As a geologist, when chatting to people I am always surprised when they don't know what the term "black shale" means, considering all of the media coverage on fracking and shale gas. This post aims to explain what the term means, how they were formed in the past and how black shale formation in the present will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Black shales are fine-grained rocks, made up of mud-sized particles, with very high levels of TOC (Total Organic Carbon). TOC refers to the amount of carbon present in a rock sample which is bound in an organic compound. The organic carbon comes from dead animals, plants and faeces which were incorporated into the mud at the time it was laid down.
If the rock, and organic carbon, have been buried to sufficient depth to "cook" (temperature increases by approximately 1 degree C for every 100 m you go into the Earth ), then the organic carbon can start to form hydrocarbons: oil (less cooking) and gas (more cooking). If a rock has more than 2% TOC it is said to make a good source rock (4% TOC is a very good source rock). Black shales frequently have high TOC levels and it's the high TOC content which also gives the rock its black appearance.
Source rocks are rocks which, once cooked, produce hydrocarbons. Most oil and gas extracted around the world started out in a black shale, the source rock, but the hydrocarbons may have since moved into another rock (a reservoir rock), such as a sandstone. Where they have moved into a reservoir rock, this is known as a conventional play, and most oil and gas wells extract their hydrocarbons from sandstones. Where the hydrocarbons are still in the black shale, the technique of "fracking" needs to be employed to extract them because black shales are too fine-grained to allow the hydrocarbons to flow towards the well. Sandstones have more space between the grains, allowing the hydrocarbons to move.
So why do black shales have such high levels of TOC?
This can be summarised in three words: productivity, preservation and dilution.
To have high TOC levels preserved in a rock, you first need a large amount of organic matter to be produced; that means a lot of life to be living, pooing and dying. This is known as high productivity.
Once you have your high productivity, you still need that organic matter to be preserved. That means you need to limit its breakdown by bacteria (also known as rotting). The best way of doing this is restricting the amount of oxygen available: oxygen is required by bacteria to most efficiently break down organic matter. With limited oxygen, more organic matter is preserved.
Even if you have then produced a lot of organic matter, and preserved it, your rock will still not have a high TOC if there is a lot of sediment coming in because TOC is a measure of the total percentage of organic matter compared to the amount of other rock. With a high sedimentation rate, the organic matter will become diluted and the TOC percentage will drop; with a low sedimentation rate, the percentage of organic matter will be higher.
Where do black shales form?
Most black shales in the past formed in shallow seas that covered the continents millions of years ago when relative sea level was higher. They are found all over the globe and throughout geological time. They are often associated with limited circulation within the sea, which restricted the amount of oxygen reaching the sea floor.
In the modern they are forming beneath areas of high productivity where bacteria use up the limited oxygen supply whilst breaking down organic matter, before reaching the sea floor. Examples include areas of upwelling where blooms of plankton and marine organisms feast on the nutrients being brought up from the deep sea by ocean currents, or the out-wash of the Mississippi River which is full of fertilisers, resulting in algal blooms.
By having a bloom of productivity in the upper water column, the sea floor becomes "dead" with no metazoan life able to live there with no oxygen. However, these areas also become "carbon sinks", where the plankton in the upper water column take in carbon dioxide from the surface water and atmosphere during life, and then, when they die, that carbon is not re-realeased back to the atmosphere because their bodies are not fully broken down by bacteria, due to the limited oxygen. Instead that carbon is sequestered, or locked, into the sediments, raising the TOC, and possibly one day forming a black shale.
So whilst the burning of hydrocarbons from ancient black shales is increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the creation of new black shales in the modern is gradually decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide; it's just unfortunate that the rate of burning is higher than the rate of sequestration.
Friday, 23 August 2013
Friday, 9 August 2013
What's your level of social responsibility?
In a recent conversation I found myself discussing social and moral responsibility regarding climate change. The debate focused around the idea of "if we know that there is a problem, but that the solution to the problem is larger than one person, do we have a moral obligation to act?"
After years of educational campaigns, we all know that it is "good" to recycle, "good" to buy food from sustainable sources and "good" to try to reduce our climate emissions by walking, cycling or using public transport (the latter has also been promoted as increasing our daily exercise to remain healthy). However, many people now do these as a matter of routine, so when it comes to further helping the climate, they are unsure about what more they can do. People are already doing "the easy bits": they have already made the changes that will not have a large impact upon their lifestyles and, rightly so, they feel vaguely proud of the changes they have made.
In many ways climate change needs to be battled in a bottom-up approach because although each individual is one person, together in the UK we number over 63 million people, each one creating green house gases in our cars and our gas boilers (in the UK more gas is burned in domestic boilers than in the gas power plants). If each household insulates their home, turns down the heating and drives their car less, that adds up to a large reduction in climate emissions. However much of the UK's housing stock is older than 30 years old, making it harder to insulate efficiently, the young, elderly and infirm need to live in well-heated housing, and at times public transport just cannot replace a self-driven vehicle.
Some people have taken up the government's financial incentive and installed solar panels and/or wind turbines onto their properties, thus becoming part of an ever-growing self-generation collective. This "green energy" is then used on the property, reducing the amount of electricity that property requires from the Grid. In some cases, any excess energy is sold to the Grid thereby increasing the proportion of "green produced" energy compared to fossil fuel-based energy. Some people argue that the installation of solar panels for self-generation is a really good idea, and great for the environment, whilst others argue that Britain's climate is unsuitable for such a scheme to be worthwhile. Not all properties in the UK are suited to have self-generation equipment installed, and it is also a costly process, although in theory over many years you will save money due to increasing Grid energy prices.
So if you already recycle, you already walk or take public transport, you are already thinking about the sources of the products that you buy in shops, you already have your heating on for the minimum amount of time and your home is well-insulated, and you have already installed self-generation equipment, is that it? Have you already done all that you can for climate change? Aren't you already doing enough? Is it now up to someone else to "fix" it?
For some the answer is yes; it is now up to scientists to come up with new technologies, and new methods which will reduce emissions and possibly remove emissions that have already been created. Others say that it is now up to businesses and large corporations to make a difference. After all, a corporation creates many more emissions than a single household and they have some control over how things are made and transported. Others say it is now up to governments and world leaders to create international policies to change the way that other countries operate so that they cut their emissions, and to change the way that businesses and public services run so that waste is reduced and energy saved.
For others the answer is no, the individuals have not done enough. For them climate change is an individual's problem as well as a global problem. After all, government's should listen to their people and enact the policies that are important to them, scientists can only do research if there is money and if there are people researching those areas, and businesses need to make a profit and therefore need people's custom. Some people devote a lot of time and effort into joining lobbyist groups, whilst others try to have direct influence by becoming a member of government, becoming a scientist, joining a company or creating their own "green" company, or by using their money to sponsor research.
Whether "yes" or "no" is the correct answer is very difficult to say. Each person has their own priorities in life, and each also has their own level of moral and social responsibility regarding climate change. The more direct routes are not for everyone, and for some people climate change is not high on their agenda: it's not directly affecting them and they have other more pressing issues in their own lives. For others, they feel it is important to try and preserve the planet for future generations Each person needs to decide upon their own level of social and moral responsibility. What's yours?
After years of educational campaigns, we all know that it is "good" to recycle, "good" to buy food from sustainable sources and "good" to try to reduce our climate emissions by walking, cycling or using public transport (the latter has also been promoted as increasing our daily exercise to remain healthy). However, many people now do these as a matter of routine, so when it comes to further helping the climate, they are unsure about what more they can do. People are already doing "the easy bits": they have already made the changes that will not have a large impact upon their lifestyles and, rightly so, they feel vaguely proud of the changes they have made.
In many ways climate change needs to be battled in a bottom-up approach because although each individual is one person, together in the UK we number over 63 million people, each one creating green house gases in our cars and our gas boilers (in the UK more gas is burned in domestic boilers than in the gas power plants). If each household insulates their home, turns down the heating and drives their car less, that adds up to a large reduction in climate emissions. However much of the UK's housing stock is older than 30 years old, making it harder to insulate efficiently, the young, elderly and infirm need to live in well-heated housing, and at times public transport just cannot replace a self-driven vehicle.
Some people have taken up the government's financial incentive and installed solar panels and/or wind turbines onto their properties, thus becoming part of an ever-growing self-generation collective. This "green energy" is then used on the property, reducing the amount of electricity that property requires from the Grid. In some cases, any excess energy is sold to the Grid thereby increasing the proportion of "green produced" energy compared to fossil fuel-based energy. Some people argue that the installation of solar panels for self-generation is a really good idea, and great for the environment, whilst others argue that Britain's climate is unsuitable for such a scheme to be worthwhile. Not all properties in the UK are suited to have self-generation equipment installed, and it is also a costly process, although in theory over many years you will save money due to increasing Grid energy prices.
So if you already recycle, you already walk or take public transport, you are already thinking about the sources of the products that you buy in shops, you already have your heating on for the minimum amount of time and your home is well-insulated, and you have already installed self-generation equipment, is that it? Have you already done all that you can for climate change? Aren't you already doing enough? Is it now up to someone else to "fix" it?
For some the answer is yes; it is now up to scientists to come up with new technologies, and new methods which will reduce emissions and possibly remove emissions that have already been created. Others say that it is now up to businesses and large corporations to make a difference. After all, a corporation creates many more emissions than a single household and they have some control over how things are made and transported. Others say it is now up to governments and world leaders to create international policies to change the way that other countries operate so that they cut their emissions, and to change the way that businesses and public services run so that waste is reduced and energy saved.
For others the answer is no, the individuals have not done enough. For them climate change is an individual's problem as well as a global problem. After all, government's should listen to their people and enact the policies that are important to them, scientists can only do research if there is money and if there are people researching those areas, and businesses need to make a profit and therefore need people's custom. Some people devote a lot of time and effort into joining lobbyist groups, whilst others try to have direct influence by becoming a member of government, becoming a scientist, joining a company or creating their own "green" company, or by using their money to sponsor research.
Whether "yes" or "no" is the correct answer is very difficult to say. Each person has their own priorities in life, and each also has their own level of moral and social responsibility regarding climate change. The more direct routes are not for everyone, and for some people climate change is not high on their agenda: it's not directly affecting them and they have other more pressing issues in their own lives. For others, they feel it is important to try and preserve the planet for future generations Each person needs to decide upon their own level of social and moral responsibility. What's yours?
Friday, 26 July 2013
Melting in the Arctic - what will happen?
In a recent BBC article, Matt McGrath talks about the Arctic "time bomb": the frozen methane stored in the Arctic tundra and under the Arctic Sea which is start to thaw and escape into the atmosphere.
Methane is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, 22 times more effective at holding heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. It can also directly cause ocean acidification (see previous post) if it bubbles through sea water as it is released from the sea bed. The good news is, however, that methane spends a relatively short amount of time in the atmosphere before it breaks down...into carbon dioxide.
The Arctic is starting to thaw. Each year the amount of sea ice is gradually decreasing, and the length of time the tundra is frozen for is less. Based upon the geological record, there is a very high chance that eventually the Arctic will be ice-free all year round. However, as with every change, there are winners as well as losers.
As Matt McGrath's article outlines, one major problem with the Arctic thawing is it's potential to increase the rate of climate change, both by adding methane to the atmosphere, and the decrease in albedo - the amount that a surface reflects the sun's rays. A white, ice-covered surface will reflect much more of the sun's heat back into space than a dark, thawed surface of either tundra or sea which will absorb the heat. The increase in heat-retention is likely to make the sea expand (water expands as it heats and shrinks as it cools - put warm water in a plastic bottle and let in cool - the sides of the bottle will gradually suck in as the water shrinks) which will lead to sea level rise and flooding. The change in temperature will also affect the poles more than the equator, reducing the temperature difference between the two. This will have a knock-on effect on the ocean currents which control weather on land. Thus we may see more extremes of weather such as more rain where we already get rain, such as in Britain, less rain where we already get less, such as the Sahara, and an increase in wind strength and intensity in hurricanes and monsoons.
As well as affecting the global climate, the reduction in ice at the Arctic is affecting the local environment with less habitat for animals such as polar bears and arctic foxes, both of which are starting to move south. This displacement is causing conflict as the more northerly animals fight for territory with animals which live further south, and this is also leading to increased contact with humans. Native American tribes are also starting to be displaced as the frozen ground where they normally live thaws, turning into unstable mud, and the rivers rise due to the increase in thawed water.
The escape of methane from it's frozen holding place at the bottom of the Arctic Sea is also causing ocean acidification in large parts of the Arctic Sea, affecting the entire marine ecosystem, which in turn feeds into the fish stocks of the northern hemisphere.
On the plus side, however, with a decrease in sea-ice the economic opportunities open up. The decrease in Arctic sea-ice has opened up new shipping routes, significantly decreasing transport time between East Asia and Europe, and will also allow more fishing within the sea. Large amounts of oil and gas are also thought to be held below the Arctic Sea and with the decrease in ice these are now becoming viable sources.
With the Arctic changing so rapidly, many are worried that the area may become exploited where the changes not effectively managed. The Arctic Resilience Report was set up in 2011 to assess the changes and their impacts on the Arctic, with an interim report published in May this year; the full report is due in 2015. Whatever their conclusions, it will always be a compromise between environment and economic concerns, and the Arctic will change regardless. The question is, what is the best way to manage it?
Methane is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, 22 times more effective at holding heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. It can also directly cause ocean acidification (see previous post) if it bubbles through sea water as it is released from the sea bed. The good news is, however, that methane spends a relatively short amount of time in the atmosphere before it breaks down...into carbon dioxide.
The Arctic is starting to thaw. Each year the amount of sea ice is gradually decreasing, and the length of time the tundra is frozen for is less. Based upon the geological record, there is a very high chance that eventually the Arctic will be ice-free all year round. However, as with every change, there are winners as well as losers.
As Matt McGrath's article outlines, one major problem with the Arctic thawing is it's potential to increase the rate of climate change, both by adding methane to the atmosphere, and the decrease in albedo - the amount that a surface reflects the sun's rays. A white, ice-covered surface will reflect much more of the sun's heat back into space than a dark, thawed surface of either tundra or sea which will absorb the heat. The increase in heat-retention is likely to make the sea expand (water expands as it heats and shrinks as it cools - put warm water in a plastic bottle and let in cool - the sides of the bottle will gradually suck in as the water shrinks) which will lead to sea level rise and flooding. The change in temperature will also affect the poles more than the equator, reducing the temperature difference between the two. This will have a knock-on effect on the ocean currents which control weather on land. Thus we may see more extremes of weather such as more rain where we already get rain, such as in Britain, less rain where we already get less, such as the Sahara, and an increase in wind strength and intensity in hurricanes and monsoons.
As well as affecting the global climate, the reduction in ice at the Arctic is affecting the local environment with less habitat for animals such as polar bears and arctic foxes, both of which are starting to move south. This displacement is causing conflict as the more northerly animals fight for territory with animals which live further south, and this is also leading to increased contact with humans. Native American tribes are also starting to be displaced as the frozen ground where they normally live thaws, turning into unstable mud, and the rivers rise due to the increase in thawed water.
The escape of methane from it's frozen holding place at the bottom of the Arctic Sea is also causing ocean acidification in large parts of the Arctic Sea, affecting the entire marine ecosystem, which in turn feeds into the fish stocks of the northern hemisphere.
On the plus side, however, with a decrease in sea-ice the economic opportunities open up. The decrease in Arctic sea-ice has opened up new shipping routes, significantly decreasing transport time between East Asia and Europe, and will also allow more fishing within the sea. Large amounts of oil and gas are also thought to be held below the Arctic Sea and with the decrease in ice these are now becoming viable sources.
With the Arctic changing so rapidly, many are worried that the area may become exploited where the changes not effectively managed. The Arctic Resilience Report was set up in 2011 to assess the changes and their impacts on the Arctic, with an interim report published in May this year; the full report is due in 2015. Whatever their conclusions, it will always be a compromise between environment and economic concerns, and the Arctic will change regardless. The question is, what is the best way to manage it?
Friday, 12 July 2013
Ocean acidification: A global apocalypse?
This week I took part in an event at the Science Museum, London, where 9 scientists championed different possible mechanisms that could cause an apocalypse. I was asked to champion Ocean Acidification as a possible apocalypse and although most people had heard of the term, I was surprised to discover how few understood what is was and what its effects are.
Not quite a Hollywood scenario
What is ocean acidification?
Ocean acidification is caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolving into the surface waters of the oceans. This is a natural process, as the atmosphere and the oceans remain in a gaseous equilibrium. This means that the more carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere, the more carbon dioxide dissolves into the oceans.
When carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water it instantly separates into bicarbonate ions (HCO3-) and hydrogen ions (H+). This increase in hydrogen ions results in a lower pH, or an increase in acidity. The oceans have a natural buffering system, i.e. they have a mechanism that attempts to limit pH change. This mechanism is the carbonate ion which bonds with the hydrogen ion forming bicarbonate, thus preventing the hydrogen ion from decreasing pH. When the rate of carbon dioxide dissolution into the oceans outpaces the natural buffering mechanism, however, ocean acidification occurs.
Not quite a Hollywood scenario
The term "ocean acidification" is perhaps a misleading one. The oceans will never become an acid. Their pH will never drop below 7. You will never be able to throw a bad guy into the sea and watch his skin melt off due to ocean acidification. But that doesn't mean it's not serious for the critters living in the oceans.
pH is a logarithmic scale. This means that a small change in the pH number actually means a large change in real terms. Before the Industrial Revolution (c.1750) the average sea surface water pH was about 8.1, whereas now its 8.0 pH. This drop in pH represents a 30% increase in acidity. A further reduction to pH 7.8 is an increase of 150% in acidity.
It's not all about the measurement
However, it's not the pH of the oceans that is directly causing concern. The ocean's natural buffering mechanism uses carbonate ions. This means that as sea water acidity rises, the amount of carbonate left in the oceans decreases. Carbonate is an incredibly important molecule with everything from corals to shellfish to plankton using it to form their shells and skeletons.
With less carbonate available, the organisms struggle to build their carbonate skeletons and when they do succeed that carbonate is more likely to dissolve back into the sea water. If they cannot form their skeletons, they die. Larval (baby) forms are more likely to be affected by this as they are smaller (and so have a larger surface area) and have thinner shells (so less carbonate needs to dissolve to be disastrous).
Undersaturated and corrosive
Once the surface waters reach a pH of 7.9 the sea is said to be undersaturated with respect to aragonite, the least stable form of carbonate. Undersaturation means that any shells which are formed are very likely to be dissolved back into the sea water and that water is said to be corrosive to calcitic skeletons. Aragonite is used by snails, sea urchins and starfish, and a number of other shell fish in their shells. These corrosive effects can be reversed by decreasing the acidity and raising the pH; this can be done by adding shell and carbonate material (such as chalk) to an area, but is not practical on a large scale.
Has this happened before?
pH is a logarithmic scale. This means that a small change in the pH number actually means a large change in real terms. Before the Industrial Revolution (c.1750) the average sea surface water pH was about 8.1, whereas now its 8.0 pH. This drop in pH represents a 30% increase in acidity. A further reduction to pH 7.8 is an increase of 150% in acidity.
It's not all about the measurement
However, it's not the pH of the oceans that is directly causing concern. The ocean's natural buffering mechanism uses carbonate ions. This means that as sea water acidity rises, the amount of carbonate left in the oceans decreases. Carbonate is an incredibly important molecule with everything from corals to shellfish to plankton using it to form their shells and skeletons.
With less carbonate available, the organisms struggle to build their carbonate skeletons and when they do succeed that carbonate is more likely to dissolve back into the sea water. If they cannot form their skeletons, they die. Larval (baby) forms are more likely to be affected by this as they are smaller (and so have a larger surface area) and have thinner shells (so less carbonate needs to dissolve to be disastrous).
Undersaturated and corrosive
Once the surface waters reach a pH of 7.9 the sea is said to be undersaturated with respect to aragonite, the least stable form of carbonate. Undersaturation means that any shells which are formed are very likely to be dissolved back into the sea water and that water is said to be corrosive to calcitic skeletons. Aragonite is used by snails, sea urchins and starfish, and a number of other shell fish in their shells. These corrosive effects can be reversed by decreasing the acidity and raising the pH; this can be done by adding shell and carbonate material (such as chalk) to an area, but is not practical on a large scale.
Has this happened before?
Scientists think ocean acidification has happened before, approximately 200 million years ago at the end of the Triassic. Huge volcanic eruptions released large volumes of carbon dioxide over a relatively short timescale (<100,000 years), and the rise in temperatures also mobilised the frozen methane clathrates. Methane also removes carbonate from the oceans in the same manner as carbon dioxide.
This volcanic-induced ocean acidification, as shown by the global disappearance of carbonate rock of that age, resulted in a mass extinction where an estimated 80% of species disappeared and an absence of coral reefs for around 8-10 million years. Eventually the sea surface waters returned to a normal pH as the natural buffering system caught up and large-scale sea circulation transported the carbon dioxide to the deep sea where it was neutralised by sediments, but this took approximately 10,000 years.
So what lies ahead?
This volcanic-induced ocean acidification, as shown by the global disappearance of carbonate rock of that age, resulted in a mass extinction where an estimated 80% of species disappeared and an absence of coral reefs for around 8-10 million years. Eventually the sea surface waters returned to a normal pH as the natural buffering system caught up and large-scale sea circulation transported the carbon dioxide to the deep sea where it was neutralised by sediments, but this took approximately 10,000 years.
So what lies ahead?
The rate of carbon dioxide release from the volcanoes at the end of the Triassic is small compared to the current anthropogenic rate of release. Since 1750 carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased from approximately 280 ppm (parts per million) to 400 ppm with a corresponding drop in sea surface pH of 0.1. It has been estimated that by the time carbon dioxide levels reach 560 ppm the surface waters of the Southern Ocean will be undersaturated with respect to aragonite and the pH reduced to 7.9.
Cold water can absorb more carbon dioxide more easily than warm water so northerly and southerly oceans are going to be more adversely affected. Already in parts of the Arctic Ocean the pH has dropped briefly to 7.9 and some species (such as pteropods, a swimming snail) are struggling to form their shells. The growth rate in corals is also dropping as the pH decreases. The organisms which are going to be worst affected are some of the most crucial - those that make up a large part of the plankton which forms the base of the ocean's food chain. Most oceanic organisms spend the larval part of their life cycle in the plankton, so many many species are going to be affected.
Members of the public at the Science Museum event were asking me "So what can we do to prevent this?". My response could not be a positive one. It's already happening and the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is still increasing. One way to combat ocean acidification may be to add large amounts of carbonate material, dug up from quarries on land or created in a laboratory, to the oceans but both of these activities add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and are very costly. So I guess the question is, how much are we willing to do to save our oceans, and is it already too late?
Cold water can absorb more carbon dioxide more easily than warm water so northerly and southerly oceans are going to be more adversely affected. Already in parts of the Arctic Ocean the pH has dropped briefly to 7.9 and some species (such as pteropods, a swimming snail) are struggling to form their shells. The growth rate in corals is also dropping as the pH decreases. The organisms which are going to be worst affected are some of the most crucial - those that make up a large part of the plankton which forms the base of the ocean's food chain. Most oceanic organisms spend the larval part of their life cycle in the plankton, so many many species are going to be affected.
Members of the public at the Science Museum event were asking me "So what can we do to prevent this?". My response could not be a positive one. It's already happening and the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is still increasing. One way to combat ocean acidification may be to add large amounts of carbonate material, dug up from quarries on land or created in a laboratory, to the oceans but both of these activities add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and are very costly. So I guess the question is, how much are we willing to do to save our oceans, and is it already too late?
Friday, 28 June 2013
Carbon reduction: who picks up the tab?
In order to help curb global warming, the UK Government has set a target of an 80% reduction in total carbon emissions by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. If we are going to reach this target, someone is going to have to pay. The question is, who should it be?
The Problem
In 2008 the energy sector accounted for around 28% of the total UK greenhouse gas emissions, but it has the potential to become carbon neutral. The Committee on Climate Change estimates investment costs in the energy sector needed to reduce emissions will reach up to £16bn annually, compared to £2bn average annual investment in the electricity sector in the early 2000s, and the money has to come from somewhere.
So, which groups could bear the cost? It comes down to four possibilities: energy companies, industry and businesses, taxpayers, and consumers.
Unfortunately, energy intensive businesses and industries are already feeling threatened by the carbon tax, consumers and voters are complaining of being in the “squeezed middle”, whilst 21% of households are already said to be in “fuel poverty”; there is no obvious candidate to bear the investment costs required.
He who uses most, pays most?
Many would argue that a fair way of sharing the cost would be for those who produce the carbon emissions, or the big users of the electricity which created the emissions, should pay for the changes as it is they who are causing the problem. The cost of the emission reduction schemes could be divided up proportionally based on the quantity of electricity each uses and added to their electricity bills. This means the energy companies, energy intensive industries and large businesses would initially bear the majority of the cost.
However, it soon becomes clear that this would not be feasible. Energy companies, industry and businesses need to make money; it is part of the legally binding agreement with their stake holders, and not to do so would spell disaster for the company. The companies also need to remain competitive within the global market, with the possibility of industry moving abroad if production costs are substantially higher in the UK. Therefore, any costs associated with changing to become more carbon efficient will be passed on to their consumers rather than affecting the company’s profit margins. By passing the cost directly on to the consumer, those on a lower income will be more adversely affected as their energy bill will represent a larger proportion of their total income.
Taxation
Perhaps, then, taxation is a better way to pay for the changes needed. Government taxation brackets aim to alleviate this proportion problem by charging those who buy more, and those on a higher wage, a higher rate of tax. However, there have already been a number of taxation rises in the UK in the past couple of years, including a VAT rise from 17.5% to 20%, rises in the alcohol duty rate, and the recently proposed “hot food tax”. The latter caused such a stir in the general population that it was binned before reaching the serving counter. People become unhappy when they have to pay more tax or pay more for goods and services so the creation of a “Green Energy Tax” would undoubtedly be unpopular, especially if added onto the cost of electricity, and the government strives to please the greatest number of voters, especially around the time of elections.
A problem of time
A major stumbling block for many carbon emission reduction initiatives is the long timescales needed for investment. Governments only remain in power for four years before another election, and ministers and civil servants change posts, especially over a 40 year timespan. This means that decisions made by one person can be changed by the next incumbent of the post, unless the decisions are enshrined in law, which is very unusual. The carbon emission reduction scheme was enshrined in law, but the long timescale proposed for the changes means those making the decisions may be tempted to put off the cost of the scheme until it becomes the next person’s problem.
Private investors are also less likely to be interested in such schemes with too great a period between investment and possible returns, especially if government policy is not seen to be consistent, making returns less certain.
Global warming is a slow process too and the real effects will not be felt until it is too late. There is also no unanimity among the governments of the world on the need for a cut in carbon emissions, its urgency, or its extent. Without global consensus and a view of political exigency it is very easy for UK governments to avoid ensuring the costs are met for the carbon reduction schemes if that means making themselves unpopular with voters, or if it means making the UK’s industries less competitive in the global market, especially in the current economic climate.
So the question of who will pay for the changes required to prevent large-scale global warming is not a simple one. The bill will probably fall to the taxpayer if the target is to be met, but the government then has to decide between a short-term more favourable economic climate or a long-term more favourable global climate. If the government chooses the planet over the economy, they have the choice of raising taxes further, or moving money away from another area to direct it to carbon efficiency. Whatever is decided, it affects us all, because we all will pay.
The Problem
In 2008 the energy sector accounted for around 28% of the total UK greenhouse gas emissions, but it has the potential to become carbon neutral. The Committee on Climate Change estimates investment costs in the energy sector needed to reduce emissions will reach up to £16bn annually, compared to £2bn average annual investment in the electricity sector in the early 2000s, and the money has to come from somewhere.
So, which groups could bear the cost? It comes down to four possibilities: energy companies, industry and businesses, taxpayers, and consumers.
Unfortunately, energy intensive businesses and industries are already feeling threatened by the carbon tax, consumers and voters are complaining of being in the “squeezed middle”, whilst 21% of households are already said to be in “fuel poverty”; there is no obvious candidate to bear the investment costs required.
He who uses most, pays most?
Many would argue that a fair way of sharing the cost would be for those who produce the carbon emissions, or the big users of the electricity which created the emissions, should pay for the changes as it is they who are causing the problem. The cost of the emission reduction schemes could be divided up proportionally based on the quantity of electricity each uses and added to their electricity bills. This means the energy companies, energy intensive industries and large businesses would initially bear the majority of the cost.
However, it soon becomes clear that this would not be feasible. Energy companies, industry and businesses need to make money; it is part of the legally binding agreement with their stake holders, and not to do so would spell disaster for the company. The companies also need to remain competitive within the global market, with the possibility of industry moving abroad if production costs are substantially higher in the UK. Therefore, any costs associated with changing to become more carbon efficient will be passed on to their consumers rather than affecting the company’s profit margins. By passing the cost directly on to the consumer, those on a lower income will be more adversely affected as their energy bill will represent a larger proportion of their total income.
Taxation
Perhaps, then, taxation is a better way to pay for the changes needed. Government taxation brackets aim to alleviate this proportion problem by charging those who buy more, and those on a higher wage, a higher rate of tax. However, there have already been a number of taxation rises in the UK in the past couple of years, including a VAT rise from 17.5% to 20%, rises in the alcohol duty rate, and the recently proposed “hot food tax”. The latter caused such a stir in the general population that it was binned before reaching the serving counter. People become unhappy when they have to pay more tax or pay more for goods and services so the creation of a “Green Energy Tax” would undoubtedly be unpopular, especially if added onto the cost of electricity, and the government strives to please the greatest number of voters, especially around the time of elections.
A problem of time
A major stumbling block for many carbon emission reduction initiatives is the long timescales needed for investment. Governments only remain in power for four years before another election, and ministers and civil servants change posts, especially over a 40 year timespan. This means that decisions made by one person can be changed by the next incumbent of the post, unless the decisions are enshrined in law, which is very unusual. The carbon emission reduction scheme was enshrined in law, but the long timescale proposed for the changes means those making the decisions may be tempted to put off the cost of the scheme until it becomes the next person’s problem.
Private investors are also less likely to be interested in such schemes with too great a period between investment and possible returns, especially if government policy is not seen to be consistent, making returns less certain.
Global warming is a slow process too and the real effects will not be felt until it is too late. There is also no unanimity among the governments of the world on the need for a cut in carbon emissions, its urgency, or its extent. Without global consensus and a view of political exigency it is very easy for UK governments to avoid ensuring the costs are met for the carbon reduction schemes if that means making themselves unpopular with voters, or if it means making the UK’s industries less competitive in the global market, especially in the current economic climate.
So the question of who will pay for the changes required to prevent large-scale global warming is not a simple one. The bill will probably fall to the taxpayer if the target is to be met, but the government then has to decide between a short-term more favourable economic climate or a long-term more favourable global climate. If the government chooses the planet over the economy, they have the choice of raising taxes further, or moving money away from another area to direct it to carbon efficiency. Whatever is decided, it affects us all, because we all will pay.
Friday, 21 June 2013
Science specialisation - is it a good thing?
A recent article on the BBC's Point Of View by Tom Shakespeare (Fly, Fish, Mouse and Worm) caught my attention. The article discusses the "specialisation" of science, for example only studying a single species or a single gene, compared to the broader approach our predecessors took. Tom argues "synthesisers" are now needed, people who can bring together information from different disciplines or different areas within a single discipline in order to combat larger global problems, such as rapid species loss.
Specialisation is prevalent within the academic community, but it has both advantages and limitations to science. Most academic subjects are decades to centuries old, with a large knowledge base and many papers and books published on each area. As time passes, more knowledge is gained and the science advances. However, the amount of knowledge required to know a subject in depth also increases. To prevent an information overload, therefore, researchers specialise into one area.
With the dawn of the internet, speed of communication and dispersal of ideas have also increased, with more papers published in all subject areas. Specialisation allows researchers to stay in touch with current understanding, models or experimental methods. It also reduces competition and direct overlap between researchers as work becomes unpublishable if another person has already published the same results using the same method. If each lab uses a slightly different technique, this allows corroboration of results by another lab, whilst remaining publishable.
Single genes or species are often studied to gain a better understanding of a single variable; the results gained through the specilised study are then extrapolated to the form a bigger picture and further our understanding of a very complex system. By studying a single variable that complexity can be reduced to a manageable set of controlling factors which can then be investigated. The limitation, however, is that scientists are never certain how far the extrapolation can go before the conclusions become incorrect, with possible unaccounted-for variables coming into play.
On one hand specilisation can make science manageable, but it can also be overly limiting. By restricting reading to within their direct field of research, academics can be unaware of advances and techniques in another area which may be beneficial. Communication between different academic subjects can also be impaired by different methodologies, names and acronyms, whilst researchers within a subject may develop a misconstrued idea that their own research area is the most important. Specialised grant bodies who only award money to researchers directly working in specific fields can also limit scientific advancement by only awarding funding to "fashionable" subjects. This can result in the clumping of scientists around one small area of a subject and the bottle-necking of ideas, whilst other areas are neglected due to lack of funds.
Teaching and outreach, communicating the science to members of the public, can also be adversely affected by specialisation because a general overview and good background knowledge are required to explain the subject and answer questions. Those researchers who are too specialised either find this a daunting task, as they try to explain topics not studied since undergraduates, or they do not effectively communicate the information because they fail to provide context and impart a wider understanding.
Many of the greatest problems currently facing the world require collaboration between disciplines, such as flooding, world hunger, species loss and climate change. Tom, in his article, argues this is where "synthesisers" need to come in. I tend to agree that people who can bridge the gap between disciplines may be a good thing, but I also think all researchers need to be encouraged to look beyond their field of study and to build new collaborations between departments. I believe academia is moving down this route, slowly, with a greater push from young researchers for more outreach and open access journals, both of which increase the flow of knowledge and allow access to a wider audience with a wider range of ideas. I wonder if specialisation may be where some of the resistance to these movements originates, with academics afraid either of appearing to not know enough, or from the idea that someone may steal their niche. Change is afoot but, as with any ingrained doctrine which has developed over many years, change takes a very long time.
Specialisation is prevalent within the academic community, but it has both advantages and limitations to science. Most academic subjects are decades to centuries old, with a large knowledge base and many papers and books published on each area. As time passes, more knowledge is gained and the science advances. However, the amount of knowledge required to know a subject in depth also increases. To prevent an information overload, therefore, researchers specialise into one area.
With the dawn of the internet, speed of communication and dispersal of ideas have also increased, with more papers published in all subject areas. Specialisation allows researchers to stay in touch with current understanding, models or experimental methods. It also reduces competition and direct overlap between researchers as work becomes unpublishable if another person has already published the same results using the same method. If each lab uses a slightly different technique, this allows corroboration of results by another lab, whilst remaining publishable.
Single genes or species are often studied to gain a better understanding of a single variable; the results gained through the specilised study are then extrapolated to the form a bigger picture and further our understanding of a very complex system. By studying a single variable that complexity can be reduced to a manageable set of controlling factors which can then be investigated. The limitation, however, is that scientists are never certain how far the extrapolation can go before the conclusions become incorrect, with possible unaccounted-for variables coming into play.
On one hand specilisation can make science manageable, but it can also be overly limiting. By restricting reading to within their direct field of research, academics can be unaware of advances and techniques in another area which may be beneficial. Communication between different academic subjects can also be impaired by different methodologies, names and acronyms, whilst researchers within a subject may develop a misconstrued idea that their own research area is the most important. Specialised grant bodies who only award money to researchers directly working in specific fields can also limit scientific advancement by only awarding funding to "fashionable" subjects. This can result in the clumping of scientists around one small area of a subject and the bottle-necking of ideas, whilst other areas are neglected due to lack of funds.
Teaching and outreach, communicating the science to members of the public, can also be adversely affected by specialisation because a general overview and good background knowledge are required to explain the subject and answer questions. Those researchers who are too specialised either find this a daunting task, as they try to explain topics not studied since undergraduates, or they do not effectively communicate the information because they fail to provide context and impart a wider understanding.
Many of the greatest problems currently facing the world require collaboration between disciplines, such as flooding, world hunger, species loss and climate change. Tom, in his article, argues this is where "synthesisers" need to come in. I tend to agree that people who can bridge the gap between disciplines may be a good thing, but I also think all researchers need to be encouraged to look beyond their field of study and to build new collaborations between departments. I believe academia is moving down this route, slowly, with a greater push from young researchers for more outreach and open access journals, both of which increase the flow of knowledge and allow access to a wider audience with a wider range of ideas. I wonder if specialisation may be where some of the resistance to these movements originates, with academics afraid either of appearing to not know enough, or from the idea that someone may steal their niche. Change is afoot but, as with any ingrained doctrine which has developed over many years, change takes a very long time.
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
Welcome
Hello!
Welcome to my blog where science covering everything from volcanoes to oil production to climate change will be discussed.
I am a PhD student based in London interpreting environmental conditions 200 million years ago and investigating how those conditions affect what we see now in the rocks and its effects on our understanding of our climate and oceans.
My interests are far-ranging and varied with an overall theme of "The Natural World".
I hope you enjoy my musings.
Naomi
Welcome to my blog where science covering everything from volcanoes to oil production to climate change will be discussed.
I am a PhD student based in London interpreting environmental conditions 200 million years ago and investigating how those conditions affect what we see now in the rocks and its effects on our understanding of our climate and oceans.
My interests are far-ranging and varied with an overall theme of "The Natural World".
I hope you enjoy my musings.
Naomi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)