Tag: University of Bristol

How much money should we spend to protect ourselves from climate change?

Posted on by janet.crompton

Investing in climate change resilience

 
The February floods left many asking how the damage could have been avoided and why we weren’t better prepared. The government came under attack from all sides; David Cameron said “money is no object” for the relief effort, but angry residents asked why this wasn’t the case when funding was cut to flood protection a few years before.

 

Peter Gist, an economist and Director of Arup Management Consultancy, visited the University of Bristol this week to give a lecture asking why we aren’t more resilient to climate change and what we can do about it.

It is a complicated question. Spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is not without its risks. In April, a report was released showing that the £473 million stash of Tamiflu was essentially useless.  It was stockpiled against the risk of a flu pandemic that never happened.  Was this money wasted?  Only because the problem didn’t arise.  The risk to public health was too high to leave to chance.

The same can be said of resilience to climate change. You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. Gist nailed it when he said, “the huge costs of not getting it right tend to lead to people acting like rabbits stuck in the headlights”.

Investment returns

Diverting resources to resilience measures is an investment, and Gist explained that this means trying to get the best return for your pound, in this case by limiting losses. It’s extremely difficult to calculate this for climate change, thanks to a lack of information, inherent uncertainties about the frequency and impact of the problem, and a decision process divided between numerous groups with different priorities.

An important economic technique when calculating the cost:benefit of different resilience methods is discounting. A price paid in today’s money cannot be directly compared with the future benefit of the scheme, so the value of the future benefit (prevention of loss) is transformed into today’s prices. An event predicted to occur far in the future will be severely discounted, making it unlikely to seem worth the cost to us today.

The problem with discounting is similar to that of politics; the focus is on short-term pressing concerns not future problems, even if they are predicted to have a huge impact. Gist explained, “in the case of severe weather events, we are almost always bound to discover that we haven’t done enough”.

Uncertainty

 

The Dawlish train line was damaged in winter storms.
Image credit: BBC News

Even if the risks were quantifiable, it would still be difficult to know where to channel resources because of the uncertainty in forecasting models. Would it be better, for example, to improve the resilience of the Dawlish train line to flooding, or to build an entirely new route to avoid the problem entirely? We need to know how often the line is likely to flood in the future, especially with regards to climate change, but Gist noted how difficult it is to confidently link global warming to specific extreme weather predictions.

Improving the decision

Value for money is still the aim of the game. How can we make better decisions on climate change resilience in the future?

Reducing the discount rate for long term effects is vital. Gist agrees with Lord Nicholas Stern that we should hold the impacts on the next generation with greater or equal importance than our own, rather than passing the problems on to them.

To counteract the uncertainty, of course we must keep collecting data and improving the models, but Gist believes we should go further. We need to consider more “no regrets” options, for example trees in a new development provide shade and enhance water run off, as well as making the area a more desirable place to live. He urged, “uncertainty should be an imperative to act, not an excuse not to”.

Consulting the wider public is vital in improving spending decisions. Gist described how difficult it is to factor in non-monetary benefits into the investment planning models. An area of moorland or forest might have incalculable value to people living nearby, but the property developers in the next town might see it as cut price real estate. Only by talking to a large range of people, institutions and regulatory bodies can you understand the different priorities in play and begin to factor in benefits that aren’t measured in pounds and pence. Pragmatically, Gist believes that all politicians should consult the people involved, whether in local councils or at the national level, because everyone takes part of the responsibility for the consequences and by removing the blame it clears the path to making decisions.

Get involved

Limited resources mean that we can’t always have the perfect solution for every problem. Money must be spent in the most beneficial way possible, so we can’t avoid making these investment choices. Gist urged the audience to get involved in decisions, make your voice heard and for the scientists among us to keep up the research that might yield more information. On the other hand, it is vital that we don’t fall victim to “analysis-paralysis”. If you’re waiting for the perfect data set before making a decision, you’ll be waiting a long time.

——————————————————–

This blog is written by Sarah Jose, Cabot Institute, Biological Sciences, University of Bristol
Sarah Jose

‘New’ man-made gases: Ozone crisis or hoax?

Posted on by janet.crompton
Image by PiccoloNamek (English wikipedia)
[GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html),
via Wikimedia Commons

You may have noticed a story reported on widely recently on the discovery of 4 ‘new’ man-made ozone-depleting gases. This follows the publication of a study in the journal Nature Geoscience on the first measurements of these gases, their abundances in the atmosphere and estimated global emission rates. Responses to the reporting of this publication have ranged from the Daily Mail’s “Ozone Crisis” to the inevitable internet-based diatribe of “any research from UEA is clearly made up” in various comment sections. So just how concerned should we be about the emissions of these four gases?

Chlorofluorcarbons (CFCs)

 
The reason we care about CFCs is because they deplete ozone high up in the atmosphere, potentially exposing humans to harmful UV rays. Oh, they also happen to be extremely potent greenhouse gases, with each molecule of a CFC being equivalent to 1000s of molecules of CO2, and they sit around in the atmosphere for 10s or 100s of years before being removed. Basically they’re pretty bad, and sure they might have been great refrigerants and aerosol propellants but at what cost?

The production of CFCs has now to all intents and purposes ceased, although that doesn’t mean that emissions have completely stopped; various banks of these gases exist in fridges for example. These might leak during use or when destroyed. So it’s not entirely surprising to read that this study has found that various CFCs are still being released.

Newly measured

 
In fact the reason this paper is important is more to do with the fact that these gases have never before been measured.  Many of the media articles seem to lead with the fact these are ‘new’ ozone-depleting gases, which is a little misleading. They’re not new; they’ve been around for decades, only nobody has been able to measure them in the atmosphere before. Why’s that you might ask? Well much of it is to do with just how small their concentrations are in the atmosphere.

The fact of the matter is that the concentrations of these gases (CFC-112, CFC-112a, CFC-113a, HCFC-133a) are tiny. All four have atmospheric mixing ratios of less than 1 part per trillion (ppt). In other words, if you could isolate a trillion molecules of air (1 x 1012) then not even one of them would be one of these ’new’ CFCs. By contrast CO2 in the atmosphere has a mixing ratio of hundreds of parts per million.

Compare these newly measured gases to the major CFCs (CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113) whose current atmospheric concentrations are hundreds if not thousands of times greater. Even though emissions of these major CFCs are now close to zero they will still be around in the atmosphere at these elevated concentrations for decades to come. This is shown in the plot below taken from the AGAGE network measurements of CFC-12. Although the concentration has reached a peak it will take at least one hundred years for levels to get back down to pre-1980 levels, with the current mixing ratio still over 500 ppt.

Plot taken from the AGAGE network measurements of CFC-12

So emissions of these newly measured gases would have to really pick up for a sustained period of time to add significantly to the ozone-depleting effect of what is already in the atmosphere. To say the measurement of these compounds has created some sort of ozone crisis is therefore a gross exaggeration. That’s not to say that this work was a waste of time; it’s vital that we know about these compounds and their atmospheric abundance so we can ensure their contribution to ozone depletion remains negligible.

Other factors influencing ozone recovery

 
There are other potentially more important causes for concern as well. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) were introduced as replacements for CFCs but also contribute to ozone depletion, albeit in a less effective way. Although these are also being phased out many of these will have a greater impact on the recovery of the ozone ‘hole’ than these newly measured species. Just a few months ago the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released a report saying another gas, Nitrous Oxide (N2O), is now considered to be the biggest threat to the ozone layer over the next 50 years. Not to mention that one of the impacts of a rise in global surface temperatures could be a slowing in ozone hole recovery. There’s a genuinely interesting (honest!) explanation for why that is which I will cover in another blog.

The point is that there are lots of factors which affect the Earth’s ozone layer. Studies like the one recently published in Nature Geoscience are vital for our understanding of what the recent and current atmospheric composition is like. It might not be a problem now, but surely the key to looking after our planet, and ourselves, is to prevent things from becoming problematic in future. If we can take steps to find out where these emissions are coming from and why some of them are increasing then measures could be put in place to limit their future influence on ozone recovery.

This blog is written by Mark Lunt, Atmospheric Chemistry Reseach Group, Cabot Institute, University of Bristol, .
Mark Lunt

Enabling the future we want: A manifesto on Education for Sustainable Development in the UK

Posted on by janet.crompton
 
What is the future we want, and what role does education have to play in its development?  
The Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) has gone some way toward answering these questions by way of a Manifesto for dialogue, collaboration and action Post Rio+20.  Following its UK-wide consultation held between November 2012 and May 2013, the EAUC has released a Manifesto in response to the Rio+20 outcome document, ‘The Future We Want’.  The Manifesto serves as a call to action across the UK, seeking cross-sectoral collaboration for the strengthening of education within sustainable development.
The Manifesto suggests seven mechanisms for government and civil society by which they can strengthen UK delivery of educational commitments towards The Future We Want.  These are proposed within four areas:  governmental responsibilities, formal learning, informal learning, and emphasising the connection between ESD and the economy. Most focus on improved dialogue, collaboration and coordination between government, NGOs, educational institutions, community groups and businesses.
 

Manifesto’s 7 mechanisms for government and civil society

 Governmental responsibilities

  • Better coordination of efforts and collaboration between governments and across government departments on formal and informal learning for sustainable development
  • Improvement of dialogue between the education sector, civil society and government departments
  • Enabling education sectors to develop an appropriate curriculum to meet current and future sustainability challenges through a realignment of funding with The Future We Want in mind

Formal learning (education and training sectors)

  • Six curriculum change recommendations including: teacher training, incentives from education quality enhancement bodies, national curricula objectives, Natural Environment White Paper implementation, student involvement in curriculum design and interdisciplinary learning opportunities
  • Three institutional change recommendations including: institutional leadership in SD, strengthened links between education institutions and local communities, support for young people not engaged in formal further education

 Informal learning

  • Increased collaboration between NGOs and formal education providers
  • ESD and Economy Connections
  • Increased collaboration between governments, NGOs, business and education sectors to ensure young people are sufficiently prepared for the opportunities and challenges of a Green and Fair Economy
At the launch on 17 December, 2013 at the House of Commons, more than 80 people from these different sectors, and representing all forms of education, gathered for an event hosted by Joan Walley MP, Chair of the Environmental Audit Select Committee.  Speakers included the Shadow Schools Minister, Kevin Brennan MP, and a number of individuals providing ‘witness accounts’ of ways that education can support sustainable development.  These ranged from primary school pupils and NGO representatives to university youth ambassadors and a Director from HEFCE. During this portion of the launch, the University of Bristol’s Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Coordinator Aisling Tierney  gave a presentation.  Aisling presented ways in which the ESD unit helps support University lecturers and professors to incorporate aspects of ESD into their teaching.  Following the witness accounts, all attendees participated in a round table discussion about how and why they can commit to taking the agenda forward.
Cabot Institute at Big Green Week
educating the public about overfishing
and climate change
The Cabot Institute can do its part in the fulfilment of the Manifesto through the Informal Learning route, which calls upon Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to support community learning about sustainable development.  Cabot pursues continued engagement with the public to share the university’s latest research on risks and uncertainty in a changing environment. Examples include Cabot’s participation the Festival of Nature and planned activities surrounding Bristol’s position as the 2015 European Green Capital.  Such initiatives continue to help to raise awareness within the wider Bristol area on topics including climate change, natural hazards, food and energy security and human impacts on the environment.

Read the ManifestoLearn more about ESD at the University of Bristol

This blog was written by Terra Sprague, Research Fellow, Graduate School of Education.

 

Terra Sprague

Uncertainties about the effects of fracking in the UK

Posted on by janet.crompton

I’m a bit of an energy agnostic. This week I attended a talk at UWE about fracking and its impact on the environment in the hope of making a better informed decision on the controversial topic.

What is fracking?

Jenna Brown, a first year PhD student, started off with an introduction to fracking, or hydraulic fracturing.

Gas molecules trapped in dense shale rocks are almost impossible to obtain by normal drilling. Fracking involves drilling vertically down and then horizontally into the rock. Fracking fluid, a mixture of water, sand and other chemicals, is injected into the rock at high pressure, expanding the tiny cracks and allowing the gas trapped within to escape and travel back up the pipe for collection.

Taken from BBC News

 

Natural gas is viewed as a transition energy source from dirty fossil fuels to greener renewable energies in the future. It produces almost half the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of energy than coal, which could help us meet the national target of reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050.

 

Image by Varodrig
Jenna explained that the government see shale gas as a way to improve our national energy security. The British Geological Survey estimates that the Bowland Shale reserve in central England holds 1329 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, although across the entire UK estimates vary wildly because they are mainly based on data from other countries. Jenna highlighted the fact that whilst this is a huge amount of fuel, much if not most of it will not be technically recoverable. Still, it could provide greater energy security in the UK, which imported one trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the first six months of this year.

Water use
Dr. Chad Staddon, associate professor of resource geographies at UWE, spoke about the possible problems that UK water security faces with fracking. As well as the potential to pollute ground water (explained here), Chad was concerned that fracking could pose a problem to UK water security but even more worried that this had not yet been assessed in detail.
Fracking requires a huge volume of water; around 4 – 20 million litres per well in the USA according to the International Energy Agency. This amounts to just 0.3% of US national water usage, however Chad highlighted two important problems with this figure. First, US shale reserves are only around 750m deep. In the UK, our reserves may reach down as far as 3km, meaning we could layer six or more horizontal fracking pipes in a single well. The increased depth and number of fracking pipes means that significantly more water may be required in UK sites.
The second issue is one of local resources. Even in relatively rainy countries there can be pockets of water scarcity, which can be intensified by local demand. Unfortunately, there is little guidance in the published scientific literature to aid the UK in avoiding over-committing our water to fracking at the cost of food production and water security. Parts of the UK, such as the south east, are already at water capacity. Adding the water demands of fracking may lead to local droughts or the costly transport of water from other parts of the country. A 2013 report for the Department of Energy and Climate Change stated that if waste water is recycled where possible, water requirements for fracking could be managed sustainably.

Air quality
Dr. Enda Hayes, a UWE research fellow, spoke about the effect fracking could have on air quality management. He was trying to learn more about the emissions from a shale gas well, however the findings in scientific reports varied enormously because no two wells are the same. Different geographies, demands and outputs greatly affect the results, which means that it is very difficult to use US data to try and predict the effect of fracking on UK air quality. Fracking could contribute to particulates and toxic compounds in the air, as well as increased CO2 emissions and methane leaks.  
Less CO2 is produced per unit of energy when burning shale gas compared to coal and oil. However Enda spoke about recent reports stating that the net effect of shale gas on greenhouse gases is likely to be small, and could actually increase emissions if the displaced coal and other fossil fuels are used elsewhere. Another major player in climate change is methane. In the USA, 11% of methanee missions are produced from coal mining, mainly by methane leaking from the mines. Shale gas is mostly comprised of methane, which must be properly contained to prevent even greater emissions from leaks.

 

Big questions
The panelists agreed that there is simply not enough relevant information to decide whether the benefits outweigh the negatives of fracking in the UK. There are several big questions that I think need to be answered. Just how much water would a UK shale gas well need? Do we have the technology to prevent water and air pollution? Do viable alternatives to fracking exist, and can we afford them?
Is there a perfect energy source? Should we stick to cheap-but-dirty coal or switch to inefficient bird-killing windmills? Are you more scared of nuclear meltdowns or global warming? As David Shukman concluded in his excellent BBC article, “whichever type of power you choose, it is going to make someone angry“.
This blog is written by Sarah Jose, Biological Sciences, University of Bristol
You can follow Sarah on Twitter @JoseSci
Sarah Jose

 

 

Sign up to our weekly newsletter for all the latest news, events and opportunities at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot/news/subscribe. Find out more about our unique Master's by Research in Global Environmental Challenges at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot-masters.