One subject guaranteed to polarise The Engineer’s articulate and informed audience is that of climate change.
To date, Andrew Wade’s October 30, 2015 blog around the subject has sparked a debate with both camps vociferously slugging it out and each as convinced as the other that they are right about climate change.
Taking the debate to governmental level, COP21 kicks off today with around 147 political heavyweights including Barack Obama, Angela Merkel gathering in Paris for talks aimed at establishing legally binding agreements to keep global warming below 2°C.
According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) need to be reduced by 40-70% by 2050 in order to limit global warming to below 2°C.
Of the 100 readers who responded to Andrew’s blog, one reminded us that that our numerous computers are linked to servers that increase human-induced GHG emissions, a fact not lost on the information and communications technology (ICT) industry, which is stepping forward to suggest ways in which other sectors can use their solutions to mitigate anthropogenic climate change.
According to Ericsson, ICT could help to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by up to 15% by 2030, which amounts to around 10 gigatonnes of CO2e; which it claims is more than the current carbon footprint of the EU and US combined.
Ericsson maintains that sectors including electricity distribution, healthcare, education, government and transport could take advantage of ICT with smart buildings that provide automated heating, lighting and ventilation; analytical tools that regulate traffic flows and enhance driver safety, thereby reducing energy consumption from vehicles; and enable smart soil monitoring and smart watering systems to reduce waste in the agriculture sector.
It’s also quick to point out the disparity between the energy and carbon footprints of fixed and mobile ICT, with over 85% of ICT energy consumption experienced in fixed networks and user equipment, with – as our readers alluded to – fixed data centres contributing significantly to this statistic.
The energy sector will itself be tasked with making an enormous contribution to reducing GHG emissions, not least in electricity generation where the IPCC says emissions should fall by 80% in order to prevent a greater than 2•C rise in average global temperatures.
The World Nuclear Association has chipped into the debate, pointing out that the route to a low carbon society is achievable with the better use of nuclear energy alongside other mitigation options including renewables, a scenario currently being played out in Switzerland, Brazil, Sweden and France.
Agneta Rising, WNA director general said: “To implement the goals of an ambitious COP 21 agreement governments need to develop policies that encourage investment in low carbon generation, especially nuclear energy.
“We need 1000GWe of new nuclear capacity by 2050 to combat climate change. This will require effective regulation and markets that value low carbon emissions and reliable supplies.”
Scores of environmental protestors turned out over the weekend to voice their concerns ahead of COP21 but recent research from GlobeScan indicates that 48% of people living in industrialised countries (OECD members) rate climate as a “very serious” problem, which is down from 63% in 2009. Residents of non-OECD countries, however, rate climate change as “very serious” (54%)
In a statement, Doug Miller, GlobeScan chairman, said: “Our polling suggests a less supportive public opinion context for a Paris deal this year compared to stronger support that existed prior to the failed Copenhagen Climate Summit in December 2009. Real leadership and effective diplomacy will be needed for success in Paris.”
The research, which sought the views of 20,043 people across 20 countries, found 8% of respondents wanting their government to oppose a climate deal being reached in France and an average of 43% wanting their government to play a leadership role in setting ambitious targets. Another 40 per cent want their government to take a more moderate approach and support only gradual action.
What do you think? Let us know below.
Emission impossible?
What a brilliant heading….
The climate has always changed and probably always will. However the anthropogenic contribution has probably become significant. May be too significant of late?
However, I don’t see or believe governments will be able to do anything significant to make a global impact. Exporting our polluting industries may tick an environmental box at home but….. Alas! And I doubt if any government will ever have the will!
For example :-
1…. Should we deny developing countries access to a fridge and light bulb? However energy efficient things become the East will soon enough swamp the West’s energy consumption.
2…. Should population growth be encouraged or restricted ?
3… Should CO2 and only CO2 be reduced ?
4…. Should ALL greenhouse gases, and even ALL pollutants, be reduced ?
5…. As Methane is a much more aggressive greenhouse gas should that too be on the naughty step ?
The Stern report back in 2006 stated that livestock farming produced 18% of the planets greenhouse gasses (methane). Meat consumption will grow as the East copy the West’s affluent lifestyle and exacerbate pollution.
If the government wanted to reduce the countries greenhouse gas production by 20%,…….. forget all the tinkering, simply tax meat in the same way we tax the car.
So to compliment all the other little energy saving gestures we make along the way why not stop eating meat and become a true environmentalist ?
David James
Lots of interesting questions here. For a start I have never heard anybody attempt to define “global average temperature” …… Put that to one side for a while and let’s consider climate change as an engineering problem for once instead of an excuse for political posturing and hot air. Let’s accept that climate change is real and that we should “do something”. So here a few useless things we could stop doing. 1. Mining gold – lots of energy expended to produce useless trinkets. 2. Get rid of excess packaging e.g today I bought two 16Gb usb memory sticks. Each came on a rectangle of card inside a blister pack which took energy to produce and to transport. Never mind! I gleefully removed the packaging and put in the recycling bin to consume more energy in its collection and reprocessing. How smart is that? 3. Stop shipping food half way round the world when there is plenty produced locally. I could go on and on. Instead of dealing with all this abject waste our politicians prefer to strut around making a scapegoat of things that are actually useful e.g. producing electricity, transport of goods, etc. Politics was never about solving problems ……………
There was and is only one viable solution to this issue and that was the solution proposed by Gerard K. Oneill in 1970.
So we have wasted 45 years in failing to address the issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O'Neill all thanks to the illiberal lefties.
COP21 will increase the emission of global warming gas N2O (296X worse than CO2) because 3% of all fertilizer used to grow food-for-fuel goes into the air as N2O. COP21 will accelerate the use of resources to replace the open-cycle engines destroyed by ethanol in the fuel supply; and increase the use of landfills to dispose of the ruined equipment. According to the OPEI report, there are $1.5 trillion of US open-cycle engine run equipment.
COP21 also will accelerate the damage or destruction of vehicles that can’t tolerate E15. My own vehicle was damaged by E10. The US vehicle manufacturers tested E15 and found half the cars tested were damaged by the corrosive solvent that burns hotter than gasoline and damages many of the catalytic converters that are supposed to reduce NOx emissions (more GW gases). The environmental movement is dramatically increasing the risk to the planet through naive polices that cause more harm than good.
Oh, let’s not forget that according to scientific reports that 1/4th of all ocean rising is attributed to net aquifer drawdown, much of the water which is used to irrigate biofuel feedstock.
Why do non-OECD countries have a higher number of people who view climate change as a big risk? Because many think they can get OECD countries to give them money.
The debate about climate change in The Engineer has been intense and could easily continue for weeks. This is largely because The Engineer is one of the few sites that allow free debate on this topic. Engineers are well aware of the implications of having a low quality power system and excessive electricity prices on UK business and life and are probably the best trained to assess information about such a complex science.
“Climate science” is itself a nonsense because it is merely weather integrated over a selected period, and the period defining a climate is arbitrarily selected for political ends. This becomes particularly striking as historical climate information is examined, even a mean global temperature is a recent artefact of statistical manipulation.
The BBC, Independent, Guardian etc. refuse to publish critical arguments; believing the “proven science” mantra. The slipping support is against a welter of brainwashing and scientifically untrue claims about damage caused by CO2; those of us who are “Deniers” have had no real chance to put forward views in the mighty meja.
Even the learned institutions do not allow debate: I have left the I.Chem.E after 35 years membership because of their closed-minded approach to climate change in which no debate is countenanced.
Perhaps it was of little concern to mankind throughout history that changes occurred at all.
The vast majority of the population were illiterate, and relied? (were required) upon those above- their religious, social and legally trained ‘betters’- to tell them what to do without question.
But now, as I have opined before: 70% of all those who have ever been trained (a few have even been educated!) in science, technology and Engineering are alive, and practicing their professions as we write. I hope that many, like me, look at what and how our apparent leaders and betters do, think, act: and simply shake their heads in disbelief. Disbelief that persons so incompetant, unprofessional and plain stupid can continue to get away with what they do.
[Just for the record: a year or so ago, ‘we’ (they?) thought it appropriate to ‘bomb’ one ‘side’ in the present conflict in Syria. is it only me that is quite mad: of is it the case that this time, we are proposing to ‘bomb’ ‘the other side’.]
A veritable herd of elephants in the room you did not mention Jason.
Engineering commentary about climate change always tends to focus on electricity generation, in a way the low hanging fruit, and easiest to tackle. Nuclear proponents are never slow to promote their wares: “We need 1000GWe of new nuclear capacity by 2050 to combat climate change. This will require effective regulation and markets that value low carbon emissions and reliable supplies.”
We’ve been at this seriously for a decade at least and transport emissions are not being reduced by any meaningful amount. The aviation industry still perpetuates the myth that we can all be flying even more than we do now in 2050. How?
Why are car emissions per km falling so slowly. It’s not just the VW dieselgate scandal to blame.
Why do we continue to waste food in the supermarket food chain model? We truck freight backwards and forwards across continents in the name of free trade. I remember seeing a report that Britain exported about the same tonnage of chocolate biscuits to Italy as we imported from them. Senseless in a world of finite resources and growing population.
Electric cars – maybe for the cities but the range problem persists and is unlikely (in my view) to ever be solved. We should be re-thinking our need for transport, not maintaining the current energy profligate version by switching to electricity (or hydrogen).
Livestock production and excessive use of artificial fertilisers boost agriculture emissions. Deforestation is continuing apace to grow soya for beef production and to produce palm oil.
Housing being built now in the UK is not fit for purpose. In thirty years time they will be seen as energy-guzzling dinosaurs. This government has scrapped the zero carbon homes commitments it inherited.
Christmas is upon us and once again it’s all about excessive consumption. Searching for a holy technological grail to get us out of this fix is doomed to failure. We have to learn to live within the planet’s limits. Waste less, travel less, eat less meat.
Why is the effect of melting polar ice changing the sea level? Is Archimedes principal no longer valid for (Arctic) ice?
Why should melting glaciers change the sea level. Does this water come from the sea as snow, etc.
Would it be more accurate to hypothesise sea level rising due to expansion as a result increased mean temperature of the water?
I can assure Mike that he is no madder than me, if that helps him.
We were about to bomb Assad but fortunately thought better of it (as it turned out it was Daesh who used chemical weapons: nearly another Iraq).
I the USA and UK could cease their determined policies on regime change progress might be made for once.