Some emissions are more equal than others

Greenhouse gas emissions are the biggest problem the world faces. It is a problem of apocalyptic proportions. We need to reduce emissions at all costs to avoid catastrophic climate change. We must cut emissions or die, basically.

How long have we been hearing this? Years. But, it turns out, not all emissions must be cut. Yes, you read that right. Some emissions are necessary. Yes, you read that right, too. These are the emissions that will help us avoid catastrophic climate change. And cutting those would be a bad thing. A very bad thing indeed.

You see, the scientific world is in danger. It is in danger from scientists who are so worried about the emissions that their work generates they are considering a scale-back of that work to reduce said emissions. Other scientists are sounding the alarm on that.

Well, it’s just one scientist, for now. Minna Palmroth, a professor in computational space physics, wrote an opinion piece for the FT this week, in which she expressed her serious concern with some of her fellow scientists’ plans to scale back their research activities for fear of contributing to climate change.

Admitting that these activities do require massive amounts of energy, Professor Palmroth argues that “this is a price we must pay for understanding the world” and finding out more ways to reduce emissions. We emit to reduce emissions and if you think this doesn’t make sense, think again. Because it totally does.

“How can we inform decision makers about the best ways to bring down carbon emissions if we can’t track the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, where it’s coming from and who’s producing it?” Professor Palmroth asks. Rhetorically.

The emissions footprint of science, and more specifically climate science, is not something widely and frequently talked about. It doesn’t need to be talked about when there’s a vibrant oil and gas industry to be picked on every waking hour.

Large energy consumers such as data centres powering, among many other things, scientific research, are not something that is widely and frequently talked about either, except when they are celebrated as drivers of the transition because of all those power purchase agreements they close with wind and solar generators.

Sure, as Professor Palmroth says, “science’s unrelenting appetite for information has caused a mushrooming of energy-intensive data centres around the world. According to the International Energy Agency, these buildings now consume about 1 per cent of the world’s electricity.”

But that’s okay because this is energy that is actually necessary for important stuff and not petty necessities like cheap home heating and reliable electricity. Also, don’t forget those power purchase agreements, which make data centres green even when they actually use gas- and coal-generated electricity because they have to because they run 24/7 and wind and solar don’t. Does your home have a PPA? No, it doesn’t. Your emissions are not “well spent”.

In her opinion piece, Professor Palmroth calls on her fellow scientists to stop worrying about their own emissions so much and focus on the bigger emission picture that requires them to generate emissions in the first place.

Essentially, she is calling for cognitive dissonance in a world where non-scientists are constantly being told to reduce their consumption of everything in order to cut their emissions. You could excuse a few gullible scientists for identifying with the non-scientists and taking the recommendation to heart.

But to keep the benevolent scientific machine going, these gullible scientists need to be brought back into the fold by being told to, first, keep believing that emissions are bad but, second, stop believing that their specific emissions are bad. Because some emissions are necessary. Vital, even. They’re the price to pay to reduce all other emissions.

See this repeated enough times and it begins to make sense, non-ironically. Or it gives you a headache and double vision.

Sadly, Professor Palmroth ruins it all at the end of her piece where she talks about the LUMI supercomputer, which is the most powerful one in Europe and third most powerful in the world. And which is carbon-negative because it gets its power from a nearby river and heats a nearby village.

This reference might confuse those gullible scientists worried about their emissions because it is followed by the statement that “If the world is to meet its net-zero ambitions, we must think hard about how we can deliver sustainable computing and deliver more LUMIs.”

So, on the one hand, scientists shouldn’t worry about their carbon footprint because it’s necessary but, on the other, they must find ways to reduce that footprint and, while they’re at it, some handy rivers to build more carbon-negative supercomputers by. (And keep their fingers crossed droughts don’t get to those rivers.)

You would normally need some serious training for that kind of thinking but to some it comes naturally. Cognitive dissonance can be a talent, and a useful one. Remember that recent study that British scientists did about emissions from breathing?

I bet their measuring equipment used a bit of plastic and some energy, and involved some emissions but it was worth it and those emissions were well spent because now we know (almost) exactly how bad each and every one of us is for the climate. Each and every one except scientists, that is.

Professor Palmroth’s is the the very same logic that says the emissions of John Kerry flying by private jet and Al Gore living in a huge mansion are emissions well spent because the two advocate for the end of oil, gas, farming and other good things that will fix the Earth’s climate after the rest of us breathers broke it.