Morts Musings

So, the Copenhagen summit is drawing to it’s exciting close when we’re to be treated to the spectacle of Obama saving the world with a last minute agreement which will be met with unanimous, rapturous approval by all 190 odd countries involved, and do enough to tackle the effects of anthropogenic climate change, so that future generations won’t be totally screwed.
Obviously, Obama’s chief sidekick boy-wonder Brown has been in Copenhagen for the last few days attempting to build a consensus, & generally trying to look like someone who’s worthy of re-election, or rather, I suppose that should be election, since he wasn’t voted in by anyone.

In anycase it looks like the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit is set to be a massive failure; We’ll probably get some kind of ineffectual, face-saving agreement pulled out of the fire at the very last moment, but the chances that it amounts to anything substantive, let alone does enough to combat the dangers which climate change pose to all of us, not to mention future generations, are in my opinion very depressingly slim indeed.

A big sticking point seems to be the Kyoto protocal; it seems like everyone who didn’t sign up for it wants to keep it, while those who did would rather sort out a new agreement which includes those who didn’t. To be honest I have more sympathy with the Kyoto signatories, it seems stupid to try and insist that a group of developed nations, which don’t include the US, should abide by an agreement when the world’s two largest pollutors, the US and China, aren’t to be bound in the same way; frankly we need them on board if we’re to achieve the kinds of CO₂ reductions which the science suggests are necessary.

Ultimately I wonder if this is where humanity demonstrates that it is an evolutionary dead end; short-sighted greed seems to be stymying attempts at taking longer term action to solve a problem which stands to effect us all, or rather the next generation. The impacts of climate change are already being seen in some of the world’s poorest regions, and yet relatively petty arguments between nations look set to make a farse of the Copenhagen Summit.
Faced with such monumentally selfish stupidity I guess we just have to hope that, against the vast weight of evidence to the contrary, it turns out that the climate sceptics are right, and it’s not going to be too great a problem.
Not a comforting thought at all!

It was all over the news yesterday; President Obama has said he will attend the Copenhagen Climate Change summit next month, and the announcement has, not surprisingly, been hailed as a positive move by the media in general.

As always though the devil is well and truly in the details. We certainly need the US, along with China, to sign up to any deal that is reached for it to actually have any meaning; without the participation of the world’s two most polluting nations any climate change agreement that is reached is just so much hot air, as we saw with Kyoto.
As of yet China’s president, Hu Jintao, hasn’t made any committment one way or the other as to whether he’ll attend Copenhagen, so even with Obama’s attendance at this stage there are no guarentees that anything substantive or meaningful will come out of Copenhagen. Still, at least one of the big two polluters appears to be prepared to start taking action, undoubtedly a step forward in the battle to mitigate the impact of climate change before it’s too late.

Unfortunately, although Obama seems genuinely committed to taking action on the issue, how much he’ll be able to achieve is another question entirely. Generally Americans are far less concerned about the threat of climate change than he is. Currently the US has a Climate Bill in front of Congress, which aims for a 20% reduction in US CO₂ emissions by 2020. However it’s taking 2005 as it’s base level, whereas Europe and many other countrys are setting their reduction targets based on 1990 emisson levels. Even then it’s looking like Obama’s going to have to reduce his preposed target from 20% in order to get the necessary support to pass the bill through Congress; hence why he’ll only be pledging a 17% cut, by 2020, when he attends Copenhagen.
It also has to be noted that currently he’s only planning to attend the summit for one day, before heading off to Oslo to accept his Nobel Prize, and won’t be returning to Copenhagen for the crucial final days of the summit, when any agreement will be hammered out.

Overall it has to be seen as a positive step, that a US President is finally engaging in the fight to tackle the effects of Climate Change, but it also has to be remembered that he ultimately serves his electorate, and so, even if Obama is on-board with the struggle to reduce the effects of climate change it’s quite clear that his hands will, to an extent, be tied until he’s able to convince more of the US population that climate change is everybody’s problem!

While doing my rounds of various news sites during a quiet spot earlier, I came across an article called Study Predicts Effect of Global Warming on Spring Flowers, on NASA’s Earth Observatory site.

The study in question was carried out by British and Australian academics & investigated the likely effects of global warming on flowers, and other plant species. My first reaction was actually pedantic rage brought on by NASA’s use of the phrase “Global Warming“. All too often this term is used incorrectly as a synonym for climate change, and it’s one of my pet hates, since the label “global warming” implies that climate change will lead to warmer weather globally; whereas the reality of climate change is that some places will get hotter while others get colder, or that specific locations will become hotter in the summers but get colder winters than they’ve previously experienced.

In short, climate change comes down to much more than the idea that everythings going to get warmer, & I believe imprecise use of the term “global warming”, when one is talking about climate change as a whole, only adds confusion to a debate which is already bogged down in misunderstanding, statistical chicanery, &, at times, downright dishonesty.
For a start it implies that everywhere is going to get warmer, which makes some people wonder “What’s the problem, hotter summers would be nice!”, but it also gives especially ignorant anthropogenic climate change sceptics an excuse to crow on about how “global warming” is a myth, whenever it snows badly, or there’s a cold snap. Of course, what the poor fools are missing is that climate change could very well lead to much hotter, wetter summers for us in the UK, but leave us (in worse case scenarios) with winters they’d be more familar with in Moscow; London’s only a few degrees of latitude south of Moscow, and if the Gulf Stream &/or Jet stream were to pack up it’s likely that the UK would become a good deal colder!

In anycase misuse of “global warming” to mean “climate change” it’s one of my pet hates, and it especially grates when a source which should know better does it, hence my initial reaction to the piece. However, on reading through it I discovered that I had perhaps been too hasty, as the piece in question appears to be looking at a “global warming” scenario, rather than climate change as a whole; Of course how much validity there is in a study which is predicting an overall warming pattern, rather than considering the possibility that weather will become more extreme, and erractic, all round is another question entirely, and one which I’ll maybe rant about another day.

OK, “sloppy use of precise terms” rant aside, what did the study actually conclude. Essentially the results shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody, in the sense that generally speaking, it found that warmer winters would lead to plants flowering earlier; However, the predicted scale of these changes is quite surprising. Roughly speaking, for every 1^oC that average air temperature rises, plants will start flowering 11 days earlier, although this figure could vary between 7 and 16 days per ^oC, depending on whether the local climate is oceanic or continental, and how exactly it’s effected by climate change in the longer run.
Near the start of the article it’s stated that flowers could be appearing “as much as 50 days” earlier, than they currently do, by 2080, but, cynic that I am, I assume this figure is based on more extreme climate change predictions, in order to produce an eye-catching headline.

“So what’s the problem?” you may be asking; how do flowers appearing earlier in the year have a negative impact on anyone, except for possibly shops which sell flowers losing sales around Valentine’s day. The answer is that, most likely, there wouldn’t be any direct negative effects for humans, but when one thinks about the numbers of other species, particularly insects, whose life cycles rely in some way on flowers, and other species who, in turn, rely on those species, it’s clear that ecologically this could be a pretty big deal.
A great deal of effort is spent on highlighting how climate change might end up directly effecting humans, and while that is definitely a worthy goal, I think that too often it’s wider ecological effects are only vaguely touched upon. The stark truth is that, despite all of our scientific advances, humanity’s welfare is still, very much, tied to the ecosphere which we inhabit, and if other species which play important roles in the ecosystem start to fail then the overall impact of climate change could be far greater than many realise.

Following on from my piece about artifical trees, this BBC piece from a couple of weeks ago got me thinking about another method of reducing transport related emissions, electric vehicles.

Of course the first thing to remember when one considers electric cars or vans is that the electricity has to come from somewhere, and if that’s from a power station which uses fossil fuels then really all you’re doing is obfuscating the vehicle’s carbon footprint, rather than reducing it significantly. Although, saying that, it has to be more practical to employ carbon capture technology in a power station than in a vehicle.

Electric cars and vans actually have a much longer history than most might realise, and in the early days of motorised transport, were far more common then petrol powered vehicles. However, advances in the internal combustion engine (ICE) & petroleum production technology during the early 20th century allowed ICE powered cars to be produced substantially cheaper than equivalent electric vehicles, and as a result electric vehicles pretty much died out for severeal decades.

In some ways it seems ironic to me that we started out on a track we’re now re-embracing, but given the advantages which the ICE had at the time, such as longer range & faster refueling times, it’s hard to blame the people of the time for embracing it, &, I have to wonder whether humanity would have advanced nearly so much as it did during the 20th century without the ICE. Some may argue that less advancement may actually have been a good thing for our species, and the planet in general, and in many ways I have sympathy for that view, but it would feel somewhat hypocritical to get too fervent about it.

In any case the modern generation of electric vehicles do appear to be shaping up rather nicely, and it once again looks like they might be able to give ICE powered vehicles a run for their money. The days when the only electric vehicles on the streets were the old fashioned milk floats are long gone, and although the technology definitely still needs some work, to make it affordable and convenient some of the forerunners of this new generation of electric cars and vans give hope that they may indeed be a viable solution in the very near future.

One of the most impressive is possibly Tesla Motors’ Roadster; A car based on the Lotus Elise which boasts a top speed of 135mph, a 200 mile range, & can go from 0 to 60 in ~4 seconds. Tesla also have plans for a solar powered version which they claim could make the car “carbon positive”, impressive stuff, if it comes about. Even it’s price tag of £90k isn’t that bad if one views it as a luxury sports model, although it is obviously out of many people’s price range. Anyway, take a look for yourself, if you want:

There’s also hope for those who can’t afford that kind of price tag, as more mainstream brands, such as Mitsubishi & Mini, release more affordablle electric vehicles, while others, like volkswagen, clamour to jump on the band wagon. It looks like business is starting to take the idea of electrics seriously too, with some courier companies starting to adopt the use of electric vans, especially around urban areas, where their pollution reducing benefits might be most tangibly felt. Also a number of the big name car and van rental companies are looking at offering electrics as an option, or are already doing so; good news for those who don’t own a car for green principle reasons, but occasionally find the need for something more reliable and flexible than public transport. I suppose it would even give the sceptics, a chance to “try before they buy”.

Overall, I think this technology does have an awful lot of potential; it may not be quite “there” yet, but I think over the next few years it’s likely to become more and more commonplace. The Govt announcement that they’ll support the construction of the required infrastructure has to be a big step forward- An easily accessed, widespread, network of charging points will surely only help encourage people that electrics are more than just an eccentric fad. As I said at the start of the piece, I do have some concerns about the source of the electricity that powers these vehicles, but, in terms of transport, I think we may well be looking at the shape of things to come.

While most people would likely agree that real flowers are far superior to artificial ones, the same may not be true for artificial trees. At least not from an environmental science perspective.

This article on the BBC site caught my attention today; It not only appeals to my inner tree-hugger, but also to my geeky science streak too.

The piece looks at the possibility of using “artificial trees” as a method of carbon capture- one of our best options for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, and thus reducing anthropogenic climate change. Carbon capture isn’t a solution in it’s own right, in the longer term we need to look at developing energy generation methods which don’t spew CO₂ out into the atmosphere, but, in the shorter term, while new technologies are being developed, it could be a valuable weapon in the fight against “global warming”.

The theory behind the artificial trees is that a large surface area is coated in a substance which will readily react with atmospheric CO₂ to form a solid compound, thus removing it from the air. The chemistry behind the process is pretty simple, in fact anyone who remembers using Lime Water as a test for CO₂ in science at school has used exactly the kind of process that we’re talking about here. (The cloudiness which one sees when CO₂ is bubbled through lime water is due to the formation, & precipitation, of insoluble calcium carbonate.)

Dr Klaus Lackner, the man behind the idea, reckons that each of these artificial trees could capture up to 90,000 tonnes of CO₂ each year, the equivalent of the 15,000 cars’ exhaust fumes, and if the idea is adopted it’s best use might very well be to line the sides of busy roads. Industrial plants have other options for carbon capture, and possibly more efficient ones than removing CO₂ which has already made it’s way into the atmosphere.
With motor vehicles though it’s simply impracticle to try and capture CO₂ as it’s produced. For a start burning 14g of petrol produces 44g of CO₂, meaning that any carbon capturing vehicle would get heavier during the course of a journey, and as a result loose fuel efficiency. Clearly a non-starter.

Before you all rush out and start buying shares in artificial tree companies, it’s only fair to point out that it’s not likely to be a panacea for all our climate change woes. The biggest sticking point at the moment seems to be the question of renewing the “trees” once the CO₂ binding chemicals have been used up; This in itself could be a logistical nightmare, and could potentially make the idea a non-starter, unless a cost effective, carbon neutral, method of collecting and cleaning the artificial trees’ foils can be found.

Obviously, Dr Lackner and his team continue to work on these details, and personally I hope they do manage to find a viable way to implement this technology. In theory it seems like it could be one of our best approaches to tackling excessive atmospheric CO₂ levels in the time frame we have.
If you want to know more about the theory behind Dr Lackner’s artifical trees this BBC article goes into a bit more detail than the one I linked to at the top of the page, or if you wanted to get into serious levels of detail you could read his paper on Capturing CO₂ from Air.