Science in the New Millennium – A Humanitarian Issue

It was a total blast this week to be invited by Suzy Hobbs-Baker, Director of the Nuclear Literacy Project (aka @popatomicstudio) to join a panel discussion on communications at the International Youth Nuclear Congress in Burgos, Spain. Sharing the platform was one of my long-term twitter buddies, Ben Heard, Director, ThinkClimate (aka @benthinkclimate) all the way from South Australia. So cool to meet in real life at last. We were also joined by the wonderful and insightful Valerie Faudon French Nuclear Society, SFEN (aka ‪@ValerieFaudon) passionate nuclear advocate and expert, David Hess from the World Nuclear Association (aka @6point626)  and the very smart and talented President of the North America Young Generation Network, Felix Meissner (aka @fmeissner359 ) Thanks so much guys. You rock.

Here are some notes from the three key points I made on the question of science in the new millennia – a humanitarian issue.

Firstly, wow, isn’t science amazing?

Secondly, isn’t science scary?

Thirdly, how we reconcile these two things, moving away from the deficit model, (which I agree with Suzy is defunct).

>>>>> Isn’t science amazing?  Alice Bell first opened my eyes to these ways in which we are surprisingly remote from many aspects of our lives that are nevertheless deeply connected to our sense of identity. She said: Look at my smart phone! I love my phone. I’m very attached to it. It’s probably a lot like yours in many ways. We all customise our phones of course, in particular ways: the home screen, the apps we download, the case. All our phones look very different and are intimately personalised. Yet how many of us know how they actually work? Where do the components come from? Where do phones go when they die? This is not just in terms of the impact on the environment from manufacturing these items, but often also the social and moral implications for our society relating to privacy, for example, and our relationships with each other.

On a macro scale, we benefit hugely from scientific advancement: we live longer, healthier lives, are better fed, safer and more comfortable than any generation before us. We have great hair products! Aren’t washing machines wonderful!

Yet we still have a long way to go.

Globally, five billion people still wash their clothes by hand – because they lack access to electricity for pumped mains water, and power. Where will the electricity come from to meet growing demand from the inevitable, and welcome, rising prosperity? A constant stream of cheap reliable electricity is the bedrock of our quality of life.

>>>> Isn’t science scary! Ok so we love science, but the rapid advances in science and the changing modern world can be a little overwhelming. When we scale this up to big ideas like climate change or nuclear power, which are much more abstract, and much less personal and fun than smart phones and washing machines, it is sometimes possible to feel that science has imposed itself on us, leaving people feeling disempowered and helpless.

So in a way it’s not surprising that “small is beautiful” continues to be a defining idea in mainstream environmentalism. The focus on renewables in particular may be linked to a desire to be back in control, on a small scale, using simple technology that anyone can understand, and powered by nature itself.

So it is important to understand that we perceive things as much in emotional terms as rational, which is why the deficit model is defunct. It’s not just what we think about things, it’s how we feel about them.

For example, explaining the science of GMO’s is not going to make people feel better if they believe their food is no longer ‘natural’ and could pose an invisible threat, right there on their plate.

We have some big challenges ahead, especially in the climate and energy space. How will we take people with us on this journey to completely replace our fossil fuel infrastructure, and then triple it, to meet rising demand for electricity?

It seems obvious that nuclear energy needs to play a big role in meeting these challenges.

>>>>> A new, post-deficit model, social contract: Values Alignment.

Now we tend to think people have a problem with nuclear – perhaps because they don’t understand the science, or the technology. Well, like my smart phone, maybe I don’t need to understand how it works in order to love it.

Interestingly, current research published last year by the UK Energy Research Council suggests that it is not in fact technology itself that people are attached or opposed to: it’s the values that the technology represents.

For example, we know there is a strong public preference for solar energy. We also know that this is because it is perceived by people to be ‘renewable’ ‘fair’, ‘just’ and ‘clean’. The UKERC report gives this example:

If we point to a solar power development supplying the UK but residing in North Africa that has been revealed to be causing local environmental contamination and land-use territorial disputes, this would not fit the public preference for solar energy. This is not because it is no longer renewable but because in this instance it would no longer be seen as ‘fair’, ‘just’ or ‘clean’.

Therefore, the key idea here is to whether nuclear energy can align with public values in order to become more socially acceptable?

What do people want from their low carbon energy?

The UKERC report, Transforming the UK Energy System: Public Values, Attitudes and Acceptability, identifies key values people are looking for. They wish it to be Efficient and not wasteful. People hate waste! 

People want their energy system to be environmentally conscious. People want choice and control, and justice and fairness.

For me, the key insight from the UKERC report is that: Public acceptability may only be achieved if it is rooted, in a significant way, in people’s value system.

I am confident that nuclear energy can deliver these qualities. But we also need to ensure that these principles of values alignment are embedded in our communications.

****

Suzy asked me to speak to the question Science in the New Millennia – A Humanitarian Issue. To set the scene, Suzy reminded us about this seminal piece on a new social contract for science (1998):

In the late 1990’s the science community realized that there were many scientific issues colliding with policy, public health and environmental issues. They concluded that they had a social responsibility to share their knowledge, which culminated in the creation of a social contract for scientists. Here is the abstract:

As the magnitude of human impacts on the ecological systems of the planet becomes apparent, there is increased realization of the intimate connections between these systems and human health, the economy, social justice, and national security. The concept of what constitutes “the environment” is changing rapidly. Urgent and unprecedented environmental and social changes challenge scientists to define a new social contract. This contract represents a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding. The new and unmet needs of society include more comprehensive information, understanding, and technologies for society to move toward a more sustainable biosphere—one which is ecologically sound, economically feasible, and socially just. New fundamental research, faster and more effective transmission of new and existing knowledge to policy- and decision-makers, and better communication of this knowledge to the public will all be required to meet this challenge.

 

Decoupling: a new ecomodernist paradigm for humans and nature

It may be sad that Gywneth Paltrow and Chris Martin are “consciously uncoupling”, but happier news is that human consumption appears to be “decoupling” from environmental impact.

I’ve just returned from an optimistic and enlightening Dialogue meeting run by the Breakthrough Institute in Sausalito, California. (I know – it’s a hard life.) Winner of the event’s ‘paradigm prize’ was Rockefeller Institute environmental scientist Jesse H. Ausubel. His research shows that modern economies, like the US, have progressively lightened their diet in terms of energy, water, land and materials consumption, largely from a peak in the early 1990’s.

When we look at the data, it is easy to understand the environmental klaxons of 1960’s and 1970’s. The steady state economics of Herman Daly, which still largely defines the mainstream environmental paradigm, is a response to a neo Malthusian environmentalism. It looked then as if a growing, resource-hungry population would consume far more than the world’s carrying capacity could maintain. This has been popularized through the concept of ‘one planet living’ (or ‘peak-Earthers’ in the States).

However, in his essay the Liberation of the Environment, Ausubel carefully sets out the data to show a different trend emerging: trajectories that lessen pollution and conserve the environment, despite rising consumption to meet the needs of a growing population living increasingly rich, energy hungry modern lives.

At the heart of ‘one planet living’ is the meme that ‘if everyone on Earth was to consume at the level that the developed world currently does, then we would need three planet Earth’s worth of resources.’ Hence, lowering environmental footprints, through reduced consumption is at the heart of mainstream environmental thinking. In fact, Ausubel shows that although consumption has continued to rise over the past 25 years, this trend has “decoupled” from environmental impact. The key driver here is the urge to raise economic value through increased performance efficiency, particularly noticeable in energy.

Two tendencies have defined the evolution of energy systems. One is that the energy system is freeing itself from carbon. The other is increasing efficiency. By transitioning from wood to coal, then oil and increasingly to gas, Ausubel tracks the benefits from moving to a cleaner energy system, whilst reaping the societal benefits of growing energy use. “People want modernity”, Ausubel says.Energy systems in India and China are right now roughly equivalent to nineteenth century western patterns at the advent of the industrial revolution. Robert Wilson crunched the numbers and found that although China “now consumes half of the world’s coal, its per-capita coal consumption is far from unprecedented. China now consumes around 2.7 tonnes of coal on a per-capita basis. However, Britain had per-capita coal consumption of 4.6 tonnes in 1913, almost two times higher than China’s today. In fact China’s per-capita coal consumption is actually lower today than Britain’s was 150 years ago. Therefore, unless China sees a reason to transition to other fuels, its coal growth is far from over.”

So while there is a role for energy efficiency, the goal is arguably more to reduce carbon intensity than overall consumption.

I found it particularly interesting that, along with projected decarbonization; food production decoupled from acreage; and more efficient water use; Ausubel also points to a trend towards dematerialization. Even plastics peaked in the 1990’s. Lower material intensity of the economy is good news for nature, enabling less waste, and the preservation of natural resources.

Linus Blomqvist, research director at the BTI expanded on the theme in his talk, for example showing how intensification of agriculture has allowed humans to nearly halve per-capita cropland. However to achieve these savings: “A low footprint planet will very likely also have to be a high-energy planet.”

So if rising consumption is “decoupling” from environmental impact, is it time to re-evaluate anti-growth environmentalism? The question is more than an environmental one. It’s social and moral. Arguably, our modern lives in the West have distanced us from nature. We spend a small fraction of our time outside, for instance. Ausubel makes the wry comment that: “The achievement of ten thousand years of human history is that we have again become cave dwellers with electronic gadgets.”

The moral question relates to the need for growth in emerging economies. 1.4billion people around the world have no access to electricity and almost 600million of them live in Africa. Roger Pielke Jr, professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder wrote recently, anti-growth environmentalism risks “keeping poor people poor.”

The sad thing for the environmental movement is that Malthusian logic of an impending catastrophe may be resurrected without recalling what happened to Malthus. His fear that population would outgrow available food supply was disproven by his failure to predict technological innovation. Before long, agricultural yields per person were significantly higher. In the US, the debate continues to kick off between traditional environmentalists and pragmatic environmentalists about whether a “Good Anthropocene” is a contradiction in terms, or an aspiration.

Personally, I think optimism about technology and the human future is a far more innovative, pragmatic and engaging narrative than a pessimistic perspective. It is in this that the so-called ‘new environmentalism’ differs from the old, and why technological optimism is the real force for a green future.

First published on Business Green

Atomic Geometric

“Atomic Paranoia”

Just came across this lovely selection of fine art by Edwin Wade from an exhibition in Portland, Oregan in 2011.

“With Our Friend the ATOM, Wade pulls back the curtain of this era when the modern world “built monuments to modernism and lounged with highballs,” and exposes the very eerie feeling of ‘Atomic Paranoia’ that was hiding just behind it.”

Our friend the atom

“The Future is Safe”

Clean switch

It is possible to switch from an anti- to a pro-nuclear position, argues Kirsty Gogan, and some influential commentators are making the transition

20 May 2014

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Attributed to John Maynard Keynes

In the past few weeks we have seen two significant conversion stories emerge from the US. Firstly, a seismic shift in thinking on nuclear energy from the entire editorial board at the New York Times:

“The dangers of nuclear power are real, but the accidents that have occurred, even Chernobyl, do not compare to the damage to the earth being inflicted by the burning of fossil fuels – coal, gas and oil. The latest dire warning from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should leave no doubt that reducing carbon emissions must be an urgent priority and that nuclear energy must be part of the mix.”

Secondly, Carol Browner, former head of the EPA under President Clinton, and climate and energy policy lead for President Obama, put forward a similar argument. “I used to be anti-nuclear,” she wrote in an op-ed inForbes magazine. “But, several years ago I had to reevaluate my thinking because if you agree with the world’s leading climate scientists that global warming is real and must be addressed immediately then you cannot simply oppose clean, low-carbon energy sources.”

As my Twitter community will confirm, I’ve already changed my mind about nuclear energy. It was easy enough for me since I’m not a high profile political figure or an opinion forming global media outlet. Still, it was deeply ingrained in me, as an environmentalist, to be, by default, anti-nuclear. It took a long time for the facts to replace the fear.

Carl Sagan said: “In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken’, and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”

It is hard for those in the public eye to change their minds, and to challenge the received wisdom of the tribe. Hats off to those who have the courage to court such controversy. Doing so can prompt slanderous attacks, alienation, or even bizarre episodes such as the £100 reward being offered to people attempting a citizen’s arrest of George Monbiot, on the grounds that he “must face justice for his criminal irresponsibility in promoting nuclear power”.

Generally though, public figures that change their minds in light of evidence demonstrate leadership, and command respect. Robert Stone’s recent environmentalist documentary Pandora’s Promise has transformed the debate on climate and energy by telling such conversion stories and showing that it is possible to re-evaluate and accept the technology without compromising on core values.

The roster of thoughtful individuals who have changed their minds about nuclear is growing longer. They have shown that it’s not only OK to change their minds, but is more compelling since this hard decision flows from their commitment to a safer climate for the future. As john Maynard Keynes is purported to have said, “when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Published on Business Green

“If it isn’t going to be nuclear power, then it’s going to be geoengineering”: Tom Wigley

Hats off to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for a timely myth-busting interview with one of the world’s top climate scientists, Tom Wigley.

In this interview, Wigley argues that the climate problem cannot be solved with renewable energy alone, and that, without turning to geoengineering, consideration of the nuclear energy pathway—in particular, resuming the development of fast reactors—should be an essential component of attempts to address the climate crisis.

Here is a summary of Wigley’s response to some key challenges that are identified in the latest IPCC report.

1. Timescales. Regulatory process can slow things down, especially in the US. However, Wigley points to China, where 29 reactors are under construction, and France, which built out an entire fleet within a decade. [France and Ontario are the only major economies to have brought their carbon intensity to a safe level, below 100gCo2/kwh.] Wigley says: “I don’t think the time factor is a serious issue.”

2. Proliferation & Waste. Wigley describes himself as “saddened” that environmentalists remain so vehemently opposed to nuclear power. He argues the it is not well-understood that the potential for Integral Fast Reactors is to eliminate the perceived problems of waste and proliferation. Nuclear is therefore currently severely misrepresented by mainstream environmentalists. He goes so far as to say that members of the IPCC Working Group III do not fully appreciate these issues.

3. Safety. Wigley says: “We don’t yet have fast reactor technology at scale, but we do have passively safe third-generation reactors that are being built right now. They have none of the safety problems associated with second-generation reactors.”

Wigley recently made headlines as the co-author—with three other prominent climate scientists—of an open letter addressed to “those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power,” urging them “to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems.”

Wigley and his three colleagues argued that renewable energy alone will not be sufficient to address the climate challenge, because it cannot be scaled up quickly and cheaply enough, and that opposition to nuclear power “threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.”

You can read the whole interview here.

Who’s afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?

Shall we build our energy system from straw? Or sticks? Or bricks?

The Observer splash led with an assertion that “David Cameron’s commitment to the green agenda will come under the fiercest scrutiny yet this week when top climate-change experts will warn that only greater use of renewable energy – including windfarms – can prevent a global catastrophe.”

Once again, the latest IPCC report has been undermined by being used as a political football: by politicians, by journalists, and by mainstream environmentalists. Each one interpreting the findings to serve their own interests, whether to bash the opposite party, push an editorial line, or bang the drum for a pet technology.

Yes, we need renewable energy. But firstly, it is arrogant to dismiss the rest. Secondly, it’s dangerous to cherry pick from the IPCC recommendations to suggest that we can keep the wolf from blowing our house down by tripling renewable energy alone. The truth is the IPCC calls for tripling, or near quadrupling, the current output of ALL zero and low carbon technologies. That sounds like a brick house to me.

So, rather than dismiss the bad boy of energy policy because it is too difficult, or not popular enough, we need a realistic change in tone to say: yes, we do need all of the above, including nuclear. Here are the challenges, now let’s have an honest appraisal of what needs to happen to fix valid concerns about safety, waste, proliferation and cost. The alternative is arrogantly believing that houses of straw and twigs will protect us from the Big Bad Wolf. We need our political leaders and opinion formers to take the IPCC findings seriously and making big efforts to meet those challenges to enable all low carbon technologies to be deployed at scale.

With nuclear, there are significant technological, regulatory, political and public perception challenges to overcome. Who is leading this charge? I see significant gaps in this effort amongst the international community. The United Nations Sustainable Energy for All initiative should be at the vanguard, but it’s not. This is just one example of how the public debate and policy agenda is being distorted away from what is realistic in creating a clean energy future.

As US secretary of state John Kerry put it on Sunday: “This report makes very clear we face an issue of global willpower, not capacity.”

 

Let them eat coal.

Marie Antoinette famously did not say: “Let them eat cake!” on the eve of the French revolution, although it has been attributed to her as evidence that she failed to appreciate the plight of starving French peasants. Somehow I have been reminded of this callous and ignorant phrase upon hearing of a new PR offensive by the coal industry to “eliminate energy poverty”.

In light of yet more dire predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the scale of disaster climate change is expected to wreak on the world’s poorest people, it is shocking, yet not surprising that the worlds largest coal firm (Peabody) has hired the world’s largest PR firm (Burson-Marsteller) to launch a campaign called “Affordable Energy for Life”.

Calling “global energy poverty the world’s number one human and environmental crisis” the coal industry has launched “a comprehensive global campaign aimed at building awareness and support to eliminate energy poverty, increase access to low-cost electricity and improve emissions through advanced clean coal technologies.”

I would like to say that this is nothing more than a cynical move to resist the tide turning against coal. But in fact, the tide is not turning against coal. According to the International Energy Agency, coal is set to overtake oil as the number source of energy worldwide. This is for two reasons. Firstly, coal is abundant and cheap. Secondly, half the world’s population does not have access to electricity. Most of the growth in electricity generation is driven by coal. Indeed, as Ed Crooks reported in the FT this week, Exxon Mobil expects fossil fuels to be around 75% of global energy in 2040, and while this appears to be consistent with the IEA forecasts, it is not consistent with the staying within the 2degrees of warming target.

We shouldn’t turn our noses up. Old King Coal has served us well. The economics of coal drove the industrial revolution in the west, just as is now happening in China and elsewhere. Unlike previous sources of energy the effort expended in mining and burning coal results in a much greater output of energy released. The progress, prosperity and quality of life many of us enjoy today are thanks to, and still largely powered by, coal. (In the UK, coal contributes up to 40% of our electricity mix).

However, electricity from burning coal comes with a heavy price.

Burning coal generates carbon emissions as well as hazardous pollutants such as mercury, lead, and benzene. The latest IPCC report warns that “the worst is yet to come” with severe climate impacts that will hit the poorest hardest.

The BBC reported last week that one in eight global deaths were linked with air pollution, making it “the world’s largest single environmental health risk“, according to the World Health Organisation. Air pollution caused 7 million deaths worldwide in 2012 alone.

Women and children are disproportionately affected. WHO family, woman and children’s health assistant director-general Dr Flavia Bustreo said: “Poor women and children pay a heavy price from indoor air pollution since they spend more time at home breathing in smoke and soot from leaky coal and wood cook stoves.”

Reducing indoor air pollution by increasing access to electricity is synonymous with prosperity and public good. But electricity generation from coal comes with a long-term payback.

China is good example of the short-term gain in exchange for long-term pain. Rapid growth in coal-fired power stations has given millions of people access to electricity, thereby raising their quality of life, and reducing indoor air pollution. However, the net result is that the air pollution (and associated climate and health risks) has been pushed outdoors into the local environment and wider atmosphere, the smog ultimately causing permanent and lasting damage for millions of people.

The question is this. How can we best respond to the twin challenges for our time: climate change, caused by energy consumption, and poverty, caused by lack of access to energy? Until we recognize that these challenges are mutually dependent, we will never win the battle for hearts and minds.

Having run PR campaigns for a catalogue of world-class villains, from the tobacco industry to Union Carbide after the Bhopal disaster, Burson-Marsteller have the perfect track record to push dirty coal to the world’s poorest people. Right now, climate campaigners are pushing solutions (renewables and efficiency) that cannot compete with coal in terms of cost or performance compared to fossil fuels. In the battle between climate and coal, coal is winning because it promises prosperity.

Just this week, Chris Field, co-chairman of the working group of the IPCC called for a more positivity about the opportunities at stake. “If climate change is a total downer because everything looks so serious, and the only ways to cope effectively are to give up all good things in life, it’s going to be really hard to take action.” He said: “If dealing effectively is taking an innovative, creative, entrepreneurial approach, building great businesses and communities, then it’s a problem that we can deal with.”

 Climate campaigners need a new narrative that recognises the rights of half the world to access the electricity we take for granted, whilst being realistic about what it will take to replace the world’s existing fossil fuel infrastructure…and then double it.

First published on Business Green.

Latest United Nations Assessment of health risks from fukushima

Just had word of new findings on Fukushima health effects out today from UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation).

The latest UNSCEAR report “finds that no discernible changes in future cancer rates and hereditary diseases are expected due to exposure to radiation as a result of the Fukushima nuclear accident; and, that no increases in the rates of birth defects are expected.”

“People are rightly concerned about the impact on their health and their children’s health,” said Carl-Magnus Larsson, Chair, UNSCEAR. “Based on this assessment, however, the Committee does not expect significant changes in future cancer statistics that could be attributed to radiation exposure from the accident,” he said.

For marine ecosystems, the possibility of effects on flora and fauna was limited to the shoreline area adjacent to the power station, and the potential for effects over the long term was considered insignificant.

Personally, I wish Greenpeace, the Guardian and others who have spent considerable time raising the alarm over Fukushima would also point to these reassuring findings, and secondly recognise that in this case, spreading fear is much more harmful than radiation.

The press release is here. Thanks to @jeremyWNA for the heads up.

What will it take to decarbonise the UK?

Just what volume of energy generation will it take to decarbonise the UK? One of my favourite, jaw-dropping pieces of analysis on this is by the Royal Academy of Engineering, who published a report Generating the Future (2010) setting out just how much new low carbon electricity generation would be required for the UK to meet its legally binding climate targets to cut carbon by 80% by 2050.

The results are staggering. The shopping list includes: 38 London Array wind farms, 10,000 2.5MW onshore wind farms, the Severn Barrage, 25GW of biomass, oh, and 40 new nuclear power plants.

The Academy do not mince their words, saying: “Fundamental restructuring of the UK’s entire energy system is unavoidable if it is to meet future energy demand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, even assuming that energy demand in all sectors can be substantially reduced.”

“If we are to achieve this, the scale of the undertaking will require the biggest peacetime programme of investment and social change the UK has ever seen.”

It is possible to achieve a non-nuclear scenario, for example, using the DECC energy pathfinder: http://my2050.decc.gov.uk/ but this requires significant compromises, in terms of environmental impact (cover 75% of land in energy crops, anyone?) cost, economic competitiveness, lifestyle changes, or environmental impact, which may not be acceptable to the public.

As Mark Lynas details in his e-book Nuclear 2.0 Why Nuclear a Green Future Needs Nuclear Power, environmentalists are increasingly realising nuclear is essential.