A dirty relationship

I went to see Cabot Institute Artist in Residence Neville Gabie’s Archiving Oil installation in the Basement Stores of Geology last night (16 May 2013).  It’s pretty cool to be down in the depths of the Wills Memorial Building at the University of Bristol and I can safely assure you I saw no ghosts.  I started off by going into a lift and as the doors opened into the basement, there was an eerie darkness with a bright light emanating from a creepy corner.  A man dressed in white was in front of me and he was pouring a sticky black substance into buckets.  A distinctly thick, gloopy and dirty sound filled my ears.  I promise you it wasn’t a ghost but the image in front of me was quite harrowing. 

We use oil in everything we do and here was oil in its bare nakedness – black, shiny, thick, dirty.  I stopped and stared for a while, mesmerised by the horribleness of the clean white background being splatted with this dirty substance.  When you see oil like this, you know deep down that there is something quite sinister about it. I moved on to the next area, walking past rows of wooden drawers filled with items including fossils, meteorites, and geological rock formations.  These things had been dug out of the ground and were possibly millions of years old...just like oil.  

Around the corner was a group of people on hand to tell you about the exhibition including the organisers Neville Gabie (Cabot Institute Artist in Residence), Merle Patchett (Cultural Geographer at the Cabot Institute, University of Bristol) and Claudia Hildebrandt (Curator of the Geology Basement Stores).  I was given a torch and ushered into a dark storage area with wooden shelves towering above me.  In every nook and cranny was an interesting oily artefact with a story to tell.  The accompanying brochure put a personal touch to these stories especially when you find out each artefact and story comes from a Cabot Institute researcher whose goal is to do research to tackle the challenges of uncertain environmental change.  Uncertain environmental change has in large part been caused by oil.  Cities have grown, populations have risen, people want and need ‘stuff’ made from oil like cars, mobile phones, medicine, beauty products, clothing, toys, packaging etc etc...Oil was once embedded in bedrock and it is now deeply embedded in our lives.

My favourite bit of this dark storage area was a row of bottles of oil from different places in the world.  All different colours and interestingly all different smells, some potent, some sweet.  The smell of the Arabian oil – a strong diesel type smell - brought back memories of my childhood when I would greet my dad at the door when he came home from work.  He would smell of this oil as he worked as a mechanic and it was the thick gloopy Arabian stuff that could have been used for car and lorry engines that my dad would work on day in and day out.  However much I dislike oil and what it has done to the planet, I cannot deny the fact that I came from someone who had his hands covered in oil and therefore oil is as much a part of my history as it is anyone elses.

And this I realised is what the exhibition aims to do.  It aims to show us that our lives are all affected by oil and in so many different ways.  We may like to think we are ‘green’ and doing the right thing but actually we have a deeply embedded dirty relationship with oil that is unlikely to go away anytime soon...

------------------------------

If you missed out on this experience and you want to understand your connection with oil, Neville will be holding the exhibition again as the ‘Oil Common Room’ with a few new art pieces added.  This will be held during BIG Green Week over two evenings in June.  

Images from the exhibition on Flickr.   

This article was written by Amanda Woodman-Hardy, Cabot Institute 

Follow me on Twitter @cabotinstitute @Enviro_Mand

The nature of the beast - an APPCCG event on fracking and climate change

Caroline Lucas. Source: Give Me Strength

The term ‘fracking’ has a tendency to evoke strong feelings in many and the speakers at the APPCCG event were no different. As explained by the panel’s chair (Caroline Lucas the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion) the high level of enthusiasm for the exploration of shale gas across party lines in Westminster has led to concern. This concern is amongst not only those that question the safety of the technique itself but those who consider unconventional gas exploration/production to be counter intuitive to the UK’s attempts to reach its emission targets. Support for an early day moratorium on fracking (introduced by Caroline Lucas) has so far received support from a mere 25 MPs.

Fracking is a method used to release and extract unconventional gas. It involves injecting wells at high pressure with water, proppants, tracers and chemical additives to fracture the formation in which the gas is trapped. The technique is the subject of much controversy and it should be understood that the panel was structured in such a way that the speakers focussed on concerns surrounding fracking and consequently none were proponents of the technique.

Image of fracking taken from Occupy Denver

The environmental concerns that accompany drilling and fracking for unconventional gas were impressed upon the panel with Dr Mariann Lloyd Smith (Of the National Toxics Network in Australia) emphasising that due to the ‘nature of the beast’ a safe industry was an idealists dream. The best that could be hoped for was a regulatory system that ensured a safer industry developed. Such feeling is echoed in the UNEP global environmental alert of 2012 which stated that not all fracking safety/environmental concerns could be removed through regulation. Some examples of the prominent concerns are the contents of not only fracking fluids but also drilling fluids. The chemical content of these fluids were described as a mixture of chemicals some of which have failed to be assessed in terms of their use in the fracking process. Even with the level of these chemicals composing a very low percentage of the fluids themselves, the level of chemicals (in kg) that remain in the ground can reach high levels. (For further details and figures from the Australian experience see http://www.ntn.org.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/NTN-Toxics-in-UG-Activities-Briefing.pdf). In addition to such chemicals the naturally occurring contaminants that can be released during the process are a cause for concern particularly as exposure pathways mean that such materials have the potential to cause damage to land, people and livestock. 

It was not just health and environmental risks that were raised as prominent issues. The social costs of fracking and unconventional gas extraction were a key concern for many of the speakers. Eve McNamara (from the Ribble Estuary Against Fracking) emphasised that the community in West Lancashire have received no input from regulators and the authorities leaving them in a position where their only information resource is the actual company exploring for shale gas in the area, Cuadrilla. The lack of communication and consultation has meant that the only engagement the community has had with regulators has arisen from the proactive behaviour of REAF itself. The issue has sadly led to division in the community particularly in relation to the leasing of agricultural land where neighbouring farmers oppose the exploration for gas. 

The protection of the public interest is not just a concern for the communities affected by fracking. Tony Bosworth (Friends of the Earth) emphasised that the upcoming planning guidance and Environment Agency guidance as well as the regulations on fracking need to be based on the precautionary principle and full public consultation with a full EIA conducted for every application. So far, the provision of information, consultation and explanation of how the public interest is being protected is considered by FOE to be a failure.

John Broderick, Tyndall Centre

The question of whether the exploration and production of unconventional gas should be pursued in the UK is not only a question of environmental safety. Its implications for climate change and the UK’s emission targets are significant. Dr John Broderick (from the Tyndall Centre) emphasised that in seeking to reach our targets it is the cumulative emissions over a period of time that cause the degree of climate change we will experience.  It would seem that our probability of avoiding a greater than 2^oC rise in temperature is already history. As such the use of unconventional gas as a ‘transition’ would mean that the continued consumption of fossil fuels would require a drastically higher annual reduction in emissions in the future to compensate, leaving little room for any future emissions from fossil fuels. Whilst the US experience has arguable shown that US coal emissions have decreased since the production of US shale gas, the US’s coal production has remained constant simply resulting in the export of coal. Unless shale gas can prove to be a true substitute leaving the coal in the ground, the argument for shale as a replacement loses its force.  Overall, Dr Broderick’s central point was that we need to focus on leaving more fossil fuel in the ground if we are to meet emission targets and as such shale gas is incompatible with this aim. It is clear that he is not alone in this consideration with FOE clearly taking the stance that fracking and unconventional gas are simply a risk we should not take.

So what does the future hold for fracking? Will communities receive greater information and support? Will a safer industry be enough to quell concerns and will our desire for domestic gas trump our desire to reach our emission targets?

This blog post is by Joanne Hawkins.     

A PhD Researcher looking at the challenge of hydraulic fracturing: energy resilience, the environment and effective regulation at the University of Bristol Law School.

            

Joanne Hawkins, University of Bristol

The sinking Pacific – climate change and international aid in Tuvalu

Sarah Hemstock (University of the South Pacific) came to visit the Cabot Institute on 20 March 2013 and presented the case study “Impacts of international aid on climate change adaptation in Tuvalu”.  Here I sum up the main points raised by Sarah during her lecture.  Please note all figures mentioned below are from Sarah's talk.

Tuvalu

Climate change

Tuvalu is a microcosm for what is going on with climate change globally.  There are issues with waste management, sea level rise, politics, energy, food production and others.

Tuvalu grows taro, a staple carbohydrate which is sensitive to saltwater.  Due to rising sea levels, Tuvalu is affected by high tides called king tides.  These tides can contaminate agricultural land with saltwater and thus the staple crop will not grow.

Flood defences have been built by aid agencies to try to stop sea level rise.  Unfortunately they do not work as seawater bubbles up through the island at king tide, flooding the airport and villages.  There is now no fresh water and villages are completely dependent on collecting rainwater. 

International aid and the economy

Sarah began to explain why Tuvalu needs to move away from aid to become more self empowering.   She started to list the facts.  Globally, $140bn has been given to international aid between 1970 and 2010, it certainly is a lucrative business.  There are four agencies who accept international aid in the Pacific.  Three of these agencies have mandates for climate change, fisheries, GIS and mapping etc which prevents any market driven approach to getting aid.  Another problem with these agencies is their size.  For example, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)  has grown from 300 employees at its inception to 3000 today.  Large numbers of employees can see international aid going towards feeding these agencies rather than having a smaller administrative group and diverting the main bulk of funds to helping save the islands of the Pacific.  It could be argued that these large companies provide jobs for people in the Pacific, but in reality, these jobs are not very likely to go to people from the small island states such as Tuvalu (for which the aid is supposed to be for), which are isolated and poor.

Tuvalu has a weak economy. There is a lack of exports but a lot of imports to people who are not native to the island and want a little something from home.  83 % of Tuvalu’s energy comes from oil and a shocking 50% of Tuvalu’s annual GDP comes from aid.  People in Tuvalu are subsisting on less than $2 a day.  However, because Tuvalu receives a substantial amount of ‘aid’ they are recognised as a middle income country, but this aid does not filter down to the people and in fact Tuvalu should be considered as a low income country.

Tuvalu spends $6m on policy development, although these policies rarely do anything and could be considered a waste of money which could be better used in the community.  The amount of diesel used for electricity consumption has increased.  However, petrol usage has decreased, mainly due to people going back to using traditional canoes as they are cheaper to run. 

A desperate situation – a sinking community

Between 2004 and 2007, fossil fuel use increased by 21%.  Sarah felt that this was because funders ignore policy.  For example, a Japanese company gave Tuvalu three diesel energy generators.  Tuvalu asked for generators that could run on coconut oil in line with environmental policy but due to cost, the donators could not provide these.  Tuvalu couldn't afford to run the diesel generators so Japan donates $2m of oil every year to run them making Tuvalu totally dependent on donations for its energy supply.

There is no market, no money and no tourist industry in Tuvalu so there is no way of generating money.  It is an isolated island and boats to Fiji run every 5-6 weeks.  When weather is bad, food, oil and supplies are not delivered.

Sarah explained how there is no joined up thinking with international aid and no long term plans after the aid has disappeared.  An example of this is where water tanks were given to each home in Tuvalu and they were also made in Tuvalu.  The problem with the design was that it has a sealed top which meant it could not be stacked.  This meant it would have taken 25 years to get everyone a tank, as only six tanks would fit on each ship.  The good news was that they managed to get a barge to ship them out, but it is this lack of foresight which hampers the success of aid activities.

Sarah also mentioned how 35% of aid goes straight back to the company who gave the money to pay for ‘technical assistance’ and admin fees.  There are other fees which come out of international aid. In fact if aid was taken away from Tuvalu, it wouldn't affect the people much as the aid hardly reaches them anyway. 

Interestingly, the people of Tuvalu are extremely mentally resilient to the threat of climate change.  When asked if they would move off the island if climate change flooded their islands, they were determined to stay on the island no matter what.  When the question was framed in an economic sense, for example would they move off the island for work, they were more open to the idea of moving off the island.  This is a difficult ethical argument.  What right do we have to move the islanders to safety, to move them to a different country, culture and language when they do not want to go?

Climate change may be physically sinking the small low-lying islands of the Pacific, but it is the international aid agencies which are arguably sinking them beyond recovery.  A drastic change is needed in the management and distribution of international aid in order to save these dying islands from the rest of the world’s actions.

Listen again to Sarah Hemstock’s Cabot Institute seminar.

  

This blog was written by Amanda Woodman-Hardy, Cabot Institute