What's To Be Done About Climate Change?

What's To Be Done About Climate Change?

The world has been colder and warmer than it is now, and the sea level has been higher and lower, many times.  Even since the last ice age, during the Bølling-Allerød interstadial of 14,000 years ago (which kick started human civilisation), it was probably warmer than it is now.

As a species with an approximately 300,000-year history (as anatomically modern humans), we have survived extremes of temperature and sea level changes far in excess of anything currently in the offing.

But a significant part of current warming is anthropogenic- human caused by  increases in greenhouse gases (Manabe and Wetheral 1967).

There, I've said it! - see "Everybody Hates Me" for my reasoning on this.  

I'll also say that if we don't mitigate it to whatever extent is practicable and apply ourselves to adaption for whatever remains, warming could significantly impact human civilisation in the longer term.

                                          So, what should we be doing about it?

Let's not get too alarmed.  Currently more than 10 times as many people die of cold than of heat and  parts of the planet will become more suitable for human habitation as others become less so.  

But anthropogenic warming is a worry.  Eventual inundation of coastal areas is a possible future unless there is effective action.

Much of what is now being done to mitigate this is costly and ineffectual.  Some vaunted programs are making things worse:

Planting trees for example.  Planting trees to offset emissions is only effective if plantings are truly new and permanent (on a geological time scale).  Requiring the repayment of carbon credits in the case of de-forestation can only work if the money paid to forest owners remains available - but by the time trees inevitably burn, blow over, slide down the hillside or are clear felled for some other land use, most recipients will have taken the money and run.  A lot of carbon offset tree planting is a scam that enables more emissions.

There's also the albedo effect: If offset trees are planted on barren or desert-like land, this can decrease reflectivity resulting in more of the sun's heat being retained rather than radiated back into space- for a nett warming effect.

Agricultural 'emissions' are another.  Sure, fuel burnt for cultivation, harvesting and processing is a fair cop but methane from ruminant digestion is accounted at a rate that is 5 or more times its actual contribution to the greenhouse effect (according to the IPCC's numbers)- spitefully imposed by climate activist's distaste for 'industrial farming' I suspect.  And, as Western countries impose prohibitive methane restrictions on their efficient farmers, protein production shifts to countries that don't have such restrictions, and are much less efficient- for a nett increase in overall emissions.

And then there are "biofuels".  Two examples of this madness should suffice:

In the UK the Drax power station claims that shifting from coal to wood chips has reduced its CO2 emissions by 85% since 2012.  To do this takes 14million tons of green wood that's then chipped, dried, and shipped across the world to provide the 7million tonnes Drax burns each year to make 'zero emissions' electricity.  Really?

The US, subsidised farmers US$5.4 billion/year to grow corn which is then processed into biofuel ethanol and added to pump gas.  Calculations show that probably more than a gallon of pump gas (or equivalent) is consumed for every gallon produced, so the nett effect is to increase emissions- and to make engines run badly, mileage per gallon to decrease and costs to go up.

Replacing internal combustion engine cars with battery electric vehicles is another great planet saving idea that doesn't look so good on close inspection- or at least, not yet.  BEV's require far more energy intensive mining and processing than IC cars and their disposal comes at high environmental cost.  When this is correctly accounted for, BEVs only start to save emissions after they've done more than around 30,000km - and this is if the charging electricity is 100% emissions free.  Unfortunately, just 14% of the world's electricity is emissions free at present (the remainder coming mainly from coal), so, most BEVs are not better for emissions than ICs, could even be worse.  Fortunately overhyping has led to a pushback from consumers, which may slow their take-up until more of the electricity supply comes from low emissions sources.  

"Nett Zero by 2050" and similar goals by various mainly Western Governments are probably the greatest con though.  They are a con because they've been sold on the lie that "renewables are cheaper".  They are not (especially wind). The higher proportion of a country's electricity that comes from renewables, the more its electricity costs- and by a lot.  Solar and wind intermittency requires 4 or more times as much capacity to be installed (average output is typically a quarter or less of name plate kw's), requires more transmission line investment- and then there's the cost of keeping dispatchable generation on standby for when the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine.  As voters wake up to true costs- which can't be disguised forever by hidden subsidies and accounting rorts, they are turning against renewables and governments that mandate them.  Nor do they reduce emissions by as much as is claimed because energy intensive (and prosperity generating) industries like mining, refining, steel making, manufacturing, chemicals, and even data centres migrate to places where energy is cheaper - and where it is NOT produced by renewables.  

Only countries with abundant hydro and small populations can achieve nett zero within economic constraints.  Failed attempts do enormous economic damage (the UK and Germany for example). Being sarcastic, unachievable nett zero mandates are one way to save the planet- because emissions/capita are lower in poor countries. 

At the 2016 Paris Accords, countries made various commitments as to what their future greenhouse gas emissions would be.  When a target is missed, they're required to buy carbon credits on the international market to make up the shortfall.  Most estimates were, of course, wildly optimistic, and the time is fast approaching when the bills come in.  Large payments to foreign entities are not supported by voters, so it's highly likely most will renege.  Paris Accord commitments, like nett zero goals do support emissions reduction, but when unrealistic they bring climate policies in general into disrepute.    

Battery storage at grid level, the holy grail for renewables disciples, doesn't appear to even nearly stack up.  From the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory, at grid level, installed costs are estimated at US$350/kw-hr (2024), dropping to US$200/kw-hr by 2050.  Assuming that a standard household requires 20kw-hrs for day-night storage, for 10% ROR, it therefore costs $750 ($350 x 20 x 10%) for the supply, over a year, of 365 x 20 kw-hrs of electricity.  This comes to US 10c/kw-hr,  Of course this is only the add-on for battery supplied electricity.  If this is half the total usage, it adds just 5c to the average cost of electricity for a household.  Unfortunately, distribution costs and losses typically increase the costs to consumers X's 3 (5c/unit generating cost becomes 15c to the end user for example), so supplying day-night battery storage to grid users will increase the cost to the end user by around US15c/kw-hr.  But it's worse than this because day-night storage is not nearly enough.  In overcast and windless seasons, some weeks will be required.  Also, as gas and oil are phased out for home heating, peak demand will occur when wind and solar are not contributing.  Sure, there are simplifying assumptions in this analysis, but the result is so far out of the ballpark that 100% solar and wind supported by grid level battery storage looks to be quite impractical,  

                                  What is, and can be done that is useful then?

Improvement in energy efficiency is the quiet achiever.  There have been huge gains in the efficiency of diesel engines, petrol engines and gas turbines.  Fuel use for the same output has probably halved in the last 50 years.  Even in the last 20 years, IC engines have improved at a greater rate that Li batteries.

There have also been similar improvements in industrial processes and significant reductions in energy losses by use of better and more insulation. And there's been the change from incandescent light bulbs to LEDs- a huge energy saving.

More can probably be gained by improving the efficiency of heat pumps and air conditioners than can be achieved by replacing IC cars given battery limitations (range, charge time, weight and power density).

Solar cells also work in sunny countries at grid level If they are limited to no more than say 30% of total supply and dispatchable sources make up the rest. There can then be a nett reduction in emissions without increasing costs or risking grid instability.  Sure, the extra transmission lines required because of intermittency, and having to synchronise with a constant frequency AC grid takes away some of Solar's benefits- but it can still be competitive.

For consumers who live off grid, saving the 2/3rds of the grid supplied electricity cost that covers distribution costs provides a margin which can amortise the cost of battery storage, helped along by private individuals not requiring the 10% rate of return that listed company's require.  As batteries get cheaper, in sunny places, off grid users will be able to enjoy electricity which is competitive with the grid supplied product.  

Nuclear energy.  If the world had dedicated its available resources to nuclear power from when it first became known that CO2 emissions were causing a worrying amount of warming, holding to a 1.5 degrees increase would probably have been achievable. Now it is not.  There are legitimate concerns about safety but compared to the consequences of not using nuclear energy, risks are small and safe use is achievable, Modern reactors are much improved from early-generation Chernobyl types.

Genetic engineering can be used to improve crop yields, reduce fuel use for cultivation, and reduce chemical use.  This can not only reduce emissions directly and indirectly (many sprays are petrochemical products) but frees up land for permanent forests and other carbon sequestration.  It will also provide more food for less cost.

 And then there's geoengineering.  There are many technical solutions to warming that are possibly within our reach. 

Scrubbing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and other carbon sequestration projects are some.

Reducing arriving radiation is another - by placing reflective particles in the upper atmosphere for example.  There are some promising proposals for doing this.

A third is to increase re-radiation- making roads and roofs of materials that reflect during the day and radiate at night would be a move in this direction. 

Unfortunately, much of what we could be doing to mitigate climate change isn't happening, not because of resource or technical limitations but because of opposition by the Environmental/Green/Left movement- and yet they are the ones who shout loudest about the 'climate catastrophe'.    At the root of this opposition is the old-old concept of original sin- that the world was a perfect place until sinful man came along.  Having destroyed the (mythical) Garden of Eden, it's not now enough to find a solution, there must also be punishment.  Nuclear energy, genetic engineering and geo-engineering, are not acceptable because they don't require penance.  Even preliminary experiments to check the viability of these solutions have been outlawed in places where Greens can exercise a vetoe.  They want us to repudiate the modern world (that has provided much of humanity with unprecedented prosperity, life expectancy and social justice), and de-populate to some mythical primitive lifestyle in harmony with nature- which it never was.  

They're humankind's and the planet's most dangerous enemy, time they were stopped. 

                                       Peter Lynn, Ashburton, October 2024