Category: Global Climate Change

Categories
Carrying Capacity Environment Global Climate Change

Beware of Technology

Beware of Technology—6-2010

© Richard Grossman MD, 2010

The chief cause of problems is solutions.

(Eric Sevareid)

I once sat on an airplane next to an engineer specializing in failure analysis. I told him about my “rip-stop” condom invention, which I hoped would be less likely to tear. “I’ve never had a condom break,” he said. Then his face clouded and he added: “Well, just once. In Thailand.”

As a physician I am used to things not working out as planned. There is so much variability among people it’s unreasonable to anticipate the same level of success with every patient. However, people’s faith in technology is such that we expect a perfect cell phone connection every time and spill-free offshore drilling. We are shocked when our expectations are disappointed.

I will not write about how BP grossly underestimated the amount of crude oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico with the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Neither will I dwell on the executives’ culpability in this catastrophe, nor the dishonesty that allowed industry and watchdogs to make an incestuous agreement about safety. Nor will I highlight BP’s reckless decisions and actions. I will write about the risk of our overdependence on technology.

I know a few of the local BP executives. They are intelligent, well meaning and honest. Like you and me, they are just trying to earn a living. It is not their fault that BP has taken advantage of our social and legal structure that allows large corporations to run roughshod over the environment and the rights of people.

Engineers don’t assume that their projects won’t fail. Rather, they estimate the “time to failure.” For some highly refined mechanisms, that may be many years. For complex new technologies it may be impossible to estimate the time to failure. Don’t ever believe a claim that anything is entirely reliable.

One of the ways to increase safety is to have redundant systems. This is a bit like what we have in a car. There are brakes to avoid an accident. If the brake fails (or if you fail to use it in time) the seatbelt will keep you from going through the windshield. Air bags offer a second level of safety.

Every gas well drilled in La Plata County has redundant systems in case of a blowout. There are annular valves to squeeze the pipe, and rams if the annular systems fail. If any one valve type were perfect, a second set wouldn’t be needed.

There were valves at the Deepwater Horizon drilling site that failed. Perhaps the failure was because the explosion cut the control cables—we don’t know yet what caused the problem.

BP won’t tell me if there was an “acoustic switch” on this drill rig. This type of valve is triggered to shut not by wires but by an acoustic signal. It is required in some areas, but apparently not for rigs in the Gulf. An acoustic switch has the advantage that it can still be closed if the wires to the drilling platform are cut.

This oil spill is a tragedy, but I can think of much worse. What if there were a nuclear accident instead of one with petroleum? As bad as crude oil is to the environment, it is far better than spreading highly toxic radioactive isotopes over the Atlantic!

I view the Deepwater Horizon tragedy as a wake up call: any technology can fail. Large, complex technology can fail disastrously. Even with “failsafe” precautions, disasters happen.

Coal and petroleum fueled the industrial revolution and revolutionized the way we live. Fossil fuels have also allowed our population to grow enormously over the past two centuries. Regrettably, growth cannot continue indefinitely. Continued growth and dependence on fossil fuels are major issues that our society is just beginning to examine.

Renewable energy is one way to avoid large disasters. Most of the electricity for our home comes from solar panels on our roof. Our generating system is small, safe and doesn’t burn fossil fuels. We depend, however, on natural gas to cook and keep us warm.

I draw several conclusions from the Deepwater Horizon experience. We shouldn’t allow any more nuclear power plants. Consideration of drilling in the Arctic Ocean must be stopped. Any further offshore drilling must be carefully supervised by governmental agencies that are also carefully monitored. There must be contingency plans laid out ahead of time for dealing with an emergency such the Horizon’s blowout. Perhaps the most powerful lesson is that we must become less dependent on fossil fuels.

This article may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.

Categories
Environment Global Climate Change Greenhouse gases Population

Cap and Trade


Cap and Trade

© Richard Grossman MD, 2009

Economics is one of my weak points, so I write about this subject with trepidation. Since “cap and trade” has become an important concept to limit emissions that lead to global climate change, I need to try to understand it.

Not all people agree that greenhouse gases (mainly emitted from our use of fossil fuels) are responsible for climate change. Nor do all people even agree that the climate is warming. However, most scientists have reached agreement that human activities are causing major alterations in the world’s climate. Furthermore, many governments have recognized the hazards of global climate change, and are taking steps to control it. Until we know with certainty what is causing climate change, it is certainly prudent to take precautions to slow the onset of this disaster.

C&T is one of the proposed methods using the free market system to make it unprofitable to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. The concept was first tested on an international basis with a different type of harmful emissions—those that destroy the ozone layer. The successful Montreal Protocol, signed 20 years ago, gradually forced industry to decrease its production of chloroflurocarbons. Remember, these CFCs were used in aerosol cans and refrigerators, but they have now been replaced by less harmful substitutes.

On a smaller scale, C&T has controlled acid rain in the USA. In this case, the system has been very successful in limiting release of sulfur dioxide, the precursor of acid rain. Since most sulfur dioxide comes from electrical generation with coal, power plants have been forced to install scrubbers that remove this hazardous gas or take other measures such as burning low sulfur coal. As a result, lakes and streams are healthier, fewer trees die—and house paint lasts longer!

To control greenhouse gas emissions using C&T, the first step is to establish current levels of emissions of these gases. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important greenhouse gas since it is emitted in such massive amounts. Estimating CO2 output can be done by inference. For instance, combustion of a ton of coal produces almost three tons of CO2, and one gallon of gasoline generates almost twenty pounds of this greenhouse gas. A well-run company keeps close track of its use of fuel, so its CO2 output is easy to compute.

Many of the top corporations are already inventorying their emissions because they foresee that C&T will become law soon. The current level of CO2 will then become the cap—the maximum that the company can emit. If it exceeds that level, it will have to pay a fine.

The next step is to trade the authority to emit greenhouse gases. If one company can somehow reduce its CO2 emissions by, say, 100 tons below its cap, then it can sell the right to emit that amount to another company.

To lower emissions, this cap is reduced over time at a predetermined rate. For instance, the Montreal Protocol was successful because it cut the use of CFCs in 1994 to just one quarter of the baseline production of these harmful chemicals.

Already there is a market for buying and selling CO2 emissions. The largest market is the European Climate Exchange, where a metric tonne of CO2 emissions is currently worth about 12.5 Euros. The value will increase as time goes on and the cap is lowered.

How can a power company lower its CO2 output? Green power is one of the best ways. Electricity from the sun, hydroelectric or wind emits no CO2!

Would C&T work for limiting human population growth? Many years ago the great anthropologist Margaret Mead suggested that people should be required to meet certain requirements before they could start a family; presumably this would include education about raising children. She proposed that governments issue licenses for childbearing.

Instead of licensing people to be parents, another way to limit fertility would be to cap and trade. So far this method has not been adopted by any government—nor would I recommend it. Making voluntary family planning available has proven to be more effective than coercive programs, without the risk of backlash.

Cap and trade consists simply of placing a limit on harmful emissions, gradually lowering that cap, and having the ability to buy and sell the right to emit pollution. This system has been proven to be an effective way to decrease pollution. Hopefully C&T will work for greenhouse gases, but will never be used for the right to bear children.

This article above may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.