Welcome to a new planet - onlynaturalenergy.com€¦ · YEAR II - NUMBER 1 - JANUARY-MARCH 2016...

YEAR II - NUMBER 1 - JANUARY-MARCH 2016

Welcome to a new planet

Thorium - a holy grail?

Climate denialism:a brief history

Paris always worth a mass?

CCS: the black sheep of green energy?

Year II - Number 1 JANUARY-MARCH 2016

Editor:Gianni Serra

Editorial team:Eusebio LoriaToby LockwoodJez AbbottAlice Masili

Contributors: Michael T. KlareNaomi OreskesErik ConwayIan AngusAnna RoggenbuckNils BøhmerChao Chen

Thanks this issue: TomDispatchAdbusters Climate and Capitalism BankwatchBellonaChaochen-design.com

Cover Photo: The Earth - as seen from aboveCompton crater. Taken by theLunar Reconnaissance Orbiter(NASA)

Publisher:Sotacarbo LtdCO2 Technology Centre SulcisGrande Miniera di Serbariu 09013Carbonia (Italy)

4 Paris always worth a mass?8 Carbon capture and storage: the black sheep of green energy?

12 Welcome to a New Planet

18 Climate denialism: a brief history

22 Energy Storage: the key to renewables success

26 Hijacking the Anthropocene

32 9 reasons why the EU's bank is no climate leader

36 Thorium – a holy grail?

38 The many faces of water40 Last stand: Detroit

3

http://www.onlynaturalenergy.com

Paris always wortha mass?

The COP 21 final accord is seen by many as crucial to move world societiestowards resilient, low-carbon economies. Not everyone agreesBy JEZ ABBOTT

ONE

Last December Paris hosted the world’s biggest talkson tackling global warming and curbing emissions. More than 38,000 delegates representing countries,United Nations' agencies, charities, campaigngroups, universities, companies and media organisa-tions came together in a spirit of harmony.

After almost two weeks of discussions in the Frenchcapital, the 21st UN Climate Change Conference,or COP21, saw 195 countries agree to keep globalaverage temperatures “well below 2°C” by cuttinggreenhouse gas emissions and ensuring countriescan adapt.

But some left feeling “vilified as slave traders”, andreaching widespread agreement has been a long timecoming: for decades scientists and politicians acrossthe globe have bickered and failed to solve threatsposed by climate change.

COP21 however was different, according to he UN,which hyped the gathering as a second chance tostrike a deal after a similar, ill-fated, effort six yearsago in Copenhagen, Denmark, failed to produce abinding agreement.

Toward the Paris summit's end on 12 December2015, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said thetalks were the “most complicated, most difficult” hehad attended. But: “We have entered a new era ofglobal cooperation on one of the most complex is-sues ever to confront humanity.”

The final accord is seen by many as a crucial, per-haps last, chance to create the first universal agree-ment to move worldsocieties towards resi-lient, low-carbon econo-mies. The agreementcomes into effect in fouryears and to help fundthis ambitious goal;COP21 aims to raise

$100 billion a year from 2020 through public andprivate sources in developed countries. While indivi-dual pledges from nations are not enough to preventdangerous climate change, the 32-page Paris Agree-ment was seen by many to mark a significant, collec-tive and positive step for international negotiations.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) executive secretary Christiana Figueressaid: “One planet, one chance to get it right and wedid it in Paris. We have made history together.

“The recognition of actions by businesses, investors,cities and regions is one of the key outcomes ofCOP 21. The groundswell of action shows the worldis on an inevitable path toward a properly sustaina-ble, low-carbon world. This is an agreement of con-viction and solidarity with the most vulnerable. Nowwe have to turn this deal into an engine of safegrowth.”

An agreement of conviction it may be, but COP21 isnot a treaty. Instead of legal requirements for accu-rate cuts in emissions, the deal is based on voluntarypledges, known as “intended nationally determinedcommitments” or INDCs.

Countries are legally bound, though, to present pro-gress reports every five years beginning in 2023, andto increase pledges every five years beginning in2020. Lacking major enforcement mechanisms, thedeal relies heavily on global peer pressure for coun-tries to comply.

It is good enough for the business sector, with theTrans-Atlantic BusinessCouncil (TABC) chief exe-cutive Tim Bennett saying:“This is a signal to and in-centive for businesses tocontinue developing newtechnologies that will con-tribute to the goal of redu-

5ONLYNATURALENERGY.COM JANUARY-MARCH 2016

“Talks in Paris were the most complicated,

most difficult I had ever attended.”

Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general

cing global emissions.

“Industry is already engaged in tac-kling climate change through inno-vation and changing businessmodels. The private sector willcontinue to provide new technolo-gies and industrial solutions to ad-dress this unprecedentedchallenge. We believe sustained ef-forts in research, development anddeployment are crucial to achie-ving national pledges.”

He said member companies ofTABC, a cross-sector business asso-ciation representing global compa-nies headquartered in the US andEU, “look forward” to engagingwith governments and the interna-tional community to help achievethe objectives of the agree-ment.

International MonetaryFund (IMF) managing direc-tor Christine Lagardeagreed: “The Paris Agree-ment is a critical step for-ward in addressing thechallenge of global climate changein the 21st century. Governmentsmust now put words into actionsby implementing policies thatmake adequate progress on the mi-tigation pledges they have made.”

Also happy is Local Governmentsfor Sustainability (ICLEI), the asso-ciation of cities and local gover-nments dedicated to sustainabledevelopment and including 12mega-cities and more than 1,000large cities and urban regions in 84countries.

Secretary general Gino Van Begin

said: “The Paris Agreement affirmsengagement with all levels of gover-nment. This inclusiveness willstrengthen the power of the globalcoalition that will build a climate-safe and resilient future for com-munities across the world.

“Technical and financial supportcommitted through the agreementwill help local and subnational go-vernments to act boldly, swiftlyand purposefully on climate. Im-mediate allocation of necessary re-sources for local and subnationalplans will accelerate implementa-tion of the pre-2020 action.”

However, environmental charityFriends of the Earth insisted thefinal draft of the climate agree-

ment in Paris must be strengthe-ned. Chief executive Craig Bennettsaid: “This draft climate deal fallsfar short of the soaring rhetoricfrom world leaders at the start ofthe conference.

“At least it puts fossil fuels on thewrong side of history, but itdoesn’t contain the solid commit-ments that science and natural ju-stice require to cut emissions andprotect people from increasing flo-ods, droughts and superstorms.“The insistence of the EU and USon a clause that rules out compen-sating underdeveloped countries

for the damage caused by climatechange is a major issue. Rich na-tions have benefited most fromburning fossil fuels that wreck ourenvironment – they must taketheir fair share of the responsibilityfor helping the developing worldto deal with the impacts.”

HelpAge International, a group oforganisations in Canada, Colom-bia, Kenya, India and the UK sup-porting older people worldwide,warned that climate change strate-gies must reflect the ageing worldin which we live because theywould experience the greatest im-pacts of climate change over the co-ming century.

Others were more forthright intheir criticism. A leading Eu-ropean coal lobbying associa-tion said the deal to capglobal warming meant thesector would “be hated andvilified in the same way thatslave traders were oncehated and reviled”.European Association for

Coal and Lignite (Euracoal) secre-tary-general Brian Ricketts wrote tohis members saying the “climatebandwagon is rolling and gathe-ring speed such that the fossil fuelindustry will spend the comingyears and decades in the spotlightfor all the wrong reasons.”

He accused governments and theEuropean Commission of being“in cahoots with protest move-ments” and urged his industry to“no longer acquiesce”. Fossil fuels,including coal, contribute to car-bon emissions and global war-ming, but Ricketts said the UN

“While the text recognizes the im-portance of keeping global warminglow, the current commitments fromcountries still add up to well over

three degrees of warming.”Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org

was portraying them as “publicenemy number one”.

Meanwhile, the deal representedthe first step to a “global gover-nment” and was based on a “UNlie” about the future potential ofrenewables: “If emotional energycould power the planet, thenCOP21 has provided us withenough to keep the lights on forthe next hundred years.”

Euracoal has 34 members from 20countries including national asso-ciations, importers associations, re-search institutes and individualcompanies in Italy, France, Ger-many, Spain, Poland and GreatBritain. This view was poles apartfrom that of Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, the internatio-nal effort to decrease carbondioxide concentration in the atmo-sphere to 350 parts per million.Every government, he said, at last,

seemed to recognize the fossil fuelera must end soon.

“But the power of the fossil fuel in-dustry is reflected in the text,which drags out the transition sofar that endless climate damagewill be done. Since pace is the cru-cial question now, activists must re-double our efforts to weaken thatindustry.”

The final text still had “some se-rious gaps”, he insisted: “We’revery concerned about the exclu-sion of the rights of indigenouspeoples and the lack of finance forloss and damage. And while thetext recognizes the importance ofkeeping global warming low, thecurrent commitments from coun-tries still add up to well over threedegrees of warming.”

However, environmental charityWWF praised the deal, with

energy policy officer Darek Urba-niak insisting: “agreement sent astrong signal to the governmentsaround the world to continue pha-sing-out of fossil fuels. While EUcoal is already in decline the EUcoal-power carbon emissions needsto be cut three times faster thancurrently planned to avoid theworst impacts of climate change.”

That said the COP21 agreementwas “a monumental success for theplanet and its people,” UN secre-tary general Ban Ki-moon conclu-ded, hailing the deal as“ambitious, credible, flexible anddurable”.

“History,” he added at the drop-ping a gavel in the shape of a greenleaf to close the most far-reachingdeal on climate change to date,“will remember this day”.


Four Details on the Paris Agreement• All countries will submit adaptation communications, in which they may detail their adaptation priorities, supportneeds and plans. Developing countries will receive increased support for adaptation actions and the adequacy of thissupport will be assessed.• The agreement includes a robust transparency framework for both action and support. The framework will provideclarity on countries’ mitigation and adaptation actions, as well as the provision of support. At the same time, it reco-gnizes that Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States have special circumstances.• The agreement includes a global stocktake starting in 2023 to assess the collective progress towards the goals ofthe agreement. The stocktake will be done every five years.• The agreement includes a compliance mechanism, overseen by a committee of experts that operates in a non-punitive way.

“If emotional energy could power the planet, then COP21 has providedus with enough to keep the lights on for the next hundred years.”

Brian Ricketts, Eurocoal secretary-general

Solar panels gleaming in the midday sun while tur-bine blades turn peacefully in the breeze – the appea-ling idea of harnessing nature’s power has had notrouble in winning fans. The idea of sucking up ourCO2 emissions and piping them underground has,unsurprisingly, struggled to drum up as much enthu-siasm as a means of lessening our impact on the envi-ronment, with its reminiscence of sweeping theproblem under the carpet and hoping it will go away.

Despite being a regular feature in proposals for redu-cing global CO2 emissions to safe levels, carbon cap-ture and storage, or CCS, is opposed byenvironmental groups such as Greenpeace, who tendto see the technology as a ploy for the fossil fuel sectorto continue its dirty work. While scientists have beenbusy trying to bring CCS to practical reality over thelast decade, this kind of ideological resistance to theidea of CCS has probably done more to limit its usethan any of the technological issues encountered.

Although frequently criticised as an unproven techno-logy which may not work, some examples of CCShave actually been around for decades, and 15 instal-lations worldwide are currently storing around 40 mil-lion tonnes per year of CO2 which would otherwisebe released into the atmosphere.

Much of the confusion comes from the fact that ne-arly all these facilities take CO2 from industrial pro-cesses rather than the primary carbon culprits – thecoal-fired power stations which account for a quarterof the world’s emissions and are usually consideredthe real goal for CCS. This CO2 is much less concen-trated, and therefore much harder to capture than oiland gas industry processes which have so far been tar-geted. Following a decade of cancelled plans, only onecoal power plant has so far been fitted with CCS, theBoundary Dam plant in Canada whose opening inlate 2014 was seen as a landmark moment for the te-chnology. However, early technical problems at this fa-cility which limited the amount of CO2 it couldactually capture have been seized upon by CCS criticsas further evidence of its shortcomings, despite pro-tests from the owners that such teething problems arestandard for a new technology.

What was to be a pioneering year for CCS power ge-neration then ended on a sour note following the re-cent announcement by the UK government that, aspart of widespread budget cuts, it was cancelling £1bn in funding previously earmarked for building aCCS power plant. Perhaps more significantly, theUSA is still betting big on CCS, with two large coalplants set to open this year, although the massive de-

Carbon capture and storage: the black sheep of green energy?

What was to be a pioneering year for CCS power generation then ended on a sour note following the recent announcement by the UK government that, as part of widespread budget cuts, it was cancelling £1 bn in funding previously earmarked for building a CCS power plant.

Mixed fortunes for this unloved carbon-cutting technologyBy TOBY LOCKWOODONE

lays and cost-overruns suffered by the Kemper Countyplant have also helped cast a shadow over the futureof carbon capture.

Like many carbon-free energy sources, power fromCCS is expensive. At the moment, government grantsof the kind once proposed in the UK are usually re-quired to help companies build a plant and set up aninfrastructure for transporting and storing the CO2,but this should quickly become unnecessary as otherinvestors begin to see the technology can actuallywork.

More importantly, there is obviously no business casefor undertaking the costly task of storing CO2 wi-thout any financial reward. Regulations which putsome price on CO2 emissions are one means of valo-rising the carbon capture business, but existing sche-mes like the EU emissions trading system currentlyset this price far too small to be profitable. Of course,renewable energies like solar panels and wind turbi-

nes usually need both these kinds of financial help aswell, and have taken off largely thanks to subsidieswhich effectively charge the customer more for theirclean energy. The cost of carbon-free power fromCCS is generally estimated to be cheaper than manyrenewables such as photovoltaics and offshore windturbines. Otherwise, it would not even be on thetable as a viable option.

So why does CCS struggle to find the same level ofsupport? Part of the answer may lie in the nature ofthe cost of CCS, which is mainly associated with thelarge amount of energy needed to separate and purifyCO2 from other gases. To drive the current processesavailable for this task, a power plant needs to con-sume almost half again as much fuel as normal – alsohaving to capture and store the extra CO2 produced.

Burning that much coal just to clean up the originalcoal is an idea which sits uneasily with many. Criticspoint to the fact that more coal mining will be nee-

The official launch of the Boundary Dam carbon capture and storage facility in Estevan (Canada) on Oct. 2, 2014. Photo: © SaskPower


ded, and even if the CO2 is disposed of, does it reallymake sense to produce so much more of it? This tiesinto a second source of concern dogging CCS, whichis a lack of faith that CO2 will actually stay under-ground reliably.

Some of this disbelief may stem from a popular mi-sconception that the gas sits in vast subterranean ca-verns when in reality it is soaked into porous rocks asa pressurised liquid – much like the oil and gas wehave removed to produce it. In fact, even if leaks wereto occur from these CO2 stores over time, it wouldprobably do little to diminish the value of such largerepositories for carbon which would serve a similarrole as the oceans and forests.

However, while CCS proponents have fought to con-vince politicians and the public over the scientific andeconomic sense of the idea, it is clear that the techno-logy will inevitably be held to a higher standard thanits more popular, renewable energy cousins. There is astrong feeling that if we are to resort to this inelegantsolution to our climate problems, it should cost muchless than the alternatives, and not require so muchhelp to get going.

The main trump card of CCS over most renewables isits ability to produce power on demand, not justwhen the wind blows or the sun shines – a servicewhich energy markets are still struggling to put a suita-ble value on. Without CCS, new energy storage te-chnologies will be needed to even out the supply ofrenewable energy, rendering these already costlyenergy sources even more expensive.

The alarming extent to which the batteries that powerour phones and laptops have lagged behind the devi-ces themselves is some indication of how challengingthese technologies are to develop. Nevertheless, theaesthetic superiority of this brave new world of energyis such that people and governments may well be pre-pared to pay more to avoid any reliance on the compa-ratively antiquated practice of burning fossil fuels.

The major international climate change talks held inParis at the end of last year brought little attention toCCS, with only Norway and Canada specifically men-tioning the technology in the official action plans sub-mitted by each country. However, a closer look at thehugely ambitious targets laid down by the meetingcan only emphasise the inevitable role of CCS if thesegoals are to be achieved.

Melkøya-Snøhvit-Photo-Øyvind-Hagen-Statoil. Photo: © Norskpetroleum


The real challenge with the famous ‘two-degree scena-rio’ or 2DS agreed to in Paris, is that it effectively allo-cates humanity a fixed amount of CO2 which cansafely be emitted. At our current rate (around 40 bil-lion tonnes per year), this budget of roughly 400 bil-lion tonnes will not last very long, and mostpredictions show we are almost certain to overshootit.

The new ‘1.5-degree scenario’ proposed as an aspira-tional target in Paris presents an even greater chal-lenge. Even if the energy industry is completelydecarbonised without recourse to CCS, we will stillneed to start storing CO2 just to get the atmosphereback to a healthy state. What’s more, carbon-intensiveindustries such as steel and cement production whichare much more difficult to clean up will have nochoice but to turn to CCS under this strict new re-gime.

It may seem strange, therefore, that there is so muchfocus on CCS for power generation, where it needs tocompete with far more appealing alternatives. In rea-lity, we are so perilously close to exceeding our carbon

budget that CCS needs to be developed now, and ap-plying it to clean up some of the vast number of coalplants worldwide makes more sense than trying tosuck CO2 out of the atmosphere in the future. Allthe more so when many of these plants are brand newand predicted to run for decades, regardless of the im-pressive growth in renewable generation.

The belief is that CCS is primarily in need of a dra-matic image makeover if it is to fulfil its potential rolein decarbonising our society. Much of the necessarychange in perception can be driven by new technolo-gies which are promising to capture CO2 at far lesscost and energy.

As the use of CCS slowly increases, people are also li-kely to become more used to the idea of storing CO2underground. However, the industry could do worsethan look to another black sheep of clean energy forproof that attitudes can change – nuclear power,which in many countries has gone from environmen-tal pariah to climate change hero in less than two de-cades.

Not so long ago, it was science fiction. Now, it’s hardscience -- and that should frighten us all. The latest re-ports from the prestigious and sober Intergovernmen-tal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makeincreasingly hair-raising reading, suggesting that theplanet is approaching possible moments of irreversi-ble damage in a fashion and at a speed that had notbeen anticipated.

Scientists have long worried that climate change willnot continue to advance in a “linear” fashion, withthe planet getting a little bit hotter most years. In-stead, they fear, humanity could someday experience“non-linear” climate shifts (also known as “singulari-ties” or “tipping points”) after which there would besudden and irreversible change of a catastrophic na-ture. This was the premise of the 2004 climate-disa-ster film The Day After Tomorrow. In that movie --most notable for its vivid scenes of a frozen-over NewYork City -- melting polar ice causes a disruption inthe North Atlantic Current, which in turn triggers aseries of catastrophic storms and disasters. At thetime of its release, many knowledgeable scientists deri-ded the film’s premise, insisting that the confluenceof events it portrayed was unlikely or simply impossi-ble.

Fast forward 11 years and the prospect of such calami-tous tipping points in the North Atlantic or elsewhereno longer looks improbable. In fact, climate scientistshave begun to note early indicators of possible cata-strophes.

Take the disruption of the North Atlantic Current,the pivotal event in The Day After Tomorrow. Essen-

tially an extension of the Gulf Stream, that deep-seacurrent carries relatively warm salty water from theSouth Atlantic and the Caribbean to the northernreaches of the Atlantic. In the process, it helps keepEurope warmer than it would otherwise be. Once itssalty water flows into sub-Arctic areas carried by thisprolific stream, it gets colder and heavier, sinks tolower depths, and starts a return trip to warmer cli-mes in the south where the whole process beginsagain.

So long as this “global conveyor belt” -- known toscientists as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Cir-culation, or AMOC -- keeps functioning, the GulfStream will also continue to bring warmer waters tothe eastern United States and Europe. Should it bedisrupted, however, the whole system might breakdown, in which case the Euro-Atlantic climate couldturn colder and more storm-prone. Such a disruptionmight occur if the vast Greenland ice sheet melts in asignificant way, as indeed is already beginning to hap-pen today, pouring large quantities of salt-free freshwater into the Atlantic Ocean. Because of its lighterweight, this newly introduced water will remain closeto the surface, preventing the submergence of saltywater from the south and so effectively shutting downthe conveyor belt. Indeed, exactly this process nowseems to be underway.

By all accounts, 2015 is likely to wind up as the hot-test year on record, with large parts of the world suffe-ring from severe heat waves and wildfires. Despite allthis, however, a stretch of the North Atlantic belowIceland and Greenland is experiencing all-time coldtemperatures, according to the National Oceanic and

Welcome to a New Planet

By MICHAEL T. KLARETomDispatch.com

Climate Change “Tipping Points” and the Fate of the Earth

Atmospheric Administration. What explains thisanomaly? According to scientists from the PotsdamInstitute for Climate Impact Research and Pennsylva-nia State University, among other institutions, themost likely explanation is the arrival in the area ofcold water from the Greenland ice sheet that is mel-ting ever more rapidly thanks to climate change. Be-cause this meltwater starts out salt-free, it hasremained near the surface and so, as predicted, is slo-wing the northern advance of warmer water from theNorth Atlantic Current.

So far, the AMOC has not suffered a dramatic shut-down, but it is slowing, and scientists worry that arapid increase in Greenland ice melt as the Arcticcontinues to warm will pour ever more meltwater intothe North Atlantic, severely disrupting the conveyorsystem. That would, indeed, constitute a major tip-ping point, with severe consequences for Europe andeastern North America. Not only would Europe expe-rience colder temperatures on an otherwise warmerplanet, but coastal North America could witness hi-gher sea levels than those predicted from climatechange alone because the Gulf Stream tends to pull

sea water away from the eastern U.S. and push it to-ward Europe. If it were to fail, rising sea levels couldendanger cities like New York and Boston. Indeed,scientists discovered that just such a slowing of theAMOC helped produce a sea-level rise of four inchesfrom New York to Newfoundland in 2009 and 2010.

In its 2014 report on the status of global warming, theIPCC indicated that the likelihood of the AMOC col-lapsing before the end of this century remains relati-vely low. But some studies suggest that the conveyorsystem is already 15%-20% below normal with Green-land’s melting still in an early stage. Once that pro-cess switches into high gear, the potential for the sortof breakdown that was once science fiction starts tolook all too real.

Tipping Points on the Horizon

In a 2014 report, “Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnera-bility,” Working Group II of the IPCC identifiedthree other natural systems already showing early-war-ning signs of catastrophic tipping points: the Arctic,coral reefs, and the Amazonian forest. All three, the


Tasiilaq, Greenland. Photo: © Christine Zenino.

report suggested, could experience massive and irre-versible changes with profound implications forhuman societies.

The Arctic comes in for particular scrutiny because ithas experienced more warming than any other regionon the planet and because the impact of climatechange there is already so obvious. As the report putit, “For the Arctic region, new evidence indicates abiophysical regime shift is taking place, with cascadingimpacts on physical systems, ecosystems, and humanlivelihoods.”

This has begun with a massive melt of sea ice in theregion and a resulting threat to native marine species.“For Arctic marine biota,” the report notes, “therapid reduction of summer ice covers causes a tippingelement that is now severely affecting pelagic [sub-sur-face] ecosystems as well as ice-dependent mammalssuch as seals and polar bears.” Other flora and faunaof the Arctic biome are also demonstrating stress rela-ted to climate change. For example, vast areas of tun-dra are being invaded by shrubs and small trees,decimating the habitats of some animal species andincreasing the risk of fires.

This Arctic “regime shift” affects many other aspectsof the ecosystem as well. Higher temperatures, for in-stance, have meant widespread thawing and meltingof permafrost, the frozen soil and water that under-girds much of the Arctic landmass. In this lies ano-ther possible tipping-point danger, since frozen soilscontain more than twice the carbon now present inthe atmosphere. As the permafrost melts, some ofthis carbon is released in the form of methane, a po-tent greenhouse gas with many times the warming po-tential of carbon dioxide and other such gases. Inother words, as the IPCC noted, any significant mel-ting of Arctic permafrost will “create a potentiallystrong positive feedback to accelerate Arctic (and glo-bal) warming.” This, in fact, could prove to be morethan a tipping point. It could be a planetary catastro-phe.

Along with these biophysical effects, the warming ofthe Arctic is threatening the livelihoods and lifestylesof the indigenous peoples of the region. The loss of

summer sea ice, for example, has endangered the ma-rine species on which many such communities de-pend for food and the preservation of their culturaltraditions. Meanwhile, melting permafrost and coa-stal erosion due to sea-level rise have threatened thevery existence of their coastal villages. In September,President Obama visited Kotzebue, a village in Alaskasome 30 miles above the Arctic Circle that could di-sappear as a result of melting permafrost, rising sea le-vels, and ever bigger storm surges.

Coral Reefs at Risk

Another crucial ecosystem that's showing signs of hea-ding toward an irreversible tipping point is the world'sconstellation of coral reefs. Remarkably enough, al-though such reefs make up less than 1% of theEarth’s surface area, they house up to 25% of all ma-rine life. They are, that is, essential for both the he-alth of the oceans and of fishing communities, as wellas of those who depend on fish for a significant partof their diet. According to one estimate, some 850million people rely on coral reefs for their food secu-rity.

Corals, which are colonies of tiny animals related tosea anemones, have proven highly sensitive to changesin the acidity and temperature of their surroundingwaters, both of which are rising due to the absorptionof excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As aresult, in a visually dramatic process called “blea-ching,” coral populations have been dying out glo-bally. According to a recent study by the WorldwideFund for Nature, coral reef extent has declined by50% in the last 30 years and all reefs could disappearas early as 2050 if current rates of ocean warming andacidification continue.

“This irreversible loss of biodiversity,” reports theIPCC, will have “significant consequences for regio-nal marine ecosystems as well as the human liveliho-ods that depend on them.” Indeed, the growingevidence of such losses “strengthens the conclusionthat increased mass bleaching of corals constitutes astrong warning signal for the singular event thatwould constitute the irreversible loss of an entirebiome.”


Amazonian Dry-Out

The Amazon has long been viewed as the epitome ofa tropical rainforest, with extraordinary plant and ani-mal diversity. The Amazonian tree cover also plays avital role in reducing the pace of global warming byabsorbing vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the at-mosphere during the process of photosynthesis. Foryears, however, the Amazon has been increasingly de-vastated by a process of deforestation, as settlers fromBrazil’s coastal regions clear land for farming and ran-ching, and loggers (many operating illegally) harvesttimber for wood products. Now, as if to add insult toinjury, the region faces a new threat from climatechange: tree mortality due to a rise in severe droughtand the increased forest fire risk that accompanies it.

Although it can rain year-round in the Amazon re-

gion, there is a distinct wet season with heavy rainfalland a dry season with much less of it. An extendeddry season with little rain can endanger the survivalof many trees and increase the risk of wildfires. Rese-arch conducted by scientists at the University of Texashas found that the dry season in the southern Amazo-nian region has grown by a week every decade since1980 while the annual fire season has lengthened.“The dry season over the southern Amazon is alreadymarginal for maintaining rainforest,” says Rong Fu,the leader of the research team. “At some point, if itbecomes too long, the rainforest will reach a tippingpoint” and disappear.

Because the Amazon harbors perhaps the largest arrayof distinctive flora and fauna on the planet, its losswould represent an irreversible blow to global biodi-versity. In addition, the region hosts some of the lar-

Manaus Amazon rainforest. Photo: © Neil Palmer/CIAT for Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

gest assemblages of indigenous peoples still practicingtheir traditional ways of life. Even if their lives weresaved (through relocation to urban slums or gover-nment encampments), the loss of their cultures, repre-senting thousands of years of adaptation to ademanding environment, would be a blow for all hu-mankind.

As in the case of the Arctic and coral reefs, the col-lapse of the Amazon will have what the IPCC terms“cascading impacts,” devastating ecosystems, dimini-shing biodiversity, and destroying the ways of life ofindigenous peoples. Worse yet, as with the melting ofthe Arctic, so the drying-out of Amazonia is likely tofeed into climate change, heightening its intensity andso sparking yet more tipping points on a planet in-creasingly close to the brink.

In its report, the IPCC, whose analysis tends, if any-thing, to be on the conservative side of climatescience, indicated that the Amazon faced a relativelylow risk of dying out by 2100. However, a 2009 study

conducted by Britain’s famed Meteorological (Met)Office suggests that the risk is far greater than pre-viously assumed. Even if global temperatures were tobe held to an increase of 2 degrees Celsius, the studynotes, as much as 40% of the Amazon would perishwithin a century; with 3 degrees of warming, up to75% would vanish; and with 4 degrees, 85% woulddie. “The forest as we know it would effectively begone,” said Met researcher Vicky Pope.

Of Tipping Points and Singularities

These four natural systems are by no means the onlyones that could face devastating tipping points in theyears to come. The IPCC report and other scientificstudies hint at further biomes that show early signs ofpotential catastrophe. But these four are sufficientlyadvanced to tell us that we need to look at climatechange in a new way: not as a slow, linear process towhich we can adapt over time, but as a non-linear setof events involving dramatic and irreversible changesto the global ecosphere.


The difference is critical: linear change gives us the lu-xury of time to devise and implement curbs on green-house gas emissions, and to construct protectivemeasures such as sea walls. Non-linear change puts acrimp on time and confronts us with the possibility ofrelatively sudden, devastating climate shifts againstwhich no defensive measures can protect us.

Were the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circula-tion to fail, for example, there would be nothing wecould do to turn it back on, nor would we be able torecreate coral reefs or resurrect the Amazon.

Add in one other factor: when natural systems of thismagnitude fail, should we not expect human systemsto fail as well? No one can answer this question withcertainty, but we do know that earlier human societiescollapsed when faced with other kinds of profoundchanges in climate.

All of this should be on the minds of delegates to theupcoming climate summit in Paris, a meeting focusedon adopting an international set of restrictions on gre-enhouse gas emissions.

Each participating nation is obliged to submit a set ofmeasures it is ready to take, known as “intended na-tionally determined contributions,” or INDCs, aimedat achieving the overall goal of preventing planetarywarming from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius. However,the INDCs submitted to date, including those fromthe United States and China, suggest a distinctly in-cremental approach to the problem. Unfortunately, ifplanetary tipping points are in our future, this min-dset will not measure up. It’s time to start thinkinginstead in terms of civilizational survival.

Originally published by Tomdispatch.com

October 8, 2015

Lagoons and reefs of New Caledonia. Photo: © NASA.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176054/



Climate denialism: a brief historyBy NAOMI ORESKES and ERIK CONWAYAdbusters

Photo credit: NASA

In the late 1970s, scientists first came to a consensusthat global warming was likely to result from increa-sing greenhouse gases released by the burning of fos-sil fuels. This idea had been around since the turn ofthe century, but the development of computer mo-dels made it possible to make quantitative predic-tions.

Almost immediately, a small group of politically con-nected and conservative scientists began to questionthis consensus. As empirical scientific data mountedup, their attacks became more unprincipled.

These conservative scientists used data selectivelyand often misrepresented the conclusions of manystudies undertaken by the scientific community. In1992, world leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro tosign the United Nations Framework on ClimateChange. President George W Bush promised to tran-slate the written document into "concrete action".Three years later, the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) declared that the humanimpact on the earth's climate was no longer a predic-tion but an observable fact. In the early 1990s, agroup of skeptics claimed that Roger Revelle, one ofthe first climate scientists, had changed his mindabout global warming and no longer believed it wasa serious problem. The claim was repeated throughseveral news outlets, including the Washington Post.When a graduate student named Justin Lancaster -who had worked closely with Revelle before hisdeath in 1991 - tried to insist that Revelle had notchanged his view, he was sued for libel. Lancasterwas obliged to settle out of court. The claim was re-peated again and again, and even today, exists on theInternet.

In 1996, when the IPCC released its second asses-sment report, stating that the human impact on cli-mate was "discernible", a fossil-fuel-industry-fundedgroup called the Global Climate Coalition accusedthe IPCC author Benjamin Santer of making unau-thorized changes to the document, with the intent ofcreating a sense that global warming was more cer-tain than it was. The following year, Frederick Seitz,

chairman of the George C Marshall Institute, repea-ted the charges in the Wall Street Journal in an op-ed piece headlined "A Major Deception on GlobalWarming".

Massive Attack

Had Santer made unauthorized changes to the IPCCreport? No: his changes were made in response topeer review. He was doing what every scientist is ex-pected to do - and what IPCC rules required him todo - accepting criticism and using it so that the con-clusions of the study were rigorous and clear. Frede-rick Seitz was a former president of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, so it was not plausible that hedid not know about the peer-review process.

In 2007, the claims were repeated in UnstoppableGlobal Warming: Every 1,500 Years, a book whosepremise is that "human-emitted CO2 has played onlya minor role" in contributing to global warming. Theauthors are Dennis Avery and Fred Singer. Singer isa physicist with a track record of challenging scienti-fic evidence. He had taken part in the previous at-tack on Santer. Both the IPCC and Santer'sco-authors took considerable pains to set the recordstraight, denying that Santer had done anythingwrong.

Yet, in their book, Avery and Singer reassert that"scientific reviewers discovered that major changeshad been made 'in the back room' after they had si-gned off on the science chapter's contents" and that"Santer single-handedly reversed the 'climate science'of the whole IPCC report". The idea that any one in-dividual could reverse the entire IPCC process is ab-surd, and yet, like the "Revelle changed his mind"claim, it remains on the Internet today.

Climate scientists have been subjected to repeated at-tacks of this kind. In 2005, Congressman Joe Bartonof Texas demanded that Professor Michael Mann, di-rector of the Earth System Science Centre at Pen-nsylvania State University, produce a huge volume ofpaperwork relating to his research.


Lake Hume. Photo: © Tim J. Keegan


In February, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma accu-sed a dozen climate scientists of criminal violations ofFederal Law, based on alleged evidence contained inthe UEA emails. Recently, Virginia's attorney general,Ken Cuccinelli, went after Mann again, asking thatthe University of Virginia produce thousands of pagesof documents relating to Mann's research.

We, too, have been objects of attack. When one of us(Naomi Oreskes) published a review on the book TheRepublican War on Science in the journal Science, inwhich we noted some connections not pursued inthat book, Science was threatened with a lawsuit un-less it published a rebuttal. (We supplied documents,Science held firm, and the threat went away.)

Blaming scientists for speaking truth to power is anold story. Scientists have long recognized that boththe government and public can be reluctant to acceptscientific evidence that results in discomfiting conclu-sions. In 1949, when the USSR detonated its first ato-mic bomb, the US had to face the reality that it hadlost its monopoly on nuclear weapons. Scientists hadbeen warning of this since 1945, but the success oftheir predictions did not increase their standing.

When they then said that any attempt to stay ahead ofthe Soviets by building the H-bomb would only speedup the arms race, they were accused of being disloyal.As Harold Urey, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemi-stry in 1934, wrote: "Because we [scientists] told disa-greeable truths, we have even been accused of wishingto give up our progress because we are impracticaldreamers or plain traitors."

What is most disagreeable to many "resistors" of glo-bal warming is the fear of climate change being usedas a warrant for heavy-handed government interven-tion. There is a parallel with 1949: fear of the SovietUnion then was not fear of a potential invasion, butthat the Soviets would export communism to Europe,from where it might spread to the US. Today, US con-servatives and right-wing commentators are red-bai-ting once again. The columnist Charles Krauthammer

alleges that "with socialism dead . . . the left was adriftuntil it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorpho-sis from red to green". Patrick J Michaels, director ofthe Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Insti-tute, labeled plans for a cap-and-trade system to con-trol greenhouse gases as "Obamunism". The irony isthat in 1990, Bush installed a cap-and-trade regime toreduce acid rain because it was an acceptable market-based mechanism. Yet, when Congress finally tookthe model seriously, conservatives called it commu-nism by other means.

Market Failure

Attacks on climate science, including the 2009 "Cli-mategate" campaign, had nothing to do with thescience itself and neither did the entire earlier historyof global-warming denial we have studied. Scientistsare an easy target. The real issue is the politics of de-fending the free market.

Since the mid-1990s, the fossil-fuel industry has madecommon cause with old cold warriors, maverick scien-tists and conservative think tanks to undermine cli-mate science. The obvious reason is that climatechange is what Nicholas Stern calls "the greatest andwidest-ranging market failure ever seen." If the freemarket has failed, then governments will need to act.And that is precisely what various constituencies,from Inhofe to Cuccinelli and a host of think tanks,do not want. It was also what Seitz and his colleaguesdidn't want. These scientists were passionately anti-communist and viewed any form of government regu-lation as a step towards socialism.

No wonder we see the rise of McCarthyite tacticstoday: the stakes, at least in some people's eyes, arethe same. But what these people seem to have forgot-ten from the 1950s is that McCarthyism didn't justdestroy the careers of many innocent people: in theend, it destroyed Joe McCarthy.

Originally published by Adbusters.org

October 2015

https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/122/climate-denialism.html



Energy Storage: the key to renewables successBy ALICE MASILI

ONE

Kilroot Power Station, Carrickfergus,

Northern Ireland. Photo: © Ardfern

For some years now, scientists have been proposingthe exhaustion of fossil fuels. The idea of finding away to make renewables as primary and not aleatoryenergy source is becoming increasingly popular.Energy storage is one way to go.

As defined by the European Association for EnergyStorage (EASE), “Energy Storage is a facility used forthe intake and stocking of electricity in different sui-table energy forms. The release of this energy, at acontrolled time, can be in forms that include electri-city, gas, thermal energy and other energy carriers”.

The energy system is always evolving and growing incomplexity; it means new challenges for a futureenergy system more interlinked and efficient. Energy storage is one of the important elements con-tributing to the development of a low-carbon electri-city system also providing a backup for intermittentrenewable energy. Storage exists on all levels of the energy chain, from

local to strategic, and its full potential in the newenergy system seems to be unexploited. In a longerterm scenario, energy storage technologies can con-tribute to increasing the penetration of renewables -in particular, intermittent renewables.

EU energy policies have understood these technolo-gies importance and also the need to support thissector. Still a lot has to be done. For this purpose, in2011, the European Commission created EASE, as aresult of a shared vision of the roles, technologiesand potential applications of energy storage withinthe framework of the EU Energy and Climate Policy.

EASE is a part of the Strategic Energy Technology-Plan (SET-Plan) designed to accelerate and develop anew research and innovation approach in the energysystem transformation. The SET-Plan includesWind, Solar Energy, Smart Grids, Green Cars,Smart Cities and Efficient Buildings initiatives, em-phasizing the importance of future electricity mar-

kets and introducing a new con-cept of “Prosumer,” producer/con-sumer. Despite being designed toopen up and integrate the energymarket, the Directive2009/72/EC, which establishescommon rules for the internal elec-tricity market, for the generation,transmission and distribution ofelectricity, never mentions the con-cept of electricity storage.

The means how the European elec-tricity market is regulated, and thenature of the electricity market arecritical policy issues determiningthe scope for energy storage to con-tribute effectively to energy securityand emissions reduction. Now, theEuropean electricity market re-mains fragmented. The EuropeanUnion has energy rules set at theEuropean level, but in practice, ithas 28 national regulatory frame-works. It cannot continue.National markets are characterisedby the presence of strong incum-bents and have tended to encou-rage regulators to preventcompetition from abroad.

There cannot exist a real internalmarket until such interconnectionis built or reinforced. The inconsi-stent operational and regulatoryapproaches, in particular, the small

incentive for energy storage inmany European electricity marketsdoes not permit a full liberalisa-tion and transparency - also truefor the different forms of renewa-ble energy support mechanismacross the EU.

The need of equal chances for allthe energy storage services ensu-ring non-discriminatory access tonetworks is evident. The currentmarket design and national poli-cies do not yet set the right incenti-ves and provide insufficientpredictability for potential inve-stors.

Europe has to reset its energy po-licy in the direction of a EuropeanEnergy Union. If it continues thepresent path, the inevitable chal-lenge of shifting to a low-carboneconomy will be made harder bythe economic, social and environ-mental costs of too many fragmen-ted national energy markets.

ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES

The energy storage market is goingthrough continued innovations.Several technologies for storingenergy already exist, and they canbe classified into five general

groups: chemical, electrochemical,electrical, mechanical and thermal.Some of these are both in the rese-arch and development (R&D) ordemonstration & deployment(D&D) stages, waiting to evolvefurther to become commerciallyviable on a larger scale. The growthof this market technology wouldmake renewable energy more effi-cient and integrated into the elec-trical system.

There is a need to increase the ca-pacity of batteries, capacitors, orother devices, which allow keepinga reserve of energy likely if requi-red.

It is possible to store electricity indifferent ways, not only using bat-teries. By electrolyzing, water pro-duced hydrogen, that can then bestored and eventually re-electrified(e.g. via fuel cells). Compressed airenergy storage (CAES) is anotherway to store energy generated atone time to be used at another.Again, thermal energy storage te-chnologies allow us temporarily toreserve energy produced in theform of heat or cold for use at adifferent time. Modern solar ther-mal power plants produce all oftheir energy when the sun is shi-ning during the day. The excess


EU’s 3rd ENERGY PACKAGEThe legal framework for governing storage is defined at a European level in the Third Package Electricity Di-rective and, at a national level, in other laws under development. Energy Policy strategy for developing a sin-gle energy market started back in 1996 with the Directive 96/92/EC1, which defined common rules for thecreation of an internal market for electricity. Then in 2003 to deal with shortcoming and to improve the fun-ctioning of the market, Directive 2003/54/EC2 was adopted. Finally, in 2009, to further open and integratethe energy market, Directive 2009/72/EC3 was adopted. This last directive, better known as the 'ElectricityDirective', is part of the “European Union’s Third Energy Package”.

energy is often stored in these faci-lities - in the form of a molten saltor other materials – and used untilthe evening to generate steam todrive a turbine to produce electri-city.Typical storage tools are batteries.The most commonly used are lead-based, lithium based, nickel-basedand sodium-based batteries.

STORAGE IN EUROPETODAY

In Europe, there are a large num-ber of energy storage facilities ope-rating or under construction.

In Austria, hydroelectric powerprovides approximately 55% ofelectricity with an installed capa-city of 11,853 MW of which 3,500MW is Pumped Hydro Storage(PHS). This huge capacity is due toits geographical characteristics withexisting storage lakes reducing thebuilding required. Obervermun-twerk II is an example of PumpedStorage Hydro Plant under con-

struction. Once in operation in2018, the Obervermuntwerk IIpumped-storage power station willhave an output of 360 MW andwill be Illwerke’s second-largestpower station. In 2011, a new pum-ped storage plant in the area of theexisting Limberg I pumped storagepower plant went into operationdoubling the output capacity ofthe Kaprun power plant groupfrom 353 MW to 833 MW. A newPumped Storage Plant is currentlyundergoing approval procedure,Limberg III, as an extension of thepumped storage power plant Ka-prun-Oberstufe. Following Lim-berg II, the project strengthens thepower plant group in Kaprun asthe green battery of Europe.

Denmark has salt caverns suitablefor the development of Compres-sed Air Energy Storage, and it hasbeen considered in energy plan-ning models.

Germany has the largest numberof Pumped Hydro Storage plants

with 23 operational plants and isthe second European country afterSpain in installed capacity with 7GW. Future solutions might be inartificial structures like remainingquarries of opencast mining struc-tures or chalkstone quarries. Com-pressed air energy storage (CAES)could also be a future storage op-tion. Currently, only one CAESwith a power of 290 MW is instal-led in Germany, whose regulationfacilitates energy storage installa-tion with a new law (EnWG §118)that exempts new energy storage fa-cilities (installed before 2019) ofpaying connection taxes for tenyears.

Ireland has one of the best windresources in Europe. Recently,AES UK & Ireland announced thecompletion of the Kilroot Advan-cion Energy Storage Array, locatedin Kilroot Power Station in Car-rickfergus, Northern Ireland. TheArray provides 10 megawatts (MW)of interconnected energy storageand is the largest and most advan-ced energy storage system in thearea.

The EU needs to tackle energy is-sues by implementing a policy thatencourages a competitive market.However, a regulatory frameworkis necessary to ensure a level pla-ying field for all energy. To investin new storage technologies tokeep the advantages of the energyproduced by renewable sources,getting over the problem of theirdiscontinuity is the only way to ex-ploit a source of infiniteenergy.


A GROWING MARKETRecently, Tesla Motors showed its lithium ion batteries for homes and utility-scale applications, calledPowerpack and Powerwall respectively, which could increase the prestige for the wind and solarenergy resources that have so far depended on storage devices to compensate for intermittentnature of their generation. Daimler is entering business in the field of stationary energy storage plants with its one hundredpercent subsidiary Deutsche ACCUmotive. The first industrial-scale lithium-ion unit is already on thegrid and is being operated by the partner companies The Mobility House AG and GETEC EnergieAG. Daimler is also aiming to enter into cooperation with other sales and distribution partners both inGermany and at an international level. An example is the subsidiary corporation Li-Tec, that develop,produces and markets lithium-ion battery cells for automotive, industrial and stationary applications. Mercedes-Benz energy storages confirm that lithium-ion batteries are the most promising solutionsfor future energy supply. Developed for demanding service on-board cars, the Mercedes-Benzenergy storage units meet the very highest safety and quality standards. Northern Power Systems, a company, working in the field of power electronics, is team teachingwith FIAMM Energy Storage Solutions, a strategic provider of innovative storage batteries and so-dium nickel chloride. The product line of power converters Northern Power Systems FlexPhasefully integrates FIAMM’s SoNick accumulation technology, providing control key features.

What can lobbyists do when science contradicts theirpolitical messages? Some simply deny the science, asmany conservatives do with climate change. Otherspretend to embrace the science, while ignoring or pur-ging the disagreeable content. That’s what the Break-through Institute (BTI) is doing with one of the mostwidely discussed issues in 21st century science, theproposal to define a new geological epoch, the An-thropocene.

BTI has been described as “the leading big money, anti-green, pro-nuclear think tank in the United States, dedica-ted to propagandizing capitalist technological-investment‘solutions’ to climate change.”

Founded in 2003 by lobbyist Michael Shellenbergerand pollster Ted Nordhaus, its philosophy is based on

what’s known in academic circles as ecological moder-nization theory – described by Richard York and Eu-gene Rosa as the view that “industrialization,technological development, economic growth, and capitalismare not only potentially compatible with ecological sustaina-bility but also may be key drivers of environmental reform.”

In BTI’s simplified pop version, to which they’ve assi-gned catchier label ecomodernism, there is no “may”about it – their literature consistently couples a pro-fessed concern for the environment with rejection ofactual pro-environmental policies, on the groundsthat new technology, growth and capitalism are theonly solution to all environmental concerns.

Most notably, BTI opposes efforts to limit greenhousegas emissions, claiming that investment in nuclear re-

Hijacking the Anthropocene

By IAN ANGUSClimate and CapitalismHow the anti-green ‘Breakthrough Institute’ misrepresents science to ad-vance a technocratic agenda and undermine grassroots environmentalism

actors and shale gas will produce all the energy weneed, and global warming will wither away as a side-ef-fect. “The best way to move forward on climate policy,”write Shellenberger and Nordhaus, “is to not focus onclimate at all.”

As Australian environmentalist Clive Hamilton com-ments, BTI’s founders “do not deny global warming; in-stead they skate over the top of it, insisting that whateverlimits and tipping points the Earth system might throw up,human technology and ingenuity will transcend them.”

In 2004, Shellenberger and Nordhaus wrote a noto-rious pamphlet, The Death of Environmentalism.

That title wasn’t an announcement – it was a goal.They declared their conviction “that modern environ-mentalism … must die so that something new can live.”Their organization has worked to achieve that deathever since.

Bill Blackwater has exposed the “self-contradictions, sim-plistic fantasy, and the sheer insubstantiality” of BTI’sthought, and John Bellamy Foster has shown that eco-logical modernization theory involves “a dangerous andirresponsible case of technological hubris [and] a fateful con-cession to capitalism’s almost unlimited destructive powers.”In this article I examine one specific feature of BTI’scurrent activity: its attempt to hijack the Anthropo-

ONLYNATURALENERGY.COM JANUARY-MARCH 2016

27

Peterhead Power Station

congenial to their views. In contrast to scientists theydeem to be depressing, pessimistic, and catastrophist,they declared that the Anthropocene isn’t a crisis, it’san opportunity to build a global technological uto-pia, in which humanity embraces nuclear power andshale gas, and we all enjoy US-style consumerism fo-rever.

What they offer is a homeopathically diluted Anthro-pocene, in which the only remaining trace of EarthSystem science is the fact that the Earth is domina-ted by human activity – and even that, BTI insists, isneither a recent development or a matter for con-cern. Nordhaus and Shellenberger gave the gameaway in an article they wrote for Orion magazine andthen reprinted in a BTI-published e-book. After agre-eing that humans are “rapidly transforming nonhumannature at a pace not seen for many hundreds of millions ofyears,” they wrote: “But the difference between the newecological crises and the ways in which humans and evenprehumans have shaped nonhuman nature for tens of thou-sands of years is one of scope and scale, not kind.” Readthat again. If it’s true, then there is no case for decla-ring a new epoch. There has been no qualitativechange, so we are still in the Holocene, still doingwhat humans have always done, since long before theice sheets retreated.

Landscape ecologist Erle Ellis, a Breakthrough Insti-tute Senior Fellow, has been arguing for the “scopeand scale, not kind” view in the Anthropocene Wor-king Group, the international committee that is eva-luating the proposal for a new geological epoch. Hesupports an early Anthropocene – the view that theAnthropocene began not recently but thousands ofyears ago, when humans first made large-scale chan-ges to landscapes and ecosystems.

Official endorsement of an early date would stren-gthen the Nordhaus/Shellenberger claim that thereis no qualitative break between current and pasthuman impacts on the Earth. As Clive Hamiltonand Jacques Grinevald write, the early Anthropoceneoption justifies a business-as-usual understanding ofthe present. “It ‘gradualizes’ the new epoch so that it isno longer a rupture due principally to the burning of fossil

fuels but a creeping phenomenon due to the incrementalspread of human influence over the landscape. This mi-sconstrues the suddenness, severity, duration and irreversibi-lity of the Anthropocene leading to a seriousunderestimation and mischaracterization of the kind ofhuman response necessary to slow its onset and ameliorateits impacts.”

BTI’s website describes Ellis as “a leading theorist ofwhat scientists increasingly describe as the Anthropocene,”but doesn’t mention that his early Anthropocene po-sition, while compatible with BTI’s philosophy, haslittle support among the other scientists involved.

In January 2015, over two-thirds of the Anthropo-cene Working Group’s 38 members endorsed 1945as the beginning of the Anthropocene, both becausethe Great Acceleration is an historical turning point,and because it can be located in geological strata bythe presence of radiation from nuclear fallout. Theearly Anthropocene argument, they write, undulyemphasizes just one aspect of the case for a newepoch: “The significance of the Anthropocene lies not somuch in seeing within it the ‘first traces of our species’ (i.e.an anthropocentric perspective upon geology), but in thescale, significance and longevity of change (that happens tobe currently human-driven) to the Earth system.”

The AWG hasn’t formally decided yet, but Ellis, whoevidently believes he has lost the debate, recently toldan editor of the journal Nature that he opposes ma-king any official decision. “We should set a time, per-haps 1,000 years from now, in which we would officiallyinvestigate this…. Making a decision before that would bepremature.” That would allow BTI to continue misu-sing the word, but he seems to have little support: arecent article in Science, proposing to “avoid the confi-nement imposed by a single formal designation” has onlyfour signatures, and of them, only Ellis is a memberof the AWG.

Oxymoron alert

Breakthrough has invited influential environmentalwriters to a luxury California resort in June, all ex-penses paid, for a two-day seminar on “The Good


31

Anthropocene.” So don’t be surprised if articlesusing that oxymoron appear in the mainstreammedia this summer. Phrases like “unprecedented andunsustainable” will not be emphasized, if they appearat all.

The seminar’s message was revealed in April, in AnEcomodernist Manifesto, signed by Nordhaus andShellenberger and 16 others, all closely associatedwith BTI. Subtitled From the death of environmen-talism to the birth of ecomodernism, it is self-descri-bed as “an affirmative and optimistic vision for a futurein which we can have universal human development, free-dom, and more nature through continued technological andsocial modernization.”

The manifesto extends the oxymoron, promising “agood, or even great, Anthropocene” if only we willreject the “long-standing environmental ideal … thathuman societies must harmonize with nature to avoid eco-nomic and ecological collapse.”

Yes, you read that right. BTI’s pseudo-Anthropocenerequires deliberately expanding the metabolic riftbetween humanity and the rest of nature into a per-manent chasm. After all, “humans have remade theworld for millennia,” so more of the same must begood.

A striking feature of all BTI propaganda is the gulfbetween the concrete problems they admit exist andwhat Bill Blackwater calls “the daydream quality of theirpositive solutions.” That is clearly on display in theirEcomodernist Manifesto, which proposes to solvethe pressing problem of climate change with “next-ge-neration solar, advanced nuclear fission and nuclearfusion” – technologies that don’t exist and won’tsoon arrive. In the meantime, BTI proposes relianceon hydroelectric dams, which can cause major envi-ronmental problems, and on carbon capture and sto-rage, which doesn’t exist in any practical form.

Clearly, BTI’s “Good Anthropocene” won’t arrive be-fore the climate and other essential elements of the

Earth System reach tipping points. As Blackwatersays, BTI’s purported realism is actually “the veryheight of fantasy,” a contemporary form of what C.Wright Mills used to call “crackpot realism.”

It ’s time to defog

The pundits, politicians and CEOs whose interestsare served by the Breakthrough Institute don’t wantto be identified with the science deniers of the farright, but neither do they want the radical measuresthat responding to the real Anthropocene requires.BTI’s fantasy of a Good Anthropocene builds the il-lusion that both objectives are easily achieved. Don’tworry, be happy – technological ingenuity will savecapitalism from itself.

BTI could have avoided mentioning the Anthropo-cene, but that would have left a widely discussed con-cept unchallenged, posing the possibility that publicunderstanding of the state of the Earth System willgrow, strengthening the environmentalism that BTIwants to kill. It’s far more effective to appropriate theword, to sow confusion by promoting a caricaturethat has nothing to do with the actual Anthropoceneand everything to do with preserving the status quo.

There can be no question about which side the left ison in this conflict. We may not endorse every ele-ment of the Anthropocene project, but we must notallow Earth System science to be hijacked and misu-sed by enemies of the environment.

As Dipesh Chakrabarty writes, the scientists whosework BTI is trying to undermine “are not necessarilyanticapitalist scholars, and yet clearly they are not for busi-ness-as-usual capitalism either.” Many are adopting moreradical views as they study what’s happening to theEarth System. It’s our responsibility to help themblow away Breakthrough’s fog of confusion, andwork with them to stop capitalism’s drive to ecologi-cal disaster.

Originally published by Climate and Capitalism

May 19, 2015

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2015/05/19/hijacking-the-anthropocene/



As declarations emerge from Paris about the billionsand trillions of dollars needed to combat the affectsof climate change, the world’s largest public lender,the European Investment Bank (EIB), is positioningitself as one of the pioneers in this effort. Togetherwith other multilateral development banks, the EIB isposing as the vehicle to distribute these vast sums ofmoney, and as the EU's house bank, it has a guaran-teed role to play in the bloc’s contribution to the fightagainst climate change, both within Europe and be-yond.

But is the bank really fit for purpose? Canthe EIB make a break from its history offinancing fossil fuels and polluting formsof transportation after decades of cosy re-lations with the biggest culprits?

We look behind the façade and at thenumbers and find nine reasons why theEIB is not the climate’s knight in shiningarmour.

1. Leader in climate finance … in fivecountries

According to an EIB evaluation, 70 per cent of thebank’s EUR 75 billion in climate finance between theyears 2010 and 2014 was limited to just five countries:Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain.

A closer look at the bank’s projects from 2014 that arecounted as climate action reveals an even more gla-ring imbalance. The 13 EU Member States in centraland eastern Europe (CEE) collectively received lessthan one per cent (EUR 42 million) of the EUR 4.5billion the EIB lent for renewable energy within the

9 reasons why the EU's bank is no climate leader

By ANNA ROGGENBUCKEIB Campaign Coordinator

Source: EIB climate action lending database 2013-2014


EU in 2014. Of the EUR 2 billion for energy effi-ciency, only EUR 148 million (7.4 per cent) went tothe CEE region.

Overall, CEE countries received only 10 per cent ofthe EIB’s climate action lending in 2014 in spite ofthe energy intensities of their economies compared tothe EU average.

2. Energy efficiency accounts for just two percent of EIB lending

The European Commission has underlined the needto fundamentally rethink energy efficiency by introdu-cing the Energy Efficiency First principle, i.e. to consi-der the potential for energy efficiency first in allenergy related decisions. The EIB couldn’t be fartheraway from making this a guiding principle for its len-ding. As a cross-sectoral issue, energy efficiency measuresconstituted only 2.8 per cent of the EIB’s total len-ding in 2014. (Sources: EIB climate action lending data-base 2013-2014 for total energy efficiency lending; EIB2014 Statistical Report for the volume of signed loans.)

In spite of this, the Commission touts the bank as animportant player for boosting energy efficiency inve-stments in the EU. In its November Communicationon the State of the Energy Union, the Commissionproposed that the EIB-managed European Fund forStrategic Investments (EFSI) helps Member States andproject promoters boost energy efficiency schemes. Ifthe EIB’s track record is anything to go by, energy effi-ciency is likely to be reduced to a footnote in the EFSIscheme.

3. Massive support for Europe’s car industry

Despite repeated calls to transform the global tran-sport system away from private road transport, car ma-nufacturers received a significant 11 per cent of EIBclimate finance between 2010 and 2014. As the EIBadmits:

“Slightly over 40% of Climate Action RDI [Rese-arch, Development, Innovation] volume went to theGerman automobile sector. […] RDI operations onnew RE [renewables] technologies are virtually ab-sent from the Climate Action portfolio”.

PHOTO. Palauenc05

Throwing more money at one of the most polluting modes of transportation is not the most effective form ofclimate finance. Adding insult to injury, car producers have actively circumvented and undermined the promi-sed emission reduction efforts, which brings us to point four.

4. Generous EIB climate fi-nance for the Volkswagen

group

Since 2009 the EIB lent the Volkswa-gen group EUR 1.5 billion from its cli-mate action programme to improvefuel efficiency and reduce emissionsfrom its engines. Without more detai-led information from the EIB aboutVolkswagen’s use of these loans, theircontribution to emission reductions ac-tion is unknown

5. One hand doesn’t know what the other is doing

While the EIB boasts about being a leader in climate finance, it still supports climate damaging projects withbillions of euros. The EIB’s sustainability report approximates that projects in 2014 resulted in 4.7 million ton-nes of greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of putting 2.35 million new cars on the road.

For example, the construction of a 37 kilometre expressway adjacent to the Warsaw ring road in Poland is fore-casted to contribute absolute emissions of 134 000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. A gas extraction projectin Tunisia will add another 1.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year.

6. EIB fossil fuel finance in European Neighbourhood countries

Between 2007 and 2014, theEIB provided EUR 3.2 bil-lion for fossil fuel projects insixteen countries of the Eu-ropean Neighbourhood Po-licy. Only EUR 780 millionwent to renewable andenergy efficiency projects,the majority of which is loca-ted in just one country, Mo-rocco. For more, see the fullinfographic and executivesummary of a study on EUfinancing in the energy sec-tor of European Neighbour-hood Policy countries.

PHOTO. Stillwellmike/Flickr.com/cc by-sa


7. Turning its back on the EU’s long term climate objectives?

In its new climate lending strategy approved in late September 2015, the EIB decided to drop a reference tothe EU’s 2050 low-carbon economy roadmap. Despite bank statements repeatedly naming climate action a toplending priority since 2010, the new climate strategy fails to commit to EU decarbonisation goals.

8. EIB’s emissions standard for energy production lags behind

The EIB Emission Performance Standard (EPS) for the energy sector is currently set at a level of 550 gCO2/kWh. An EPS is a limit on the amount of CO2 that can be emitted by a power station. Conventionalhard coal combustion results in the emission of approximately 850g CO2/kWh, while the most efficient gaspower plants emit about 300g CO2/kWh. During consultations on the EIB’s new climate policy, civil societyorganisations (E3G, WWF) pointed out that this level is inconsistent with the EU 2050 climate target since itallows financing for infrastructure, like new oil-fired plants, with too high emissions to reach the 2050 target.Lying above the minimum level required (450 g CO2/kWh) to support the EU’s climate target the EIB’s EPSalso lags behind similar standards introduced by the UK, the US and Canada. This means that the bank maystill finance fossil fuel-fired power plants that are less efficient than they could be.

9. Climate impact swept under the rug for one third of the EIB’s lending

Even though loans distributed through financial intermediaries, such as commercial banks and private equityfunds, totalled 31 per cent of EIB lending in 2014, the bank still lacks a methodology to calculate the climateimpact of this type of lending.

Originally published by Bankwatch.orgDecember 8, 2015

PHOTO. Tropical.Pete/Flickr.com/cc by-sa

http://bankwatch.org/news-media/blog/9-reasons-why-eus-bank-no-climate-leader



According to the proponents of using thorium as nu-clear fuel, it would have benefits such as producingmuch less radioactive waste than uranium fuel. Itwould make nuclear accidents like nuclear meltdownsall but impossible. And its lobby says thorium wouldbe less likely to lead to nuclear proliferation. Arethese claims true? If so, what kind of technical deve-lopments must occur to makes these predictionscome true?

Thorium is a chemical element with the symbol Thand the atomic number of 90. All of the thorium iso-topes are radioactive, and the only natural active iso-tope is Th-232. Thorium (Th-232) itself is notfissile[1], meaning it can’t produce energy directly in aconventional reactor. But when Th-232 is irradiatedwith neutrons it transforms to a fissile isotope of ura-nium, U-233. To use thorium to produce energy, youfirst have to irradiate thorium in a reactor. The U-233that’s produced must then either be reprocessed in achemical process to produce the new fuel, or it can beused in-situ within the same reactor, as in the conceptmolten salt reactors.

Compared to uranium, thorium is three to four timesmore abundant in the earth’s crust, giving it the po-tential to replace uranium as nuclear fuel in the fu-ture. But the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) has said there are sufficient uranium resour-ces for the next 150 years based on current reactor re-quirements.

As there are sufficient uranium resources for the fore-seeable future there has been little interest from thetraditionally nuclear industry to develop thoriumfuel. But some countries like Norway and India havelooked into this option, and their interest is based lar-

gely based on their domestic thorium resources.

NorwayNorway has relatively large thorium resources in theFen-area in the country’s southeast. Even though thecountry has a strict non-nuclear policy, there havebeen discussions on whether Norway should do rese-arch on thorium’s potential as a nuclear fuel. At themoment, a privately funded research program on thebehavior of thorium fuel in a traditional reactors is ta-king place at the Norwegian Halden research reactor.

IndiaBecause of India’s nuclear weapons program, thecountry has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Prolife-ration of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT. It has thereforbeen difficult for the country to import uranium tofuel their nuclear reactors. India has a long-term goalto develop a heavy-water reactor fuel cycle for theirdomestic thorium resources.

The Indian heavy-water reactor fuel cycle consists ofthree stages. The first stage consists of conventionalreactors using uranium fuel to produce plutonium.The plutonium will be used in the second stage,which uses fast neutrons reactors that produce moreplutonium as well as fissile uranium (U-233) fromthorium (Th-232). The plutonium and thorium willbe used to produce the plutonium-thorium fuel for ei-ther the Advanced Heavy Water Reactors (AHWR) ormolten salt breeder reactors (MSBR) in stage three.

But according to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre(BARC) it is important to build up a significantamount of fissile materiel before stage 3 is implemen-ted. BARC announced in 2013 that the introductionof thorium-based reactor deployment in India is ex-

Thorium – a holy grail?By Nils Bøhmer

Bellona

37


pected happen after 2070.

Thorium in nuclear reactors

With some modifications, thorium can be used insome conventional reactors in operation today, likeheavy water reactors. It would be necessary to mixthorium (Th-232) with either U-235 or Pu-239 to pro-duce fissile U-233. The U-233 would then be repro-cessed so that the fuel in the reactor would graduallycontain more and more fuel comprised of U-233.

The use of thorium in the present reactors would in-volve reprocessing of the spent thorium fuel in orderto use the U-233 products in the fuel. Because spentthorium fuel contains a higher amount of short-livedradioactivity, this would make the reprocessing morechallenging than current methods of reprocessing oftraditional uranium fuel. Producing so-called MixedOxide (MOX) fuel with a mixture of thorium and plu-tonium has been proposed as solution to burn someof the huge amounts of plutonium that’s been stock-piled around the world for military and civilian pur-poses. A thorium-based MOX process would burnplutonium more effectively, as no new plutoniumwould be produced, unlike the burning uranium andplutonium.

The use of thorium in reactors would produce radio-active waste and spent nuclear fuel that would have tobe stored and or treated in the same order of magni-tude as traditional uranium fuel. The spent thoriumfuel would be more radioactive and more challengingto handle than spent uranium fuel because spent tho-rium fuel contains the alpha-emitter Th-228, whichhas a half-life of 2 years.

In a long perspective it’s possible to develop a tho-rium fuel cycle based on so-called fourth generationnuclear reactors. With fourth generation nuclear reac-tors it has been envisaged that radioactive waste pro-duction will be much lower than with the presenttechnology. These benefits are expected for both foruranium- and thorium fuel cycle if the technology is

developed. It’s expected that the fourth generationnuclear reactors would be commercially availablearound 2030-2040.

Of the fourth generation reactors, the most suitablefor thorium would be the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR).In this reactor, thorium and uranium is dissolved inmolten fluoride salt at a temperature of 400-700�C.This mixture is circulated through the core regionand then through a chemical processing circuit thatremoves unwanted radioactivity produced in the coreregion. The MSRs are the fourth generation reactorstill requiring considerable research and development,and the period of study is planned for completion by2025.

Even though thorium is three to four times moreabundant that uranium, the economic initiative is lac-king to develop a thorium fuel cycle – which is a re-sult of predictions by the IAEA and the Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Development thaturanium resources will last for another 150 years.There are very few safety benefits to be gained fromusing thorium in current reactors. Burning thoriumin traditional reactors produces spent nuclear fuelthat’s more radioactive and more challenging to han-dle than spent uranium fuel. The use of thorium in afull scale fuel cycle in the next generation of nuclearreactors is far in the future. India’s active develop-ment of a thorium fuel cycle won’t, as noted above,come to fruition for another 55 years.

Thorium won’t be part of the solution in dealing withclimate change before 2050. The only tools that canrise to that challenge are renewable energy deploy-ment, energy conservation and CO2 Capture andStorage.

[1] Fissile isotopes are isotopes that can sustain a nuclearchain reaction with slow neutrons.

Originally published by Bellona.org

February 5, 2015

http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2015-02-thorium-holy-grail



The many faces of waterBy CHAO CHENChaochen-design.com

Water is an essential element for life. All species, fauna and flora, have evolved with water and have developedvital reactions to water in terms of survival. Nature always has a professional way to solve life’s problem. Inorder to release and protect its seeds, a pine cone has the amazing ability to open and close through its surfacereaction to water.

This natural phenomenon led me to a material study into pinecone of bio-mimicry science and has inspiredme to create a laminate water-reacting material. Utilizing inherent properties, this bio-mimetic material detectshumidity and changes its shape automatically without mechanical structures or electrical elements. Whilewater is indispensible in our daily life, it sometimes causes problems.

In the context of different scenarios involving water (planting and architecture exterior), the water-reacting ma-terial has been applied to different products: a water indicator which detects the soil moist and informs users,the architectural surface which changes its colour in the rain and a shelter which automatically closes to pre-vent the rain.

Using a mechanism analogous to the water reaction from the pine cone, these products utilize a natural way toface the water and solve problems, illustrating nature`s engineering with functionalism and aesthetics.


THE WATER INDICATOR

The Water Indicator is designed for home gardenersto detect the soil moist in the plant pot and inform theusers about the right time to water the plants. Inspiredby the pinecone, the Water Indicator is made of the bi-layer water-reacting material. It has two sides with twocolours, red and blue. Place it directly in the soil andface the red side outward. When the soil is dry, the ma-terial will keep straight and show users the red colour,indicating that the plant needs water. When the soil iswet, the material will bend automatically and show theblue colour to users, indicating that the plant hasenough water.

THE WATER-REACTING SHELTER

The Water-Reacting shelter is made of laminated water-reacting tiles supported by a plywood structure. On sunny days, the water-reacting tiles are dry and keepopen, so the users can enjoy the sunshine through theopened tiles. On rainy days, the tiles get wet and bend automatically.They will stack one by one and cover the whole area ofthe shelter to prevent the rain. In this way the shelter is controlled by the weather andresponds to different conditions.

THE WATER-REACTING SURFACE

The water-reacting surface is an architectural exteriormaterial. Installed outside the building, it brings brightcolour to residents in dim rainy days, especially in citiesusually rains (London, Nanjing, Wuxi, etc.).

On sunny days, the tiles of the surface are dry and lieflat. On rainy days, the tiles get wet and bend automatically,gently opening and showing the colour hidden beneaththe surface to bring vitality to the space.

DETROITThe grand Michigan Central Station was described by Dan Austin in his book ‘Lost Detroit:Stories Behind the Motor City's Majestic Ruin’ as the epitome of Detroit’s economic riseand fall: "No other building exemplifies just how much the automobile gave to the city ofDetroit - and how much it took away,"The building opened in 1913 (it was the tallest railway station in the world). Closed downin 1988.

LAST STAND


Photo: Albert Duce

[email protected]

http://www.onlynaturalenergy.com

Welcome to a new planet - onlynaturalenergy.com€¦ · YEAR II - NUMBER 1 - JANUARY-MARCH 2016...

Documents

Transcript of Welcome to a new planet - onlynaturalenergy.com€¦ · YEAR II - NUMBER 1 - JANUARY-MARCH 2016...