Analyze

This book provides a comprehensive overview of the climate hazards facing Vietnam. Chapter 3 in particular details the effects of climate change on the coast of Vietnam, which is relevant to the Vietnam case study and can serve as a reference for coastal climate hazards that intersect with local industrial hazards. The text notes the effects of the region’s topology—mountainous, with a long coastline—on the types of climate hazards experienced in the country in recent decades. The text describes 6 coastal provinces in North Central Vietnam and 15 provinces in the Northern mountainous region (37). Coastal precipitation, storms, flash floods, droughts, coastal erosion, and landslides affect the agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, industry, and tourism sectors, along with the dense local population. Most of the coast is expected (via climate modeling for different RCPs) to see an increase in rainfall this century. Section 2.1.3: Natural Hazards and Section 2.1.4: Climate Change Vulnerability are quoted extensively below.

“Landfalls of storms usually accompanied by high tide and heavy rain result in long periods of rain and floods. The flood season in Central Vietnam lasts from June to October. Along the rivers between Quang Binh and Binh Thuan, the flood season lasts from September to December. The Central region has short and steep rivers with high debits. Dike systems in this region are relatively low or incomplete. 8-meter-high floods not only occur along the main streams but also spread over the floodplains (Le et al. 2012).” (43)

“Storms moved southward in recent years, though it is widely expected that because of the increasing temperature, the North will face more storms in the near future. Also the intensity of the storms is expected to increase, resulting in more wind and more intense precipitation (CCFSC 2001; IPCC 2007). In particular, more intense storms, representing in more threats to people’s lives, livelihoods, infrastructure, and agriculture, are forecasted.” (43)

“In 2009, storm Ketsana affected provinces along the Vietnamese Central coast, killing 163 people and causing over 600 million $USD of damage (CCSFC 2010)...In 2010, storms and other natural hazards killed or caused missing 173 people. 168 others were injured in October 2010 (GSO 2014)...In 2012, the South China Sea faced 12 storms, of which 4 directly affected Central coast…In 2013, Central Vietnam was hit directly by consecutive storms. The Wutip storm in September 2013 damaged over 1000 houses (Vietnam NCHMF 2013). Over 70,000 people in vulnerable areas were moved to shelters along the central coastline (Al Jazeera America, accessed November 22, 2013). In November 2013, the Haiyan storm forced over 800,000 people to evacuate. Storm Nari in November 2013 destroyed about 12,000 houses in 7 central provinces (The Weather Channel, accessed November 22, 2013)...In 2016, six tropical depressions and ten storms affected the Vietnamese Central coast. Six storms and one tropical depression directly impacted the land…In September 2017, Central Vietnam was hit by the Doksuri storm. Over 100,000 people were evacuated, 4 people died, and 10 were injured. The storm Doksuri caused heavy rains and floods all over the provinces in the Vietnamese Northern Central coast. Thousands of houses were damaged or destroyed. More than 50,000 houses in Ha Tinh, Quang Binh, Quang Tri, and Thua Thien Hue provinces were damaged. Quang Binh People’s Committee reported that about 200,000 houses were flooded or submerged, 5000 lost their roofs and 20 collapsed (updated news on Vietnamnet website, accessed on 15 September 2017).” (43-44)

“By 1996, over 2000 square kilometers of the Vietnamese coast was estimated to be at risk for annual floods. Flood damage is expected to worsen if the daily rainfall increases by 12–19%. …Drought intensified as a result of the increased variation in rainfall and evapora- tion (3% along the coast and 8% inland by 2070). The effect is triggered by rising temperatures (MONRE 2016)...Landslides in the Northern Central coast are often triggered by heavy rains and storms, resulting in large amounts of sliding material downhill. Riverbank erosion is widely spread in this region, in particular during the rainy season. The lower part of the rivers is severely affected. Coastal erosion goes up to 10 meters annually, which worsens with the sea level rise of the recent years.” (44)

“The vulnerability of agriculture in the districts depends on extreme climatic events. Most districts in the Ha Tinh, Quang Binh, and Quang Tri provinces have a high exposure because they suffer storms, floods, and drought. Districts with a high exposure index show also a high vulnerability. For example, the Cam Xuyen district (Ha Tinh province) with the highest exposure in the region (0.57) represents the highest vulnerability (0.56). This underlines that the agriculture in the region with traditional methods mainly depends on the weather conditions.” (45)

“Provinces of the Vietnamese Northern Central coast have a long coastline, many estuaries, lagoons, and bays (Le et al. 2012). Aquaculture is promoted and gradually became a leading economic sector. Shrimp, crab, seahorse, holothurians, and Gracilaria asiatica are the main products. Aquaculture farmers, including both fish and crustaceans, are water-dependent and influenced the quality of coastal resources. Higher temperatures and more droughts affect the yields. This is ongoing as the yields of the spring crops declined drastically during recent years (GSO 2014). Aquaculture along the Vietnamese Northern Central coast shows high vulnerability to climate change: the vulnerability index ranges between 0.33 and 0.73. The highest value (0.73) is for the Gio Linh (Quang Tri province), while the lowest value (0.33) applies to the Thach Ha district (Ha Tinh province). Aquaculture shows a high vulnerability in majority of the districts (25/28), while only three districts (Sam Son, Cua Lo, and Thach Ha) report a moderate vulnerability. The exposure and sensitivity index of aquaculture are the highest of all sectors considered. The districts in the Quang Tri and Thua Thien Hue provinces show the highest vulnerability because of its high sensitivity (Fig. 2.3).” (46) This is section 2.1.4.2: Vulnerability of Aquaculture

“The majority of economic zones locate near the shoreline. This makes them vulnerable to climate change hazards. However, industry is less affected as compared to agriculture, forestry, and aquaculture. The industrial zones resist the effects of natural disasters easier. This explains that the industry is moderately vulnerable to climate change: this relates to the moderate qualification of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptation capacity of most of the districts. The high vulnerability in seven districts is related with the high exposure. Industrial plants in new areas which do not offer solid constructions and modern equipment are more at risk from natural hazards than other areas.” (48)

“The Vietnamese Northern Central coast shows its uneven distribution of the population, which reflects a difference between the eastern coastal plains and the western hilly and mountainous areas (Le et al. 2012). Most of the population is located along the national road no. 1A and in the eastern coastal plain, which accounts for over 70% of the population and which is more dense than the national average. Hilly and mountainous areas in the West account for 60% of the area, but only 30% of the people live in this region. Consequently, the average density in the western moun- tains of the country is only about 10–50 people per square kilometer (GSO 2014)...Natural hazards damage habitats of locals in hilly and mountainous areas as well as coastal areas, while storms and flash floods impact both uplands and lowlands. These latter are affected by a combination of storm, floods, sea level rise, and coastal erosion. This explains why the region has a moderate to high vulnerability of the population to climatic change.” (49)

“Currently, the government invests in developing marine tourism, ecotourism, speleo-tourism, and heritage tourism along the Vietnamese Northern Central coast. However, climate change affects the cultural monuments. Also the water supply in the region is under stress; biodiversity will decrease, and the hot season is expected lasting longer. All this will have a significant impact on the assets and the revenue from tourism. Tourism experiences the lowest vulnerability as compared to the other sectors in the region due to its low exposure.” (51)

“The likely effects of climate changes are most tangible in this province [Ky-Anh coast]. They include: 1. The average temperature during the period 2000–2010 increased by 0.6 °C as compared to the period 1970–1980. 2. Extreme weather events: Unusual cold periods (the spring of 2009 was the cold- est of the last 40 years) alternate with heat waves (in July 2010, the province experienced during 10 consecutive days temperatures over 40 °C); storms are frequently accompanied by heavy rains (the 2010 flood lasted for more than 20 days). 3. Changes in the frequency, the timing, and the intensity of the tropical storms are part of the changing weather profile. While traditionally storms occurred during the period September–November, the storm season now extends from August to December. Floods occur from April to December. They become stronger and faster, with more peak events and more devastating impacts (IPONRE 2009)...In short, prolonged periods of high and low temperatures, drought, sea level rise, storms heavy rains, and (sudden) floods are considered the main weather drivers affecting the livelihood of these communities in coastal Ha Tinh. Consequently, Ha Tinh faces four main problems: 1. Changes in water supply: Drinking water supply and irrigation are critical all over the province. In 2010, 27% of the agricultural land was irrigated. The provincial policy goal is irrigating 70% of the fields. Also by 2010, 70% of the population had access to piped water. The daily per capita consumption ranges from 80 to 100 liters on average. The policy goal is supplying 100% of the urban and 80 to 90% of the rural population with safe drinking water (HTG 2013). The increasing pressure on the water supply hampers realizing these goals. 2. Changing land use and urbanization: By 2001, 10% of the land in Ha Tinh was urban area, while the remaining surface was rural. By 2010, the urban land cov- ered 15% of the province, while the rural area decreased to 85% (HTG 2013). The figures illustrate the conversion of agricultural and bare land into urban areas. Consequently, the area is also increasingly affected by the urban heat island effect. 3. Progressing shoreline erosion: Depending on the inclination of the beaches, Ha Tinh loses beaches at a rate of 0.2–15.0 meters per year. 4. Changing livelihoods: Both urbanization and the changing climate affect the way of life in Ha Tinh. Especially farmers, aquaculturists, and fishermen change their habits, adapting to the increasing storms. Urbanization is associated with changes in consumption lifestyles, the size of the families, the ways of commuting, the gender roles, and the time residents spent at home.” (64)

Texas produces the highest quantities of crude oil, natural gas, and lignite coal in the United States, which, on top of its long history of legislative support for conventional energy industries, contributes to its reputation as a fossil-fuel state (EIA 2017). Nevertheless, Austin, the state capital, harbors a wealth of local residents and organizations invested in transitioning to clean-energy resources. Motivations behind these investments differ widely, however, ranging from concerns about public health and social and environmental justice to creating quality jobs and spurring economic growth. During preliminary fieldwork, I identified four unique-yet-overlapping collectives of clean-energy practitioners: 1) Austin’s public sector, 2) energy scientists and engineers, 3) energy business advocates and entrepreneurs, and 4) climate and social justice activists. Based upon initial fieldwork, these collectives appear to conceive of the risks, affordances, and the proper sociotechnical means of energy transition in divergent, if not conflicting ways. In this research, I ask if and how these diverse energy-transition imaginaries appertain to differences in conceptions of “good evidence” and the appropriate use of scientific research and knowledge in decision-making. By analyzing how different collectives of clean-energy practitioners determine the proper means of leveraging science in energy transition, I will gain an understanding of the data and evidentiary challenges entailed in city-scale energy transitions, and urban environmental governance more generally.

Swearingen’s (2010) account of the mainstream environmental movement in Austin documents which of Austin’s “green spaces” were successfully and unsuccessfully protected from development and from the deleterious effects of nearby industries. However, Tretter (2016) and Busch’s (2017) studies provide a necessary supplement, documenting how the Austin’s lesser valued spaces (which are mostly populated by communities of color) have been routinely polluted both by residential waste (location of trash dumps) and industrial off-gassing (Sematech and Motorola plants). It is unclear, however, from these accounts whether or not, or to what extent the Austin landscape has be marked by its energy system in particular.

During preliminary research, I witnessed numerous residents of various professions attest to the impact of Austin’s coal plant (Fayette) and natural gas plant (Decker) on Austin’s air quality. During my time in Austin I will be conversing with locals about the impact of Austin’s power generation on the local landscape as well as travelling throughout the city, observing the landscape, visiting energy production sites and Desired Development Zones.

According to a study by Environment America, Texas is by far the highest emitter of airborne mercury, with a total of 11,127 in 2010 (Madsen and Randall 2011). Ohio, the next highest emitter, produced 4,218 pounds. Texas has 6 of the top ten mercury producing coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

There is a strong correlation between the location of toxic development and manufacturing associated with Austin’s tech industry and the location of communities of color, both of which are predominantly found in East Austin. PODER has had appreciable success in combating these developments and enlisting the help of Austin’s liberal environmental elite to do so. The extent to which Austin’s environmental justice community and environmental sustainability community see eye-to-eye on this issue, however, remains a question for this research.

By the early 20th century, the unpredictability of the Colorado River was seen as the primary “natural barrier” to development, and the early entrepreneurs saw that the river was both the key and the biggest threat (Swearingen 2010). The rocky canyons and ravines that had been cut into the Edwards Plateau above Austin offered ample choice locations to create reservoirs for controlling the flow and supplying water and power to its developing urban areas. The first failed attempt to dam the river was undertaken as early as 1890. Austin’s elite business class arranged the financing of this $1.4 million dam through municipal bonds and hailed the dam as the engineering feat of the century. With the promise of electricity and a steady water supply, they were certain that it would bring Austin into modernity. However, this rhetoric did not hold water. In 1900, the first rise of the river since the dam’s construction completely destroyed the dam, caused $9 million in property damages, and killed 47 residents (Busch 2017). A few more private dams were built over the years, but these too would all succumb to the river’s turbulence. The first long-lasting infrastructural development to enable Austin to break free of its liquid boundaries wasn’t achieved until 1911 when a steel bridge was constructed followed by a trolley line. While the bridge rendered crossing the river less risky, and therefore successfully enabled the development of Austin’s southern neighborhoods (Swearingen 2010), this did nothing to help control the river and secure the water supply in times of drought. Developers were well aware that Austin’s growth would depend on an extensive system of dams, but there was simply not enough money to finance such an endeavor. Thus, a truly adequate system of water-management infrastructure would have to wait until the shift in economic philosophy that inspired the New Deal. Lyndon B. Johnson, a native Texan that quickly learned to master New Deal politics, managed to garner federal funds for the construction of numerous dams north of Austin, along with many other important infrastructural projects (Bush 2017). Two of the most important dams were the Tom Miller Dam (completed in 1940) and the Longhorn Dam (completed in 1960). These infrastructural successes garnered Johnson much fame and recognition and launched his political career (Sansom et. al 2008).

Today, Austin is a site of energy technology innovation. Austin Technology incubator has a strong energy focus, providing “niche management”. Pecan Street provides a means for incubated technologies to test and verify their innovations. From their website: “Pecan Street is the only organization or company that combines expertise in the ‘Internet of Things,’ high-velocity data acquisition, big data analytics, and lean product development to drive disruptive innovation for water and energy.”

Pecan Street Inc. is a local 501(c)(3) that specializes in producing, analyzing, and sharing data on energy and water consumption practices as well as verifying new “smart home” technologies, electricity pricing, electric vehicle infrastructure, solar energy tech, and energy storage tech. On their company website, Pecan Street Inc. brags about having the largest utility consumption data port in the world and claims to “provide access to the world’s best data on consumer energy and water consumption behavior.” Their data source is a group of over 1000 volunteers that live in the Mueller community, a mixed use residential and commercial zone with its own microgrid that has the highest density of solar panels-plus-electric vehicles in the state of Texas. It was for this reason that the Mueller Community was chosen as one of the Austin locations for a federally funded experiment in energy storage. The project, named Austin SHINES, was co-funded by the DOE’s SunShot Initiative (during Obama’s administration) and the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality to test the efficiency of solar-plus-storage systems at different scales (household, residential/commercial, and utility scales). On October 4, 2018, Pecan Street posted a blog announcing that they had finally “crossed into the Big Data realm. With the acquisition of a few new project servers, [they] have surpassed one petabyte of data storage availability at Pecan Street.”

            According to their website, the data produced at Pecan Street is helping develop technology that can actually increase grid stability while also increasing its efficiency and capacity to incorporate distributed renewable energy resources: “Distributed storage, automated demand response, improved lighting ballasts, power supplies and grid control products can all mitigate or eliminate existing electricity challenges if they are developed using data that details the issues correctly.” Critical data scholars, however, have argued that data always require the presence of human experts to animate them (Gliteman 2013). But how, if at all, is this analytic commitment altered by the development of the “internet-of-things,” where humans are able to set parameters on smart-technology and smart-contracts, running on blockchain, so that these devices respond to data by themselves in real time?

           Texas is the highest energy consuming state in the second highest energy consuming nation in the world (EIA 2017). In fact, Texas has led the US in energy consumption rates every year since 1960, when the Environmental Information Administration started keeping track. Texas also has a long history and reputation as an energy producer and is currently the nation’s highest producer of crude-oil, natural gas, and lignite coal, and accounts for 30% of the United States’ total oil refining capacity (EIA 2017). On the other hand, Texas has recently become a world competitor in renewable energy. This has been achievable in part due to Texas’ unique state autonomy in concern to energy production and distribution, granted by the fact that Texas’ is the only electric grid in the US that does not incur federal regulation as it does not cross any state boundaries.

            Within Texas, Austin has shown a sustained commitment to developing its renewable energy infrastructure. Beginning with its innovative GreenChoice program in the late 80’s, Austin has been among the most fervent of US cities leading the charge for renewable energy integration. In the 1990’s, when Texas passed legislation to deregulate its energy market, Austin was one of the few Texas cities to retain control of its municipal utilities. By abstaining from deregulation, Austin maintained a higher capacity to alter its resource mix in accordance to the needs and desires of local residents. Today, Austin Energy the 8th largest publicly owned utility in the US. Austin’s utility also has strong connections with local university. The city’s clean energy initiatives receive substantial support from the University of Texas, whose Energy Institute is at the cutting edge of energy challenges and opportunities. Within this institute, UT’s Webber Energy Group and Pecan Street Inc. are particularly influential local actors, researching clean-energy initiatives such as the newly launched Austin Shines Program, which tests performance and efficiency of multiple scales and of solar plus storage combinations.

           Austin’s lack of a navigable river, precious metals, fossil fuels, and richly productive farmland have resulted in the city developing its higher education, technology, governmental, and cultural industries. The tech-side has been both a blessing and a curse for Austin’s environmental movement. “Smart Growth” emerged as a prominent rhetoric in the mid-to-late 1990’s and continues to influence Austin’s development to today. Due in part to the fact that Austin has this specialization in technology, plus a population with a recognized commitment to renewable energy, Austin was chosen as the site of a federally funded initiative, Austin SHINES, to test the efficiency of solar-plus-storage systems and various scales.

            Currently, 31% of Austin’s resource mix comes from renewable energy sources, compared to 10% for Texas as a whole and 13% for the US more broadly (Austin Energy 2017). Austin has numerous incentives to reduce energy consumption, as well as optional smart devices to help increase efficiency and enable demand response (which helps insure grid security). The city’s GreenChoice program was the first of its kind, which offered customers the opportunity to pay a premium to know that they are buying renewable energy rather than energy produced from nuclear or fossil fuels.

The Texas grid is managed by the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) which is located in Austin. This regulator is also in charge of keeping the grid load at acceptable levels and to generate prices and keep up with the wholesale and retail markets.

Though the City of Austin has a history of strong environmental policies, the state has notoriously strong ties to the oil and gas industry. Thus, developers have managed to use the state to get around Austin’s city legislation (Swearingen 2010).

The plan to discontinue three natural gas plants in Los Angeles is partly justified by pointing to the problems of relying on ocean water needed for cooling the plants. An overview of the various negative impacts of this process can be found here.

In April 2019, LA's Mayor Garcetti has announced his vision for a "Green New Deal", with the goal to make the city carbon neutral by 2050. Earlier in February, he shared plans to stop renewing three natural gas plants. The GND is backed up by over 40 different groups such as Communities for a Better Environment, Earthjustice, C40 GRID Alternatives Greater Los Angeles, Pacoima Beautiful, and Sierra Club.

The list of targets for the GND reads as follows

• "Building a zero carbon electricity grid — reaching an accelerated goal of 80% renewable energy supply by 2036 as we lead California toward 100% renewables by 2045.
• Creating a Jobs Cabinet to bring city, labor, educational, and business leaders together to support our effort to create 300,000 green jobs by 2035 and 400,000 by 2050.
• Mandating that all new municipally owned buildings and major renovations be all-electric, effective immediately, and that every building in Los Angeles — from skyscrapers to single family homes — become emissions free by 2050.
• Achieving a zero waste future by phasing out styrofoam by 2021, ending the use of plastic straws and single-use takeout containers by 2028, and no longer sending any trash to landfills by 2050.
• Recycling 100% of our wastewater by 2035; sourcing 70% of our water locally — a significant increase from our existing pathway; and nearly tripling the maximum amount of stormwater captured.
• Planting and maintaining at least 90,000 trees — which will provide 61 million square feet of shade — citywide by 2021 and increasing tree canopy in low-income, severely heat impacted areas by at least 50% by 2028."