Global warming update

Get ready for the flood. From SCIENCE, March 24 2006, 311 (5768) there's a report on Ice Sheet Stability. There's a cover news story, an editorial, 2 perspectives and four reports in this issue. I think they mean it, folks. They report that Otto-Bliesner et al. (p. 1751)have "integrated climate model simulations, an ice sheet model, and paleoclimate data to show that the northern latitudes, and particularly the Arctic, were significantly warmer during the Last Interglaciation, when sea level was several meters higher than at present. Further they also estimate that the Greenland Ice Sheet contributed between 2.2 and 3.4 meters of sea level rise in the penultimate deglaciation". Then Overpeck et al. (p. 1747) "compare the model's predictions of warming during the next 130 years to this reconstruction, and conclude that surface temperatures will be as high by the end of this century as they were 130,000 years ago. These conditions would melt enough of the Greenland Ice Sheet to raise sea level by several meters".

Now 'several meters' in Greenland translates as a range of sea levels and local storm and tidal effects depending on location and geomorphology. Suffice to say many coastal communities would be inundated, islands will disappear and king tides will be more royal than usual ;-)

So is it really happening? In one report they say that "determining how quickly Antarctic ice may be disappearing has been difficult to assess. The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites were designed to make the needed measurements, and Velicogna and Wahr (p. 1754, published online 23 February) show that the mass of the ice sheet has been decreasing by 152 {+/-} 80 cubic kilometers per year from 2002 to 2005, mostly from losses of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Contrary to some projections, ice loss around the margins is proceeding faster than the center of the ice sheet is growing. Glacial earthquakes are triggered by the large and sudden sliding of glaciers and can be observed by global seismic networks." Another researcher found that glacial earthquakes (in Greenland) were found to be "more common in summer and that their annual number has doubled since 2002".

As we drive around in our cars and run our air conditioners and heaters unabated and unconcerned we are changing our planet in ways that we may not yet fully appreciate. So who are you going to blame, and what are you doing about it?

The poor poor car

I have to respond to this Sydney Morning Herald editorial titled "Something in the air", Friday March 17 2006. It begins with the sub-heading "Cars are demonised as the primary cause of pollution but are such claims true? JOHN CADOGAN dispels some myths". It's a good article in that it brings many interesting and useful pieces of information together, but it's thrust is biased - possibly by ignorance or simple laziness rather than intent - and consequently weak in its analysis. It's to be expected that journalists with an interest of any sort will find it easy to succumb to subjectivity but sad nonetheless that the "Drive" section of a popular Australian newspaper can only reinforce the current state of mind and cannot think beyond the short term.

OK, I like (and drive) cars. But we should also consider the crisis in species extinctions (including our own if we don't do something!), much but not all of it due to global warming; and the enormous damage that cars do to our local environment and our social structures (as in no-one walks any more, making our streets 'unsafe' and so on). To just blankly write off criticism is silly and impedes reasoned thought and action. To rebut the claim (whether it be true or not) that "Cars are demonised as the primary cause of pollution" with shallow analysis of just one aspect of a car's environmental footprint is overwhelmingly weak.

OK, I'll get to my point. This editorial makes a case for comparing the gross output volume of pollutants by cars with such things as energy generation and distribution. It (rightly) paints a bleak picture of Australia's greenhouse-unfriendly coal-fired power stations and draws the conclusion that the blame lies more fairly there, rather than with cars. Well, yes, we must do something about reducing all forms of greenhouse gas emission, but to compare power station gross output with the gases pumped out of cars is misleading. Cars do not just appear as if by magic. They are elaborately transformed by the application of energy to raw materials. They are shipped around as material, as parts and as final product. They are serviced and repaired, recycled and discarded. They also demand roads (with signage and policing), parking lots, fuel distribution and garaging. These are not inconsequential matters, in fact the fuel burn is likely to be just (grant me some license here) 30-60% of the total energy budget for each car (dependent on size and use). So the greenhouse emissions are likely be be up to 70% higher than what is quoted in the Herald editorial. It may be less, but not by much.

You could argue that we don't need to garage cars, but we do. When we had no cars we had stables and we had trams and trains - houses did not need 1, 2 or 3 car garages and we didn't build them. We also built narrower streets. Houses could be closer together, footpaths wider. Shops were closer to us and obesity rates were lower. We exercised more and shared more community resources, like transport. It's true that we'd still need roads for buses and trucks, and bike paths for cycles, but higher-standard roads and freeways would be much reduced in number and 'urban sprawl' much reduced. Don't think it'd work? How does New York City work? I'm not saying NYC is an ideal of any sort but they do manage quite nicely with low rates of car ownership.

Bottom line? You must factor in the whole footprint. We haven't even looked at death and injury and the resources needed to address these car-related 'aftershocks'. Cars "own" that footprint - something not reflected in this Herald editorial or in new car prices for that matter. Don't look at just one statistic and tell me that it proves anything. Proper analysis means doing some hard work. Do that analysis and write that article, it'd be very interesting to read.

Nice overview on alternative fuels

Nice overview on alternative fuels available from researchandmarkets.com

The auto industry faces massive challenges... choices surrounding fuel type and availability, the increasing niche marketing of models, shorter and shorter lead times, the threat from increasingly sophisticated lower cost manufacturers and high quality expectations to name just a few. Throw in global warming and it gets scary. The higher-cost manufacturers are throwing money away in pursuit of shrinking markets. Do they get it? Why are they betting on big cars? Where's the strategic thinking? How can we avoid environmental catastrophe?

Smart money on hydrogen fuel?

Have a read of "Fuel for thought" by Jonathan Hawley , SMH, Thursday March 2 2006.

Jonathan says that "Car makers at the Geneva motor show looked at different ways of helping the environment." Which is to say they still want to make lots of cars but look greener when doing it.

Point one - let's remember that cars have an inherent cost - the basic raw materials
must be dug up, transported and transformed - all energy-expensive actions - before assembled and sold to be driven. Before you even get some petrol or diesel into that new car you have already expended maybe 35-55% of the energy (and pollution) budget of that elaborately transformed good. It depends how big it is and how long you keep it, but you get my drift. Just making it stuffs up the planet. Make enough of them (or other individually expensive manufactured goods) and you will kill the planet.

Jonathan clearly digs deep into his subject and doesn't just accept car manufacturers at their word. For example he goes on to say, "Until a viable alternative to fossil fuels is found – and the smart money is on hydrogen-powered fuel cells – the chase is on to eke the last joule of energy from crude oil."

Hmmm - smart money on hydrogen, eh - I'd like to see the evidence for that one! Fuel cells look good conceptually, sure - but hydrogen in our tanks? Pumped out at gas stations on street corners? Nice throw-away
line that falls into line with car-makers spin, but little evidence that it will come to pass. What we do see is lots more hybrids and better burning petrol and diesel engines. And lots more alcohol/petrol mixes.

The real question is why can't car-mad automotive journos actually look beyond the spin and do some investigation of the real impact of their beloved cars. Heck, I have 3 of the darned things but they are all 4 cylinders, the smallest a 1.5l and the largest just under 2.0litres. We could all improve our national fuel consumption and lower our pollution-footprint by (a) keeping our cars longer, (b) driving them less, and (c) driving slower. Yes, newer cars are better at fuel efficiency and crash protection but they also tend to be larger, heavier and more complex. We can't claim to be angels when we save a penny here and spend (or perhaps add) a pound everywhere else.

Cheers, Rob.