The
book
by David Suzuki and Ian Hanington, Just
Cool It: Climate Change and What We Can Do (Graystone
Books, 2017), appeared
dull at first. David Suzuki brings a steady
style from his role on national
media – factual and complete with little
overstatement. When that style hits the
climate change crisis and science that I thought
I knew, it is not a formula
for excitement. I persevered. Interest and
respect grew. After the Paris
Agreement and the arrival of the purveyor of
“alternative facts,” a stocktaking
and assessment of what we little people can do
is valuable. My issue awareness
was updated and my gaps were filled – well –
partially!
The
first
three chapters set the stage and make clear that
climate change has
arrived, that it is caused by human activity and
that the burning of fossil fuels
is the major contributor, aided by cattle
farming and industrialized
agriculture. Yes – the demand for beef as
opposed to chicken and pork matters
to the climate!
The
run
through of obstacles in chapter 3 is a helpful
discussion of distracting
side issues - if not “alternative facts.” The
workings of climate change are
complex, but the major causes are not.
Priorities become: conserving energy;
getting energy without burning fossil fuels; and
preserving natural systems
that absorb and store carbon, like oceans and
forests.
There
are
questions about population. Population and
excessive consumption in the
developed world contribute to climate change.
Population is best addressed by
greater women’s rights worldwide in birth
control, in family planning, in
education and in participation in society and
politics. But fossil fuels have
driven the population boom and brought a legacy
of massive fossil fuel infrastructure.
China
is
indeed the biggest carbon emitter, but there’s
more than China. Every emitter
needs to cut. China is also a leader in
renewable energy development. True, Trump’s
denial may keep coal burning in the world’s
number 2 carbon emitter, but the US
is more than Trump. There are positive
developments too. Some countries are
already close to running on renewable energy.
Costa Rica generated enough
renewable energy to run the entire country for
almost 1/3 of 2015; Denmark aims
for 70% renewable by 2020.
Trade
agreements
can conflict with national environmental
concerns. As I write, Lone
Pine Resources Inc. is suing Canada over a
temporary fracking ban to protect
the St Lawrence River! And efforts to promote
renewables in Ontario have been
challenged. There is little doubt that sales and
trade agreements,
globalization, and international transportation
contribute to global warming despite
some positive aspects of trade.
The
fossil
fuel infrastructure, with cars, pipelines and
fracking, is a big
obstacle. Delays before expanding fossil fuel
infrastructure are wise at this
time. Cars and trucks are among the biggest
emission contributors, accounting
for about 1/5 of US emissions. Add planes trains
ships and freight and you get to
30%. Cars waste about 85% of the energy they
use. Electric cars could help,
depending on where the electricity comes from.
But car manufacture itself is
energy intensive.
Doubt,
confusion
and denial have not diminished with continuing
scientific evidence
and observable climate change. “People
associated
with fossil fuels put a lot of money and effort
into misleading campaigns to
down play the risks of their industry, and to
convince people that moving from
coal, oil and gas would be too costly, difficult
and unnecessary.”
The
Heartland
Institute in the US and comparable organizations
in the UK, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand support the confusion
campaign. Why the campaign?
Year after year ExxonMobil pulls in more money
than any company in history.
Chevron’s not far behind. They are putting
short-term profit before human
survival.
Naomi
Klein
suggests that climate change challenges the
fundamental belief that
things can be left to the magic of the market.
Climate change calls us to plan
our society to prevent catastrophe.
The
2012
Climate Vulnerability Report prepared in Europe
for the NGO DARA by 50
scientists, economists and experts examined
costs. Climate change cost a rising
$1.2 trillion annually and 400,000 deaths,
mainly in developing countries.
Studies by the World Bank and also by a group of
prominent Republicans and
Democrats – Risky
Business – call for
carbon pricing and more. A commentary in Nature
by a group of scientists and economists calls
for a moratorium on tar sands
exploration and transportation. The economy is
just a construct that brings a
widening rich/poor gap and little growth in
well-being. Nature is our home and
we need a fundamental reality check.
In
considering
solutions, what can be done, the book offers a
framework for
evaluating possible solutions. Does a solution
increase democratic control, or
is power pushed to a more elite control group -
as is a consequence of nuclear
power. What is the impact on nature? Does the
solution go along with nature
rather than challenge it?
Chapter
4
runs through some solutions possible to
individuals. These go beyond the
evident need for persons to join in an
international movement calling for
serious government commitments to deal with the
causes of climate change and
challenge the use of fossil fuels. First, green
your commute and travel.
Walking or riding a bike is best. Using public
transit helps.
Joining a car share, buying a less
polluting
car, and car-pooling all help. Electric and
hybrid cars can help too. Being
energy efficient helps: putting in low energy
lighting; programing thermostats;
and using energy efficient appliances. Also, try
putting a solar panel or two
on the roof! Don’t forget to reduce consumption
and waste – including waste of
foods. Animal agriculture produces huge amounts
of greenhouse gas emissions and
consumes a lot of water. Cattle produce about
40% of global agricultural
emissions, but pigs and poultry 10%. So vegans
or vegetarians are best for the
climate, but even choosing chicken over beef
helps! Some types of agriculture
are worse than others – for example large-scale
industrial farming is bad.
Finally, one can divest any money one has
invested in the fossil fuel industry.
Chapter
5
goes further into the complicated role of
agriculture in global warming using
World Resources Institute, WRI, data. Farming
accounts for 13% of emissions,
the second largest industry after the energy
sector. Methane from cattle and
nitrous oxide from fertilizers make up 65% of
the farm emissions. Less comes
from manure management, rice cultivation, field
residue burning and fuel use on
farms. Clearing of forests and wetlands that
serve as carbon sinks also contributes
to emission.
Crops
are
in general less of a problem than cattle. WRI
says changing crop management
and grazing can help. That is aided by: better
fertilizer management,
conservation tillage, rotational grazing,
altering forage composition, and
restoring degraded lands. But given the scale of
emissions, a shift to agroecology
is called for: reducing pollution and chemical
use, increasing biodiversity,
protecting water, growing healthier food and
creating more equitable food
systems. Widely employing techniques like terra
preta (or “black earth”) could
have a big impact.1
Genetically
modified
crops are not the best answer. They pull control
to an elite running the
modified variety. The danger with laboratory
fixes is the “Silent Spring”
experience of getting onto a treadmill to remove
unexpected side effects. Working
with nature through agroecology is preferred.
Have many farmers test seeds and
choose evolving seeds that work best in their
soil so that their crops “naturally”
adapt to changing soil, pests and climate. It
also puts a lot of farmers in the
driver’s seat. One theoretical study concluded
that global adoption of
agroecology with cover crops, compost, crop
rotation and reduced tillage could
take up more carbon than is currently emitted –
a net win for the planet. The
good news is evidence from real practice that
agroecology can outperform the
use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food
production significantly. It did
so in projects in 57 developing countries
especially in unfavourable environments.
Crop production went up an average 80% - with an
average of 116% for all
African projects.
The
chapter
ends with some information about the real
possibilities of food
production in cities and urban gardens.
Chapter
6
on technical solutions begins by de-bunking
those familiar arguments against
clean energy – that the wind may not blow or the
sun may not shine. The 2013
Trottier Report is clear that Canada has vast
renewable energy resources many
times larger than current or projected needs. A
2013 Stanford Report found New
York could technically and economically be
converted to sustainable reliable
and inexpensive energy from wind, water and
sunlight creating local jobs and
saving the State pollution-related costs. The
New York Times was told that the
obstacles for the whole US were not technical or
economic but social and
political – the lack of will to do it. Renewable
energy sources can bring costs
to ecology and wildlife, but fossil fuels and
nuclear fuel are more costly.
The
need
for a large baseload of electricity from a huge
dam or a nuclear power
plant is a thing of a past dominated by the
needs of aluminum and cement plants.
Today, a nimble smart grid with concentrated
solar, thermal, enhanced
geothermal and flexible energy storage by
wind-compressed air and pumped heat
can work better than the large 24/7 polluting
plants that are now more a
problem than an asset. In any case, nuclear must
be shut down for weeks at a
time for refuelling. Basically, today’s
electrical systems do not need to pump
CO2 into the air and leak tritium into the
water!
Solar
power
is growing and becoming more economical. The
dominant solar panels are
from readily available materials. In 2015 solar
supplied 1% of global energy
needs. Disadvantages are: the need for emergy
storage; installations take up a
lot of space; and some of the newer technologies
use rare materials, the mining
of which can bring ecological risks. However,
technologies are also developing
rapidly in related areas, with some mimicking
photosynthesis. Meeting the 2050
world energy needs could be done by scaling up
production of current silicon
cells. Meeting 2050 demands would be problematic
for newer solar technologies
at this time.
Wind
energy
currently supplies 3% of world electricity
generation, but 41% of
Denmark’s and 15% of Spain, Portugal, Ireland
and Lithuania’s. Health and
environmental concerns have been raised. For
health, the serious evidence on
sound can usually be addressed by a 0.5km
distancing. Yes, there is an impact
on birds, bats and wildlife so that wind farms
should avoid major migratory
flight paths. However, the existing energy
sources and transmission lines bring
serious pollution problems and risks too. Pet
cats are by far the biggest
threat to birds. Aesthetics of smoke stacks,
industrial plants or windmills are
a matter of taste. I’m with Suzuki – I don’t
mind seeing windmills. I am far
more worried by a nuclear power plant.
Hydroelectric
power
is a useful part of the emerging new mix of
renewable supplies, but one
huge hydro dam is more problematic than a
collection of more modest hydro dams.
This is on account of initial land flooding and
related ecology, impeding fish
even when fish ladders are provided, altering
river temperatures and dissolved
oxygen levels. Today’s dams are best built in
stages and adapted as climate
changes.
Storage
makes
renewable sources viable – especially in remote
areas. In Australia Tesla
is selling Powerwall Lithium home battery
systems. AllGrid Energy is producing
less expensive ten-kilowatt-hour lead acid gel
batteries. Wind power is deemed
sustainable with the existing good storage.
Solar is not yet sustainable on
account of the energy needed to produce the
cell. An improved grid would allow
the US, now, to use renewable sources for its
electricity without storage.
Studies of alternative storage techniques are
underway in Ontario.
Geothermal
electricity
generating is promising, but it depends on
locating suitable sites,
and
that has received less government
support than other renewable energy sources and
less government support than
fossil fuels.
Biofuels
can
in theory be useful, but they raise questions
about whether land is best
used for food agriculture. They can reduce
greenhouse gas emissions for long
haul trucking. In general, efforts are better
placed in greater fuel
efficiency, public transit and the like.
A
number of arguments show power generation by
waste incineration can be unwise. Incineration
is inefficient and expensive. Fly ash and
pollutant can be released to the air
and the disposal of the bottom ash that has lead
and cadmium content is
problematic. The “reduce, reuse and recycle” is
best but if you do that it creates
a dilemma because it can hurt fuel supplies.
It
surprised
me to learn that the destruction of carbon sinks
like forests and
wetlands is responsible for more emissions in
the air than cars, trucks, planes
and boats together. Tropical forests absorb more
carbon than was thought. The
oceans are the other big sink for CO2. Such
assets deserve protection. Nature should be
treated with care. Maintaining
ecosystems can help cities save money.
Conventional
nuclear
power comes with a lot of problems. The overall
life cycle from mining
uranium through constructing to decommissioning
power plants is not
particularly green. Some argue risks of meltdown
and problems of radioactive
waste can be overcome with newer technologies.
Thorium reactors may be better,
but such alternatives can still be used for
weapons and still produce
radioactive and corrosive materials. The time
and cost of putting them on
stream is larger than for renewables. Plus the
nature of nuclear power requires
a centralized facility and security and these
are inherently less democratic.
Use
of
natural gas is suggested as bridging to other
measures. Yet gas is still a
fossil fuel. It contributes to the emissions
problem. It maintains the old ways
of digging and burning that created the problem.
Moreover, the use of fracking
raises big problems for the quality of
groundwater that populations rely on and
fracking has stimulated earthquakes. A Suzuki
Foundation study found that a
hundred times the well pads were needed to get
the same amount of gas from
fracking as from conventional sources. These are
disruptive in farm or cottage
country! And leaking natural gas adds to global
warming. Also enormous amounts
of water are needed for fracking - a big issue
in areas of shortage or times of
drought. We are better getting on with creating
sustainable jobs producing
sustainable energy that can be done right now.
Can
geoengineering
help? This is nothing to do with “chemtrails” -
some supposed
secret military or government and airline scheme
to seed the atmosphere with
chemicals. Suzuki dismisses this as yet more
confusion from a mix of science
fiction and conspiracy theory in the same league
as climate change denial. Geoengineering
might seek to manage solar radiation or to put
away CO2. Cutting solar
radiation by scattering, or whitening clouds, or
giant reflectors doesn’t
address the CO2 release problem itself. Ideas
for removing CO2 by seeding
oceans with iron to cause plankton to bloom,
absorbing CO2, and then sink have
been tried. Reports indicate this does not work.
Moreover algae can produce
toxins!
A
2015 Australian report on large Carbon Capture
projects reported 15 worldwide
with total capacity of 28 million tonnes per
year. Canada, Saskatchewan and
Alberta have projects aimed to put CO2 into the
ground as a mix to get out more
oil – “enhanced oil recovery.” But little is
known about what happens to the
CO2 used in the mix and the method has yet to be
developed. A Saskatchewan
project has had setbacks and cost over-runs but
the Saskatchewan government
says it is a success. These efforts may be worth
studying, but they should not
be an excuse by the oil and gas industry for not
doing what clearly works –
using more of the cost effective renewable
energy sources for power generation.
The
last
chapter looks at institutional solutions – like
the international
agreements. These have worked in response to
acid rain and maintaining the
ozone layer. The stakes are higher for putting
the brakes on the world’s most
profitable and entrenched industry. Canada could
take a stand: no more tar
sands projects. In addition, people and
corporations should not be able to spew
out pollution into the air without cost or
consequence – in fact this
illustrates a current huge market failure.
Carbon
tax
is a way to go. A number of US states and
provinces have cap or cap-and-
trade for CO2. Some are sceptical. Suzuki says
Ontario’s scheme will cut
emissions, but cap-and-trade is not enough on
its own. Carbon taxes have worked
in BC and Sweden and there was still economic
growth. Suzuki reminds the reader
that he has argued elsewhere that carbon
pollution is an unfair trade subsidy
that needs a countervailing tariff on imports. A
stronger carbon tax helps kick
start renewable industries. Carbon offsets are
popular and can help for CO2
produced by travel. But offsets are not all
equal. The best result is a net
fall in CO2. So Suzuki does not regard planting
a tree as a legitimate offset. Also,
the cost of work needed to meet a legislated
emission level must not be
considered a legitimate carbon offset. Suzuki
notes from the German experiment
that “feed in tariffs,” paying people or groups
to add renewable energy, work
for developing renewable energy supplies, but
these add to the cost of German electricity.
In
this
last chapter there is a final section about new
economies for a changing
world. Suzuki quotes Naomi Klein that climate
change cannot be addressed
without challenging the logic of unregulated
capitalism. But Suzuki is clear
that his top priority is addressing the climate
change itself. It is not too
costly. Jobs and economic prosperity are at risk
without doing it. The economic
benefits from the solutions are lost. That is
what the World Bank and the US
non-partisan report argue.
But
Suzuki
thinks that the World Bank suggestions may not
be enough if we consider 21st
century realities: resource scarcity, climate
change and a desire for greater
equity. Economic systems that rely on growth and
consumption for their own sake
add to the climate change problem. Suzuki ends
by visioning a more sustainable
economic model that puts priority on clean water
and air, and healthy food. Polluters
would pay. Capital would spread more widely.
There would be greater sharing of
income and work and wealth. It’s time we talked
about a future where we lived
with less but were happier, he says. Amen to
that.