Ecomorality Manufacturing, Inc.

"It's like a bicyclist's nightmare: Whichever way you go, the wind is against you."

- Mikkel Andersen, physicist at the University of Otago, New Zealand, while describing his team's new method of trapping atoms. Lichtman, Flora. "Building an Atom Trap." Popular Science. May 2011.

In the wake of the incidents at Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, the debate over the safety and wisdom of nuclear energy has been reincarnated. "Chernobyl" is on some lips, "global warming" on others. Some just stick their heads in the sand and pretend that everything's fine. But one interesting data set floating around the internet is “Deaths per TWH,” which can be found here:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average = 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China = 278
Coal – USA = 15
Oil = 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas = 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass = 12
Peat = 12
Solar (rooftop) = 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind = 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro = 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - (world including Banqiao) = 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear = 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

As you may have figured from this posting title, I think this is a sham. I don’t believe this is done intentionally, mind you, but I believe the article fails to consider two major aspects of the nuclear industry: 1) lack of transparency and outright illegal activities, and 2) the sheer time span inherent to nuclear material. Sure enough the article itself makes reference to “direct” deaths at Chernobyl (which is defined how…?); but does not explore less known incidences such as those at Hanford, Washington and Leningrad, Russia. Indeed there is much that should have been done to improve safety at the Japanese plant, but the point is that it wasn’t done and, in fact, the government had recently granted an operations extension permit despite these flaws. This is illustrative of common government practices when it comes to maintenance and oversight of nuclear power plants.



But even disregarding the blatant human flaws in handling these dangerous technology, it is still material that extends far beyond our typical abilities to comprehend life. The age of Planet Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years. The half-life of depleted Uranium-238 (DU) is approximately 4.5 billion years, and remember that that’s only half depletion, and that the by-products are radioactive as well. Chew on that.

And of course we’ve come up with excellent ideas of where to store this ancient radioactive material, right? A mountain with corrosive water leaking…? The ocean…? Rather, it usually just stays in cement tanks at the plants themselves while governments further and further delay transportation and permanent storage. Nope, no good ideas on that one. In the meantime, this material is prime target for military/terrorist attacks, and will just keep piling up for… hmm, practically forever. Just imagine if we increase our nuclear power usage – as it only accounts for some 6% of the world's electricity, as noted in the article. Does that really sound like safety to you?



Speaking of which, if these figures get to count installers falling off of roofs while placing solar panels, then I believe it should include the ever-so-closely intertwined nuclear arms numbers. Afterall, part of why we continue to pursue Uranium enrichment (as well as suppress it abroad) is because we want an easy, on-hand supply of death machine. So if we put that in there, that’s roughly 90,000 people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone – not incorporating indirect deaths from improper disposal, testing, scientists, and downwinders  (those who are exposed to radiation clouds downwind of testing sites).

How can you help but see tanned skin stretched out on sand when picturing the popular beaches in Rio de Janeiro? Or the bits of ice clinging to the beards of ice fishermen in Norway? And although the sun can be blinding white in Kutu, but Parc National de la Salonga can be dark with tropical shade, Congo will make you sweat just imagining it.

Are these places not themselves anymore after climate change? Are their people different somehow?

These questions were recently brought up to me in regards to Scandinavia in The Daily Climate article "Sunny, sweltering... Scandinavia?"
Read the rather short article here.

Culture Grounded in Climate

I can testify firstly that it is not getting any warmer in Scandinavia. In fact, it has been as much as 4 degrees Celsius colder than usual, and there has been more snow in the past two winters. But the question still remains -- would the Danish not be Danish without a cold winter?

There are a number of cultural practices informed by the cold: drinking (which admittedly occurs year round); ice skating; falling and hurting oneself (either on foot or bicycle); drinking gløgg (see drinking); fashion of hats, scarves, sweaters, jackets, gloves, and boots; generating a feeling of "warmth" with many candles; farming of Christmas trees, cranberries, and winter vegetables; painting various bright colors on the exterior of buildings; cross-country skiing, snow-shoeing, winter marathoning, and other winter sports (no mountains in DK); snacking on hot candied nuts while walking in the city; maneuvering a car through ice and snow; developing a certain attractive blush to the cheeks after spending time outside; and suffering from a Vitamin-D deficiency and subsequent weakened immune system (potentially replaced by adopting a bizarre-looking tan from visiting tanning salons).

And it's a strange thing to focus on, in some sense, since this kind of culture is being interrupted by all facets of globalization. We're wearing winter boots made of sheepskin from Australia, and we're slicing gorgeous tomatoes onto our salads that were grown in Spain where the sun is still in force. We're listening to music from anywhere, and we're planning trips to everywhere.

History of Environmental Alteration

There is another aspect of the relationship between environment and culture that has a similar long-standing history. Longer standing, in fact. That is: humans have been mechanically altering their environments since day one. Whether it's as ancient as burning back the wilderness of woods, as classic as relocating water resources via the Roman aqueducts, or as modern as setting up an invisible boundary around a "park," our cultures' relationships to our surrounding world has never been static. The fact is, there is no such thing as natural anymore: this is an artifice of the human mind -- even the coldest deepest waters of the arctic host synthetic molecules.

Perhaps the main difference here is the sheer scale of the change. It is the entire world... well, not all at once, but mostly. And the worst is that the ones affected first (and most dramatically) are those who have fewer resources with which to mechanically cope with the changes, and whose cultural change will be as intense as being forced into the land of an entirely different culture.

Climate Change and Displacement

So is the most sensitive issue here how Scandinavians might deal with less ice? Rather, I think it's the cultural impact of displacement. As stated above, this is something that most profoundly affects disadvantaged (less global-economically developed) people; but is not their sole burden. So many of us are in danger of plunging into the seas we've been so long neglecting (I remember the Save the Whales campaigns of my childhood). And that's terrifying enough without the intense hurricanes, floods, and temperature extremes that we are already wrinkling eyebrows at each time centuries worth of records-keeping is broken.


There are so many layers to what threatens cultures these days: gentrification, consolidation of language, global trade, McDonalds. But what changes a culture the most is losing its land. In such different circumstances this has happened to other peoples, such as Jews, Slavs, native Americans -- and maybe in some way, it forces a concentration of cultural practices, but I think really, so, so much more is lost than gained. Perhaps this is the world of the future: the Brazilian's caramel skin (maybe not Brazilian anymore?) wrapped around a body in some other place in an unfamiliar country and Congolese sweat (maybe not Congolese anymore?) shed onto alien soil in an unrecognizable land.

But rest assured, the fisherman's beard will still be Norwegian.



Abouts:
Article bringing up climate change in Scandinavia
Wikipedia on culture in Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Sweden
Winter customs around the world
The Independent Institute article: "Does Globalization Destroy Culture?"
Emory University's Globalization Issues
Environmental History ResourcesRadford University's Environmental History Timeline
Introduction to Brookings project: "Making Sense of Climate Change, Natural Disasters, and Displacement"
Forced Migration Review report: "Climate Change and Displacement" (online pdf)

"Everything ugly is in vogue again."

- Josh Mogerman, energy specialist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, while discussing efforts to convert natural gas and coal into diesel fuels. From Wald, Matthew L. "New Interest in Turning Gas to Diesel." NY Times. 23 December 2010.

A sign of change in the oil industry is the transformation of resource bases towards other fossil fuels, the less energy intensive ones. Like coal being so prevalent? It certainly interferes with a person's idea of linear energetic progress. I mean, it's just so 18th Century.


One such instance is the increasing popularity of liquefied natural gas (LNG), natural gas that has been cooled so that it turns to liquid and can be more easily (and safely) transported great distances. Now already, it's understandable if alarm bells are already going off in your head about the word "cooling." Any process that involves cooling a substance is going to use energy, and likely be inefficient -- as in the case with fission reactors and cooling the nuclear rods. However, gasoline has become so expensive, upwards of $100/barrel (a hint at supply, perhaps?) that some oil companies now calculate that converting natural gas into diesel fuel is cheaper for them; the key part of that phrase being "for them." The oil industry gets to maintain its current infrastructure (staking claim, extracting, processing, shipping and piping), and the powerful stay in power. And besides, energies are like stocks: the more diversified your portfolio, the less hard you'll be hit when one of them... runs out.

There are two important costs not included in these calculations: social and environmental.

An important case study for social aspects of natural gas is that of Nigeria, which contains some 3% of the world's natural gas supply. In addition to its political and human rights issues with off-shore oil drilling (thank you Chevron), there have already been shady -- in fact, illegal -- transactions in the natural gas sector (see article on Halliburton linked below). These arise from foreign companies desiring resource control in a region with little regulation or negotiating capacity and large supply. One argument is about the astronomical amount of natural gas flared off and wasted in Nigeria. However, this seems a pathetic argument against the meager 47% of Nigerians with access to electricity. Nigerians have a right to their own energy. It would be far more ethical for the global community (including energy companies) to contribute to Nigeria's infrastructural development that might enable them to utilize their own fantastic oil and natural gas resources.


Environmentally, the impacts are not quite clear. On the one hand, cars can hypothetically be designed to be more efficient using LNG. On the other hand, it results in a large surplus of carbon, which is hardly a valuable scarcity these days. And I'm finding it difficult to locate numbers on energy inputs in the conversion. Ultimately, it is still based on non-renewable fossil fuels and only has an efficiency of 62% of the gas itself. Compare this to the renewable and localized wind energy efficiency of 20-30%, and it might not sound so bad; but we are thinking long-term sustainability here. One thing is clear: we're still talking greenhouse gas emissions, and we're still talking foreign companies grabbing local resources.

So maybe it's not the worst portion of a transition package from your standard barrels of oil. The question is: is this the best we can do? Or even better: is this what we should be doing?

Abouts:
Article on LNG Diesel
LNG Information
Chevron LNG Fact Sheet
Article on Halliburton in Nigeria
Energy Subsidy Issues
Oil and Gas in Nigeria

“The correct reaction when you get a surprising result is, ‘What am I doing wrong?’”

- Dr. Nick Patterson, geneticist for Broad Institute, upon discovering that the people of Papua New Guinea share 4.8% of their DNA with Denisovas, an ancient homo sapien species that split from a common ancestor of Neanderthals some half a million years ago. From Zimmer, Carl. "Siberian Fossils Were Neanderthals’ Eastern Cousins, DNA Reveals." NY Times. 22 December 2010.

It was so dramatic last year: warehouses being allotted to lock up protesters, the U.S. President showing up late, the Chinese minister walking out, high hopes, deep disappointment, and snow bombarding Copenhagen like so many pellets of climate change. Maybe some of us thought, "Okay, well this certainly underlines the inability of nations to collaborate on a global issue of grave importance." But actually, the gargantuan, greenhouse-gas belching mega-conferences continue, which brings us to COP16.

Oh what's that? You didn't know about it? Me neither until it was almost over... It happened between November 29 and December 10, 2010. And there was a bizarre lack of media coverage. Had the media actually given up on being interested faster than the participating countries themselves? Luckily for those of us who were unaware, we didn't really miss much. Yet again, another world meeting that resulted in an agreement lacking any of the teeth of a treaty. Admittedly, I too would have difficulty accomplishing much if spending two weeks in Cancun, Mexico.

But the disappointing conclusion about the failures of international collaboration may be closer to target than we'd truly like in our heart of hearts. After all, no one really expects that real action is going to result from these meetings. "Nobody expects that we'll finalize the ultimate agreement here. We don't expect major heads of government to come here to help resolve some of these differences, but importantly, this meeting needs to make progress," says Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resource Defense Council, in his video blog of the event. Instead, global climate change talks have become like any other area-focused conference: people drink lots of coffee, try to stay warm in the blasting A/C, and put their heads together to discuss the main challenges and potential solutions to climate change.

So what came out of this huge brainstorming session? Two especially important things should be noted. First, there is at least some consensus that there should be a climate change "green fund" to help developing nations fund the technological changes necessary to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions; but how the money will be raised, by whom, and by when? Second, addressing the Kyoto Protocol is postponed for another year. But something else came out of the talks, too: lots and lots of carbon. These conferences inherently involve thousands of people from hundreds of countries flying in jet planes, using tourism services, and excusing the existence of massive conference centers (far from LEED certified). It was estimated that some 46,200 tonnes of CO2 were emitted from the 2009 conference -- roughly equivalent to the yearly carbon emissions of 2,300 Americans.



So if you can't make the world better, dear climate change conference attendees, could you please at least stop making it worse?



Abouts:
Home page of COP16
United Nations list of adopted decisions (available as pdfs)
NY Times article on the outcome
Jake Schmidt's video blog
Reuters report on carbon footprint of COP15

Image courtesy of http://blogs.america.gov

This blog has been silent for far too long, and it is now time that I've comfortably moved beyond what I saw in the world that made me keep quiet. So now I'm setting to the task of generating regular posts, roughly at a frequency of twice a month.

So I hope you enjoy the reading!

"The problem is we have so many stupid enterprises."

- Li Junfeng, deputy director general for energy research at China’s top economic planning agency and the secretary general of the government-run Renewable Energy Industries Association, on companies that deliberately underbid new renewable energy projects. "Green Power Takes Root in the Chinese Desert." NY Times. 2 July 2009.