| Global Warming |
|
|
| Sunday, 11 January 2009 | |
|
News Feature/Global Warming There is absolutely no doubt that carbon dioxide plays a very important role in determining the earth's average surface temperature. Without our atmosphere containing water and CO2, the mean temperature at the surface would be 30 degrees C cooler than it is. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a report earlier this year which clearly described the impact of increasing green-house gas emissions on the atmosphere and even went so far as to document weather changes that have already taken place because of global warming. So why is virtually nothing happening politically in the international arena and particularly, in the United States of America? There are two different aspects of the Climate change debate which will be discussed in this essay. One is the question of how to evaluate and use scientific knowledge when determining public policy and for making government decisions and the other is the question of how to proceed once it has been decided that something needs to be done. To approach the first question, one has to consider what it means to weigh the value of evidence in different parts of our society. The nature of truth. In a courtroom, a statement is taken to be true if there is no reasonable doubt of its veracity in the opinion of a peer group (for example, by a jury). In a sense, this doesn't allow for the concept that something might probably be true. And it leaves a large body of statements un-assessed if they cannot be classified beyond a reasonable doubt. This situation is very common in life and is one which we must be prepared to deal with. Some examples later. This is quite different from the nature of scientific truth. Science advances through a series of ever more accurate theories.A theory is a generally accepted explanation for how a system works which is not contradicted by any acceptable evidence or line of argument. This relatively simple concept is, of course, often hard to apply at the 'cutting edge' of research, since it is not always obvious or generally accepted whether a particular observation or argument clearly supports or contradicts the current theory. However, once the theory is accepted as the best working explanation for how the system operates, it is taken as absolutely true and further steps forward are based on that assumption. If at some time the theory is shown to fail, then it is revised or superceded and science moves on again. Now how does this relate to Global Warming? Well, the report from the IPCC says that increasing CO2 amounts in the atmosphere have already caused climate change with an associated collection of deleterious effects. Furthermore, it is predicted that this will continue, leading eventually to serious negative impacts and possibly to catastrophic events which are not yet accurately predictable. The report clearly points out the need to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels and the need to make other changes to our behaviour in order to prevent these long-term, dangerous consequences. OK then, why did the Kyoto Protocol to reduced CO2 emissions not go into effect? This is where the 'legal' definition of truth gets us into trouble. There are those, like the US coal lobby, who want to continue with 'business as usual' which means producing more that 60% of the electricity consumed in the United States by burning cheap, domestic coal. The North American love affair with the automobile and the general desire for inexpensive air travel also contribute their share to the consumption of carbon and the release of carbon dioxide. The 'carbon' lobby argues against the imposition of change on our society on two grounds: one is that it is 'too expensive' to change and the second is that the science of global warming is not 100%certain and that we should therefore wait until the evidence is completely established. The first of these arguments is without a true foundation because the cost of not changing is never included in the tally. Furthermore, the lessons of history are not taken into account either. Anyone who was in the business of building horse-drawn vehicles at the turn of the century would have pointed to the massive expense and industrial dislocation that would result from a large-scale shift to automobiles. We know now that the change was inevitable and in fact drove the economy of America to greater heights than ever before. The scientific point is much more straightforward. The experts (the IPCC) have spoken for the purpose of planning for the future, Climate Change must be taken as 'the truth' and we must get on with coping with it. To fail to do so causes two major intellectual problems. One is that the most probable outcome of the emission of greenhouse gases is being ignored. The other is that the prudence principle is not being observed. The elimination of greenhouse gases will not cause a global climate problem but the failure to do something most likely will. The need to act fast Two issues result from a failure to act immediately. First, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases every day and second, our 'physical plant' that produces CO2 also grows larger each day making it harder and harder every day to come to grips with the problem. The correct and prudent course of action is to move globally to an agreement right away based on our current understanding of the greenhouse gas problem. This will lead to a thoughtful planning process for eliminating (or, at the very least, significantly reducing) our dependence on carbon-based fuels at some suitable future date, say 50 years from now, by designing new primary energy systems based on current and foreseeable technologies. As technology advances and our understanding of the greenhouse problem gets better, we can alter our strategies to take advantage of the changing situation. Once this decision point is reached the question changes from 'How can we avoid the change?' to 'How can we best implement it?'. If international agreements regarding carbon use are in place with all trading nations, trade will be on as level a 'playing field' as possible. It was the implementation of such a global agreement about the use of CFC's that made it possible to find a solution to the ozone depletion problem. In the beginning, the producing companies were afraid of the financial outcome of an attempt to regulate ozone-depleting chemicals. But in the end, the existence of a global agreement left all countries and all companies on an equal footing. In the long run, the producers involved actually made bigger returns on their investments. Strategies for Change How might we approach this energy planning process? The first thing we need to do is to see what infrastructure is currently being used and how it provides energy. Then we need to see what current or foreseeable technology could be available at the end of the fifty-year planning period to provide for our energy needs at that time with as little net release of carbon dioxide as possible. And then a strategy must be found to smoothly make the transition between the two technologies. As an example, consider how energy is moved today. One immediately thinks of gas pipelines, oil pipelines and electrical transmission lines. Then perhaps of oil tankers. The truth is that the century-old coal train is still providing a major fraction of the energy for the generation of electricity in the United States. As a general statement, railroads are still a versatile and important component of the industrial infrastructure in North America. (Yes, this is leading somewhere...) What are some carbon-dioxide-free sources of energy? Waterpower is clearly an important source. However, most of the easily-tapped sources of waterpower in North America have already been exploited and the large-scale possibilities that remain to be harnessed would probably be made available only at the cost of considerable environmental damage. The use of small-scale waterpower would only make a modest increase in the available energy supply compared to a long-term requirement that might see the generation of ten or more times the amount of electrical power being used today. Nuclear energy is most likely a necessary medium-term solution for providing carbon-free energy, but the long-term issue of dealing with nuclear waste leaves it uncertain as to whether it can be a long-term solution to the problem. Wind and solar power are also possible sources of clean energy but the fact that sunlight and wind are highly variable generation sources makes them difficult to use as a primary power source. However, if the energy from sunlight and wind could be stored, then they might provide the 'ultimate solution' to the energy problem for the foreseeable future. If we project the coal train into the future, a solution to the primary energy problem which can be gradually phased in at relatively low cost, and using established technology, presents itself. Huge solar- and wind-power stations could be built in suitable locations (like Arizona and Nevada, or the Canadian prairies, for solar power) and hydrogen gas generated using that power. The hydrogen would then be liquified and stored in huge reservoirs and shipped by train to the industrial regions (for example, in the east) and population centres which need it. In the short term, thermal [coal, gas and oil] plants could be converted to use the hydrogen as fuel and in the long term these plants would be replaced by a distributed network of fuel-cell power stations. These stations would be operated from hydrogen gas pipelines which are, in turn, fed from central liquid hydrogen depots. The trains themselves would be powered by converted diesel engines in the near term, and by hydrogen fuel cells in the long term, both run on the gas which naturally evolves from the cryogenic [very cold] liquid hydrogen tanks which make up the train. Local fuel cell power stations would also produce a modest quantity of pure water which could be used as well. On a much longer time scale, the hydrogen trains might be replaced by pipelines. Using existing infrastructure effectively Since much of the existing infrastructure would be used in the near term, the industries and communities involved in the change in the primary power source would have decades to convert, reinvest and adapt to the new technology. And if better alternatives developed in the medium term as the process goes forward, the investment 'loss' resulting in following this path would be small since the primary production facilities would not be replaced until later in the conversion process. The conversion to hydrogen fuel cells would have an enormous benefit in eliminating most of the chemical pollutants produced by thermal plants in the locale of the primary power supplying sites. The conversion would also leave the coal and oil available for use as industrial chemicals for the production of plastics and other materials essential for the global advancement of our industrial society. Endnote This short essay on the subject of global warming was not intended to describe a 'complete solution' to the problem since there are many engineering difficulties involved in implementing any such solution, but rather as an example of how one could, given interest and co-operation, move toward a solution to save our planet from the ravages of Climate Change without having to completely destroy our current life style or give up the advances of several hundred years of industrial development. |
|
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 17 February 2009 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|