Friday, July 05, 2019

Rare Earths




Rare Earths
It’s Friday. It’s 5th July. I’m Anthony Day and yes it’s another Sustainable Futures Report. Welcome to you all - welcome to an increasing number of listeners all over the world.

This time I’m following up on rare earths - a topic I touched on a few episodes ago. Last month I attended a lecture on this as part of the York Festival of Ideas. I'll start by summarising what I learnt, but I subsequently had the opportunity to meet the presenter, Dr Alice Courvoisier, and the rest of this episode is a recording of our conversation. There is a full transcription of the interview on the blog. Thanks to my patrons whose support makes this possible. You'll find the blog at www.sustainablefutures.report as always. You can find out about being a patron at patreon.com/sfr. 
Rare Earths appear as Rare Earth Metals or Rare Elements and there are about 60 which are used in medical and defence industries as well as the whole range of electronics. While these minerals are relatively abundant they are not necessarily easy to extract. The CRM Alliance recognises 27 of them as critical raw materials and the British Geological Survey manages the SOS Minerals and SOS Rare projects.
An example is neodymium which makes powerful permanent magnets, typically used in wind turbines and electric vehicles. A 2 g magnet can lift 2 kg. Neodymium corrodes rapidly and is not generally recycled.
Significant quantities of hazardous waste are associated with the extraction of rare earths and 90% of the world’s production comes from China which is more relaxed than other nations about environmental controls. Indeed, fear of liability for pollution led to the suspension of rare earth extraction in the United States for some years. Mines have now been reopened including the Mountain Pass rare earths mine and the Red Dog Mine in Alaska. This latter site emits some 350 kg of toxins annually and is surrounded by tailing ponds which will need to be maintained in perpetuity. Materials removed in the course of mining and dumped in spoil heaps are open to the weather which may break them down and release other forms of pollution. The town of Kotzebue, 80 miles south of the Red Dog Mine which produces zinc and lead, is the most polluted community in the United States.
Lithium is well known as a component of batteries. Much of this material is extracted from brine on Bolivian salt flats. The process damages the health of the workers, pollutes the water and destabilises the water table. 
Tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold may in some cases be easier to extract, but these are the so-called conflict minerals where warlords, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, fight over their supply. The big users, Apple, Samsung, Google, Nokia, Huawei, Sony and the rest all claim to avoid conflict minerals but once they have travelled down the supply chain, been mixed with minerals from other places and processed into components it’s near-impossible to know where the original materials came from.
Anyway, as I said, I caught up with Alice Courvoisier in a coffee shop a few days after her lecture and asked her to tell me more. Dr Alice Courvoisier teaches Mathematics in the Department of Electronic Engineering at the University of York. Working with future engineers has sparked her interest for ethical and societal aspects of science and technology. She is a member of the Science and Technology Studies Unit (SATSU) and blogs at: ethicsinstem.blogspot.com.
We ended up with a very wide-ranging conversation.
Interview


Anthony: Well, Alice you work in the department of Electronic Engineering, so why are rare-earth metals of concern to you?

Alice: Because they're used in a lot of high technologies really, and especially in what we label as green technologies and anything that has to do with ICT, where there's a lot of electronics involved. So we've learned to use all those fancy materials that 30 years ago we didn't have any use for.

Anthony: I see. You mentioned there were about 60 of them, although you didn't actually cover all of them in the lecture that we went to.

Alice: No. So, the terminology is quite complicated. Rare earths, there's I think 17 of them. There’s the lanthanide series plus -- scandium and yttrium, I think, the ones that are just above them in the periodic table. These are what we call rare earth elements.

Now, rare metals is another type of classifications and it depends where you look. So it's something quite different. But what I mentioned is that we use a lot more of the elements of the periodic table than we used 50 years ago, really.

Anthony: Yes. I think the major points that you made were, first of all, they're rare, that's why they're called rare. When you find them they're very difficult to extract because they're not found in their pure form, they're found in compounds, aren't they?

Alice: Yes.

Anthony: And I think all the materials that you spoke about are recycled less than 1%?

Alice: That's right. So there's a few things. So, rare earths are actually not that rare in terms of abundance on the Earth's crust. But they're a lot more difficult to extract because, as you said, they're in composite materials and also, because they've got very similar chemical properties, they're very interchangeable. So even if you manage to separate the rare earth from the compounds, you need to separate them from each other, which involves a lot more -- I mean I don't know exactly what kind of procedures they use to do this -- but it's a lot more energy and material consuming to do that.

But for example, in terms of abundance, the elements that are the least abundant are like the platinoids, like platinum and those metals. But Neodymium, which is the one that's used to make very powerful magnets, as far as I remember it's as abundant as copper, for example in the earth's crust. But it might not be amenable that easily to extraction.

Anthony: Right. Okay.

Alice: So that's one of the differences. And the recycling, yes, recycling is very poor, but mainly because we use materials and metals in forms that are so much more mixed up and alloys, that it takes a lot of energy to actually break that up. I mean you think about copper wire, just remove the plastic, you're back to the copper. You think of an electronic printed circuit board, it's a lot more complicated.

Anthony: Yes. But, there's a risk I suppose that if you actually take an electronic circuit board and you process it to extract the gold for example, you may destroy some of the other....

Alice: That's right. So I don't know what else they're able to, you know, in the modern recycling processes, how they're able to extract of all the stuff or if they're just focused on one element and move from there. That I've no idea what the state of the art is.

Anthony: You mentioned the Fairphone and that is a modular mobile phone. You said that it was originally designed in order that people could avoid using conflict minerals, because some of these materials that we talked about come effectively from war zones, although the supply chain tends to blur exactly where they came from.

So the Fairphone has that objective, but the Fairphone is also modular so that individual parts of it can be replaced to extend the life. But do you know whether they've designed it to the extent that they can actually get individual materials out?

Alice: No, it's too complicated. Yeah, no, this is quite, I mean, I wouldn't know how they would manage to do something like that.

Anthony: So this is the difficulty. Because we are buying billions of electronic devices every year. And you could argue that it's fashion to some extent?

Alice: Yes, a lot.

Anthony: Yeah. So what do we do? What do we do? You said that the production of these materials is doubling every 15 years, I think, is that right?

Alice: Yes, well at the minute because consumption is increasing exponentially, also because of the need in emerging countries, where sometimes they actually don't have the infrastructure for landlines, so mobile phones have kind of leap-frogged the need for landlines. But also, it's not just a fashion thing, it's the pressure of the companies that are upgrading the software so the hardware needs to be upgraded, and all these kinds of things.

I mean, a friend of mine had a computer and the printer and when she upgraded the software on the computer, which needed to go to the next supported version, it couldn't talk to the printer anymore. So those kinds of things that were not helped by companies really.

Anthony: Yeah, yeah. But I just wonder how realistic that is as a problem, because I mean I've got computers, I've got phones, my newest item is four years old. The others are six, possibly eight years old. And there are constant software updates and they all continue to work and talk to printers.

Alice: Maybe it's not an Apple.

Anthony: Mine's an Apple.

Alice: Oh.

Anthony: Oh yes, all my things are Apple, yes, yes. But I fear it's planned obsolescence. You know that phrase, yes? Yes.

Alice: Yes, yes. But the reason... I haven't quite looked at that in much detail yet, but in the European law, they're trying to put the right to repair, so that the objects are made so that they can be opened and things can be replaced. And they're trying to put that into the legislation.

Anthony: Of course there's a big cloud on the horizon because a large amount of this material comes from China...

Alice: This is true.

Anthony: -- and there is a trade war brewing, and that could presumably be a very, very significant bargaining chip.

Alice: Yes.

Anthony: I think you mentioned also that they're beginning to mine these materials in the States again?

Alice: That's right, yeah. I mean especially, I mean it's because...

From a book written by a French journalist that I've read, there was a mine in California that was mining rare earth elements called the Mountain Pass Mine. But they had environmental problems and so they had to shut down their operations, I think in the late '90s, as far as I remember. And then same thing with a French company, everything was put to China because the Chinese had the cheap labor and they didn't mind the pollution at the time. So then China ended up with 95% of the monopoly on rare earth element production.

So after that, other countries realised, oops, this is not brilliant, because they're used in all of our electronics and obviously defence stuff as well, for those people that care about high tech weapons. So they want to secure their supply chains. So they ended up reopening the mines, whether they've changed their production methods so that it's more environmentally friendly, I have no idea. But mining and environment doesn't go well together.

Anthony: Well, indeed. You spoke about the Red Dog Mine. You also talked about Kotzebue, the town Kotzebue?

Alice: That's right.

Anthony: Eighty kilometres from the mine and yet the worst polluted city in the United States.

Alice: Yeah. Last summer I was working in Wales, in the path near the Rheidol Valley and there was a sign about how they were managing the pollution still from the lead mine that had been closed I don't know how many years before. So these things just stay.

You know, that's something I've understood preparing this, is we think of the rocks we blow up just as a pile of rock, but it's not a pile of rock anymore, it's not the same thing. It's waste in the sense that it's been blown to pieces, so there's a lot more surface area of the rug that's exposed and can react with the air, etc. So it can release elements such thorium, for example, in the case of rare earth mining, that is radioactive, leeches into the elements, when it was safely stored within the rock that we blew up.

Anthony: So you're starting when they do these excavations and they create these spoil heaps, it reacts with the atmosphere and the weather and presumably can pollute the water table and all sorts of things.

Alice: Exactly.

Anthony: It's things we just do not think about it. We just do not know about. But we are locked in aren't we? We're locked into an electronic age. And even if we say, right, well we're going to keep our phones and our computers longer, we can't, I don't think, turn around and say we're going to do without them, can we?

Alice: Well, I don't know, but at some point we might not have a choice.

Anthony: Why? Because...

Alice: Because we run out of material, because we run out of energy, because...

Anthony: Right. Is it likely that we will run out of some of these materials?

Alice: Well, Indium, which is not a rare earth element, but it's labeled as a rare metal, I've seen various estimates which can go down to 30 years. So in matters of decades and Indium is what allows your touchscreen to work.

Anthony: Okay, okay. But cannot be recycled?

Alice: Well, it could be recycled. But again, the process is under development and not on an industrial scale that I knew of at the minute.

Anthony: Yes. Do you know of anybody who is researching recycling of these materials?

Alice: Well, there are a lot more now. I don't know about in this country and in Europe, but in the States, they do a lot of researching and some people managed to find a process that recycles rare earths from hard drives, shattered hard drives. And in Japan they do a lot of research because they don't have the resources.

Anthony: Yes, yes. And this is academic research or commercial research?

Alice: Yeah, academic. Well, there's probably some commercial research as well because people are aware of those issues.

Anthony: Yes, yes.

Alice: So it's a difficult problem, but I mean we need to get out of this ridiculous growth and consumer society thing, which just leads us absolutely nowhere. And something that I didn't mention, but somehow flat screens everywhere, we could do without them without harming our lifestyles really.

Anthony: You mean flatscreens in the street and all sorts of things?

Alice: Yeah, exactly. And in cafes. So I was in the cafe at the university where they have the flatscreen with the news, and they were talking about 5G coming up in London. So we were all of us presented as consumers who would be so much more happy if we can download textbooks in like seconds rather than minutes. Whereas to be honest, most of us wouldn't care. All we want is clean air and clean water. That's not part of the equation. They're happier selling us circuits, rather than the important stuff.

Anthony: Yes, yes, yes, yes. I think you also mentioned that you're a bit skeptical of electric cars because we would just end up with electrified traffic jams, instead of petrol powered ones.

Alice: Yeah, exactly. I mean that's one aspect. But that's the aspect that we can't imagine a life without cars. And people who have cars and have been relying on cars for forever, they just can't imagine. If you see the adverts with cars, if it's not with a woman, it's with the nice landscape that you're going to escape to. It's not the reality, but it's so tied in our minds with that kind of aspect of freedom to go wherever we want, whenever we want, that if you remove the car then you feel like you remove the freedom. So psychologically we're kind of locked into this, and obviously then physically there's all the infrastructure, all the habits and the way we work. But I'm not saying electric cars won't have a role to play, I'm just saying that replacing all the cars we have by electric cars is just an impossibility.

Anthony: Yes. So what shall we do? What should we do and what's your solution?

Alice: Sobriety, that has to come first before we...

Anthony: Expand on that a bit? Sobriety?

Alice: Well, use less, consume less. Because there's a lot of stuff we use and we do that we don't really need. I mean, do we need wind power to power advertising screens? Do we need to have those mini Christmas lights at night, do the shops need to have their lights on at night?

Anthony: I mean if you read the press reports, Mrs May has said that we must aim for zero carbon by 2050 and far as I understand it, the way to it is economic growth. I have to read that in more detail to see if that's exactly what she said. But is that the way or not?

Alice: I'm not an economist, but no, I honestly don't think it's the way. I think we need to simplify our lifestyles. When they're talking about economic growth, I think my understanding of it, which might be wrong, but that's my understanding, is that they need to generate surplus so that the money generated can be reinvested into the green strand of things. But you look at the industrial strategy, "green" means electric cars, automated transport, which again, we should all be replanting gardens. That's what we should be doing.

Anthony: You think the current green philosophy is doing exactly what we're doing at the moment, but just doing it in a different way.

Alice: Yeah. I mean just simplifying the way we live, consuming less, using less and holding those companies to account that are destroying the planet. Because, I mean we're responsible in the sense that we are here now able to do something, but you know, we're all locked into this ridiculous system that is just destroying the planet, there's no other way to put it.

Anthony: How realistic do you think it is to change the attitude of people who for the last generations have been brought up to believe that consumerism is the way forward, that standards of living must always rise, and which generally means more things to be bought and all that sort of thing. How are we actually going to be able to create the social change to create the changes that you feel we need?

Alice: I don't know, is the answer.

Anthony: I think that's my reaction as well. I don't know either.

Alice: The first thing is we need to tell the truth. You know, I think that Extinction Rebellion have a point with that, it's telling the truth. And it's not just about climate change, it's about telling the whole truth, telling how our culture has basically completely raped the world and meet everyone believe that this was the only way forward to something called "progress" in big inverted commas. And I think we have realised that that's it. We're done. It's the end of our civilisation, it cannot carry on. We can't refer to some kind of technological mythology that in the future we'll be able to do this.

And I think we need to sober up on that aspect as well, not just supply chain or lifestyle, but sober up and stop thinking we're the bees knees as westerners and decolonize. Just say, look guys, we've made a mistake, tell the Chinese and the Indians who are trying to emulate us, saying, look, it's not the way forward, we are wrong.

Anthony: Yeah.

Alice: And I think that has to be the first step. It's a journey. I've lived in that system, I've been educated in that system. It took years to kind of realise that actually -- no.

Anthony: Do you think Extinction Rebellion is the way forward?

Alice: I don't know. But I think they've done an amazing job at raising awareness of the climate crisis and of engaging a lot of people that were struggling to find where to put their energy. And there is an event coming up in York...

Anthony: Indeed, on Friday.

Alice: -- on Friday, yeah.

Anthony: I'll be there.

Alice: Which will be well worth attending. I won't be there myself because I'll be in Wales already, but I know the people who have been working on it and it's pretty amazing all the work that's been done behind it. But as a movement, I think they need to learn a lot because they are very new. But in the ways they've managed to put the energy of the people who have been working on these topics for years together it's quite fantastic.

Anthony: Yes. Well, thank you very much for your thoughts on this. It shows that we start with rare earth metals but it's part of a much wider perspective and a lot of challenges we've got to deal with.

Alice: That's right. There was one thing I was... Because I was thinking about the Congo again and it's not so much rare earth they're mining as tin and tungsten and tantalum and these things, which could be labeled as rare metals. There is child labour, there are child soldiers, with all those issues around this. But, in a way I don't know what is the best way to tackle that. I mean Fairphone have built their phone based on willing to raise the awareness of conflict minerals. But I wonder whether a better way to tackle the issue would be to work on weapons exportation -- which is a completely different topic. But if they're fighting, it's because we're selling them weapons. So there's the two ends of the spectrum and I don't think that end can be disassociated from what's going on.

Anthony: Yes.

Alice: So it's not just an electronic supply chain problem, it's the whole rotten system -- let's create conflict so we can get the minerals for cheaper and sell them the weapons.

Anthony: Yes.

Alice: Sorry... I added that, but feel free to...

Anthony: Thank you very much indeed. I'll stop it there I think.


Dr Alice Courvoisier with some profound and challenging thoughts. Thank you very much for that.
I hope you find the Sustainable Futures Report challenging and interesting, and I’m always keen to have your comments. In fact, if you’re a patron I’m setting up an online discussion so that you can join in and share your ideas. Contact me via the Patreon site - patreon.com/sfr - if you would like to take part.
That’s enough for this week. There’s a whole raft of stories I could have added and I’m sure there will be even more next week.
I’ll be here - I hope you will.
Until then that was the Sustainable Futures Report and I’m Anthony Day.
Bye for now.



Sources
La guerre des métaux rares - Gillaume Pitron 



Friday, June 28, 2019

It Won't Go Away!

Find the podcast on iTunes https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-sustainable-futures-report/id313473372?mt=2, Stitcher, Spotify, SoundCloud or via www,susbiz.biz

It Won’t Go Away!
It's Friday, it's 28th June, I'm Anthony Day and this is your latest Sustainable Futures Report. Welcome. In the week when Network Rail told its staff that if they needed to travel on business they should not take the train if it was cheaper to fly, I bring you yet more on plastic pollution– It's just won't go away.
Can we cut carbon dioxide by using direct air capture? Patron Tom de Simone provides some clues. We look at global heating, heatwaves and melting ice caps. Are the fashion industry and the rise of artificial intelligence working against us? Client Earth had a musical windfall this week, a peaceful protester was manhandled from London’s Mansion House, they do things differently in Scotland and it could be OK to eat meat again - as long as it’s not made from animals.
Patrons Only
Now here’s a special announcement exclusively for patrons. I think it’s time we got together on line to share ideas and discuss pressing climate issues. I’m going to set something up and I’ll publish details to all patrons via the Patreon site very shortly. If you’d like to become a patron and support the Sustainable Futures Report with as little as $1 per month please go across to patreon.com/sfr for all the details.

Plastic Pollution
Have you been watching the BBC’s War on Plastic? The last episode was this week and you should be able to pick it up on BBC iPlayer if you’re in the UK. In case you don't have
time to catch up on iPlayer here are some points that I picked out of the last two episodes. 
Wipes
First they looked at wet wipes and surprised many people by revealing that most of these products are 85% plastic. They visited a sewage farm in Bristol where 16 tons of wet wipes had been extracted from the drains over a 3 1/2 day period. Apparently this is normal. 11 billion wipes are sold each year in the UK. The programme contacted the principal manufacturers of wipes: Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson and Kimberly-Clark. The first two did not respond while Kimberly-Clark offered to arrange an interview but then changed its mind. 
Abandoned not Recycled
In a previous episode we mentioned the vast amounts of abandoned recycling discovered in Malaysia. Local authority recycling bags made it quite clear that this rubbish had come from United Kingdom. The programme took the bags back to the local authority in question who were quite unable to respond and terminated the interview.
Micro-plastics
We've heard about micro-plastics and the programme looked at polyester and acrylic clothing and how these fabrics shed fibres every time they are washed. A single wash could release 700,000 fibres and while most of these will make their way into the oceans they discovered that there are more particles in the atmosphere than in any fish you may eat. There are plastic fibres in rainwater which are shed from clothing. These particles are found everywhere and are the type of particles that are capable of deep lung penetration. The long term health effects of this pollution are not yet known.
Production
In the latest episode the programme visited the INEOS plastics production factory at Grangemouth. There they produce between 60 and 70 billion plastic pellets, or nurdles, each day. They have a special fleet of ships which bring fracked gas from the United States as the raw material for production. Apart from the gas, the energy requirement for the plant was equivalent to the electricity consumption of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen combined. It's unsurprising then, that the plastics industry accounts for 15% of global carbon emissions. Plastic production is expected to increase by anything between four and six times by 2050. The reaction of the plant director to the problem of plastic pollution was that it could be curbed by recycling. In his view chemical recycling would be practical within two or three years, allowing scrapped plastic to become raw material in the circular manufacturing process.
Toys no Joke
We learnt that plastic toys, particularly those given away by restaurant chains like Burger King and McDonald's, cause recycling problems. It says on the pack that they can be recycled but a spokesman from the Recycling Association said that in practice they are often made from different plastics bonded together and while each could be recycled it is simply not cost-effective to break down these toys and separate the materials. These toys have to be manually separated from the waste stream, otherwise they contaminate it. We were told that McDonald's is the largest distributor of toys in the world and a straw poll of parents and children reveals that toys given away with a meal are likely to be thrown away very quickly. Two schoolgirls raised 160,000 signatures on a petition asking for these toys to be stopped. Having no reply to letters, the programme team took them to McDonald’s HQ to deliver the petition. They asked for the sustainability director and were told someone was coming down. 
Turned Off Site
He proved to be the security manager, who escorted them off site. Nice one, McDonald’s, to do that on prime time nationwide tv. They did eventually invite the girls back in to leave the petition at reception, but that was hardly a PR triumph.
The Minister Responds
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall visited Environment Secretary Michael Gove twice during the series and made him aware of the plastic pollution problem and its international dimension. At present producers pay 10% of disposal costs and local authorities pick up the rest. Gove agreed that producers should bear 100% and provided for that in his Waste and Recycling Strategy. That is not yet legislation. We need to be sure that the legislation goes through.
#take it back.
The series ended with a call to #take it back. To take back plastic to the supermarkets with your message written on it about what supermarkets should be doing about plastics. The closing shots of the programme showed celebrities including Sir David Attenborough writing out their messages.
Industry Response
While researching this piece I came across a statement from the Recycling Association called DON'T DISMISS RECYCLING EXPORTS ON THE BASIS OF A FEW BAD APPLES. 
“The export of recycled materials has a place in part of a global economy, but these need to be high-quality materials.
“After launching its Quality First campaign more than three years ago, our membership has committed to producing a high-quality secondary commodity and wants the rest of the supply chain to work to the same goals. This means that manufacturers, retailers and local authorities all need to commit to producing a high-quality product for use by both UK and export recyclers. News that Malaysia is returning containers of materials back to the UK and other countries shows the need for joined-up thinking to achieve this.
“Recycling Association chief executive Simon Ellin said: "We are entering very difficult waters. From the photos I have seen of the material being sent back to countries around the world, it looks like the mixed supermarket films that are collected from the kerbside collection schemes by local authorities.
“These particular materials are so variable and difficult to separate and recycle that we have a stark choice now of whether to stop collecting them altogether or move the material down the waste hierarchy and incinerate them while recovering the energy. The longer-term solution of course is for the producers not to produce them in the first place – a trip around any supermarket fruit and vegetable aisle has me shaking my head in disbelief at the plethora of unnecessary plastics ‘protecting’ the produce.
“The Recycling Association is against illegal exports of general waste rubbish and poor quality materials to other nations. That is why we launched our Quality First campaign three years ago to push for materials to meet the legal specifications of the importing country. Our members want to trade quality secondary commodities to these nations.”
Fashion Footprint
It was claimed this week that the fashion industry creates a bigger carbon footprint than the whole of the aviation industry. Sounds like a shocking statistic and makes a good headline, but is it true? It appears to come from a 2017 report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation which says,
“… total greenhouse gas emissions from textiles production, at 1.2 billion tonnes annually, are more than those of all international flights and maritime shipping combined.”
Incidentally, it goes on,
“Hazardous substances affect the health of both textile workers and wearers of clothes, and they escape into the environment. When washed, some garments release plastic microfibres, of which around half a million tonnes every year contribute to ocean pollution – 16 times more than plastic microbeads from cosmetics. Trends point to these negative impacts rising inexorably, with the potential for catastrophic outcomes in future.” 
Environmental Audit Committee
This was picked up by the Environmental Audit Committee in its report “Fixing fashion: clothing consumption and sustainability”, which includes 18 recommendations. There’s a link to the document which include the government’s response to each point. A wide range of issues is covered. Here’s Recommendation 15:
The Government must end the era of throwaway fashion. It should make fashion retailers take responsibility for the waste they create by introducing an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for textiles and reward companies that take positive action to reduce waste. A charge of one penny per garment on producers could raise £35 million for investment in better clothing collection and sorting in the UK. This could create new ‘green’ jobs in the sorting sector, particularly in areas where textile recycling is already a specialist industry such as Huddersfield, Batley, Dewsbury and Wakefield in West Yorkshire. The Government’s recent pledge to review and consult on how to deal with textile waste by 2025 is too little too late. We need action before the end of this parliament (2022)
The government declined to impose the 1p levy, and generally rejected all the committee’s recommendations on the grounds that existing measures were adequate. Mary Creagh MP, committee chair, said: 
“The Government has rejected our call, demonstrating that it is content to tolerate practices that trash the environment and exploit workers despite having just committed to net zero emission targets. Ministers have failed to recognise that urgent action must be taken to change the fast fashion business model which produces cheap clothes that cost the earth.”
AI
Another source of carbon footprints that you might not immediately think of is AI. Yes, artificial intelligence. According to the MIT Technological Review training a single AI model can emit as much carbon as five cars in their lifetimes. How can this be?
The story is based on a paper published by researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
The paper specifically examines the model training process for natural-language processing (NLP, no, not that NLP), the subfield of AI that focuses on teaching machines to handle human language. In the last two years, the NLP community has reached several noteworthy performance milestones in machine translation, sentence completion, and other standard benchmarking tasks. OpenAI’s infamous GPT-2 model, as one example, excelled at writing convincing fake news articles.
But such advances have required training ever larger models on sprawling data sets of sentences scraped from the internet. The approach is computationally expensive—and highly energy intensive. Hence the conclusion that training an AI model could release as much CO2 as the lifetime emissions of five American cars, including the emissions from their manufacture.
Do we need an AI model that can write fake news? How about one that can write podcasts? And one that can listen to them.

And now for a change of Air
DAC - Direct Air Capture
Patron Tom de Simone draws my attention to Climeworks, a direct air capture company. This is geo-engineering or negative emissions technology, a process which takes CO2 from the air and either stores it or sells it for commercial use. In common with Carbon Engineering of British Columbia and Global Thermostat which is very coy about its location but is probably in the US, this organisation emphasises the fact that the IPCC has said that cutting carbon emissions on its own will not be enough to avoid the 1.5°C warming threshold and that carbon extraction from the atmosphere will be needed as well. CO2 is used in carbonated drinks and you may remember that there was a shortage last year. It's also used in fertilisers, plastics, synthetic fuels and horticulture. With the possible exception of plastics, all these uses release the CO2 back into the atmosphere. The capture may have reduced the production of new CO2 from other sources but it surely cannot have any significant overall effect. The commercial reality is that it takes energy and therefore incurs cost, to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and contain it. 
CCS?
What makes Climeworks different appears to be that some of the CO2 which they extract is permanently stored. They inject it into underground rocks where it reacts to become an inert mineral, locked up effectively for ever. Is this the elusive carbon capture and storage?
There are still costs involved in this process, of course, but Climeworks’ main capture and storage facility is in Iceland where they can use geothermal energy to power the whole process. Climeworks are offering an offset scheme to travellers. For €7 per month you can offset 15% of a global average travel footprint, but 100% costs a monthly €49.
Making Comparison
The Climeworks website has an interesting comparison between storing CO2 by growing more trees, by using biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), with enhanced weathering and with their direct air capture and storage system. (Enhanced weathering involves spreading crushed silicate rocks on the land to absorb and bind CO2 chemically.)  
They found that growing trees and using BECCS both require very significant amounts of water and large areas of land while enhanced weathering also occupies land and could change the chemistry of watercourses and be a threat to wildlife. Unsurprisingly they find that the Climeworks system has none of these drawbacks. Patron Tom saw a post on Twitter endorsing the benefits of the Climeworks system and posed what I thought were some very pertinent questions:
1. Will it scale?
2. Where's the energy coming from to power it?
3. How carbon-intensive is it to manufacture the chemicals?
4. Can we justify other DAC outputs (fizzy drinks, synthetic fuels etc), given the massive CO2 reductions needed right now?
To which the enigmatic response came: Fret less. Do more. 
The correspondent seems to have worked for Exxon in the past, but beyond that we know nothing.
An offset that works?
We spoke last week about offsets involving trees and how the plantations have been cut down in some cases long before they have achieved their objective. A tree needs to live for 100 years to offset the persistence of co2 in the atmosphere. Carbon capture by combining co2 into rock must be attractive, because unlike a tree it never needs any maintenance or attention. Tom’s question is key: will it scale? I’m sure Drax power station would love to know. In Iceland the right sort of rocks for the sequestration are underneath the capture stations, next to the geothermal sources which power the process. Other regions, like the Vale of York where Drax is located, may not be suitable.
We need systems like these but they must be regulated, inspected and controlled. We need to verify that operators have extracted what they said they would extract. We need to know that no sequestered CO2 is ever sold more than once to different people. And we surely can’t rely on conscience-stricken travellers to fund the technology that’s going to save the rest of us. If it works and if it scales then governments should be taking it over and operating it as part of our armoury against the climate crisis.
Let’s hope it scales, because Climeworks has vowed to extract 1% of global CO₂ emissions from the air.
Meat-free Meat
Have you gone vegetarian yet, like all responsible environmentalists? No neither have I.
Consultants A T Kearny have written a paper in which they suggest that a number of meat alternatives are evolving, each with the potential to disrupt the multibillion-dollar global meat industry. They report that according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), nearly half of the worldwide harvest is required to feed the livestock population, which consists of about 1.4 billion bovines, 1 billion pigs, 20 billion poultry, and 1.9 billion sheep, lamb, and goats (see figure 1). Agricultural production directly for human consumption accounts for just 37 percent, representing the second largest harvest consumption block (ahead of biofuel, industrial production, and others). Thus, most of the harvest is fed to animals to produce meat, which finally is consumed by humans. Clearly this is not an efficient way to feed the global population, which is expected to grow from the current 7.7 billion to some 10 billion by 2050. The authors calculate that we could feed around twice as many humans with today’s global harvest if we did not feed livestock but rather consumed the yield ourselves. They also suggest that solutions for Increasing the Efficiency of Conventional Meat Production Have Been Almost Exhausted.
Substitutes
Vegan and vegetarian meat substitutes have been around for many years and high-protein insects are a significant element of the diet in many parts of the world. Now wholly plant-based products are available which look like, taste like and have the texture of meat. Impossible Foods meat-like products are available in over 6,000 restaurants in the US. A company called JUST offers scrambled eggs, and a whole range of egg dishes, without eggs.  Beyond Meat claims its sausages, patties and mince can be found in over 33,000 GROCERY STORES, RESTAURANTS, HOTELS, UNIVERSITIES.
Clearly it will take time to scale up production to a level which will significantly replace farmed meat and I’ve not been able to find information about the relative costs of these products. Nevertheless, the revolution has started and Kearney concludes that by 2040 the market for conventionally produced meat will have fallen by over 33%.
Ruffian at Large
I’m sure there were no veggie burgers on the menu at the Mansion House banquet in the City of London the other night. There was a band of Greenpeace protesters, ladies in long dresses, who invaded the event shouting down the speaker and handing out leaflets about the climate crisis. Government minister Mark Field pushed his chair in front of one of the ladies, shoved her against a pillar, grasped her firmly by the neck and manhandled her out of the building and into the street.
To their shame, some diners applauded his action. To her credit, as soon as she heard about the incident Prime Minister May suspended Field from his post. Whether Mark Field was angry at having his meal disturbed, angry because the speech by Chancellor Philip Hammond was interrupted or cross because he did not want to face up to people warning of climate catastrophe, we shall probably never know. When Philip Hammond resumed his speech he remarked that it was ironic that such a protest should take place in the week when the prime minister had committed to a 100% reduction in emissions by 2050 (something which he himself opposed, by the way.) Let’s just look at that legislation again. Here’s the full text:

Amendment of the target for 2050
2.—(1) Section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “80%” substitute “100%”. 

Bit short on detail, don’t you think?

In Other News
Heatstroke
In Bihar, one of the poorest areas of India, 49 people died on Saturday of heatstroke in just 24 hours.
With temperatures in Bihar hovering consistently at around 45C (113F), hospitals were inundated with people suffering from heatstroke. The death toll has since risen to at least 60 and, with many heatstroke victims still in hospital, is expected to rise further.
Melting Icefields
The Guardian and other papers published a picture of scientists riding their dog sleds out across the ice sheet in Northern Greenland. The dogs are wading through ankle-deep meltwater.
European Dissent
Meanwhile, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have refused to sign up to an EU document setting out a net-zero carbon emissions target for 2050. 
Ethical Investing
On the other hand, an ethical investment operation by the UK’s largest asset manager, Legal and General Investment Management, has dumped shares in a string of US companies it has deemed climate crisis laggards, including oil giant ExxonMobil and insurer Metlife.
Citizens’ assembly
Six House of Commons select committees have announced that a citizens’ assembly on the climate crisis will be set up later in the year. It is the second of the three demands made by the Extinction Rebellion. Mrs May has already addressed their first demand for a zero-carbon Britain, although she did not go as far as their third demand, which was that this should be achieved by 2025.
Wellbeing
Last week I spoke about New Zealand’s Wellbeing Budget. Richard Lane tells me that Scotland has a National Performance Framework setting out a range of non-economic measures of its worth as a country and charting its progress to improve them. There’s a link on the blog.

And finally,
David Gilmour of Pink Floyd has just sold 120 of his guitars and decided to donate the proceeds to a good cause. This means that Client Earth receives £17m. I’ve mentioned Client Earth several times previously and its actions against the British government for not acting to clean up illegal levels of air pollution.
James Thornton, ClientEarth CEO said: “I’d like to express my deep and heartfelt gratitude to David Gilmour for this utterly remarkable gift. David has a long history of supporting charities and I am honoured that he has chosen ClientEarth to benefit from this landmark auction.
“ClientEarth is working across the world, using the law to fight climate change and protect nature, and this gift will do an enormous amount to support our efforts to ensure a sustainable and hospitable planet for future generations” 

And On That Note…
…I leave you for another week. 
I'm Anthony Day
That was the Sustainable Futures Report and, as promised, there will be another episode next week and it will be about rare earth.
Until then….Sources
DAC
Recycling exports
Fashion
AI


Most 'meat' in 2040 will not come from dead animals, says report
Mansion House Fracas

India heatwave: rain brings respite for some but death toll rises

Photograph lays bare reality of melting Greenland sea ice


Central European countries block EU moves towards 2050 zero carbon goal

Major global investor drops US firms deemed climate crisis laggards

UK citizens’ assembly on climate emergency announced

Scotland has a National Performance Framework setting out a range of non-economic measures of its worth as a country and charting its progress to improve them:


Sweet Music for Client Earth