Gender Issues and Sustainable Development: We Need to Pay More Attention

The term ‘sustainable development’ was first used by the Brundtland Commission in its 1987 report Our Common Future. It defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Two factors critical to sustainable development are access, at reasonable coats, to adequate supplies of energy and clean water. It is in this context that we consider issues of gender equity, which is a core development objective in its own right. It is also clear that gender equity is a key to successful development.

For purposes of development gender is a social and not a biological construct. It refers to a set of relations, including power relations, which define social function on the basis of sex. Thus, gender relations can be changed, and while gender relations are not inherently oppressive, all too often they are oppressive of women. Where gender equity (equality) is missing, meaning that women and men do not have equal conditions for realizing their full human rights and potential to contribute to national, political, economic, social and cultural development, and to benefit from the results, there are serious negative consequences for development.

Women head one-third of the world’s families (in parts of Latin America families headed by women are the majority) and frequently are the financial mainstays of and principal energy and water providers for their families. They are responsible for half of the world’s food production, and produce between 60 and 80 percent of the food in most developing countries. To produce adequate sanitation, food, and energy for cooking, women and girls must first ‘produce’/gather water, firewood, charcoal and dung. It is known that in developing countries women and girls spend many hours each day doing so. This reduces significantly the time they might otherwise use for education, community involvement and cottage industries that generate revenue. If safe and reliable water sources do not exist nearby they are forced to pay exorbitant prices to street vendors or rely on unsafe local water resources. This has major implications for hygiene and the spread of diseases among poor women and their families. They are also harmed by inhaling the smoke and particulates associated with burning biomass and cooking in confined spaces. Finally, poor women’s access to energy and water is less than that of poor men because decisions are most likely made by men and the needs of women are often ignored or undervalued. This has led to a situation where women are among the poorest of the poor in most parts of the world, leading to a ‘feminization of poverty’. ​

image

While it is true that the lives of many women and girls has changed dramatically in some areas over the past several decades, it is also true that progress toward gender equity has been limited in others, including developed countries. The different positions of men and women in societies are influenced by historical, religious, economic, and cultural factors, all of which are difficult and slow to change.

Two international development organizations committed to improving gender equity are the United Nations (UN) and the World Bank. Many UN programs either focus on gender equity (e.g., UN Women: UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women) or recognize the central role of women in many development activities (e.g., the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation arising from the 2002 Rio World Summit on Sustainable Development, and the activities of the Food and Agriculture Organization/FAO of the UN).
image
The World Bank has a broad range of programs as well, including the 2007 launch of its Gender Action Plan which provides support to women and girls in traditional economic sectors, GenderStats, a compilation of data at the country level on key gender topics, and an Advisory Council on Gender and Development. Another organization worth mentioning here is Energia, “an international network on gender and sustainable energy which links individuals and groups concerned with energy, sustainable development, and gender.” It was founded in 1985 and is now active in many countries on several continents.

Aside from the immorality of denying women equality with men, it is also bad economics. To quote the World Bank’s Gender Overview: “Under-investing in women puts a break on poverty reduction and limits economic and social development. Gender equality is a long-term driver of competitiveness and equity that is even more important in an increasingly globalized world. No country can afford to fall behind because it is failing to enable women and men to participate equally in the economy and society.”

A few numbers will help to illuminate the problem: “Of the estimated two million annual deaths attributed to indoor air pollution generated by combustion of fuels such as coal, wood, charcoal and dung, 85% are women and children who die from cancer, acute respiratory infections and lung disease.” (World Health Organization and UNDP, 2009). “..illnesses from indoor pollution results in more deaths of women and children annually than HIV/AIDS, malaria! tuberculosis and malnutrition combined.” (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2013).

The good news is that two-thirds of all countries have now reached gender parity in primary education, and in over one-third girls significantly outnumber boys in secondary education (see World Development Report: Gender Equality and Development, World Bank, 2012). Unfortunately, these gains have not been universal and too many women are still dying in childbirth, lack the ability to participate in decisions that affect them, their families, and their communities, and are limited in their economic opportunities. There is still much work to be done.

image

Balancing Environmental Interests and Our Energy Future: Often A Difficult Call

I may be dipping my toe (foot?) in doo-doo by taking on this issue with my natural constituency – environmentalists – but here goes. Two articles in today’s (17 January 2014) Washington Post got my attention and stimulated this blog post.

The first piece, ‘Green groups assail Obama on climate’ (digital edition tile: ‘Environmental groups say Obama needs to address climate change more aggressively’), starts off as follows: “A group of the nation’s leading environmental organizations is breaking with the administration over its energy policy, arguing that the White House needs to apply a strict climate test to all its energy decisions or risk undermining one of the president’s second-term priorities.” It goes on to list a number of ways in which the Obama administration has taken steps to limit carbon dioxide emissions, but the environmentalists’ letter takes issue with the administration for “..embracing domestic production of natural gas, oil and coal under an “all of the above” energy strategy.”

The other Washington Post piece that got my attention was a brief reference to the draft of the soon-to-be-released IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report on global warming (‘U.N. cautions against delay on climate change’). It states: “Delaying action on global warming will only increase the costs and reduce the options for dealing with the worst effects of climate change…global warming will continue to increase unless countries cut emissions and shift quickly to clean energy.”

If one reviews my earlier posts in this blog it will be clear that I support a rapid transition to a clean energy future based on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Having devoted my professional career in government to that end, I believe that President Obama ‘gets it’ re global warming and the need for renewables. In fact, I chose not to retire from the U.S. Department of Energy in 2009, when I was more than old enough to do so, because we had finally elected a President who I believed did ‘get it’, after the frustrating years of Bush 43. I believe my trust was well founded based on President Obama’s subsequent behavior, in word and in action, and it bothers me that some of my environmental colleagues apparently see it differently. I may be getting old and you can say that I am getting more cranky and conservative in my dotage, but I don’t think so. I see myself as more aware of the realities of governing, especially after a long career in Washington, DC, and think Obama is doing a good job under very difficult circumstances (yes, I am referring to a dysfunctional Congress). I do see value in keeping the pressure up on a sometimes-too-political White House, but let’s at least acknowledge more often that the guy is doing a good job, and a much better one than Clinton and Gore did in the 1990’s when they faced similar political problems. Obama is finally getting us started on the path we should have been on twenty years ago.

To be more specific: I recognize and regret that the U.S. does not yet have an energy policy that creates the economic environment for a rapid transition to a clean energy future, as is true of a few other countries (e.g., the EU). It is critically needed, but the reality is that creating such a policy ultimately is the responsibility of our legislative branch. All the Executive Branch’s rhetoric can’t change that, although it has to keep pushing as much as it can and implementing as much as it can through executive orders.

One impact already is a significant reduction in power generation in the U.S. using coal, due to its replacement as a fuel by natural gas. This is due to the large amounts of shale gas released by fracking, a technology that I believe is unstoppable (see my blog entitled ‘Fracking: The Promise and the Problems’) and needs careful regulation. Many environmentalists oppose fracking because of the real risks it poses to water supplies, and I share those concerns, but the important upside is that using natural gas instead of coal for power generation puts much less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If renewables were ready soon to assume the power generation burden, and our transportation infrastructure was electrified and ready to use hydrogen in fuel cell vehicles (for which the hydrogen was generated from renewables-based electrolysis of water), then down with fracking for natural gas and oil. But that is not where we are today, and fracking and its economic returns will be with us for a while. Lots of work to prepare the way to our inevitable clean energy future still needs to be done. For similar reasons I do not oppose the Keystone Pipeline – I recognize its risks and wish we could avoid its extension, but stopping it is not going to stop Canada from exploiting its tar sands resources. I’d rather have that oil coming to the U.S. and reducing our continuing dependence on imports from other, less friendly countries. Imports are going down but will still be with us for a while until we introduce greater electrification of our transportation fleets.

Lots of other issues come into this discussion, for which I have no time in this blog if I am to keep it to a reasonable length. The bottom line in my head is that we (clean energy advocates, environmentalists) have to do a better job of educating the public about the long-term advantages of a clean energy society (including jobs) and elect representatives in both the House and Senate who ‘get it’ and feel the pressure from home to move us more rapidly in this direction. Ultimately, politicians understand the power of the ballot box if they understand nothing else. One of our tasks is to use that power effectively.

Controlled Nuclear Fusion: The Energy Source That Is Always A Few Years Away

Nuclear fusion, the process that powers our sun and other stars, is considered by many the ‘holy grail’ of energy supply. Why is that so? The numbers tell the story.

The basic physics of fusion is well known and easily understood: when light elements (lighter than iron) are forced together under extreme conditions of pressure and temperature they will fuse – i.e., form a heavier element than either that is lighter than the combined mass of the two fusing elements. The mass that is apparently ‘lost’ is converted to energy according to Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 (i.e., c squared).

image

It turns out that so much energy is released in this process (a simple, back-of-the-envelope calculation is shown below) that if the process can be harnessed on earth an unlimited source of energy is available. Fusion has other advantages, as well as serious technological problems which are also discussed below. First, why are the numbers so intriguing?

While many fusion reactions are possible and take place in stars, most attention has been directed to the deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion reaction that has the lowest energy threshold. Both deuterium and tritium are heavier, isotopic forms of the common element, hydrogen. Deuterium is readily available from seawater (most seawater is two parts ordinary hydrogen to one part oxygen; one out of every 6,240 seawater molecules is two parts deuterium to one part oxygen). Tritium supplies do not occur in nature – it is radioactive and disappears quickly due to its short half-life – but can be bred from a common element, lithium, when exposed to neutrons.

image

D-T is also the reaction that largely powers our sun (but not exclusively), routinely converting massive amounts of hydrogen into massive amounts of helium and releasing massive amounts of energy.

image

It has been doing this for more than four billion years and is estimated to continue doing this for about another five billion when the hydrogen supply will finally dwindle. At this latter point the fusion reactions in the core of the sun will no longer be able to offset the gravitational forces acting on the sun’s very large mass and the sun will explode as the Crab Nebula did in 1054. It will then expand and swallow up the earth and other planets. Take heed!

To understand the numbers: every cubic meter of seawater, on average, contains 30 grams of deuterium. There are 300 million cubic miles of water on earth, 97% in the oceans.

image

Each deuterium nucleus (one proton + one neutron) weighs so little (3.3 millionths of a trillionth of a trillionth of a kilogram) that these 30 grams amount to close to a trillion trillion nuclei. Each time one of these nuclei is fused with a tritium nucleus (one proton + two neutrons) 17.6 MeV (millions of electron volts) of energy is released which can be captured as heat. Now MeV sounds like a lot of energy but it isn’t – a Btu, a more common energy unit, is 6.6 thousand trillion MeV).

Now this is a lot of numbers, some very small and some very large, but taking them all together that cubic meter of seawater can lead to the production of about 7 million kWh of thermal energy, which if converted into electricity at 50% efficiency corresponds to 3.5 million kWh. If one were to convert the potential fusion energy in just over one million cubic meters of seawater (about 3 ten thousandths of a cubic mile) one could supply the annual U.S. electricity production of 4 trillion kWh – and remember that our oceans contain several hundred million cubic miles of water. This is why some people get excited about fusion energy.

Unfortunately, there are a few barriers to overcome, starting with how to get D and T, both positively-charged nuclei, to fuse. The positive electrical charges repel one another (the so-called Coulomb Barrier) and you have to bring the distance between them to an incredibly small number before the ‘strong nuclear force’ can come into play and allow creation of the new, heavier helium nucleus (two protons + two neutrons). It is this still mysterious force that holds protons and neutrons together in our various elements.

image

So how does one bring these two nuclei close enough together to allow fusion to occur? The answer in the sun is enormous gravitational pressure and temperature, which we cannot reproduce on earth. The pressures in the sun are beyond our ability to achieve in any sustained way but the temperatures are not (temperature is a way of characterizing a particle’s kinetic energy, or speed) and fusion research is focused on achieving extremely high temperatures (100’s of millions of degrees or higher) at achievable high pressures. The fact that this is not easy to achieve is why fusion energy is always a ways in the future. Two techniques are the focus of global fusion research activities – magnetic confinement (as in tokamaks and Iter) and inertial confinement (as in laser-powered or ion beam-powered fusion) – see, e.g., http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Nuclear-Fusion-Power. Several hundred billion US$ a year are being spent on these activities, mostly in international collaborations.

image

image

Fusion on earth has been achieved but not in a controlled manner, and only in very small amounts and for very short time periods with one exception, the hydrogen bomb. This is an example of an uncontrolled fusion reaction (triggered by an atomic bomb) that releases a large amount of energy in a few millionths of a second. As the French physicist and Nobel laureate Pierre-Gilles de Gennes once said: “We say that we will put the sun in a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don’t know how to make the box.”

The pros and cons of fusion energy can be summarized as follows:
Pros:
– virtually limitless fuel availability at low cost
– no chain reaction, as in nuclear fission, and so it is easy to stop the energy release
– fusion produces no greenhouse gases and little nuclear waste compared to nuclear fission (the radioactive waste from fusion is from neutron activation of elements in its containment environment)
Cons:
– still unproven, at any scale, as controlled reaction that can release more energy than required to initiate the fusion (‘ignition’)
– requires extremely high temperatures that are difficult to contain
– many serious materials problems arising from extreme neutron bombardment
– commercial power plants, if achievable, would be large and expensive to build
– at best, full scale power production is not expected until at least 2050

Where do I come out on all this? I am not trained as a fusion physicist (just as a low temperature solid state physicist) and so lack a close involvement with the efforts of so many for so long to achieve controlled nuclear fusion, and the enthusiasm and positive expectations that inevitably result. Nevertheless, I support the long-term effort to see if ignition can be achieved (some scientists believe Iter is that critical point) and if the many engineering problems associated with commercial application of fusion can be successfully addressed. In my opinion the potential payoff is too big and important for the world to ignore. In fact I was once asked for my advice on whether the U.S. Government should support fusion R&D by a member of the DOE transition team for President-elect Carter, and my answer hasn’t changed.