trains and planes on the carbon battlefront

It's interesting to watch the railway and airline lobbies wage battle for the hearts of environmentally-conscious long-distance travellers. Trains and planes are competing with each other in a growing number of markets, but on the alternative fuels front, airlines are at a distinct disadvantage.

Given security of supply, railways could switch to biodiesel immediately, and trials have begun using blended fuels. (Interestingly, the first biodiesel-fueled trains were run in 2002 by Indian Railways.) Despite the marketing hype, it's not so clear that this would cut carbon emissions; but it would at least reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and the Indian approach of making biodiesel from plants such as jatropha, mahua and karanji would create jobs while avoiding some of the pitfalls of biofuels.

Then there's the approach of using electrified trains - in cities, at least - which removes the need for liquid fuel altogether, making it possible to use a mix of any energy sources that can be fed into the grid: wind, sun, sea... The solar panel on your roof could be doing its bit to get you to work in the morning.

Meanwhile, the airlines aren't giving up the fight. If they have fewer alternative fuels immediately available, they figure they can at least earn points by participating in climate change research to see what their impacts are, and what can be done. They've also got the fallback position of encouraging passengers to purchase carbon offsets, but have a long way to go, as a miniscule proportion of air travellers currently purchase offsets, and many of these are virtually worthless tree-planting exercises.

Sir Richard Branson is sitting pretty with a foot in both camps. In true Branson style, there's the $25 million Virgin Earth Challenge to see who can come up with the killer carbon reduction app. But as he has pointed out, the answer is not only about fuels and technologies. It's also about standards and operating procedures. Sometimes we just have to change the way we do things to reduce carbon outputs, and Sir Richard maintains that airline procedures could be tweaked to achieve just that. He has proposed towing aircraft to the runway, and the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents 250 airlines, says that "an overhaul of air traffic control operations could result in a 12 per cent reduction [in emissions] if it meant planes didn't have to circle while waiting for a landing slot."

They can fiddle - for now - but it is likely that the current round of climate change negotiations at the UNFCCC will bring international travel under the carbon emissions umbrella from which it is currently exempt. And as Climate Ark notes:

No government - or airline - will admit it, but limiting the number of flights individuals and airlines are allowed could be the long-term solution. Some economists argue that we are already going down the road towards carbon rationing. The only difference between carbon trading and carbon rationing is that in the former system, those who exceed their allocation, or ration, can buy in extra credits. In the future, this option may become prohibitively expensive, or illegal.

[Update on 27 January 2008: An article in the Guardian today points out some of the current thinking about improved airplane construction methods to reduce weight, new types of engines, and operational procedures that would reduce carbon impacts of air travel. Some believe that planes could halve their fuel consumption by 2020.]

eat this, dude

Airborne pollutants are eating away at stone buildings - national treasures - in Italy, and now there's a technology that can be used on the outside of buildings to turn pollutants into harmless nitrates and sulphates that can be washed away with rainwater.

The key to the solution is a natural process known as photocatalysis, which, in the presence of light, breaks down carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, benzene, and other pollutants. It achieves this by dramatically speeding up the oxidation that converts those substances into less harmful compounds, such as water, carbon dioxide, and nitrates. The photocatalyzer TX Active was developed by researchers at Italcementi Group. It is essentially a blend of titanium dioxide, and can be incorporated into paint, plaster, and mortar, as well as cement. In turn, the compound can be used almost anywhere in an urban environment, including repainting walls, plastering new and older homes, and repaving streets when needed.

[Source: Pristine Planet]

earth audit: turf wars of the future

It's not just established technologies - like those relying on oil - that are facing a resource crunch as supplies decline. As reported in New Scientist [subscription required] we are mining a whole raft of minerals and ores at such a rate that even new technologies will soon be affected.

Gallium and iridium are two minerals that some analysts say may only last ten more years before they run out, but are being used in a new-generation solar cell that promises to be twice as efficient as current technologies. Gallium is also used for making LCDs, which raises serious questions about the long-term future of flat screens for computers and televisions; and for LEDs, which are hailed as the next generation of lighting that will replace compact flurorescent bulbs. And even the CFL bulbs are threatened by the supply of terbium, which could be used up by 2012.

Of course, nobody knows for sure when any mined resource will run out, but without a global storekeeper watching over earth's underground supplies, we are in danger of banking on the wrong technology to address current environmental or energy challenges. What happens if we all switch to LED lighting to reduce energy consumption, and find there's only a five-year supply of the raw materials needed to make them?

We can keep hopping from one technology to the next - or make some drastic changes to the way we consume resources, and completely revolutionise the concept of recycling. As raw materials become more scarce and costly, companies are starting to look at new ways to extract material from what has historically been treated as waste. Mine dumps are one such source. Another, believe it or not, is roadside dust. In countries like the US, where catalytic converters are in widespread use, platinum is lost through vehicle exhausts, and ends up literally everywhere that vehicles go. Platinum is also in short supply (with an otherwise promising future in fuel cells), and geologist Hazel Prichard wonders if there's a way to collect it from road-sweeping machines for recycling.

Is Hazel Prichard the bag lady of the future, wandering the streets in search of platinum? "Hey, buddy, step away from the trash can. This is my turf." The revolution is nigh.

carbon slums

As global pressure increases for countries to reduce carbon emissions, there will be those who step up to the plate, and others who drag their carbon-heavy feet. The UK's Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, is promoting a climate change bill that could make the country the first to legalise carbon emissions reduction targets. No doubt others will soon follow suit, chanelling pressure down the political chain for provinces, districts and cities to set their own targets in support of national goals.

And what of those who resist? Will they become the carbon slums of the future? British Conservative MP Tim Yeo, chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, is worried about poor planning that could result in regions that emit excessive amounts of carbon. Which makes me wonder if this could result in under-development in those areas: penalised by national governments and international agencies that need to meet targets, under-performing regions could suffer lower levels of investment, resulting in their showing symptoms of decline. It's all very well to say that municipalities will use the promise of funding as a motivator to develop low-carbon projects, but if the institutional capability isn't in place, it ain't gonna happen. (Something like South Africa's headlong rush to spend vast sums on projects tied to the 2010 FIFA World Cup - many of which won't make the deadline simply because of inadequate government resources to manage the projects. Two separate articles in today's Cape Times mention delivery problems faced in the housing and transport sectors, both of which are blessed with political commitment to get things done, but cursed with institutional challenges.)

The US has for years tied federal infrastructure funding to local air quality standards, forcing municipalities to clean up by directing funds to projects that contribute to cleaner air. Carbon just takes the concept to a new level. Hopefully, there will be mechanisms to root out the under-performing regions and economic sectors, and reduce their carbon output. Perhaps government threats to withold funding - a favourite tactic - combined with private companies needing to find low-carbon investment opportunities, will be enough to ensure overall compliance with national carbon emission caps.

burning down the house

"Underground coal fires in China alone produce as much carbon dioxide annually as all the cars and light trucks in the United States. Fires in other countries, including the United States, are smaller but still add significantly to the total burden." [via kottke.org] I'm like, this is not cool. I mean, what? Why?

raining on the party

OK, now I'm pissed.

South Africa is in a party mood, with the bokke getting ready for the Rugby World Cup match on Saturday. Here in Cape Town, it seems like everyone is wearing Springbok colours. Spring is in the air, the match is on everyone's lips, and the excitement is palpable. Not quite a public holiday, but it might as well be.

Imagine my irritation, then, on opening the morning paper and finding that Eskom, our beloved provider of intermittent power, is pissing on the party. With acid rain. I have said before that we'll have to live with coal because it's cheap and abundant; we'll just have to bite the bullet and find ways to reduce the impacts in the short term and gradually wean ourselves off the stuff. But now Eskom is throwing sulphur in our faces - just because it can.

A new coal-fired plant being built in Medupi (near the Botswana border), to be operational by 2012, will not have flue gas desulphurisation technology installed, despite using low-grade coal that produces higher emissions than high-grade coal. It just happens, reports Earthlife Africa, that South Africa exports its high-grade coal to Europe so that their power stations can be cleaner.

Earthlife Africa said new coal-fired plants would increase South Africa's greenhouse gas emissions by about 25 percent. In 2003 South Africa emitted 379 million tons of greenhouse gases.

At 8.61 tons a person, this made South Africa one of the top 20 greenhouse gas emitters in the world, says an earlier Earthlife Africa report.

Maybe it's a good thing the Springboks aren't playing on home ground.

pimply-faced pests

When I was rudely awoken from my afternoon nap on the weekend, I knew immediately what my next post would be about. Nothing earth-shattering, more ear-splitting. A testosterone-driven teenager living on our street has a motorised scooter. Not the kind that can actually get you from Point A to Point B, but the skateboard-on-steroids kind that does nothing more than impress the pre-teens and piss off anyone over the age of 18.

And as he careened around and around the block, spewing out carbon emissions more resolutely than an SUV, I recalled a news item from CP&DR about a recent report from the Urban Land Institute: Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change.

The report drives home the point that the greenhouse-gas emissions issue is really not very different from any other air pollution. The report concludes that any reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is likely to be offset by an increase in driving - pretty much the same thing that has happended, at least in California, with carbon monoxide emissions over the last 40 years.

So, apart from slapping a fine on my under-age neighbour for operating a vehicle without a catalytic converter, we're going to have to change the neighbourhood itself. If we can't walk or cycle to the local grocer, we'll never reverse the trend of increased driving. To do this, says the ULI report, we need to create a GHG emissions conformity provision for regional transportation plans. However, I suspect that something more radical than that will be needed to dramatically change transportation patterns, since transportation is a direct outcome of land use patterns that are essentially fixed for the short term.

Meanwhile, let's throw a carbon tax on all petrol-driven lawn mowers and leaf blowers - battery-operated machines are a no-brainer - and I can go back to my Sunday nap.

bring the jungle inside

At home and in the office, the best way to maintain air quality is to use plants to scrub toxins from the air. If you've recently installed carpets or furniture, chances are you can smell the pollutants, but they continue to be off-gased for ages. Products like particle board and plywood, often used to make shelves, desks and the like, give off formaldehyde, benzene and trichloroethylene. If you can't avoid these products, you can at least install a few plants that thrive on the gases.

coalerama

Not to discourage everyone from doing their bit, but Architecture 2030 puts a few things into perspective.

the carbon race

As Beijing marks one year to the 2008 Olympic Games, the IOC has put the Chinese on notice that if they don't clean up their air, some events may need to be postponed. Some people are bound to take this opportunity to ram home the message that China should abandon coal and dirty industries before they steam past the US as the worst carbon emitter. By some accounts, the two countries are now on a par in total emissions, and China's higher economic growth rate puts it at risk of clinching the "worst offender" title in the next year or two.

The comparison is somewhat unfair, for at least two reasons. One is that the per capita emissions in China are still well below those in the US. The other is that the huge volume of trade between the two countries masks the true environmental impact of the US economy, since the US is effectively outsourcing emissions by having a large proportion of its consumer goods manufactured in China. Nevertheless, China's future emissions are a cause for global concern.

Fortunately, China is showing signs of making a serious effort to reduce emissions. I find it fascinating that China is the first country to be developing eco-cities that are intended to be carbon neutral from day one. Despite its image as a lumbering giant slowly awakening from hibernation, when the country decides to move on something it can do so with breathtaking speed. For example, in an attempt to secure its energy supplies, China went shopping. Back in 2005, the Chinese state-owned oil corporation CNOOC gave Americans a scare when it tried to buy Unocal Corp, the US oil and gas company. China backed down from that one, but everyone sat up and took notice.

Buying oil companies may seem to contradict the aim of reducing carbon emissions. Indeed it does, but China is simply doing what everyone else is doing: protecting their economy in the short-term with energy strategies that are, of necessity, carbon-intensive. I am sure the Chinese could do better with technology replacement and other strategies to reduce the growth in energy demand, but who am I to tell them so?

Bringing us back to the Olympic Games is another example of how China can implement strategies quickly. Beijing has recently tried a four-day experiment to reduce air pollution by banning cars in the city. Cars with odd-numbered licence plates were banned on two days, and those with even-numbered plates were banned on the other two, resulting in 1.3 million fewer cars on the streets. Just how successful a repeat performance would be in improving air quality during the Olympic Games remains to be seen, but American cities can only dream of using such bold strategies. Let's see what else Beijing comes up with.