Change For Good: Dirty Pragmatism or Science Bottom Line?
By Bill Henderson
02 February, 2013
Countercurrents.org
An editorial in Nature downplaying the carbon emission 'dirtyness' of Canada's tarsands and recommending that President Obama concentrate on reducing coal emissions in the US while approving the Keystone pipeline has been perceived as a body blow to environmentalists planning a Spring campaign against Keystone as a way of keeping tarsands bitumen in the ground.
Within hours, economy motivated climate science deniers in Alberta's oilpatch ( here, for example) were citing the editorial as leading science journal proof against the growing climate budget science argument in favour of keeping bitumen in the ground.
A closer look at the Nature editorial (and editorial comment within a science publication like Nature) suggests that the pragmatic advice on Keystone to the president should not be considered as the state of the art science on the tarsands as greenhouse gas emitter. The editorial will also, hopefully, lead to a deeper discussion about what is appropriate action by Americans who consider climate change a proven threat to future generations and possibly to everything Americans love and care about.
Nature is a prestigious international weekly science journal, founded in 1869, the flagship of Nature Publishing Group . Nature publishes peer reviewed science from the full spectrum of scientific endeavor but it also contains news, comment and editorial sections that do not go through peer review. The members of the editorial board reflect the wide-ranging and diverse sciences of which climate science is an important but tiny sub-set.
The editorial itself was most concerned with what the president should do in his second term concerning climate change and primarily advocates a boost in spending on clean energy R&D. An orderly acceleration of the present replacement of coal power plants through regulation and innovation is Beltway possible. Keystone isn't really important in the American energy and emissions reality and "(b)y approving Keystone, Obama can bolster his credibility within industry and among conservatives".
Reasonable, pragmatic advice from those in the science community who understand what is presently economically and politically possible. A to-do list for your second term editorial for the Obama Administration from the editorial board of (in this case) a prestigious science journal.
But what is reasonable for President Obama to consider from a science establishment point of view is arguably too conservative and misleading from a climate science point of view and informed criticism is to be expected. The beauty of science is learning and to it's credit Nature and it's editorial board will be open to criticism and learning.
Commentators in Alberta's oilpatch have selected this key quote, for example:
"Nor is oil produced from the Canadian tarsands as dirty from a climate perspective as many believe (some of the oil produced in California, without attention from environmentalists, is worse)."
The carbon budget science basis for the environmental campaign to slow if not shut down the flow of bitumen from the tarsands requires that between 60% and 80% of present fossil fuel reserves cannot be burned (with subsequent GHG emissions) if warming is to be held below a 2C rise. Now, 2C is a scientifically outdated precautionary ceiling; 2C is deep into dangerous climate change; 350ppm and not 450ppm would be a much safer (if implausible) target.. Plus our present emission trajectory predicts a 4-6C increase by century's end. Plus there is ample scientific evidence that the production and refining of bitumen is carbon emission 'dirty', this MIT study, for only one example.
So there is no climate science case where tarsands bitumen production and use should be allowed. In the climate science - if not in the advice for a president about what is doable concerning climate change - coal, tarsands bitumen and the dirty Californian oil referenced must stay in the ground. Natural gas and the cleanest conventional oil will be transitional fuels.
Furthermore, it is informing to consider the environmental opposition to Keystone in comparison to the Nature editorial as voice of the American science establishment. Here's a quote from Sierra Club ED Michael Brune:
"If were to have a shot at transforming how we look at fossil fuel energy resources, and convincing policymakers, we need symbols. We need to find high-profile, extreme sources of energy and turn away from them, as a way to begin and lead a transition away from dirty fuels."
The editorial in Nature pragmatically advocated for a boost in clean energy R&D along with regulatory efforts to transition away from coal in power generation. Fair enough. The climate activists seek to make tarsands production (and production and use of coal) a symbol of what has to change if we are going to effectively reduce GHG emissions. Fair enough? Complimentary even?
But don't we need to innovate to develop the foresight commensurate with our anthropocene powers, innovate so that we could all be on the same page about climate change: dangers and effective mitigation paths?
Bill Henderson is a frequent contributor to Countercurrents on Climate Change . He can be reached at
bill (at) pacificfringe.net
Comments are moderated
