Weaver and the Tarsands: What the media missed.

Byoliveridley

It appears that Canada (or the part I follow) is all a twitter about an interesting analysis ($$$) by prominent climate scientist Andrew Weaver and his colleague Neil Swart that counts up all fossil fuel reserves, then converts them into global temperature increases based solely on their combustion CO2 emissions potential. It turns out that oilsand reserves are dwarfed by the available coal and natural gas reserves and overall tarsands contribution to temperature increase is modest.

If the entire Alberta oil-sand resource (that is, oil-in-place) were to be used, the associated carbon dioxide emissions would induce a global mean temperature change of roughly 0.36 °C (0.24–0.50 °C)  However, considering only the economically viable reserve of 170 billion barrels reduces this potential for warming by about tenfold (to 0.02–0.05 °C), and if only the reserve currently under active development were combusted, the warming would be almost undetectable at our significance level.

The Canadian media has chosen to play up just the fact that on a global scale, the project will result in a small increase in global temperature, so the oilsands are okay to exploit.

Climate expert says coal not oilsands real threat – CBC

Other articles pretty much say the same thing,  Prof. Weaver’s quoted comments don’t help either:

“The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming,”  “The problem is coal and unconventional natural gas.” “One might argue that the best strategy one might take is to use our oil reserves wisely, but at the same time use them in a way that weans us of our dependence on coal and natural gas”

Weaver’s comments to the media posit this as an either-or, coal and natural gas = bad, oil = okay. Knowing him to be a very intelligent person, I suspect this is some selective quoting. Also, oil is primarily used to fuel transportation, coal and natural gas are used for electricity generation, so I am curious as to what Prof. Weaver is suggesting here as far as using oil reserves to wean us off coal use? Would the plan be to use all the money that we get from exploiting the tarsands to develop an electricity infrastructure that puts efficiency, reduced electricity use, 100% renewables first? I wish! I don’t see that happening. Alberta is currently powered mostly by coal, and if the Federal government is serious in its stated goal to phase new coal out (which is fantastic), then Alberta would switch to natural gas to fuel its tarsands exploitation, and that would not be okay either! Also, these infrastructures are all linked. A lot of BC’s natural gas and proposed big damaging dams like Site C are designed to fuel the tarsands. A province and by extension, country that makes most of its money by taking the resources it was provided for free, and selling them at great profit is not likely to want to transition away from that.

It was interesting that a few weeks back, Mark Jaccard, yet another prominent BC climate scientist (we are blessed) looked at the same issue and came to the following conclusion.

Canadian tarsands must contract as part of a global effort to prevent a 4 degree increase in temperatures and catastrophic climate change.

Vancouver Sun – January 26, 2012

So, is this Jaccard vs. Weaver?

Not really.

Is the Swart and Weaver message that simple? Are they actually saying that it is okay to exploit away because it makes no difference?

The media should start by reading the byline:

The claimed economic benefits of exploiting the vast Alberta oil-sand deposits need to be weighed against the need to limit global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

That’s how the paper starts. It then calculates global warming potentials based on reserves, current production, total “in place” (present, but not always exploitable) and shows that coal and natural gas are by far the greatest potential contributors. This is of course simply because we have much greater reserves of coal and natural gas, so their global warming potential is going to be huge. The paper makes no mention of rate of use, or whether it is humanly possible to use all that coal and natural gas, and what kind of population growth, and per-capita consumption that would entail.

Here’s a very important calculation from the paper that will be lost in the details. To limit temperature rise to 2 °C or less, the allowed, cumulative per person future carbon consumption is 85 tons of carbon. The per-capita carbon potential of the tarsands alone to US and Canada is 65 tons of carbon. So, by itself, the proven reserves (10% of what’s there) of the tarsands can eat up 75% of our allowed carbon budget, not so small, is it.

Here’s what Swart and Weaver have to say about trajectory:

The eventual construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would signify a North American commitment to using the Alberta oilsand reserve, which carries with it a corresponding carbon footprint

Here’s the last paragraph from the paper, another big trajectory argument.

If North American and international policymakers wish to limit global warming to less than 2 °C they will clearly need to put in place measures that ensure a rapid transition of global energy systems to non-greenhouse-gas-emitting sources, while avoiding commitments to new infrastructure supporting dependence on fossil fuels

Absolutely, 100% agreed, but this is not what the media message is at all, interesting.

So Swart and Weaver point out that we need to avoid commitments to new infrastructure promoting fossil fuel dependence, and that building projects like Keystone XL and the Northern Gateway signal a serious commitment to using the entire tarsands. The message in the paper is much more nuanced, and more measured than what’s in the media, not surprising.

I have long since come to the conclusion that this is not about counting of individual carbon atoms and their non-measurable global warming contributions, of course any single project will not tip us over one way or the other. It is about trajectory. To use two smoking analogies, the argument against smoking is not that the next cigarette will kill you, it is that smoking will kill many people in a population over a lifetime. More aptly in this case, the argument is that  Grand River Enterprises, a small Canadian cigarette concern, doesn’t contribute as much to smoking deaths as does Imperial Tobacco, so it is somehow different and okay.

Every major fossil fuel commitment we make is a commitment we do not make to reducing consumption, or increasing renewable use. Every foreign policy/domestic policy decision we take to keep our dollar high to get maximum revenue from the tarsands to shareholders (not the population) is a commitment to not building renewable infrastructure, or spending money on energy efficiency. So, trajectories count, and that is the underlying message from Swart and Weaver.

To finish it off, here’s the PhD Comics Science News Cycle, which is very apropos.

PS: Is Weaver and the Tarsands a good band name?

Update:

Joe Romm of climate progress responds to the paper here, thanks @softgrasswalker

And from comments, looks like Prof Weaver was on the CBC this morning, reprising his usual climate hawk self, will listen when they put the audio up.

Here’s Prof. Weaver in the Huffington Post commenting on the study. More about this when I don’t have work to do.

References:

Swart, Neil C., and Andrew J. Weaver. “The Alberta oil sands and climate.” Nature Clim. Change advance online publication (February 19, 2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1421.

Similar Posts

  • US CO2 Emissions down due to Natural Gas. GHG Emissions? Not so fast!

    Byoliveridley

    Let the celebrations begin!!

    In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal

    via Associated Press.

    Coal is evil, for many reasons, natural gas is less evil, but don’t tout its climate benefits, it has none.

    While natural gas is a much cleaner burning fuel, and its mining is less harmful than coal’s, there’s a big variable that doesn’t get discussed very often in the media, its leakage during mining, processing and transport. Methane is 25 times more potent (pdf) than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. So, it would seem that knowing how much escapes into the atmosphere would be a fairly important variable.

    It is very easy to estimate CO2 emissions from burning natural gas, it is much more difficult to measure fugitive and diffuse emissions from natural gas, fracking or otherwise. After all, the emissions occur at industrial sites controlled by drilling companies who have no interest in releasing that data. Also, it is site, and technique dependent. A conscientious driller may be able to avoid most leaks, but where’s the motivation? Natural gas is very abundant, and the price it is selling at demands high volume production and low margins. No need to plug the leaks, just the whole thing flow.

    The scientific community and environmental community is well aware that comparing natural gas and coal is not as simple as looking at CO2 emissions.  Methane and CO2 also have different lifetimes in the atmosphere, with methane being shorter lived, but forcing more intensely. The short-term and long term prognoses are therefore very different. Three separate papers (see references) have looked at this issue and concluded that natural gas is no panacea.  Alvarez et al still espouses natural gas as a bridge fuel, but Howarth et al and Wigley are less optimistic.

    Here’s a nice image from Wigley’s paper that shows the consequences of switching from coal to natural gas once all factors are taken into account:

    It’s all about Methane leakage

    Note that under all scenarios, even under zero leakage, natural gas use actually causes an increase in short-medium term climate forcing. Why? Dirty burning coal also puts out enough sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere to create fine particles that reflect incoming sunlight and cancel out some warming. It takes until 2050 at least for climate forcing from natural gas to start showing benefits over coal. Even then, the benefits are not sufficient to fight climate change. Wigley estimates that the change is 0.1°C “out to at least 2100”, big whoop.

    So, what exactly might the leakage rate be? Industry and the US Environmental Protection Agency estimate it at 2% or less. When Pétron et al. went around measuring it around Denver, they measured it at 4%, with pretty high uncertainty, which makes natural gas fairly useless for fighting climate change.

    It is troubling that people treat this transition to natural gas so cavalierly. One doesn’t even need to look at all the problems arising from fracking for natural gas use to be no panacea. There is some evidence that natural gas investment is also driving out wind and solar energy investment. Here in BC, our wonderful Premier Christy Clark declared that natural gas was clean energy as far as the government’s policy framework was concerned. The opposition, and government-in-waiting NDP also thinks natural gas is clean. This is disturbing, and very shortsighted.

    What I say is not new, Joe Romm put it well “Natural Gas is a bridge to nowhere“, unless a very high carbon price is established (I don’t see one today, do you?).

    References

    1. Howarth, Robert W., Renee Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea. “Methane and the Greenhouse-gas Footprint of Natural Gas from Shale Formations.” Climatic Change 106, no. 4 (April 12, 2011): 679–690.
    2. Wigley, Tom. “Coal to Gas: The Influence of Methane Leakage.” Climatic Change 108, no. 3 (2011): 601–608.
    3. Alvarez, Ramón A., Stephen W. Pacala, James J. Winebrake, William L. Chameides, and Steven P. Hamburg. “Greater Focus Needed on Methane Leakage from Natural Gas Infrastructure.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (April 9, 2012). http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/04/02/1202407109.
    4. Pétron, Gabrielle, Gregory Frost, Benjamin R. Miller, Adam I. Hirsch, Stephen A. Montzka, Anna Karion, Michael Trainer, et al. “Hydrocarbon emissions characterization in the Colorado Front Range: A pilot study.” Journal of Geophysical Research 117, no. D4 (February 21, 2012): D04304.

    Bridge to Nowhere featured image courtesy GarlandCannon Flickr Photostream used under a Creative Commons Licence.

  • Canada and Climate Change Regulation – Politics as Usual

    Byoliveridley

    Weasel (from wikipedia)

    *Weasel picture courtesy wikipedia

    “We need to hear more about the American position, the European position, the Chinese position” before considering the bill, McGuinty told CBC News.

    CBC

    With that rather weasely statement, Canada’s Liberal Party signalled that it will support a further delay in a vote that would set realistic limits on Canada’s Greenhouse gas emissions. I was too angry yesterday to write a decent post about it, but hey, as my partner often says, “Anger is a positive emotion”. So, here goes.

    What is it?
    Bill C-311 – The Climate Change Accountability Act. aims to set binding emission targets for greenhouse gas emissions (excluding land use, land use change and forestry) for Canada. Here’s the a short sentence from the preamble:

    this legislation is intended to ensure that Canada reduces greenhouse gas emissions to an extent similar to that required by all industrialized countries in order to prevent dangerous climate change, in accordance with the scientific evidence on the impacts of increased levels of global average surface temperature and the corresponding levels of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases;

    Okay, ending a long sentence with a semi-colon, strange, but there it is, a very clear and concise statement of fact intending for Canada to set realistic targets for GHG reduction

    What are the targets?
    25% below 1990 levels by 2020, 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This is in line with IPCC recommendations (pdf) (See page 776, thanks Climate Progress) to stabilize temperature rise to < 2°C and GHG concentrations to 450 ppm CO2 eq.
    Hansen, other prominent scientists and activists at 350.org have a more ambitious target in mind, 350 ppm. In comparison, proposed legislation by John Kerry and Barbara Boxer in the US senate would reduce GHG emissions by 20% from 1990 levels, and 80% by 2050. So, this bill proposes targets that are in line with what the world’s greatest polluter (per capita, historical) is proposing and current official consensus. There is a lot of small print in the exemptions, agriculture is a big one on the US side and land use and forestry appear to be a rather significant omission on the Canadian side.

    Bottom Line: The targets are exactly what is recommended by the IPCC, are reasonable and in line with what our biggest trading partner has proposed. They need to be strengthened in the near future, but are good for now.

    What it doesn’t do
    It does not establish a mechanism to bring about these reductions, only specifies that the government come up with scientifically sound interim targets and an emissions reduction regulatory strategy, be it emissions trading, or carbon taxes, etc. That’s fine, given Canada’s balance of powers and separation of province-federal powers, it would be best for an executive approach to regulation writing.

    History

    Bill C-311 is not new. An identical version passed the House of Commons in 2008 and was stymied by an election call. Since Canada has a bicameral legislature, the bill needed to be passed by the Canadian Senate as well and the election blocked this vote. Right now, it needs a vote to get out of committee and on the floor of the House.

    So what happened?
    Well, the NDP wanted to get the bill out for vote. The Bloc Quebecois supported them. The Conservatives, in a delaying tactic, wanted to extend the committee study period for another month, citing a “need for more expert testimony”, the Liberals agreed with them and the bill is stalled for now. Why? It is all politics.

    The Politics
    This is where the story gets interesting, and epitomizes everything that is wrong with Canada’s current political system! Canada is currently (since 2006 and 2 elections on), run by a minority Conservative government. Minority governments work very differently in Canada compared with typical parliamentary democracies such as India, Israel, etc. There are no coalitions, no alliances, especially now since the Conservative party is well to the right of every other party in Parliament. Canada has four other prominent parties, the Liberals, a centrist, business friendly party that has previously governed, the NDP, a left leaning union friendly party, the Green party, an environmental issues and good governance driven party (no seats in parliament), and the Bloc Quebecois, a regional party based in Quebec which wins seats only in Quebec.

    For the Conservative party to pass legislation, they need the support of one other party. Of course, to stymie legislation, they can use various parliamentary procedures. This is why C-311 is a private member’s bill, the government, which is vehemently opposed to any meaningful climate change mitigation regulation, would not bring something like this up for vote.

    The NDP would like to be responsible for meaningful regulation on climate change as it is in line with their stated principles and also neatly aligns with their desire to be seen as a serious opposition party, and as a party capable of governing at the federal level.

    The Liberals, well, they ran their last election on a radical restructuring of the Canadian tax system called the Green Shift. This envisaged a reduction in personal income taxes combined with the establishment of a carbon tax. The Liberals lost the election, and have been a lot more cautious about bringing up environmental issues. I happen to believe that the loss was primarily due to poor election strategy, a leader with the charisma of a freshly painted wall, and a flawed electoral system that allows for too much vote splitting, “wasted” votes and is unrepresentative. But, the media has run with the “it must be the environment” meme, and currently view any environmental legislation as a vote loser. This is in direct contradiction with polling data (pdf) that indicates the opposite to be true.

    Anyway, the Liberals appeared to be getting back into the energy game. Their dear leader Michael Ignatieff (@m_ignatieff) recently tweeted about a revolutionary new clean energy plan, which seems sensible enough and forward thinking. Also, the Liberals supported this identical bill last year, and until recently. Here’s the NDP with a collection of helpful quotes from the Liberals on C-311:

    “Parliamentarians don’t know where this country is going, as a sovereign nation state, on climate change. The really good news and the good faith behind Bill C-311 is helping to prompt a timely debate of where we’re going in advance of the important Copenhagen negotiation.” – David McGuinty, Environment Committee, June 18, 2009

    “[Bill C-311] has been reintroduced under a new MP, a bill that was put forward in the last Parliament by the leader of the NDP. As such, it really has no material changes compared to its predecessor bill.” –David McGuinty, Hansard, March 4, 2009

    “It’s very simple: we won’t be taken seriously until we are serious about the environment.” – Speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade, October 13, 2009 – MIchael Ignatieff

    Unfortunately, the price for success against the government in this half-assed minority government situation is likely an election! Opinion polls indicate that an election held today would likely result in very much the same situation as the last time around, maybe even an increased near majority for the Conservatives.

    Nanos_Oct22_poll_291448artw

    Image courtesy Globe and Mail

    The Conservatives (in blue) have a solid lead over the Liberals (Red) and the NDP (in orange) apparently have a 20% ceiling. In a normal parliamentary system, this would mean an alliance between the NDP and Liberals to win the election pretty handily (note that the votes would not additive, but there is a conservative vote ceiling around 40%). But as long as electoral reform is off the table, and the extremely hidebound Canadian mainstream media does nothing other than bemoan the lack of electoral participation while roundly condemning any alternative that would increase such participation, we are stuck with ths situation in which a Conservative government takes this country slowly rightward where it really does not want to be taken, given that solid majorities are against said conservative policies.

    In Conclusion
    Canada dithers again on climate change. To the core supporters of the Conservative party, this is as should be. However, for the majority of the country, for the international reputation of the country, and for the political system as a whole, this is an unacceptable delay. The Liberals win no friends by being indecisive and showing no leadership. The NDP is stuck with no amount of “responsible” opposition work giving it any traction in the polls, the political intelligentsia of Canada would not accept an NDP ascendancy. The political system does not reward cooperation. So, we remain stuck, a country of many beautiful words and very little action.

    Happy Friday!

    * – I like weasels!

  • Clubbing baby seals

    Byoliveridley

    Regarding the recent brouhaha that started with the EU banning Canada’s seal products, I confess to being in two minds about Canada’s sealing practices. Of course, clubbing baby seals to death seems barbaric, but so is confining pigs (intelligent and cute in the right circumstances!) to pens where they can barely move and slaughtering them, so is de-beaking chickens and cooping them up in ultra small cages, so is fattening cows with growth hormones, then slaughtering them. If you have any questions, I give you

    and this:

    and this too:

    Okay, now that you have become part of the meatrix, why is industrial animal farming, which is way more destructive on the planet, the people involved and the animals completely and utterly acceptable while the (admittedly barbaric) “culling” of a small proportion of a wild population of seals is banned?

    Yes, seals are cute, but so are chickens, baby pigs, calves, you name it, I even think most snakes are cute, it’s all optics anyway.

    If you’re against the seal clubbing, you need to be against all current animal farming practiced in all of the Americas, and yes, Europe as well.

    FAQs: The Atlantic seal hunt

    Few facts in this debate go unchallenged. All sides agree on where and when. But the answers to how, why, and even how many aren’t as clear. 

    Even the language is chosen carefully. Hunt or slaughter. Sea mammals or baby seals. Cherished tradition or economic disaster. Cod-eating nuisance or adorable innocent.

    The images of the hunt are even more powerful, and seal hunt opponents know it. Most people find the pictures difficult to watch, but supporters say the same kind of thing happens in slaughterhouses — places where cameras aren’t allowed

  • |

    US, unlike Canada, considers climate impacts of fossil fuel transport

    Byoliveridley

    SeaLevelThe Sightline Institute alerted me to the scope of assessment for the proposed coal export terminal at Cherry Point in Washington State.

    The Washington Department of Ecology, is going to require in-depth analysis of four elements that the coal industry had desperately hoped to avoid: A detailed assessment of rail transportation on other representative communities in Washington and a general analysis of out-of-state rail impacts. An assessment of how the project would affect human health in Washington. A general assessment of cargo-ship impacts beyond Washington waters. An evaluation and disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions of end-use coal combustion.

    via Scope of Gateway Pacific Analysis is Bad News for Coal Industry | Sightline Daily.

    Contrast with Canada’s Kinder Morgan pipeline review. This pipeline aims to triple the flow of tarsands oil through an already existing old pipeline. Tankers carrying 900,000 barrels of bitumen will ply the Salish Sea every day.

    But the scope of the review won’t encompass the potential impacts of the oilsands crude that would be in the pipe, or the end-use for the oil.

    At a time when greenhouse gases already emitted are set to cause sea level rise that will affect millions, even in affluent countries like the US, considering climate impacts of all fossil fuel projects seems to be a no-brainer. Obama repeatedly mentions climate impacts as an important factor in the US review of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

    The other part of this review that is more comprehensive than Canadian reviews is the explicit leadership of the state environmental agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology. Here in British Carbontaxia, the government gave up its review rights on the Enbridge pipeline.

    Industry boosters claim that individual pipelines have nothing to do with the climate, and that the oil will flow one way or the other, sometimes to tragic effect. This Pembina post is a quick start on what the tarsands mean for climate. Note that building these pipelines is key to increasing capacity, hence emissions. Without pipelines, the tarsands will not grow as fast. So, any review that does not take climate impacts of fossil fuel transport into use is not a serious review. A barrel of tarsands oil (at 20% greater than average emission) is around 0.5 metric tonnes of carbon. The Kinder Morgan pipeline would carry approximately 170 million tonnes (Mt) worth of carbon equivalent per year. The greenhouse gas emissions in BC in 2010 was 63 Mt. Surely, we need to consider climate impacts! Just the incremental impact of tarsands oil (more intensive than average) is itself worth about a billion tonnes of carbon over a 50 year lifespan.

    Canada claims to align with the US on greenhouse gas mitigation actions. Clearly, this is one of those “not intended to be factually accurate” statements.

    Picture courtesy go greener oz used under a creative commons licence.

  • The gas leaking monster of Marcellus, but at least they measure it

    Byoliveridley

    PulltoReleaseCO2British Columbia, listen up, wise up and measure methane leakage! Natural gas’ reputation as a clean alternative to coal relies heavily on the drilling and fracking companies being ultra-cautious and preventing the methane from leaking. A leak rate of anywhere >3%, and the methane supercharges climate change due to its high global warming potential.

    “A survey over hydraulic fracturing sites in Pennsylvania revealed drilling operations releasing plumes of methane 100 to 1,000 times higher than what the EPA expects from that stage of drilling, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”

    Via the Washington Post, here’s more data that drilling companies are allowing methane to escape into the atmosphere at far higher levels than claimed. This data adds to earlier measurements by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado in Boulder that showed high leakage rates in Colorado and Utah. This also adds to the body of work from Cornell University (Howarth et al. showing high leakage rates. It is pretty clear that escape rates vary from area to area, and also on the ability/willingness of fracking companies to control emissions. What is BC doing about this? As DeSmog pointed out last year, nothing. We assume that our leak rate is 0.4%, best in the world. While BC’s companies are required to “report” methane emissions, they are based on modeling, not measurement. It is pretty clear now that these numbers are not verifiable or reviewable.

  • Bus Drivers and Climate Change Communication

    Byoliveridley

    The regular community bus driver (let’s call him Jack) that gets me from downtown Sidney to Industrial Sidney every morning is fantastic. He knows his passengers (it is a community bus, so just a few of us), he knows which bus we come into town on, he even drops us right outside of work instead of at the regular stop. He saves me 10 minutes every day, and does it in style. Thanks! He also gives us five minute talk radio type banter with his friend in the front seat, who I suspect rides the bus just for this purpose. We catch a lot of transit gossip, union gossip, hockey gossip and occasional monologues on the paeans of hard work, family and always speaking up. Somebody should hire this guy, he’s articulate, he’s passionate, he communicates clearly, great radio attributes.

    Jack is also a climate denier who has the pleasure of ferrying Andrew Weaver, Victoria’s most famous climate scientist, to work some mornings. I hear one side of his “debate” with Weaver, and I hear Jack reel off all kinds of denier science theories about evaporation, clouds, scientists who can’t predict the weather, etc. His talk show partner chimes in occasionally with similar “sciencey” sentences that make little sense to me. I think Andrew Weaver gets into it, because he takes his role as climate change and science communicator very seriously and according to Jack, it’ a lot of back and forth between the two.

    So, as someone who thinks climate change is a serious issue, is it not my responsibility to jump into this debate? Here’s an otherwise stand-up guy who appears to be very misinformed and misled on basic climate change facts, good opportunity to change minds, right?

    I am not so sure. Here’s David Roberts of the Grist synthesizing the state of the art on science communication and Dan Kahan’s recent study published in the Nature Climate Change Journal (Free article!).

    Once again, with feeling: More science will not cure climate skepticism

    The answer might seem to be obvious: ignorance! People just don’t understand the science. <snipped> However intuitively plausible this answer might be, it suffers from one important flaw: It is wrong. Better educated people are not less likely to be skeptics. Greater scientific literacy and reasoning ability do not incline people toward climate realism. Where skepticism exists, additional information and arguments only serve to reinforce it.

    Jack is the perfect example. He knows his “facts”, he’s so sure of them that he finds himself “winning” debates with accomplished climate scientists on the strength of those “facts”. His passion and certainty are strengthened by these facts and more facts are only going to reinforce his beliefs. So, what to do? Kahan’s paper has this tentative recommendation:

    It does not follow, however, that nothing can be done to promote constructive and informed public deliberations. As citizens understandably tend to conform their beliefs about societal risk to beliefs that predominate among their peers, communicators should endeavor to create a deliberative climate in which accepting the best available science does not threaten any group’s values. Effective strategies include use of culturally diverse communicators, whose affinity with different communities enhances their credibility, and information-framing techniques that invest policy solutions with resonances congenial to diverse groups. Perfecting such techniques through a new science of science communication is a public good of singular importance.

    The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks

    The answer is better peer-to-peer communication where trust has been built. This is hard, grassroots work.

     Update June 1: David Roberts has a new post that makes some excellent points on winning the climate culture war.

     

24 Comments

  1. I’ve read the original paper in Science (and the supplementary information on how the calculations were done). Although short, understanding what the paper actually means involves some consideration. Two important points:

    1. The reason the coal is such a *much* greater global problem than the tar sands is that:

    a) it is much ‘dirtier’ (i.e., it has a much higher carbon content); and

    b) there is much more of it (total world coal reserves are over 41 times greater then the total oil reserves in the Alberta tar sands). There’s so much coal, and its so ‘dirty’ that it dwarfs the climate change potential of all other hydrocarbon sources put together.

    2. The study itself is only a comparative evaluation of the carbon content (i.e., climate change potential) of the fuel itself. It does not include the carbon/climate change costs of the process of extracting, refining, and distributing it (the so called “life cycle emissions”). This is a whole other ball of wax since it depends on what processes are used to extract and refine the fuel and where and how it is used. The supplementary data give some examples related to this.

    For example, as Swart Weaver (2012, supplementary information) point out, the so-called “in situ” method of extracting bitumen (accounting for 80% of tar sands production) produces “well-to-wheel” carbon emissions of 320-350 gC0^2eq/km as compared to 250-280 gC0^2eq/km for conventional crude extraction. Thus, the exploitation of tar sands produces much more carbon (i.e., impact on the climate) per barrel than does the development of conventional oil.

    Take note of Andrew Weaver’s take home message from this study in the Globe and Mail: “This idea that we’re going to somehow run out of coal and natural gas and fossil fuels is really misplaced. We’ll run out of human ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them.

    “I have always said that the tar sands are a symptom of a very big problem. The problem is dependence on fossil fuels.”

    1. Thanks, and congratulations on getting published in a Nature journal. The paper’s sure attracting some attention.

  5. You might want to look up the stats on EPCOR’s G3 generation plant. You may be pleasantly surprised.

  7. I just heard an interview with Prof. Weaver on the CBC Current…how different an impression from the gleeful pro tarsands response..worth a listen!

Comments are closed.