SMH Reports that the WWF and Climate Institute will join the CFMEU and Coal Industry to promote clean coal funding by governments
“If it’s going to work we need to know quickly. If it’s not going to work we need to know even more quickly,” Mr Bourne said. “If it’s never tested we are have deep problems on a world wide basis.”
As an aside, it’s hard to know whether there is actually a World Wildlife Fund funding, y’know, Wildlife behind the hyper-managed brand these days. They seem more concerned with planting vacuous stories in The Age about vacuous people publicising that they’ll be switching their lights off or getting photo ops with Telstra’s fanciful, Futurist exercises in potential reality-displacement.
What’s immediately concerning about Bourne’s statement is the implicitly Whiggish invocation of a ‘test’ that will resolve disputes about the place of carbon sequestration in the policy mix, presumably by speaking for Nature itself. If the last four decades of Science Studies research have taught us anything, it’s that testing does not magically resolve hypotheses. The best you can hope for on the boundaries of technoscience is some kind of closure.
The classical example of Strong Program Sociological research on this topic is Trevor Pinch’s Confronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar-Neutrino Detection. Pinch’s account of the politics of testing for the supposedly weightless, chargeless sub-atomic particles 1960s is instructive because it shows that testing does nothing to resolve the social dimensions of the scientific enterprise such as how we decide what gap between test data and hypothesis is acceptable, when we consider a scientific controversy to be closed and how we determine what projects should be funded. As a brief sketch of the argument, American chemist Ray Davis Jr. secured funding to put a massive tank of dry cleaning fluid in an old mineshaft (a ‘neutrino-scope’) to test for the existence of a subatomic particle. He hired physicist John Bahcall to help him predict how many neutrinos would hit the tank. Bahcall thought that only a very small number would hit the tank, and, as inevitably occurs with all scientific testing, there was gap between his prediction and the data. Bahcall’s estimates were too high (Wikipedia has more details). When he heard that Davis was going to publish the research suggesting that they couldn’t make any firm conclusions, he modified his estimates. Over the following decade, some 134 articles were published on Neutrinos and, by the time Pinch published his book in 1986 there was still no consensus on their existence.
Pinch suggested that there were only three possible avenues of closure for this controversy
1. There would be a consensus that the gap is not significiant - that the neutrinoscope exists
2. That the gap is significant - that the neutrinoscope does not exist
3. A negotiation of data, and existing theories of physics to accomodate gap between the data and the hypotheses allowing for closure of the controversy.
35 years after this initial experiment took place, Davis was awarded a Nobel Prize for his work on solar neutrinos, not because the test had conclusively, magically proven or ‘falsified’ the hypothesis but through intense negotiation between experts over a long period initiated by his the results from his apparatus.
Of course, there are some key differences between solar neutrinos and carbon sequestration. The first one that springs to mind is that the existence or otherwise of neutrinos will probably have little bearing on the fate of industrial civilisation.
But if we can learn anything from history, it’s that the data thrown up from any ‘demonstration’ plants the coal industry cares to construct will require more interpretation and judgements from scientists and policy makers; as these are assessed they will take more valuable time and money away from implementing technologies we know about through our direct experience with them.
Thanks for the post, dk.au.
It does look as if a lot of eggs have gone into a rather shaky basket!
According to that SMH article, Rio Tinto had a $8 billion profit this year, Xtrata had a $6 billion profit. Why can’t they pay for their own damn test, instead of asking taxpayers to fund it?
Cheers, Mark. According to one Geologist I’ve spoken to, the only places where carbon has actually been stored are in extremely rare dome formations where natural gas has been extracted. Apparently the Otways project sits on a fault line of sorts…
Julie, point taken, but I think we’re mainly talking about (state government or some foreign privately owned) electricity generators here. As perverse as it is, the latent emissions of exports are not to included in any national carbon accounts (I think).
“‘Why can’t they pay for their own damn test, instead of asking taxpayers to fund it?”
Because R&D is a classic case of market failure. Even if you do the testing yourself, at your own cost, you can’t keep the benefits for yourself. That’s why pure research is done in universities and why the government has to stump up the cash for something as uncertain as CCS.
Now, it wouldn’t be the case that some people are opposed to this research because they are ideologically opposed to the coal industry, would it? And if, wonder of wonders, CCS was found to be viable, their opposition to the coal industry on climate change grounds would end up looking thinner than an anorexic super model?
I’m not ideologically opposed to the coal industry, but I don’t think that it’s in anyone’s interest for clean technologies that we know work now to be put on the backburner to serve a narrow set of interests.
I agree with your larger point, dk,au, but think you’ve got the neutrino stuff wrong. The Homestake experiment was not about confirming the existence of the neutrino — that was done 1956 (and the Nobel awarded for this in 1995. When I was a physics student in the early 1990s, neutrinos were utterly standard stuff.
Homestake was actually intended to measure the number of neutrinos emitted by the fusion reactions powering the Sun. The amount detected were too low by a factor of 2/3, compared with Bahcall’s calculations. This problem was ultimately resolved in the late 1990s, when it was demonstrated that neutrinos randomly oscillate between three “flavors” (which is connected to the fact that they aren’t massless, as originally thought), and since Homestake-style experiments are sensitive to only one of these flavors, the missing two-thirds were simply undetectable.
But you’re right, as this example still shows, experiments don’t usually do something as simple as prove or disprove a theory, as generally advertised.
My comment seems to have gone into the spaminator — too many links, I guess.
Rescued, Brett.
Thanks!
Crikey on the SMH article:
The Climate Institute explains the proposal here.
I have no problem with this research being done per se, and I think the two environmental organisations and the union are acting in good faith, but I endorse Mark’s point that there is a problem if the opportunity cost of clean coal research is diversion of public funding from research, development and implementation of renewables, energy efficiency, etc. (as was the case under the Howard government).
Interestingly, whilst Greenpeace has been quick off the mark to condemn the initiative, the Australian Conservation Foundation has not yet commented.
Forcing a revision to a fundamental physical theory (the Standard Model of particle physics) is the sort of thing that could have bearing on the future of civilization.
“I don’t think that it’s in anyone’s interest for clean technologies that we know work now to be put on the backburner to serve a narrow set of interests.”
The government’s policy is for a mandatory 20% renewable energy generation by 2020, so they are hardly putting clean technologies on “the bsckburner” (an unfortunate metaphor).
The objective is CCT is to mitigate global climate change from greenhouse gas emissions; hardly a “narrow set of interests”. And if it works, then coal will also be clean.
People need to keep their eye on prize here, which is mitigating climate change, and doing so at minimal cost. Coal is now, and will be for the foreseeable future, a huge energy source for the world. If coal can be made climate-clean, why wouldn’t you do it? As Deng Xaoping used to say, it doesn’t matter if the cat ir black or white, as long as it catches mice.
I’m quite unhappy that groups like Greenpeace and WWF have lost their way. Once, they stuck up for conservation and wildlife related issues, now they believe that because mainstream society has accepted climate change as real they have carte blanche to go on about things like nuclear energy being the solution to the biodiversity crisis because it’ll stop us pumping so much carbon in to the air.
A splintered environmental movement is not a good thing and neither is an environmental movement more focussed on its corporate image and hobnobbing with bigwigs than saving the planet.
Thanks Brett. It’s been a while since I’ve read the book…
Spiros, that analogy is spurious at best. Putting carbon back into the ground is not the same as not emitting it in the first place. This is, of course, lost in much of the relentless commodification of emissions.
We have a choice between increasing our emissions and reliance on extremely shaky new science and technologies or we can improve the technologies we have experience with.
I don’t doubt that we’ll need both, but it’s a question of emphasis and funding priority.
Brett, thanks.
I’m here to agree with you about solar neutrinos, which I’ve been reading about for several decades. Nuclear physicists proposed the neutrino in the 1930s I think: a necessary hypothesis to maintain Conservation of Energy, which is fundamental and generally accepted. The neutrino has no REST mass, and travels at the speed of light. It carries energy. This may sound strange, but no stranger than a photon carrying energy & momentum, travelling at light speed, but having no REST mass.
The daily output of energy from the Sun, equates to a daily rate of nuclear fusion reactions deep in its interior. This equates to a daily rate of neutrino production. Assuming they are not “directed” preferentially in some direction, but flow out evenly, this equates to a rate of arrival of neutrinos at Earth (and the vast majority zip straight through us and our planet and continue their journey out into space.
The calculation of the neutrino “flux” (number per square meter every second, say) was not some kinky invention of Bahcall. A first year physics undergraduate could produce the same figure, given a few pieces of physical data.
The neutrino detector was technically clever, and expensive. It worked. There was a discrepancy. (”Too few neutrinos pouring out of the Sun!”) Brett has mentioned the current explanation of the discrepancy.
I would add only these points:
1) other neutrino detectors have been built, and give similar results
2) a major breakthrough in physics circa 1987: a supernova was seen in one of the Magellanic Clouds = companion galaxy to our Milky Way. Circa 180,000 light years away. The sudden flash of light SHOULD have been accompanied by a sudden “flash” of extra neutrinos, since nuclear fusion reactions helped make that star explode. The scientists checked the neutrino detector: the blip was there. So the neutrinos had arrived at the same time as the flash of light, give or take a few days. So they had travelled from the exploding star to Earth at the SPEED OF LIGHT. [As theory claimed they should]
bloody little ripper
“Putting carbon back into the ground is not the same as not emitting it in the first place.”
As far as the atmosphere is concerned, which is the problem we’re trying to fix, it’s exactly the same.
“This is, of course, lost in much of the relentless commodification of emissions.”
I think we’re now heading to the nub of the issue, which is that some people are against market based solutions, such as emissions trading, to this problem, or indeed any other problem.
“extremely shaky new science and technologies”
Which is why they should be researched. The environmental benefit from making coal clean, if it can be done, will be huge.
“or we can improve the technologies we have experience with”
That’s an argument for no new anything, and it’s extremely reactionary. It’s a good thing the folks who were researching anti-biotics in the middle of the last century didn’t fall for it.
“As far as the atmosphere is concerned, which is the problem we’re trying to fix, it’s exactly the same”
The sorts of artificially sequestered carbon the coal industry are proposing is NOT the same as carbon naturally already existing in the ground. The former have passed through a massive array of human institutions in ways the latter haven’t.
Besides, the atmosphere isn’t concerned. We are.
The post was intended to point out the doe-eyed ideological construct of linear scientific to technological development invoked by the advocates of this scheme; a construct that was, formally at least, developed (and belongs in) in the era of corner store milk bars and trips to the drive-in.
To clarify, I have no opposition to this research being done, but before we start pulling public funding from other areas, we need to have a very clear idea (a) what sorts of science it is putting at stake - ie. most of modern biology (b) whether the regimes of regulation required to monitor it are acceptable (c) where liabilities lie for its failure.
dk,au, I’ve got to admit, you lost me when you mentioned “science studies”. I have an aversion to any field of inquiry that contains the suffix “studies”, for people who study things in disciplines called x studies usually have no idea at all about x. Mostly this is harmless because they only talk among themselves.
However, I would like to hear what actual scientists have to say about the feasibility of carbon capture and storage.
Zarquon: good point — and IIRC one of the wild speculations (AKA “theories”) in the 1980s for the missing solar neutrinos was that we’d got the physics wrong (either solar or more fundamental) and that the Sun was actually on the verge of going supernova. That would have put an end to our industrial civilisation quick smart. Might have been in John Gribbin’s Blinded by the Light.
Ambigulous: you’re right, despite my jaded physicist routine above, neutrinos are pretty cool little beasties. Many trillions of them pass through your body every second! But I should point out that it’s no longer thought to be true that they are massless. Apparently, the fact that they flavor-oscillate means that they should have some mass, and experiments have shown that they have a tiny, but still uncertain, mass. So the sleet of neutrinos from SN1987A actually arrived just after the photons.
Good post dk.au. Christine Milne has also put up an eloquent post at Greensblog that clearly outlines why putting more money into ‘clean coal’ right now makes absolutely no sense.
A couple of years ago I saw an excellent presentation by leading solar researcher Rob Blakers on just how close various forms of solar power are to being completely mainstream and effective, yes even for base power. Can I suggest that someone from LP ask him to do a guest post. His was by far the most clearly articulated and easily understood presentation I’ve seen yet on where we’re at with important renewable technologies like solar, which from memory he said could be online in 5 years if there was political will. Which again begs the question why we are even contemplating giving more money to clean coal which is already subsidised by the public purse at a rate of 10:1 for renewables, according to Radio National this morning.
hey my link to Christine Milne didn’t work! second try.
[admin this wasn’t posting. If there’s multiples, my apologies and please delete them, thanks!]
“….carbon sequestration. …(and)…the fate of industrial civilisation.”
Climatologists have succeeded in demonizing CO2 in the minds of many.
They appear to be oblivious to the role of CO2 in the biosphere.
Historically speaking, plants are already half starved.
They “know” how to utilise much more.
Give them more, and they will gobble it up.
Most Dutch greenhouses run about 800ppm.
CO2 is the food of life as far as plants are concerned.
All the so called “plant food” we apply is more the equivalent of a
vitamin supplement.
CO2 is like the bread, the rice, the potatoes, of the plant’s diet, the staple.
(Lock up your greenhouse for a few days and see what happens, the CO2
will be exhausted in a few hours and it will be all downhill from
there.)
Plant life will wither and die around 200ppm but grow weaker long before then.
If, God forbid, we manage to get CO2 down to around 300ppm, billions
will die of starvation.
It is the ultimate monster crime in terms of the price humanity would
pay, dwarfing even the most impressive yet of our achievements in the
field of holocaust and genocide.
This will not happen peacefully, they will not go quietly, as some
apparently hope.
Be careful what you wish for.
The “consensus” is fatal mistake.
CO2 is a trace gas, a tiny amount, there is more uranium in most coal
ash than there is CO2 in the atmosphere
CO2 has a microscopic effect on the energy dynamics of the atmosphere
but it is vital to plant growth and that is where we get all our food
from.
On the crazy scale, the CO2 sequestration idea rates a ten.
It is not only life limiting, it creates a small but unnecessary and dangerous
risk of sudden escape.
A more balanced approach is needed.
[link]
Thanks Brett,
I’ll stand corrected if you can show me the mass!! I’m afraid my knowledge of neutrinos is very limited; but I thought it worth setting out that story for other readers. I’ve been watching that “anomaly” since it was first noticed/publicised, because of course anomalies sometimes (not always) lead to revisions of theories.
{Not trying to be snarky, dk.au.}
The more pressing question of C sequestration is interesting. I agree, that just because Engineer X and Industry Y and Government Z says a prospective technology is feasible, desirable and reasonably cheap, does NOT guarantee it’ll be successful.
e.g. circa 1958 when physicists thought that they’d tame nuclear fusion within (say) 10 years or so, they (foolishly) predicted “energy from water”!! We’re still waiting, lads.
The bit I don’t understand in sequestration is the “capture” of CO2 from coal combustion. At firsat glance that sounds
i) difficult, and
ii) very expensive
and if it’s energy-intensive you start reaping diminishing returns on the process…..
(like the use of heat energy to DRY the soggy “brown coal” we have in the Latrobe Valley: you have to dry it before you can burn it, and some of the heat from burning is used up in drying the next batch……)
Milne’s piece and associated comments are very interesting in that they take the view that environmental organisations with whom they disagree are renegades, sell outs, etc who should be expelled from the central movement.
This thinking is straight from the Trotskyist Political Strategy Handbook, circa 1975.
Far left activists seem to have it hard wired into their brains that the smaller and more pure their political movement, the better. Of course, this just leads to more splits and the movement achieves nothing whatsoever, except the purity of the movement, which becomes an end in itself.
But the lesson is never learned because of the genetic hard wiring.
No, Spiros. Organisations which abandon one of the central tenets of environmentalism cannot be called environmental organisations. If they do, they will do irreparable damage to the cause.
I have to say it …
SPLITTERS!
Spiros has a point, tim. Definitional battles about what are central tenets of a movement—and who has the power to set them—are classic struggles for legitimacy.
Some examples: White Australia used to be a central tenet, arguably the central tenet of Australian trade unionism, yet now any union which advocated for racist employment/immigration policy would be condemned as illegitimate. Central tenets aren’t absolutes, and the WWF remains an organisation centrally concerned with environmental issues regardless its heresies.
It’s not even a decent split; it’s just a tussle about an admittedly fraught issue. What’s the next stoush?
Tim, it is just absurd to say that the WWF is not an environmental organisation, just because they have policies that are not to your taste.
Anyway, who made you the philosopher-king that could decide who is or is not an environmental organisation?
Maybe they just care more about actually helping the environment than scoring ideological points?
Liam, White Australia was never a defining policy of the trade union movement. It was something they felt strongly about, but nopt a defining policy in the way that polluter pays has been a defining policy of environmentalism since it began. I do take your point, though, that this is a definitional battle, and one that is incredibly important at a time when we are heading up for probably the most important environmental decision Australia has ever made - what emissions cap to set over what timeframe.
Spiros, it’s absurd to say this is about my / Christine’s / The Greens’ / anyone’s taste. It is far more fundamental than that.
Ken Miles. No. The only possible impact of this is to take the pressure off the government and the coal industry in their push to slow down action to reduce emissions. We would not have attacked it and raised the stakes so high if what they were doing could be seen as positive. There is no possible environmentally beneficial outcome from what WWF and CI did today.
Then we disagree about the centrality of racism in early Australian trade unionism, Tim, but that’s a side issue. Milne says:
If the WWF and the CI have the ear of Government, are negotiating with other peak bodies and political stakeholders, and are in a position to put their environmentalist programmes into policy, isn’t it the Greens who are on the outer of the environment movement?
I’m myself more sympathetic to your Party’s point of view, but it’s an obvious question.
Liam, it’s a good question, but it’s the same one that says isn’t it better that Peter Garrett is Environment Minister than, say Albo. I’d actually say, no, because Albo is a player who can get things done. The most effective Environment Minister Australia has ever had, really was Graham Richardson. No-one can accuse him of being a greenie, but he got things done.
Perhaps Garrett is biding his time, toeing the line, hoping to build capital to one day finally do something really worthwhile. Perhaps. But if so, I fear he’s mistaken in the belief that that strategy will work.
As far as WWF and CI go, it’s too early to tell, but history doesn’t suggest that they’ll achieve much by getting so close to government if they have to water down their principles so much to get there. What they are calling for here today is appalling - more government funding for a multi-billion dollar polluting industry,when that industry already receives the lion’s share of funding. They know that the consequence of that will be less funding for renewables and efficiency, which, if implemented now, could start cutting emissions now. It’s a lose lose situation.
What’s the point in getting the ear of government if, once you get there, you only tell them what they want to hear???
It’s an obvious question, and a good one. But the answer isn’t as clear cut as you might think.
Well no, tim, it’s not clear-cut, because it’s really only the chicken-egg riddle of power versus principle.
I could—and often do—make the same complaint of my Party, which is certainly no longer in the mainstream of the democratic socialist movement. When oh when is Labor going to come through with its commitment to socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange (to the extent necessary to prevent exploitation)?
But Liam, don’t you feel just a twinge of envy for those whose Party still has firm ground to defend?
One could ask whether those whose Party still has firm ground to defend feel a twinge of envy for those whose Party is in government, doing stuff.
To mix a couple of sporting metaphors, it’s horses for courses. Some feel more comfortable playing without the ball.
Envy is a damn charitable way of putting it, FDB.
If you’re referring to these true believers, certainly I admire them, and wish them a productive spell in principled isolation.
I’m in favour of someone in the world putting a considerable effort into geosequestration of CO2 from coal power plants because they are being built at the rate of knots, there is a huge installed base, and it may be unrealistic to bulldoze them all, which would be my preference in an ideal world.
How much the Australian taxpayer should put in is another question. It can be argued that we have an interest in the industry, which is our largest exporter at present.
What I find strange is the expectation that we can prove a negative in double-quick time:
I think we should try to make it work, but assume that it won’t, so that we also have a Plan B, if that makes sense. If it does work, we’re ahead, but if it doesn’t we’re still OK.
I agree with Brian. It’s worth a try, and could be used as a short term amelioration, say for 20 years, while we phase in (ASAP) other, better energy technologies.
This is an area where the effort has to have DOZENS of complementary components: energy saving, re=newable thechnology, etc
To say the coal industry is a major polluter is a truism: but how do we get from where we are now, to a better future? That’s a hard question. Suggestions welcome - just leave them in the little box over on the wall over there.
And anyone who thinks there is a single answer, don’t bother putting your bit of paper in the box.
A good provocative but accurate opinion piece on carbon sequestration by Kenneth Davidson in today’s Age.
not sure I entirely agree about nuclear vs coal, but he does make a compelling point or two via that analogy, while not deflecting from what is the obvious third way, ie renewable energy.
It sounds like a nice way of hedging our bets but I don’t see how we can have our cake and eat it too in this instance. At some point, we have to decide where research money is going - where we are going to put our resources. Besides, who decides if it’s ‘worked’ anyway? According to what criteria? (And the questions are not just rhetorical - I would like to know how this new body plans to answer them)
dk.au wrote: “I don’t see how we can have our cake and eat it too in this instance. At some point, we have to decide where research money is going - where we are going to put our resources. ”
Oh don’t be silly!
It’s not “either/or”, with research money.
Thousands of projects are proceeding around the country AS WE BLOG. In agriculture, biotechnology, population studies, chemistry, all kinds of engineering, physics, energy storage, energy savings, pollution reduction…. And there’s privately-funded research too.
Governments can set priorities, and they can fund some areas generously, but that doesn’t mean that all other research STOPS DEAD. Hundreds of Ausa
tralian scientists, engineers, mathematicians etc collaborate with colleagues overseas: they may therefore piggy-back on projects largely funded through overseas sources. Private, government, aid agencies, philanthropists,….
I’m not sure how you inferred that, Ambigulous. I’m just saying there are opportunity costs with this research.
I read the sentences quoted above, and that’s how I interpreted what you wrote. Quite likely I may have misunderstood your intended meaning. If so, apologies to you and other readers.
“I don’t see how we can have our cake and eat it” sounds to me like it’s positing a dichotomy:
have/eat.
But I’m a very simple soul
I agree that the nation has to decide its reasearch priorities, just as it had to in 1950, 1970, and 1990.
cheerio