Alain Hubert interviewed by RTBF (Belgian Radio)
Posted on the 16.04.2010 by Michel Brent
On April 6th 2010, Alain Hubert was interviewed by the Belgian journalist, Georges Lauwerijs (RTBF), for the 'Matin Première' programme. They talked about Belgium’s Princess Elisabeth Antarctic Station. Here are the most significant moments.
Posted in
The researchers' answers to zero emission
Georges Lauwerijs : Alain Hubert, your current headline news is the Princess Elisabeth Station. You got back from the Antarctic a few weeks ago. So the Station is closed after the southern summer. There have been two seasons of construction and one when it was fully up and running – that is to say that a succession of researchers have managed to bring their work there to successful conclusions. What answers have they given in relation to the objectives that you had set yourselves, for a ‘zero emission' station?
Alain Hubert : It’s true that it’s something of an adventure since the idea was to use only the forms of energy that are available in the Antarctic, i.e. the wind and the sun – it’s a specific case over there. To do this, we had to create a “Micro Smart Grid”, the first of its kind: it’s three times more efficient in terms of energy management than anything else in the whole wide world. We also wanted to be able to run the Station remotely in order to avoid having to send a team to the site for the entire southern winter. That’s why, this year, we’ve installed a satellite reception station.
Georges Lauwerijs: The Station is not yet 100% zero emission since you also have vehicles over there that are used for expeditions outside of the Station. And then there are the emissions that result from actually getting there. On this subject, there are comments on our website; people indeed are wondering, basically, what is the point of this project if, in order to make it work, you have to go there and therefore emit so much CO²?
Alain Hubert : First of all, nothing is perfect and will never be so in this world where everything is interdependent. What is important in our society today is to progress. It is to show that we are able, in the industrialised countries, to change our practises, to have another relationship with energy, to imagine new ways of producing it, another way of using it, of consuming it and inevitably of saving it. As for the ‘zero emission' concept, it’s only the workings of the Station that we’re talking about. To carry out research in the Antarctic, you have to go there, don’t you? And you have to go there by sea or by air, there’s no other choice – it’s a long way from everywhere. As for the presence of researchers over there, that is justified by the specific knowledge that can only be acquired in the Antarctic. And in particular in the Earth Sciences field and that of understanding the man-made nature of climate change.
What kind of research ?
Georges Lauwerijs : “Zero emission” was not the Station’s only objective. You also wanted, I believe, to welcome researchers from the whole world there. What kind of research has been done there, until now? Does it only relate to global warming?
Alain Hubert: Not essentially. There’s also been some basic research. Why? Because the Antarctic is a preserved place which is called furthermore an open-air laboratory, where research work is particularly interesting. There are for example microbiology researchers who are interested in cyanobacteria, in primitive cells that have been able to develop at such low temperatures - research that is more a matter of chemistry and pharmacology. We also welcome researchers to the Station who concentrate on geology, geomorphology or meteorites and micrometeorites - research that is concerned, for its part, with different timescales and with seeking to understand the origin of planets, for example. Others have devoted themselves to glaciology work (sea ice, for example, or ice movement, mass balance or the accumulation of snow). Then there are studies on the atmosphere, gravimetry, magnetosphere, etc. This particular research is more directly associated with climate change problems.
Who has the keys ?
Georges Lauwerijs: The Station’s headline news is the transfer of ownership to the Belgian State. Concretely, that means what? Who has the keys to the Station today? Are you its manager? Or is it Sabile Laruelle, the Minister of Scientific Research?
Alain Hubert : The station has indeed just been transferred to the Belgian State, because only States are members of the Antarctic Treaty. Let’s first recall that the Station has been spawned by a partnership between the IPF, which I chair, and a number of big societies. But not only that. There is also the partnership with society in general, people, and private sector companies that find the project both interesting and useful and have contributed to it via donations. All that means that we’ve been able to raise two thirds of the construction cost of this new base privately, namely 16 million euros. The Belgian State has contributed the rest. The basic idea was indeed to give the station to the Belgian State which, in return, has agreed to accept a number of responsibilities in relation to the means to be granted for the Station’s operation and a higher amount of research funding. And which has agreed in addition to reconsider the commitments made by our predecessors in a more positive and more concrete manner. Let’s not forget indeed that Belgium is one of the twelve founder countries of the Antarctic Treaty, the only continent in the world that is managed by a peace treaty set up and signed by 48 countries. That’s of real importance at the geopolitical level.
Georges Lauwerijs: Are there mining and other resources in the Antarctic?
Alain Hubert : Well of course there are resources.
The future is uncertain
Georges Lauwerijs: Therefore a danger coming from a possible sharing of those resources.
Alain Hubert : There is always a danger and the future is uncertain, unlike what we’ve been taught. That’s what has to be properly understood, and we have to know how to position ourselves as a human species and a human society in relation to these issues. And it will only be together that the various world societies will tomorrow be able or otherwise to assume their responsibilities in relation to the husbandry of this planet.
Georges Lauwerijs: Precisely, on the subject of the future, this future climate that they’ve been talking about for years. You’re obviously not unaware that the debate has now been resumed: between the so-called ‘climatosceptics' and the scientists . The former have new wind in their sails with the discovery of inaccuracies in the IPCC reports. What answer would you give, you, Alain Hubert, to the ‘climatosceptics'?
The important is what we know
Alain Hubert : My answer to them would be that what is important, today, is what we know. Obviously, we don’t know everything - research evolves and must by definition constantly call all these findings into question; the Earth Sciences furthermore are recent and the mathematical models, limited by their capacity of calculation, and the quantity of observations collected at this time, are still too imprecise.
That said, what we know today with certainty in connection with climate change is that global warming is essentially due to an increase of CO² (the main greenhouse gas), that its origin is known (from analysis of isotopes 13 and 14 of the carbon of said CO²), and therefore that it results from the growth of human activities (in particular the use of fossil fuels coming from subterranean nappes formed millions of years ago).
This being a fact and from the moment when the cause of a phenomenon is known and that its development is known to be exponential, one has to think that things are highly likely to accelerate, to cause a possible upset in the balance that has enabled our species to propagate over the planet – let’s not forget that, today, we’re in a situation that the Earth has never known since the advent of mankind. Knowing the causes, we can give thought to the means of containing this warming and of adapting to it.
So it appears, for our industrial societies, that it is first and foremost our relationship with energy that really must be changed: production, consumption and energy-saving. This means no more and no less than envisaging a new society model that must urgently be set up in the next decades. Why so quickly? Quite simply because it is our economic future that depends on it and more precisely employment and the development in the broad sense of our companies. There will inevitably be a moment when we have to understand that science stops and passes the baton to society, which will then have to assume its own responsibilities. So that’s where we are today, with the observation that in fact we do not want to change, share, alter our model of agricultural production or to call our economic and financial system into question …
How about the climatosceptics ?
Georges Lauwerijs: We sense that you’re optimistic and full of hope. But don't those climatosceptics get on your nerves sometimes? In France last week, 400 researchers asked the scientific high authorities, even the politicians, to stop this debate, and somehow to endorse the scientists’ work.
Alain Hubert: Adversarial debate has always existed in our society and is an integral part of it. It seems today particularly important to me to understand what is happening, no matter who you are. On this subject, it’s true that many media seem to enjoy sowing doubt in people’s minds by giving a platform to all and sundry without distinction. In a society debate around climatic questions, for example, they will always have one scientist “for” and another “against”, even though today 99% of the scientists in the world are explaining to us, through the latest IPCC report amongst other things, that global warming is man-made and that on average it is getting worse. Certain media also have an educational role to play and it would be good if they could remember that more often. People today are too often lost in the complexity of these climatic phenomena, the difference between meteorology and climate, or the role of biodiversity, whereas they in fact need to understand in order to adopt a position and to be able to act and become players themselves. This is fundamental because things will only change if we can understand that today it is in fact our economic and therefore our social interest that are in the balance.
As for the climatosceptics, they don’t frighten me. There’s obviously no point in having a go at one another or even in opposing each other as the scientists in France are doing. To answer your question: you have to explain! Once again it is education which is the missing piece of this jigsaw. Understand first and then decide which attitude to adopt. I repeat, there’s a moment when science stops and society starts!
Georges Lauwerijs: Outside of the debate between scientists, outside of the media, it cannot be said that the political world has set a good example. Copenhagen is proof of the fact. And what do you think, Alain Hubert, of the dropping of the carbon tax in France? The general public has cause for going nuts, hasn’t it?
Copenhagen teaches us that we have to invest in education
Alain Hubert : Admittedly, the political world has not been able to set a good example because quite simply we’re not ready to change. The political world remains, never forget, a reflection of its society! So it’s too easy to criticise it without taking the bull by the horns ourselves. What Copenhagen teaches us is that, more than ever, we have to invest in education. That’s also what we’re trying to do with the International Polar Foundation: with the first “Zero Emission” scientific station that we have just built in the Antarctic, the “Polaris Climate Change Observatory”, which is going to be established in various strategic places in the world – starting with Brussels - or the “Class Zero Emission” educational projects.
As for the carbon tax, I think that it was a mistake to have imagined that a country could go so far on its own while within a geopolitical area such as Europe. Other means exist - far more effective ones – for taking a lead in this field. To impose a tax relating to the carbon footprint certainly makes sense because it affects people’s pockets and the habits that have to change, but it will have to be enshrined within an approach that is at least European and will have to take account of everyone while not, as is almost always the case, leaving the most destitute behind.
What can WE do ?
Georges Lauwerijs: So what can people do that is concrete, immediately? At home?
Alain Hubert : There are two things. The first: they can analyse the way in which they manage energy in their own homes. What are they doing as regards insulation, how they heat their living accommodation, their water? Where are they with their electricity consumption and their energy-saving potential? Et cetera. It really should be emphasised that looking into management of this kind is first and foremost about saving money.
The second: people must try to acquire a little more information about these global warming problems. And try to apprehend them better in order to comprehend them better. I believe that, here, the politicians should play a much more active and audacious role, a federator role, by leading people to have a more collective approach to these problems, while setting for the municipalities and the cities for example constraining objectives that they will have to reach in five, ten and twenty years time. With a gradual redefinition of the relevant taxation, course. Such an approach would encourage the creation of new companies and the partial re-industrialisation of our regions, essential components of economic growth.
Interview with Alain Hubert by Georges Lauwerijs on RTBF 1 in the context of the ‘Matin Première’ programme of 06 April 2010.
The belgian research station Princess Elisabeth in Sor Rondane-Antarctica
© René Robert / IPF
