hansen on the subject: “If Keystone XL goes forward, then it’s game
over for the climate.” Most people, my
sense is, read that as meaning that some form of “Hell and High Water” becomes
inevitable. I believe that instead, he
is also referring to a previous quote (in, I believe, his book Storms of My
Grandchildren, and also paraphrased):
“If we use all our present reserves of coal and oil, there is a
significant chance of a runaway greenhouse effect. If we also use all our tar sands and oil
shale, I view the runaway greenhouse effect as likely.” Before I explain my
understanding of this, let’s note that Keystone XL transports oil derived from
Canadian tar sands to US ports for export abroad.
What’s a runaway greenhouse effect? If we look at Venus, we see a planet with
extreme heat and with acid rain that dissolves any life forms that might exist
in the air, and then evaporates before it reaches the surface. However, if Venus had no atmosphere, there
would be no extreme heat and no acid rain.
Instead the temperature would be a significant distance below the
“runaway point” (estimated by Dr. Hansen at somewhere around 62 degrees
Fahrenheit, iirc). Carbon or other substances in the atmosphere reflect
light-generated heat bounced from the surface back to the surface again,
trapping it – and also increasing the acidity of water (again, as I understand
it). If Earth passes that “runaway
point”, then we will become like Venus.
Now, Earth without an atmosphere would be far below the
temperature of Venus – below freezing, actually. The atmosphere adds one layer of carbon-based
reflection or “trapping” of heat (yes, I realize I’m simplifying
drastically). Life itself – all life,
especially vegetable – adds another. Life
is carbon-based, and it creates a carbon cycle that emits carbon to the atmosphere,
and then absorbs it in non-organic matter when it returns, via a process called
“weathering” that deposits much of the carbon returned into the oceans. In
ordinary times, this creates a way of handling perturbations in carbon
emissions so that one returns eventually to somewhat of a “steady state”. And
that “steady state” is still clearly under the “runaway point.”
Now here is where we get to the importance of leaving some
fossil fuels in the ground. Because we
have seen “Hell and High Water” in the past, and life has been decimated but
survived. But what are fossil fuels,
really? Primarily the carbon deposited
in the ground by life – especially vegetable life – over the last up to a
billion years or so. Now compare this
episode of carbon emissions to all past episodes. We have seen surges in carbon emissions from
the Milankovitch cycle before, and from long-term underwater eruptions that
bring new carbon up from the Earth’s core to the air. We have seen methane spurts due to
accompanying thawing of places like the Arctic that may have made the
temperature rises and carbon in the atmosphere more extreme. What we have never seen before is taking all
the stored carbon for hundreds of millions of years and injecting it into the
atmosphere over what could turn out to be a period of 200 years (and carbon has
a half-life of perhaps 100 years in the atmosphere).
And Hansen’s best estimate is that use of all of that stored
carbon over a period even of much longer than 200 years is likely to bring on a
runaway greenhouse effect. This is
because the ocean is the primary way of restoring equilibrium to the system,
and at some point before we use up all that carbon, if we do it fast enough
now, the ocean stops being able to absorb as much carbon (apparently, according
to Wikipedia, because of the slowing of the “biological pump”) – and carbon coming
down from the atmosphere cycles right back up again. And so, once that point is reached, carbon
doesn’t cycle very much back into the ocean – it goes on accumulating in the
atmosphere, for a thousand years or more, until the ocean begins to regain its
ability to absorb carbon. Thus, as we get close to the “runaway point”, we
can’t just slow carbon emissions down to a point at which as much carbon is
returning as is being emitted – the only point at which that is true is near-zero
emissions, a Hard Stop.
Now, hopefully, you begin to see why it’s important to leave
significant amounts of fossil fuels in the ground for at least 100-1000
years: it keeps us away from that Hard
Stop, and hence that “runaway point.” It
keeps us away from the ultimate horror.
So why is Keystone XL so critical to this? There is at present no real market for tar
sands oil. There are very high up-front
costs, which only the Canadian government has taken on so far – and no one
appears likely to, in the immediate future, if the Canadians don’t
succeed. The only realistic way of
getting that oil from inland Canada to a decent market, it appears, is to add
to existing pipelines and send it to ports in the southern US – all other
routes appear to involve too-large costs and times of building new
infrastructure – and further carbon emissions from tar sands oil will be
minimal. If Keystone XL goes through, it appears likely that a significant
portion of the world’s tar sand oil will be emitted over the next 40 years – if
not, not.
That’s why Keystone XL matters. That’s why Hansen has been campaigning for
several years to stop most worldwide production of coal, as the least painful
way of avoiding the “significant chance” of a runaway greenhouse effect. That’s
why people need to think about handling climate change today as not simply a
matter of adaptation to “Hell and High Water” or slowing down carbon emissions
by a couple of percentage points per year right now. It has now reached the point where we need to
face the idea of effectively never
using some of those fossil fuels – not just letting the market assume that
using it all is OK.
Action Items and Dyslogy
What our sad other task of facing climate change amounts to,
therefore, imho, is not only to stop Keystone XL in its tracks. It amounts to making sure that Keystone and
its ilk never happen. It also amounts to
trying to ensure, with each future use of fossil fuels, that a comparable
amount of reserves is made unusable, effectively, forever (or until 1000 years
from now, whichever comes first). And it
means keeping an eye on new sources of fossil fuels, to limit their use sharply
forever.
And if we fail? I
suppose we can write a eulogy for life on Earth. Except that writing a eulogy for a species
that ended life forever seems a bit off, somehow. The opposite of Utopia is dystopia; I guess
we should write a dyslogy. Someone
recently passed me the end of a Swinburne poem that seems to fit – it even
includes the sea rise that’s an initial stage.
I have changed one word.
Here death may deal not
again for ever;
Here change may come not till all change end.
From the graves they have
made they shall rise up never,
Who have left nought living to ravage and rend.
Earth, stones, and thorns
of the wild ground growing,
While the sun and the rain live, these shall be;
Till a last wind's breath
upon all these blowing
Roll
the sea.
Till the slow sea rise
and the sheer cliff crumble,
Till terrace and meadow the deep gulfs drink,
Till the strength of the
waves of the high tides humble
The fields that lessen, the rocks that shrink,
Here now in his triumph
where all things falter,
Stretched out on the spoils that his own hand spread,
As a god self-slain on
his own strange altar,
Man
[Swinburne – Death] lies dead.
2 comments:
Good post, Wayne. Keystone XL is NOT the camel's nose under the tent: Keystone I has that dubious honour (that's the already-built pipeline running from Alberta through Manitoba and South into the USA). Additional bitumen is already moving via CN rail shipments. China has recently made $Billion purchases in tarsand leases in Alberta. The Northern Gateway proposal may yet be approved to give the Chinese access to their newly purchased bitumen. If the NG pipeline is denied, there is yet another scheme to build a pipeline to move bitumen North through the Mackenzie Valley to the Beaufort Sea. It seems endless. To me, the most effective strategy seems to be to work as quickly as possible to reduce demand by providing cheap and plentiful renewable energy. If we are to prevail as a species, this will be a protracted fight.
You point up an issue not mentioned recently. Like an overweight person losing weight, first they have to slow down, then reach level, before they reduce. In the case of emissions, even that reduction is still an addition.
On tar sands, here's another depressing item. As this development continues, it is modeling for the rest of the world. Here's an interesting map:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/09/09/OilSandsWorld/
"Canada Helps Create an Oil Sands World
"Alberta is showing the way for nations with similar reserves. Brace for a global 'age of tough oil.'"
I agree that there is only one hope, to get renewables up and running as fast as possible. That must be one reason the fossilosaurs are so bent on preventing one dime from going there.
(I'm a Neven lurker)
Post a Comment