Climate change, Kampot, Cambodia

Climate Change – Kampot – Cambodia

 

The debate over climate change rages among the commoners but within the near-consensus of the scientific community the question has long been settled. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement on the matter, most of the remaining 3% are in the employ of the extractive fossil industry. In the eyes of the deniersphere, that hotbed of alternative facts, the 97% have created a hoax to further their own careers. These people, who’ve spent eight years in rigorous study to earn their doctorates, who’ve immersed their lives in science and the scientific method somehow all decided independently (or maybe they have a secret network) to essentially go back on all the principles they studied so hard to learn and just lie, make things up to create cushy jobs for themselves. Baloney, absurd, ridiculous, doesn’t pass the smell test, a non-sequiter. Meanwhile, they have no problem trusting the tiny part of the scientific community that’s being paid to spread industry propaganda.

In the above regard the ultimate crime is owned by Exxon, as they knew back in the late 1970s that, according to their own researchers, build up of CO2 in the atmosphere was going to be a problem. The bosses didn’t take kindly to that information as acting on it would eliminate their profit base so they spent some $30 million in the next couple of decades funding climate denial. The company is now being sued by some 14 attorneys general because of the damage that misinformation has done.

What does a warming climate mean for Cambodia? The Super El Nino of last year is an indicator of some of the changes we can expect. The El Nino phenomenon is caused by a warming of tropical Pacific waters and that brings us drought; super refers to ocean temps that were much warmer than typical El Nino warm. Last year brought water shortages in many places, a delay in planting crops and the highest temp ever recorded in Cambodia, 41.7C or 107F. Subsequent to El Nino we had a neutral or very mild La Nina that brought us ample rain, but it’s very weak and we may be headed right back into another difficult El Nino. The oceans are warming, which might have cancelled out the preferred, otherwise more likely La Nina conditions.

Being near the sea Kampot will never get as warm as the interior, though still plenty hot enough, but we also have other climate change problems to deal with. Rising seas being the number 1. There’s been a lot of glacial melt feeding the oceans and water expands as it warms and we sit very close to sea level. Sea level rise is already happening: In the Mekong delta salt water has intruded up to 100 kms inland, rendering rice cultivation impossible in those areas. It’ll probably be a long time before the sea rises to permanently flood our town, but regular flooding events might not be uncommon and require sea walls and other defenses to save our little burg.

Climate Change doesn’t preclude extremes of cold. Every time it’s cold somewhere, deniers will say, Global warming my ass, it was really cold here yesterday. Almost every day of the year there’ll be some places that are exceptionally cold as well as hot, but what we are seeing now is about 10 record highs for every record low.

In the process of debating the issue, I’ve done quite a bit of research.

The first graph shows rise in global temps from 1880 to the present.

multigraph

This chart is from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It’s for November, not the whole year. I didn’t realize that at first, but now that the Trump administration has scrubbed the site of any mention of climate change, the annual one is no longer available. The annual one would be very similar, except it would be more evened out. The last 40 years would be the same, showing a relentless climb, but notice the highest high is much further from the average than the lowest low. If you separated out the first 100 years you’d see a normal up and down pattern.

This next graph shows global temperatures and CO2 on the top two lines.

800px-vostok_petit_data-svg

As you can see they track very closely. When one is up, the other is up and vice versa. It doesn’t matter in this context which came first, they go together. It also is of no import what triggered those changes, though I’d certainly be interested to know. When the earth is in a deep ice age the CO2 ranges around 180 to 200. There’s a lot less vegetation, so less CO2. I was quite surprised to see that most of the last 400,000 years have been much colder than we’re used to. If we hadn’t pumped so much CO2 in the atmosphere, based on looking at the past, we might well have been slated for much colder times. I expect we’ll skip the next ice age until the earth regains its balance. Just speculation, I’m not a scientist.

It’s not changes in the sun’s intensity that have caused global warming. Solar intensity has been declining of late even as temperatures have been rising.

tvstsi

In the last 10,000 years or so, the time we know of as civilization, CO2 has ranged between 260 and 280 ppm and temperatures have been in that Cinderella range of not too hot or too cold. Sure, during that period there were very cold times, mini ice ages, if you will, and droughts and very hot times, but temps did not stray very far from average.

Since the industrial revolution CO2 has risen to 400ppm, way above the top line in the graph. There’s no possible, plausible natural way for that to have happened in such a short time frame absent the burning of fossil fuel producing greenhouse gases.

The last time CO2 was that high was at least 800,000 years ago, some sources say up to 20m years, and at that time the temperature was 3C higher. Most of the recent extra greenhouse-caused heat has gone into the oceans. They act as a giant heat sink absorbing vast amounts of CO2 so it should take quite a long time to reach that 3C threshold. So far temps have risen only less than 1 degree and already climate extremes are playing havoc with the earth’s natural systems. Even the relatively small amount of rising water temps has had devastating effects. A very large portion of the northern part of the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia has bleached and died from rising temperatures and that’s being replicated in many reefs around the world. We are still pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and there seems no end to how high CO2 levels will go. Countries are giving themselves decades to clean up their acts when we’ve already hit the danger zone.

Rising sea temperatures intensify tropical storms. Last year a tropical storm in very warm waters off the coast of Mexico intensified from a category 1 storm with 125kph winds to a superstorm of 360kph winds in just 24 hours, breaking all records for wind speed and speed of intensification. It was a small storm and luckily hit off a remote, sparsely inhabited coast so damage was minimal.

If temps in every part of the planet rose proportionally, GW would be relatively easy to handle, but what it really does is accentuate the extremes of droughts and floods. As temps rise air holds increasing amounts of water so when it does rain we can expect more intense rain events. Higher temps also means increasing evaporation so the land dries out faster.

What I don’t get is why anyone would think burning lots of coal is a good idea even if CO2 were not problem. What is it about pollution and land degradation that makes them so giddy? A friend said, We’ve got 500 years of coal and cheap electricity, why bother with renewables?

Do they get a rush when they see pics of smog in Beijing? That smog is one reason why coal is cheap, since a large part of the cost of burning coal is externalized; for instance, the cost of treating people with respiratory problems caused by pollution from coal burning is not included in the cost of the coal; everybody else – governments, individuals – pays it, so in the end result, it’s not actually cheap.

Even if burning coal did not create a greenhouse gas, there are lots of other reasons why it’s a terrible idea. For one, the oceans absorb a lot of CO2, turning the water more acidic, which then plays havoc with shellfish who are having difficulty making their shells in that acidic water. Are we willing to give up shellfish for the sake of cheap energy from fossil fuels?

Every stage of the use of coal to generate electricity is an environmental challenge.

And now with the widespread use of fracking to extract gas and oil, they’re not much better than the coal alternative since large amounts of methane is released in the process. Methane is 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 on a twenty year timetable. It’s not as prevalent as CO2, and it doesn’t last as long, but the warming of the arctic where temps have risen much faster than in temperate and tropical regions has the potential to create a methane bomb since very large amounts are locked up in permafrost and ice. Also very often fracking pollutes ground water: it’s being permanently destroyed (at least for thousands of years) for the sake of profits today, is that a worthy, intelligent trade-off?

Nonetheless, coal is still the worst. Formerly coal was produced in deep mines – still is in places like China. They were terrible for the worker’s health, but a least they didn’t impact the surface. Today all new mines in the western world are either open pit or mountain top removal. If you’re in the Australian outback where the land is desert scrub and nobody cares much about it and it’s far from any place where people live, then as ugly as the mine may be and as destructive as it is to the landscape, not much fuss is made about it and nobody has to witness the scars upon it.

That’s how it’s done in the American west, but in Appalachia in the east coal is extracted via mountain top removal. What they do is take a mountain covered with trees, strip it bare then use dynamite to blow off its top. They then push the remaining debris into the nearby streambed polluting the stream with heavy metals and destroying it for at least hundreds of generations. What’s left after the coal has been removed is a moonscape. Sure, if the miners took the time to save the topsoil so it could be replaced after they finished their extraction and kept the rocky debris out of the streambed it could regenerate in a few generations, but of course they don’t since that would cost a lot of money and the coal would no longer be cheap.

Then there’s transporting the fossil fuel. Oil and gas go in pipelines, notorious for leaking. In addition, oil pipelines in cold areas need to be heated to keep the oil flowing. Coal is usually moved in huge coal trains or shipped around the world. All movement of fossil fuels requires lots of energy.

Then the burning of fossil fuels, but especially coal, produces other pollutants besides CO2. And finally, after you burn coal you still have mountains of toxic coal ash to deal with.

Fortunately, in an amazingly short time wind and solar have become competitive in cost and in the US they make up the majority of new energy sources. Unfortunately, the forces of regression in the US are trying to make solar more expensive: in Nevada, for instance, the Republican state legislature wants to penalize people who install solar (Wanna guess who’s financing their campaigns?). Still, the movement’s unstoppable. Economically, in many parts of the world, it no longer makes sense to build new fossil fuel facilities.

Deniers complain about the cost: Converting is too expensive, it’s not worth it, they say. We can’t afford it. Not worth spending the money to have a clean environment? It definitely wouldn’t be cheap. One trillion dollars a year for a decade would still leave much of the US dependent on fossil fuels, but the country would be a long ways towards a clean environment and provide millions of jobs that can’t be outsourced. One trillion dollars is only about 7% of GDP.

Cambodia is trying to get most of its electricity from hydropower, which is good in theory except when the dams reduce fish populations. Cambodians get 80% of their protein from fish. A government spokesman once said, The people will be happy to have cheap electricity, but I’d bet they’d rather have fish to catch and eat. The other major problem with depending on hydro is drought. In the hottest months, when electricity is needed most, there’s insufficient water to generate much power.

It’s the Chinese who are financing and building coal power plants here. It’s really not the thing to do in today’s world, but they come ‘free’. In quotes because the Chinese drive hard bargains. Most such contracts to build and operate power plants (and not just the Chinese) include clauses that guarantee the builder a certain minimum profit, whether the plant is used or not. We’ll have to pay for that power even if we don’t want it.

The people in government love coal, but Cambodia has great potential for solar and hopefully someone will step up to produce large-scale solar power here. We do have a company in Cambodia – Star8 – that produces solar buses and tuk-tuks. For not much more cost than a motorbike and trailer, you can get a tuk-tuk that’ll go thirty kms on a day’s sunshine, 80 kms when the batteries are fully charged. They are very quiet compared to combustion engines and very simply designed. The only complexity being the electronic controls.

The new Coca-Cola plant in Phnom Penh gets 1/3 of its energy from the sun.

The future is in renewables.

 

Standard