I’m a climate scientist. Here’s how I’m handling climate grief
How amusing. It seems that at least one group of climate "scientists" is seriousy deranged. How can anyone in good mental health seriously convince themselves that just one degree of warming over the last century or more is worth concern? I liked Roy Spencer's comment: "Everyone knows warming causes snowflakes to melt"
Last September, before the rains came, my field team learnt that it was probably too late for half the blue oaks affected by California’s drought in the region in which we were working. Because of years of ongoing drought, many of the trees would not recover from the long-term water loss and would die. The next morning, I sat outside our science team meeting and cried.
A friend sat with me and explained that she had just recovered from an episode of extreme climate grief brought about by studying rapidly changing terrestrial ecosystems. She had started taking weekends off (many of us work seven days a week) and encouraged me to do so, as well. After we talked, I walked around the parking area for a while, listening to the birds and watching the midday light filter through the diverse trees in downtown Santa Barbara. I breathed the ocean air and grounded myself in the present, where the air was cool and the birds were singing.
Soon after that, I started taking weekends off to kayak near my home in Southern California and hike on the trails above Pasadena, and built a small bird garden on the porch of my apartment. I also started talking frankly to my colleagues about the emotional turmoil that is often sparked by working as a climate scientist today, and many others had similar stories. I am in my mid-thirties, working at NASA as a scientist, and I already have five scientist friends with severe, emergent health challenges. They are all affected by overwork, exhaustion and extreme stress. The only other thing they all have in common is that they study climate change.
Climate scientists have advocated for recognition of the destabilization of Earth’s ecosystems for four decades. Even within my lifetime, the climate system has changed noticeably, with hotter summers, longer dry periods and more frequent and severe storms. Some climate scientists have left the field, some have died and some have retired, but even more are just starting their careers. Early-career climate scientists across a range of fields are faced with comprehensive, esoteric challenges as ecosystems begin to cross tipping points. Knowing how to look at these huge changes and still be able to relax at the end of the day can be an ongoing problem.
Even for the most experienced and well-trained field scientists, changing dynamics can introduce sudden risks to health and safety. Whether in the shape of increased glacier flow rates, rainstorms that become atmospheric rivers, or abrupt permafrost thawing that disrupts sections of highway, these unforeseen risks are emerging increasingly. Scientists with decades of experience in one field location might find themselves confronted with a new atmospheric or hydrologic circulation pattern, an unseasonal storm or freeze, or literally shaky ground. Although we have a responsibility to track how certain sites are changing in a climate that’s getting hotter and more extreme, that can put scientists at considerable risk.
Recently, I spoke to Dave Schimel, one of the scientists who led the work for which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel prize in 2007, about how we can address climate grief. After decades of working to convince the public that climate change is real, he said that we need to work on solutions. He thinks that the current generation of climate scientists needs to move on from education and advocacy to providing solutions for mitigation, adaptation and resilience. The best treatment for climate grief, he says, is knowing you’ve made a contribution to reducing emissions or building resilience.
For me, healing comes in the form of spending my time outside work enjoying the world around me, rewilding hard-to-access land, writing letters to congresspeople and protecting migrating birds. I’ve spoken to many others who have planted gardens for native pollinators, eaten from local farms and advocated for change with local policymakers. Although small actions might not solve the climate crisis, they remind us that we are intrinsic parts of the world and its ecosystems.
In California, rainstorms started in December and lasted until May. Reservoirs were refilled, and many oaks were saved. The hills glowed with yellow and orange wildflowers, and leaves exploded from branches in rapid growth, a benefit of the winter of moisture. For just this one year, the blossoming hills gave me a breath of relief amid the ongoing struggle, and I rededicated myself to continuing to fight for everything we can still save.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02619-0
*************************************************Sweden to lift parliamentary ban on uranium mining
The Swedish Parliament has shown majority support for a lift on the ban, according to Pourmokhtari.
The government plans to build at least ten large reactors in the next 20 years to meet the demand for low-carbon energy. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson told reporters in January that the government is “changing the legislation”, which will increase nuclear investment in the country.
Swedish ministers decided to phase out nuclear generation in 1980 and have historically taken an anti-nuclear stance. However, this policy was repealed in June 2010. Pourmokhtari is a public advocate of nuclear generation and says it should form a part of Sweden’s future energy mix.
“The government is aiming at doubling electricity production in 20 years,” Pourmokhtari told The Times this weekend.
“For our clean power system to function, a large part of this has to be dispatchable where nuclear power is the only non-fossil option. Nuclear power also has a reduced environmental footprint and requires limited resources in comparison with most energy sources.”
Uranium mining has become a point of concern for Europe’s nuclear industry as Russia dominates the processing of the fuel. Following the country’s invasion of Ukraine last year, the EU has sought to reduce its energy dependence on Moscow.
Kazakhstan, however, is by far the largest uranium miner. According to the World Nuclear Association, the country produced the largest share of mined uranium (43% of the global supply) in 2022, followed by Canada (15%) and Namibia (11%).
The European Parliament has been the site of heated debate over the role of nuclear generation in a net-zero future. France, which generates around 70% of its energy from nuclear sources, has been vocally pro-nuclear. Meanwhile, Germany, which has shut down its final three nuclear power stations this year, says that the fuel is not renewable.
Sweden accounts for 80% of the EU’s uranium deposits and already extracts uranium as a waste product when mining for other metals.
Several companies, including Australia’s Aura Energy and Canada’s District Metals, have already expressed interest in developing uranium sites in Sweden.
https://www.mining-technology.com/news/sweden-lift-uranium-mining-ban/?cf-view
*********************************************California's solar mess
In the land of palm trees and sunny skies, the saga of California’s energy industry unfolds, and its latest chapters paint a distressing picture. In a state known for its commitment to renewable energy, residents interested in harnessing rooftop solar face a surprising hurdle in the form of government regulation. As the state struggles to grapple with a power grid afflicted with numerous issues stemming from surging demand, the burden of rooftop solar falls disproportionately on the shoulders of individuals and businesses alike, while highlighting the flaws of an adulterated energy market.
The State of California could be “exhibit A” of what utility regulator Travis Kavulla was picturing when he wrote:
Understanding the [energy] sector is not just important because electricity is important; the market for electricity is really a window into the workings of the modern administrative state. The economic regulation of the sector often blurs the line between government and business, turning each into the other’s client. Even in places where competitive features exist, the marketplace is still designed by government and warped by subsidies. Today there is no genuinely free market for electricity. Ironically, many of the ideologically driven, market-oriented reforms of recent decades have precipitated a retrenchment of the monopoly problem they intended to solve.
California’s history with rooftop solar systems dates back to 1996, when the state introduced the Net Energy Metering (NEM) program. This innovative billing system allowed owners of electricity generation systems, such as rooftop solar installations, to sell surplus electricity back to the grid at retail rates. This incentive proved enticing to consumers, making alternative power generation more appealing as it helped defray the substantial cost of solar systems over their lifespan. Consequently, it fostered a diverse energy resource mix and facilitated private investments in renewable energy.
The initial iteration of NEM, aptly named NEM 1.0, achieved resounding success for California and its residents in terms of increasing solar uptake. Solar system installations surged to record highs, costs of solar systems decreased annually, and the share of energy generated from individual systems kept climbing, meeting all expectations set forth by regulators.
However, after two decades of relative stability under NEM 1.0, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved NEM 2.0 as its successor. While NEM 2.0 maintained some benefits of its predecessor, such as full retail rates for excess power generation and exemptions from standby and fixed charges, it introduced a one-time interconnection fee of $75-$150 and a charge of approximately $0.02/kWh on the total electricity consumed by the grid from new NEM customers.
In less than three years after the launch of NEM 2.0, the CPUC embarked on a reform journey that would change the foundations of this once-celebrated program. Collaborating with Investor-Owned Utility companies (IOUs), the CPUC conducted extensive studies, focus groups, and hearings from August 2020 to August 2021, aiming to evaluate the impacts of net metering on the grid and consumers. A chief concern with NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0 is that the program was not cost-effective for utilities and non-participating customers. The outcome was a proposed NEM 3.0, released in November 2022, which received unanimous approval from the CPUC in December of the same year and was scheduled to take effect in April 2023 as a net billing tariff.
Under NEM 3.0, consumers could expect to receive a mere 25% of the credit they enjoyed under NEM 1.0 or 2.0 during the summer months. Regrettably, this new policy painted a bleak picture for individuals, schools, and small businesses that were considering future renewable generation. Pre-existing system users could be grandfathered into their current NEM rate by way of an application. However, no such luck for those who were stuck in the process or slow to complete their system installation.
One of the primary goals behind NEM 3.0 was to nudge consumers into adopting storage systems alongside their solar installations. During the previous iterations of NEM, the percentage of NEM systems that had storage was lackluster, with less than 6 percent of systems including storage by 2019. With NEM 3.0, individuals can expect, on average, to pay an additional $8,000–$16,000 to have a storage system installed alongside their solar. While a 26% federal tax credit for qualifying storage installations provides some relief, it exemplifies a pattern of shifting the cost burden onto the consumers, even customers without solar. According to Severin Borenstein, Meredith Fowlie, and James Sallee at Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, “Utility customers who install solar save 20 to 30 cents for every kilowatt-hour their system produces, but the utility’s costs go down by only 7 to 9 cents. That leaves 10 to 20 cents in costs that still must be covered, so electricity rates go up, which hits people without solar panels.” Their working paper can be found here.
The dilemma of rooftop solar does not solely extend from statewide regulations either. Certain municipalities have also enacted restrictive regulations that make it difficult for homeowners to adopt solar energy solutions. These ordinances often impose stringent permitting processes, cumbersome paperwork, and excessive fees, dissuading residents from pursuing rooftop solar installations. Varying and inconsistent permitting requirements across jurisdictions create confusion and prolong the approval process for solar projects, leading to frustration among potential adopters.
Moreover, solar energy systems face a fundamental challenge—their peak generation occurs during the middle of the day when the demand for power is relatively low. In contrast, the highest demand for energy occurs in the evenings, when people return from work, plug-in electric vehicles, and use air conditioning. While large-scale storage systems could potentially offset this disparity, they are costly and rarely built at the scale required to power entire cities. Unfortunately, the CPUC’s decision seemed to favor the interests of massive IOUs over individual customers.
Adding to this predicament, California enacted a law in 2020 that required all new residential single-family homes, condominiums, and apartment buildings three stories or lower to install solar systems. Although the state aspires to lead in renewable energy production, this rule adds to the housing cost burden, further exacerbating the state’s existing housing and homelessness crisis. As Lawrence J. McQuillan notes in How to Restore the California Dream: Removing Obstacles to Fast and Affordable Housing Development this building requirement can add between “$10,000 to $30,000 to the cost of a new home.” The group Solar Rights Alliance purports that in California, a typical rooftop solar installation costs over $25,000, more than the rest of the United States (~$22,000), and far more than other countries like Japan ($13,200) or Germany ($9,600). Adding additional costs for home buyers while simultaneously reducing the ability to effectively pay off those accrued costs is a surefire way to compound the problem that is already prevalent.
If the concern is that NEM adds costs to other grid customers, who are not using solar, then all the more reason to have freer markets in electricity. Embracing a more market-driven approach could help alleviate the issues faced by California’s energy industry. By allowing supply and demand dynamics to dictate pricing, consumers who generate excess solar power could negotiate fair compensation directly with those who require it, promoting a more efficient allocation of resources. With a transparent and competitive market, innovative solutions such as peer-to-peer energy trading platforms could emerge, where individuals with excess solar power could sell it directly to others, bypassing the need for complex regulatory frameworks like NEM. This would not only empower consumers but also encourage investments in energy storage technologies that could bridge the gap between solar generation and peak demand periods, benefiting both solar owners and other grid customers. Ultimately, a freer electricity market could pave the way for a more resilient, cost-effective, and sustainable energy future.
Until then, California’s ambitious journey towards renewable energy and climate resilience is therefore marred by this series of policy choices. IOUs have been either direct beneficiaries, or have been slated to receive billions of dollars in order to develop and maintain infrastructure that is efficient, reliable, and safe. But the results are underwhelming. Planned outages across the state for load management at the hottest points of summer leave people vulnerable to heat-related illness. Their lack of powerline maintenance is a constant cause of fires that have led to tragedies that have burned hundreds of thousands of acres, tens of thousands of homes and businesses, and over 100 deaths.
https://catalyst.independent.org/2023/08/22/californias-solar-dilemma/
*******************************************Seaweed farming
It was September 2017, and Elsom attended a lecture by renowned environmentalist Tim Flannery. In his speech, Flannery discussed the potential of seaweed to store quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It instantly inspired Elsom. He would farm seaweed and help save the planet.
But there was another twist. Elsom’s commitment coincided with recent research out of the CSIRO and James Cook University in Townsville, north Queensland – that some compounds in seaweed had the ability to dramatically reduce methane production in cows and sheep. They would discover that two species of a particular Australian red seaweed – the Asparagopsis taxiformis (found in warm Queensland waters), and the Asparagopsis armata – (common in the cooler waters of Tasmania) – reduced livestock methane production by up to 90 per cent if added to the animals’ diet.
Given that 11 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions came from ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats), Elsom saw an opportunity. He would grow commercial quantities of Asparagopsis and take a significant chunk out of the world’s, greenhouse gas emissions. (The planet’s 1.5 billion cows and 1.1 billion sheep contribute roughly 6 per cent to all global emissions.)
Elsom’s Tasmanian-based company Sea Forest was born. The challenge was to grow enough seaweed to actually make a lasting difference.
By 2021, Sea Forest had attracted more than $40m in investment funds, and it continues to expand. By late last year it was producing 7000 tonnes of Asparagopsis per year, or enough to feed 300,000 cattle.
Sea Forest is not alone in the seaweed farming industry, which is rapidly developing into a multibillion-dollar global industry. In August 2021, an Australian Seaweed Institute report predicted the domestic industry could potentially generate $1.5bn annually by 2040, while reducing greenhouse emissions by 10 per cent. And that’s all thanks to a native Australian red seaweed, and visionaries like Sea Forest chief executive Elsom. He told The Australian last year: “Australia is one of the most biodiverse places on the planet and there’s a tremendous opportunity to better understand the life of seaweed and its many uses.”
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment