This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Arguing with Rocks

David Levy's picture
University of Massachusetts, Boston (UMB)

David L. Levy received his doctorate from Harvard Business School and is now a Professor of Management and Chair of the Department of Management and Marketing at the University of Massachusetts...

  • Member since 2018
  • 47 items added with 12,710 views
  • Apr 19, 2011 6:43 am GMT
  • 646 views

Your access to Member Features is limited.

Review of: Challenged by Carbon: The Oil Industry and Climate Change, by Bryan Lovell. Cambridge University Press (2009)

This review was first published in International Affairs Volume 87, Issue 2,pages 467–520, March 2011

By David L. Levy

You cannot argue with rocks. This is the crux of Bryan Lovell’s argument in Challenged by Carbon, a book that combines a geological case for taking climate change seriously with an insider’s tale of the evolution of the oil industry’s stance on the issue. Lovell is a renowned geologist with degrees from Oxford and Harvard, and after a fifteen year career working with BP, is currently a senior research fellow at Cambridge and President of the Geological Society of London. The oil industry is, of course, responsible for emission of vast quantities of greenhouse gases and the major US-based companies have historically anchored corporate opposition to regulating carbon. After presenting the ominous evidence inscribed in the rocks about the severity of our climate problem, a more optimistic Lovell argues that the oil industry can also be part of the solution, by deploying its political prowess, financial resources, and technological expertise. He makes the case that sequestration, or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), is a feasible and cost effective solution for a significant portion of emissions.

Lovell explains how recent progress in geological science enables relatively high-definition dating of rock to within timescales of thousands, rather than millions, of years. Analysis of these long-buried rocks has revealed a dire warning for our industrial civilization. Around 55 million years ago, over 1000 gigatonnes of carbon (GTC) were released into the atmosphere during a short period, geologically speaking, of around 10,000 years. This coincided with an unprecedented warming of the planet, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Ocean temperatures rose by 4-5 degrees Celsius, , mass extinctions of animal and plant life occurred, and it took nearly 200,000 years for the climate to settle down. We humans have already added about 300 GTC to the atmosphere in the last two centuries, and currently add about nine more every year.

You cannot argue with rocks, but you can argue with the interpretation of data encoded in them. For those like myself already convinced of the science of climate change, based atmospheric science and simulations, the geological evidence is further proof, if any was needed. Lovell sets out the scientific case in a reasonably accessible way, though I suspect there is much more intriguing story to be told about the evolution of the science, the debates amongst the geologists, and the realization of the dramatic import of the secrets in the ancient rocks. Lovell’s treatment of the evidence, however, is neither a compelling narrative nor particularly persuasive. Exploring the subject in the authoritative blog RealClimate.org, I found that there are still large areas of uncertainty in the data and their interpretation.[1] Ten thousand years is a long time in climate politics. The total carbon released might have been up to 3000 GT, and with the higher levels of atmospheric CO2 at the time, even this represents less than doubling of the level. We don’t know enough about other influences on climate at the time, especially the more complex feedback effects among clouds, forests and ice cover.

In the most original section of the book, Lovell traces the role of geologists in BP in shifting the direction of the company. In January 1997, David Jenkins, BP’s Director of Technology and former Chief Geologist, sent a memo to BP’s managing directors emphasizing both the scientific and business case for climate change. This process culminated with CEO John Browne’s historic speech at Stanford University in May 1997, in which Browne broke ranks with the industry by acknowledging the reality of climate change and pledging to take steps to address it. Lovell makes the case that BP was particularly open to the influence of geologists because of the centrality of the discipline in the oil business and the consequent respect for their expertise, especially from internal corporate scientists. This resonates with findings from my own research (together with Professor Sandra Rothenberg) on industry’s response to climate change, which points to the importance of the organizational channels that filter and legitimize particular perspectives. At Exxon, Brian Flannery, a respected atmospheric scientist and a climate skeptic, led a highly centralized strategy team that left little room for debate. European companies, by contrast, lacked internal expertise in atmospheric science, and so relied more on outside scientists who hewed to the mainstream consensus.

Geologists also feature as Lovell’s heroes in finding ways to bury carbon back underground. The same technological expertise that is used to locate and extract oil and gas can be applied toward long-term storage in underground reservoirs, giving companies an economic interest in developing the process. Lovell the geologist points out that storage in existing oil and gas reservoirs is relatively straightforward but limited in potential scale. Far greater capacity is available in saline aquifers, though he acknowledges that the permanence and side effects are uncertain. If Lovell’s strength is geology, he falters, however, in making a clear business case for the commercial viability of CCS. He cites one study showing that CCS might add 1 to 5 cents per kilowatt hour to the cost of coal-fired power, which might be viable at the low end but more than doubles the cost of electricity at the high end. Various cost estimates for CCS are given, from $6 to $10 per tonne, though he notes that a carbon price of $50 per tonne would be needed to make it viable. Aside from the confusion of numbers, Lovell doesn’t comment on the political challenge of securing a carbon price this high, at least in the US context.

Lovell could be a very influential player in the climate debate as an oil industry expert and former inside. Despite his knowledge of the rocks, this book unfortunately suffers from uneven and inelegant style and structure, wandering from a fifteen page verbatim report on a public BP-Exxon debate to Edinburgh South election results and Hertfordshire Puddingstone, complete with pictures in case readers are unfamiliar with these rocks. Notably, Lovell recognizes that industry needs a push to take action.  Proclaiming that “Earth is not for negotiation”, Lovell advocates passionately for climate Keynesianism, stronger governmental policies and international institutions to create the incentives and regulations to steer corporate strategies. Climate policy is in disarray, however, and even a rock solid case does not seem to overcome the political obstacles to action.


[1] See, for example, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/petm-weirdness/#more-758

Photo by porah.

 

David Levy's picture
Thank David for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
David Lewis's picture
David Lewis on Apr 20, 2011

“Lovell’s voice is a new one on the climate change stage…” says Princeton’s Socolow.  Lovell’s book should interest anyone taking part in the climate debate.  I wrote up a review of it last year.  

Re:  the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.  Here is a graphic showing the planetary temperature for the last 80 million years:  It shows a warm planet around the time of the dinosaurs, a sudden PETM spike in planetary temperature at 55 million years before the present time, followed by a more or less steady cooling. 

There is greater confidence in what the temperature was around the 55 million year mark than there is in explanations of what precisely triggered it.  Note the projections for planetary temperature extending out from today on the right side of this chart.  The time scale is different on the right hand side of zero.  

The PETM is thought to have been caused by a rapid increase in greenhouse gases that happened over a geologically speaking very short 10,000 year period.  The rate of increase of these gases today is, depending on exactly how much C anyone thinks was added 55M years ago, is about 100 – 300 times faster.  The fact that the PETM happened, and the fact that today’s rate of GHG increase is several orders of magnitude faster is what convinced Lovell and his fellow geologists/oil executives in Europe that civilization simply cannot allow this process to continue. The PETM confirms that very large feedbacks can occur as carbon is added to the atmosphere that can magnify the consequences in terms of planetary temperature as much as this.  

I’m not sure US based climate activists are aware that senior executives in the biggest oil companies in Europe see as clearly as this that action to limit climate change is imperative.  The executives believe that what Hansen calls the “hammer blow” of a sudden injection of carbon into the atmosphere as the fossil fuels are consumed will cause something like the PETM.  One thing that seems clear is that on today’s cooler planet with its slightly hotter Sun, that much carbon will have greater impact.  

Lovell’s theory, i.e. what he says the rocks are telling him, is that an uplift of the floor of the North Sea 55 million years ago destabilized methane deposits nearby.  This methane entered the atmosphere, which started warming the planet relatively quickly, which then triggered the very large release of carbon either as more methane or as CO2 that drove the PETM.  (see Dickens et.al. “The Blast in the Past“)   It doesn’t matter if Lovell’s theory about what triggered the PETM is correct.  The PETM happened.  

Lovell warns that now that we understand that the PETM actually happened, there is a stark lesson there for human civilization.  Quoting him:  “The planet has already demonstrated the damaging effects on life on Earth of releasing rapidly a large volume of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere“.  – page 11.   He writes about the threat as to our existence as a species:  “Releasing carbon at the rate we are now doing… is a real threat for Homo sapiens”  p 41.   It is refreshing to hear a former senior oil executive tell us other senior executives believe this.  You almost start to think, if only for a nanosecond, that civilization might have a chance.  

The article you cite from RealClimate was written by NASA G.I.S.S. climate modeller Gavin Schmidt to clarify the significance of the Zeebe et al paper which pointed out that today’s accepted range of values for climate sensitivity must be low given that the PETM happened and given possible known causes for it.  Gavin discusses climate sensitivity here.  Gavin writes that he felt this clarification was necessary as the Zeebe et.al. paper had been seized upon by (I quote from him) “know nothings” who were trumpeting in the blogosphere that the paper was actually “the final nail in the coffin for alarmist global warming science”.  Duh.  Gavin pointed out what the gist of Zeebe et al was: if Zeebe is correct we have underestimated what is in store for us as we continue to add more carbon to the atmosphere. This is part of the lesson scientists are drawing from the discovery of how quickly and how much temperature changed at the PETM.  Gavin chose the title “PETM Weirdness” to describe how weird it was to see the deniers seize upon the Zeebe paper and so badly misunderstand it. It seems as if you took from Gavin’s discussion that Lovell doesn’t know what he is talking about.  Gavin doesn’t discuss Lovell’s hypothesis about the North Sea sea floor uplift as a possible trigger except in passing.  He says the more “fascinating question” for him is to try to nail down how the methane released as Lovell says it was could elevate the temperature of the planet, especially at the poles, in the ways paleoclimate evidence suggests it was.  He refers to a paper he wrote with Shindell.  

I agree with you that Lovell could be influential, if more people became aware of who he is and why he changed his mind about climate.  

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »