Climate Feedback

Anjali Nayar, an International Development Research Centre fellow at Nature, recently visited a pioneering project in Madagascar that's aiming to protect one of the country's few remaining forests. About 90% of the species in Madagascar's rainforests are found nowhere else on Earth, but efforts to save the island nation's forests are about more than conserving biodiversity.

It's hoped that projects like this will provide a model for efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation. Under a proposal, known as reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), wealthy nations could meet their emissions targets in part by buying carbon credits from developing countries such as Madagascar. REDD is one of the topics up for discussion at the UN climate-change conference in Copenhagen this December. Countries will negotiate whether REDD should be included in the global climate deal that takes over from the Kyoto Protocol.

But as Anjali reports, to be successful these projects must overcome the poverty and political upheaval common to most developing countries. Read Anjali's full report here. Or see a slideshow video version, here.

Posted by Olive Heffernan on November 05, 2009
Categories: Anjali Nayar, Biodiversity and Ecology, Carbon markets, Climate Policy, Deforestation, Features, GHG emissions, Notes from the Field | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Olive Heffernan

532,151,027,622: that’s the amount of carbon in tonnes that we’ve released into the atmosphere over the past 250 years from burning coal, making cement and chopping down forests, according to the calculations of Oxford University researchers.

You can watch this number climb rapidly on the newly launched website, trillionthtonne.org. Hosted by the Oxford e-Research Centre, it shows in real time just how close we are to reaching one trillion tonnes of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions, the maximum level allowable if we are to limit warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

The concept of restricting cumulative emissions to one trillion tonnes comes from work by Oxford climatologist Myles Allen and collaborators, who, in April this year, published two seminal papers in Nature [subscription]. They also wrote a commentary in Nature Reports Climate Change [free access] at the time, explaining the policy implications of their work: essentially, their point is that we need an overall carbon budget, as well as short term emissions targets. That’s because CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for millennia, which means that peak warming is determined by cumulative emissions, rather than by the rate at which CO2 is emitted over the short-term.

Though a trillion tonnes may sound like rather a lot, the fact that we’re more than half way there is alarming. Unless we start to reduce emissions rapidly, we’ll have released the trillionth tonne by 2045, shows the counter on the website. And we could go way beyond a trillion tonnes by the second half of this century, unless we mitigate, because there are several trillion tonnes of carbon available in fossil fuel reserves.

To make matters worse, the researchers estimate that to have less than a one-in-four chance of global warming exceeding 2°C, we may well need to keep our cumulative emissions to 750,000,000. The challenge is large: emissions will need to start to fall between 2 and 4.5 percent per year immediately and indefinitely if we are to avoid dangerous warming, according to these estimates.

The website was launched on October 22 to coincide with the unveiling at London’s Science Museum of a one tonne heap of anthracite coal, representing the trillionth tonne of carbon to be released into the atmosphere.

Posted by Olive Heffernan on November 02, 2009
Categories: Climate Science, Communicating Climate Change, GHG emissions, Olive Heffernan | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

International climate policy is largely focused on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. But even if we reduce emissions now, a proportion of CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for millennia. A faster-acting strategy is needed if we’re to avoid dangerous climate change in the short term. That’s the message from a team of experts writing in the latest issue of PNAS.

What’s needed to mitigate climate change fast, Nobel laureate Mario Molina and colleagues argue, is a focus on phasing out short-term warming agents. They pinpoint four non-CO2 gases and particles that could be regulated under existing legislation. Complementing cuts in CO2, these faster-acting mitigation strategies could “begin within 2–3 years, be substantially implemented in 5–10 years and produce a climate response within decades”, write the authors.

Their message on the need to regulate short-lived warming agents such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and black carbon is not new. To some extent Molina and co-authors reiterate the call for early action that appeared in a Nature editorial back in July. They, too, recommend that the Montreal Protocol be amended to include the phase-out of atmospheric HFCs, currently regulated under the Kyoto Protocol. But they go further in their recommendations for dealing with black carbon, suggesting possible technologies to reduce its production from cooking stoves and diesel emissions, as well as feasible institutional and political arrangements to put these technologies in place.

In addition, they call for efforts to reduce pollutant gases such as methane and nitrous oxides that ultimately increase ozone - a significant greenhouse gas - in the lower atmosphere. Regulating emissions from agriculture and transport would be crucial here. Last on their wish list is more and better biosequestration - through means such as biochar - to give carbon sinks a much-needed boost.

Olive Heffernan

Posted by Olive Heffernan on October 12, 2009
Categories: Aersosols, Climate Science, GHG emissions, Mitigation, Olive Heffernan | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Northern peatlands, typical for subarctic Scandinavia and Russia, contain one third of the world’s soil organic carbon. How much extra carbon these soils will release to the atmosphere, through accelerated respiration in a warmer climate, has been pretty much guesswork. Data from an eight-year in situ experiment carried out in Sweden now suggest that even modest warming will release enough extra carbon to effectively equalize the European Union’s emissions reductions achieved under the Kyoto Protocol.

Ellen Dorrepaal and her colleagues studied ecosystem response to climate warming at a test site near the Swedish Abisko scientific research station, some 200 kilometres inside the Arctic Circle. In a paper in Nature today (subscription required) they report that warming accelerated the respiration of carbon in peat overlaying the permafrost by almost 70 % - much more than previously thought. Here's an editor's summary.

Extrapolated to the total northern peatland area, the results suggest that climate warming of 1 degree Celsius over the next decade might lead to a global increase in respiration of 38-100 million tonnes of carbon per year. For comparison: The EU’s Kyoto target is to reduce emissions by 92 million tonnes of carbon per year.

The researchers stress that the effect is likely to last: “In contrast to long-term studies in forest, meadow and tundra ecosystems, the warming effect did not decline towards the eighth year of the study,” they write.

The net effect of warming on northern carbon reservoirs includes possible gains from increased plant growth. But in Arctic ecosystems dominated by peat and moss, there are too few productive woody shrubs growing to offset the warming effect on soils.

Quirin Schiermeier

Image: Subarctic peatland in Abisko, North Sweden where the consequences for CO2-respiration rates were investigated. Credit: Ellen Dorrepaal

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on July 30, 2009
Categories: Categories, Biosphere feedbacks, Climate Science, GHG emissions, Quirin Schiermeier, Topics, Uncertainty | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The G8 meeting last week – the last get-together of the leaders of the world’s major industrialized nations before the United Nations climate summit in December - was loaded with expectations as to what Obama & Co might give climate negotiators to take with them to Copenhagen.

The answer, in a nutshell, is two degrees.

Is that enough? The Nature news story here has the context and offers two opposite expert views.

“The G8 announcement is depressing,” says economist Gwyn Prins, a co-author of the pointed anti-Kyoto polemic ‘How to get climate policy back on course’ (pdf file), whom I interviewed last week for the article.

“Politicians are mistaking making statements for actually doing something. We really need to try something different,” he says. He believes the prospect is “vanishingly small” for developed and developing nations to agree on a meaningful deal in Copenhagen.

Others are not so pessimistic. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the German PIK and something of an elder statesman of science-led global change diplomacy, is actually quite enthusiastic about the G8’s two degrees target, which he believes will breathe new life into international climate politics.

“Now we can calculate precisely how much greenhouse gas we can still afford to emit if we don’t want to exceed a given probability of getting into dangerous territory,” he says.

Continue reading "What the G8 target means" »

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on July 15, 2009
Categories: Categories, Climate Policy, GHG emissions, Major Economies Meeting, Politics, Quirin Schiermeier, Topics, UN Conference on Climate Change, Copenhagen | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Why carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 24 million years or so have never dropped below 200 parts per million, despite environmental conditions that have been favourable for CO2 drawdown by rock weathering and sedimentation, has always been a bit of a mystery.

Now scientists suggest an almost provocatively simple mechanism that might have kept the planet from cooling more severely than it actually did during past glacial climates: Changes in terrestrial vegetation stopped the weathering-driven decline in atmospheric CO2 concentrations which else would have turned Earth into a lifeless freezer.

Weathering is known to be largely controlled by vegetation. So the team, led by Mark Pagani of Yale University, describes in a paper in Nature today a negative feedback whereby limited plant growth during cold conditions slows down the rate of weathering and sedimentation, thus preventing carbon dioxide levels from dropping even further. An editor's summary of the paper is here.

This “bold and provocative” hypothesis provides an “elegant twist” on existing ideas about climate-vegetation interactions, Yves Goddéris and Yannick Donnadieu write in an accompanying News and Views article (subscription required).

But the proposed feedback mechanism raises contentious issues as well. For example, Goddéris and Donnadieu argue that in the tropics the role of vegetation cover in the climate system might not be as significant as proposed.

Quirin Schiermeier

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on July 02, 2009
Categories: Categories, Biosphere feedbacks, Climate Science, GHG emissions, Palaeoclimate, Quirin Schiermeier, Topics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Scientists have long debated how the global climate might be affected by thawing of the Arctic's permanently frozen soils, known as permafrost. As permafrost melts, bacteria break down the organic matter in the soil, releasing greenhouse gases. But at the same time, plants flourish with access to warmer, deeper soils, taking in carbon dioxide. The overall affect on the climate was assumed to be the balance between the gassing and greening.

A new study in this week’s Nature [subscription], suggests that initially, after 15 years of thaw, plants grow faster and take in more carbon than is released by the melting tundra, making the ecosystem an overall carbon sink. But after a few decades, the balance shifts and the ecosystem becomes a source of carbon.

"The plants are growing faster, but after a few decades the rate of carbon loss from the soils is so high the plants can't keep up," says Edward Schuur from the University of Florida in Gainesville, who led the research. When Schuur extrapolated the findings to the entire Arctic region, they suggested a release of around a billion tonnes of carbon every year — of the same order of magnitude as emissions from current deforestation of the tropics. Burning of fossil fuels releases about 8.5 billion tonnes of CO2 a year.

It's estimated that permafrost soils store about twice as much carbon than is currently present in the atmosphere, so the stores of carbon in permafrost are unlikely to run out any time soon. "It's a slow-motion time bomb," says Schuur.

Read the full story over on Nature News.

Anjali Nayar is an intern reporter with Nature News.

Posted by Olive Heffernan on May 28, 2009
Categories: Extreme Events, GHG emissions, In the News, Research | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Russia has been a rather puzzling actor in the complicated diplomatic game which resulted in the Kyoto protocol, and which will be played out again in Copenhagen in December. Climate warming doesn’t make headlines, and has so far not been a big concern, between Moscow and Vladivostok. What prompted Russian leaders to ratify Kyoto was the prospect of making good money from emissions trading, rather than conviction that man-made climate change is a real phenomenon and a threat to society.

Now they have changed their minds. In April, Vladimir Putin and his ministers approved a new climate ‘doctrine’ – well, that’s how they call these things in Moscow – which for the first time officially recognizes severe risks of global warming and calls for immediate action. My story over at Nature News explains the nature and significance of the baffling doctrine, details of which are beginning to leak.

Critics point out that Russia plans to focus on adaptation to climate change, while putting less emphasis on actually reducing its emissions. Others say Russia’s new climate policy has been quietly constructed behind closed doors, without any involvement from industry, NGOs and the public. That’s all true; but Russia’s recognition of the scientific basis of climate change, and its apparent willingness to pro-actively partake in international climate protection efforts, outweighs these flaws. Let’s see what Moscow will put on the table in Copenhagen.

Sure, all eyes in December will be on China, and Russia’s taciturn climate diplomacy has in the past been a fickle and half-hearted affair. Even so, one must not under-estimate Moscow’s influence at international negotiation tables.

The climatic importance of Russia’s natural landscape, in particular its boreal forests and its permafrost soils, is beyond doubt anyway. For example, huge amounts of old carbon that accumulated over thousands of years are stored in permafrost soils which occupy more than 60% of Russia’s 17 million square-kilometre land area. How much of it will be released as the southern permafrost boundary shifts northwards as a result of climate warming, possibly by up to 100 kilometres in the next 20-25 years?

A paper in Nature this week suggests that, globally, permafrost thawing may lead to the release of an extra billion tonnes of carbon per year into the atmosphere. The team measured carbon flows at a tundra site in Alaska where permafrost has been thawing for 20 years, and then calculated from the data the likely trajectory of global carbon release from thawing permafrost. Here's an editor's summary.

Russian scientists were not involved in the study, led by Edward Schuur of the University of Florida in Gainesville. That’s a pity. If Moscow’s new interest in climate led to more frequent east-west collaborations in science, such as on permafrost, it would be a boon.

Quirin Schiermeier

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on May 28, 2009
Categories: Adaptation, Climate Policy, Climate Science, GHG emissions, Mitigation, Quirin Schiermeier, Topics, UN Conference on Climate Change, Copenhagen | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This week’s Nature has an extended climate special made of original research papers, features, commentaries, editorials, essays and book reviews. Here’s the content at a glance.

An uplifting read the package is not, but this will hardly surprise devoted readers of these pages. What’s it all about then? Well, Gavin Schmidt and David Archer, in their news and views piece, get to the heart of it: “Dangerous climate change, even loosely defined, is going to be hard to avoid.”

Some highlights:
Malte Meinshausen and colleagues find that cumulative emissions from 2000 to 2050 of about 1,400 billion tonnes of CO2 yield a 50% probability of exceeding 2 °C warming – the somewhat randomly defined threshold of dangerous climate change - by the end of the twenty-first century Here's an editor's summary of the paper. Just to be clear: Known 2000-2006 emissions were almost 250 billion tonnes.

Myles Allen and colleagues take a slightly different approach to calculating the climate response to anthropogenic emissions. They show that cumulative emissions of one trillion tonnes of carbon (3,670 billion tonnes CO2) over the entire 1750-2050 period yield a 90% probability of warming between 1.3 and 3.9 °C above pre-industrial temperatures, with 2 °C of warming being the best estimate. About half a trillion tonne has been emitted since the onset of industrialization. Here's an editor's summary.

In clear, if we want a reasonably good chance of staying beyond 2°C warming, we cannot afford burning all the oil, gas and coal buried in the ground. We can’t actually afford burning more than half the proven reserves. If we continue burning fossil fuels at current rates we will leave the ‘safety zone’ in less than 20 years. Let’s face it: We have a bad hand – and we can’t bluff the planet.

Continue reading "The wheel of climate fortune" »

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on April 30, 2009
Categories: Adaptation, Climate Science, Climate prediction, GHG emissions, Quirin Schiermeier, Topics, Uncertainty | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cross-posted from The Great Beyond

This week’s UN hosted climate change talks in Bonn, Germany, are well underway. According to New Scientist this climate summit is “more important than the G20”.

So what’s going on in Bonn?

This meeting is the first of five sessions leading up to what the UN says will be an “ambitious and effective international climate change deal” to be finalised in Copenhagen in December (pdf). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has already started its ‘countdown to Copenhagen’ timer.

However, as Reuters pointed out on Wednesday, delegates from 175 nations even managed to argue about what they were arguing about. The question is whether they should come up with a ‘treaty’, a ‘protocol’ an ‘agreement’, a ‘deal’, or a ‘decision’ to succeed the Kyoto protocol.

The first two would imply something legally binding, says the news wire, while the last would be non-binding. “It certainly has big legal implications,” Yvo de Boer, head of the UNFCCC, told Reuters on Tuesday.

Whatever the eventual wording is, developing nations think the more developed world should be trying harder. “We believe that by 2020 the [developed nations] should reduce their emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels,” says Chinese delegate Xu Huaqing (Reuters).

Current US plans are much less ambitious than this, points out the BBC, being merely to limit emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

“It is not the point in time in 2020 that matters - it is a long-term trajectory against which the science measures cumulative emissions,” says Jonathan Pershing, head of the US delegation. “The president has also announced his intent to pursue an 80% reduction by 2050.”

Continue reading "What’s going Bonn?" »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on April 03, 2009
Categories: Climate Science, Conferences and Meetings, Daniel Cressey, Features, GHG emissions, In the News, Mitigation, UN climate talks, Bonn, April 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One noteworthy observation at December’s AGU conference – the latest and largest ever gathering of earth and space scientists – was the attention being given to a threat conceivably worse than carbon dioxide. In numerous talks, during poster sessions and over coffee, scientists were discussing methane – a greenhouse gas with a warming potential 25 times that of CO2.

Researchers have long speculated that climate change will unleash vast stores of the gas from where it lies frozen beneath the sea floor and locked up in the Arctic, triggering rapid warming.

Until recently, however, there has been little cause for concern. But that could all be changing, reports Amanda Leigh Mascarelli in a feature online today (no subscription required). Several observations made in 2007 to 2008 and reported at the AGU suggest that we could be in danger of waking a sleeping giant.

For one, a group of researchers working in the shallow waters of the Siberian Shelf noticed that their methane measurements were usually high compared with previous observations made in the same location. Added to that, they saw large rings of gas — sometimes as wide as 30 centimetres in diameter — trapped in ice, as well as plumes bubbling to the ocean surface over hundreds of square kilometres.

Then a separate group of scientists reported that global atmospheric concentrations of methane had spiked in the same year, following almost a decade of stability. While scientists can’t say whether either of these observations are anomalies or part of a long-term trend, they are certainly paying closer attention to the problem than ever before. “If there’s a ticking bomb in the room, you’d like to know the possibility of it going off,” says geochemist James White of the University of Colorado. “The fact that it’s there at all is unnerving.”

Mascarelli’s feature gives the low-down on the latest science – from the role of methane in past warming events to projections of what might occur in the future – and looks at what experts are doing to avert the problem. Some intriguing approaches abound, from parts of re-wilding Siberia with large animals that literally stomp the permafrost to keep it intact to using natural methane leaks as a power source for remote villages.

But if understanding the methane problem sounds like all work and no play, think again. Katey Walter of the University of Alaska, whose work is featured by Mascarelli, has produced some amazing videos while studying methane bubbling up from lake bottoms in the Arctic. Here her team drills through lake ice, then lights the escaping methane.

Anna Barnett and Olive Heffernan

Image: The average atmospheric concentration of methane shot up suddenly in 2007, having remained stable for a decade. Data shown are from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment and the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, courtesy of Matt Rigby.

Posted by Anna Barnett on March 05, 2009
Categories: Anna Barnett, Cryosphere, GHG emissions, Olive Heffernan | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The loss of NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), which last week ended up in the ocean rather than in orbit, is a hard blow not only to the team who devoted much of the last decade to getting it off the ground but to scientific – and especially climate - research.

There is quite literally of sense of grief among the climate research community, evident in the story by Jeff Tollefson and Geoff Brumfiel over on Nature News. My colleague Anna Barnett interviewed David Crisp, OCO Principal Investigator, ahead of the launch. His excitement about the mission was palpable as he spoke of how the NASA satellite would measure atmospheric carbon dioxide at a resolution 3 times higher than any previous space measurement of a trace gas.

The Japanese space agency successfully launched their Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT) in January and undoubtedly this will provide some of the data that OCO would have collected. But OCO would have provided an unprecedented spatial resolution. Taking half a million carbon dioxide measurements per day, the satellite would have located specific sources of the greenhouse gas, differentiating cities and freeways from adjacent forested areas.

Not only is this a huge loss for exploratory science, the timing of the incident is especially unfortunate. With emissions rising and a global climate deal in the balance, pinpointing the origin and fate of carbon dioxide has never been more urgent — a task that the US$280-million mission would have accomplished skillfully.

So what’s next for NASA? Personally, I think the agency should make every effort towards a rapid re-launch, as I’ve detailed in my latest editorial. Getting an OCO replacement into orbit within the next few years would offer at least a brief period of data verification with GOSAT – one advantage of having two CO2 trackers in space simultaneously – and would have the added advantage of monitoring carbon heavyweights from space during the early stages of a post-2012 global climate deal.

Continue reading "NASA’s next challenge " »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on March 03, 2009
Categories: Climate Policy, Climate Science, Features, GHG emissions, In the News, Olive Heffernan, Technology | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

NASA’s long-awaited carbon dioxide detector, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), crashed into the ocean near Antarctica today following a launch failure.

The $280 million mission would have provided much needed information on the origin and fate of carbon dioxide emissions. The instruments aboard the satellite were designed to measure carbon dioxide at a precision higher than any current space-based measurements of a trace gas, and would have helped scientists to identify sources and sinks of the greenhouse gas. Although the project was intended as a science mission, its results would also have been relevant to policymakers.

The loss of OCO marks a huge setback for the climate science community, and especially for the scientists who have worked so hard to get the satellite off the ground. Geoff Brumfiel reports over on Nature News (subscription):

It's a major setback," says Paul Palmer, a climate scientist at the University of Edinburgh, UK, who is part of the OCO science team. It will be particularly devastating for the tight-knit group of scientists and engineers who have devoted much of the past decade to the project. "These guys have sweated OCO for seven or eight years," he says.

The data from OCO would also have complemented those being collected by another satellite launched in January. The Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT), a project of the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency, will now have to verify its measurements of methane, water vapour and carbon dioxide against those taken from ground-based stations.

Olive Heffernan

Posted by Olive Heffernan on February 24, 2009
Categories: Climate Science, Features, GHG emissions, In the News, Olive Heffernan, Technology | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Cross-posted from The Great Beyond

Lucky American readers can now get an instant carbon-guilt trip, all courtesy of Google and NASA.

Researchers at Purdue University in Indiana, with funding from NASA, have shoehorned a wealth of data on carbon dioxide emissions into the interactive globe tool that is Google Earth. It’s a timely move, given that the Environmental Protection Agency seems to be preparing to regulate carbon dioxide for the first time (NY Times) and NASA is about to launch its Orbiting Carbon Observatory (Nature Reports Climate Change).

The data for this new addition to Google Earth comes from the Vulcan system which graced this blog last year (see: ‘Vulcan’ shows carbon dioxide’s death-grip - April 08, 2008).

“From a societal perspective, Vulcan provides a description of where and when society influences climate change through fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions,” says researcher Kevin Gurney of Purdue (press release).

“Users can see their county or state in relation to others, and see what aspects of economic activity are driving fossil-fuel emissions. Vulcan could help demystify climate change and empower people in the same way as seeing the miles-per-gallon number on the dashboard of a hybrid car.”

At the moment this is limited just to the United States, although Canadian and Mexican versions are being prepared. There is not a whisper though of ‘Project Hestia’, the global version of Vulcan that is supposedly in the works.

More coverage

Google Earth maps carbon dioxide emissions – LA Times

Scientists map CO2 emissions with Google Earth – AFP

Boilermappers: Purdue Researchers Put Emissions on Google Earth – WSJ

Daniel Cressey

Image: Purdue University/Google Earth

Posted by Anna Barnett on February 20, 2009
Categories: Communicating Climate Change, Daniel Cressey, GHG emissions, In the News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tropical forests which (still) cover around 10% of the global land area contain more carbon per hectare than any other form of vegetation. It’s obvious from that that their growth or decline has a huge impact on the global carbon budget.

Cutting down forests will add carbon to the atmosphere, no matter which kind of land cover replaces the jungle. But what’s happening in tropical forests that have long been undisturbed by logging, storms or fire? Theoretically, the carbon balance of such old-growth forest – if tree growth and death are in equilibrium, that is - should be next to zero.

But apparently it’s not. In a paper in Nature today (subscription), a team led by Simon Lewis of Leeds University in Britain reports that tree biomass in intact African forests increased between 1968 and 2007. Across 79 plots monitored in ten countries large living trees added an average 0.63 tonnes of carbon per hectare each year. Scaled up to the continent, and including roots, smaller trees and dead wood, African forests seem to have stored 340 million tonnes of carbon per year during recent decades. Previous studies suggested that Amazonian forests are accumulating biomass and carbon at a similar rate. Globally, intact tropical forests seem to take up 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon per year – equivalent to almost 20% of annual carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.

Continue reading "Jungle Fit!" »

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on February 18, 2009
Categories: Categories, Biosphere feedbacks, Deforestation, GHG emissions, Mitigation, Quirin Schiermeier, Topics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Researchers have discovered new hot spots for emissions of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide: barren patches of peat dotted across northern tundra. And warming in the Arctic - just as it threatens to multiply emissions of carbon dioxide and methane from thawing permafrost and drying bogs - could accelerate the output of this lesser-known climate change culprit, according to a study in Nature Geoscience this week (subscription).

Nitrous oxide is the other other greenhouse gas. In the new paper, Pertii Martikainen of the University of Kuopio in Finland and colleagues call it third most important behind carbon dioxide and methane, noting that it contributes a reported 6% to global warming. It’s not been considered a player at all in the Arctic, where the few scientists who’ve looked for the gas have found negligible emissions. But that’s because they’ve been looking in the wrong places, say Martikainen’s team.

Continue reading "New Arctic feedback: vicious peat circles" »

Posted by Anna Barnett on February 17, 2009
Categories: Anna Barnett, Biosphere feedbacks, Cryosphere, GHG emissions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cross-posted from In the Field

A leader of the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told the AAAS annual meeting in Chicago on Saturday that the world's climate is likely to change much faster than predicted, leaving the world with two choices: start cutting carbon emissions earlier, or make the cuts deeper.

The comments came the morning after former U.S. Vice President Al Gore called on scientists at the meeting to help convey a sense of urgency about climate change to policy makers and the public.

"We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations," said Chris Field, co-chair of the IPCC's second working group and a professor at Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science.

This is because the rate at which carbon is entering the atmosphere is increasing much faster than the IPPC modeled in its last report, issued in 2007. That report estimated that world temperatures could increase by between 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius by 2100. But the surge in the use of coal to generate power in developing countries, combined with climate impacts on natural carbon sinks, such as oceans, forests and tundra, mean that future climate impacts will likely be more severe than the IPPC realized, Field said.

"We have higher emissions, and we have a less friendly natural system to picking up these higher emissions, and they both mean that looking forward, the challenge of stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide is getting more complicated than we thought it was before," Field said.

Continue reading "AAAS: Climate issue getting "more complicated"" »

Posted by Anna Barnett on February 16, 2009
Categories: Climate Science, Climate prediction, Deforestation, Energy, Erika Check Hayden, GHG emissions | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A couple of news items from the ocean fertilization front:

The Indo-German LOHAFEX experiment in the Southern Ocean, suspended two weeks ago, can be conducted as planned. Independent reviews sought by the German science ministry concluded that the experiment is in agreement with environmental standards and international law. On Tuesday, the team on board the German Polarstern started dumping its cargo of 20 tonnes of iron sulphate. The ship will stay around the area for around six weeks, giving the scientists’ enough time to observe the growth and decay of an ‘artificial’ algal bloom.

Picture: RV Polarstern (Alfred Wegener Institute)

It’ll be interesting how their observations, in particular concerning the rate and efficiency of carbon export to the deep ocean, will relate with data reported in a Nature paper this week on natural iron fertilization.

The CROZEX study was conducted in 2004 and 2005 near the Crozet archipelago at the northern boundary of the Southern Ocean. Raymond Pollard of the National Oceanography Centre Southampton and his team found that natural iron fertilization, by dust supplied from the Crozet Islands, increases biological production and the amount of organic carbon taken down into the deep ocean.

That’s not particularly surprising. But what’s amazing is this: The amount of carbon sequestered to 200 metres depth, while 18 times greater than that during an artificially induced bloom (like LOHAFEX), was a stunning 77 times smaller than the amount that had previously been determined during a natural bloom in the nearby Kerguelen region. What’s more, carbon flux at 3,000 metres, where carbon dioxide sucked up at the surface would be safely locked away for centuries, was just 3% of that at 100 metres. Check out this week's Nature podcast and the paper here (subscription)

“CROZEX carbon sequestration for a given iron supply (…) falls 15-20 times short of some geo-engineering estimates,” the authors conclude. This, you’ve guessed it, has “significant implications for proposals to mitigate the effects of climate change through purposeful addition of iron the ocean.”

It has indeed. The Nature news story here makes the point that the findings, if they hold up, could actually be the final blow to such proposals. The notion that putting a little iron into the oceans here and there will suck up most of the surplus atmospheric carbon dioxide is pretty much dead, so it seems. Alas, it was just too good to be true.

Quirin Schiermeier

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on January 29, 2009
Categories: Climate Science, GHG emissions, Mitigation, Ocean science, Quirin Schiermeier, Topics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

As speculation grows that agreeing a global deal on climate change may extend well beyond the 2009 deadline, the risk of overshooting the EU’s target to limit the increase in global temperature to 2°C over pre-industrial levels looks increasingly likely.

The target is based on scientific evidence that below a 2°C increase, some of the worst impacts of climate change would be avoided. In its fourth assessment report, the IPCC calculated that limiting warming to that extent would mean stabilizing atmospheric concentrations at roughly 450 ppm CO2-equivalents.

But it’s clear at this year’s AGU that much uncertainty, and disagreement, remains on whether 2°C is an appropriate target and on the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations that equate to a given amount of warming.

Speaking here yesterday, James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, called for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to be restricted to 350ppm. Hansen also recently advised the UK government’s Environmental Audit Committee that the 2°C target should be revised to a 1°C increase above pre-industrial levels. Meanwhile, many of the scientists presenting work here are wrangling with whether stabilizing at 450ppm – or higher – is economically and technologically feasible.

The debate on where to stabilize is largely due to what Stanford’s Stephen Schneider dubs ‘double-barrelled uncertainty’ a term that encompasses the unknown factor in how far we can reduce emissions and in how the climate system will respond to any reductions we make.

The latter uncertainty – that inherent in the system – is measured in terms of climate sensitivity i.e. how much warming would occur if atmospheric GHG concentrations were doubled. This is currently estimated at 2-4.5°C, but Schneider said here on Tuesday that it’s more important for society to know the uncertainty around this range i.e. the chance that we will see a much larger degree of warming than anticipated for various atmospheric concentrations.

Given the fact that a massive reduction in emissions in the coming decades it is very unlikely, he says, and the fact that we could overshoot our target anyway, we need to take a serious look at the consequences. Schneider suggests that the IPCC should take it on board to evaluate climate scenarios for overshooting to 600 ppm and then subsequently reducing atmospheric concentrations to say 500ppm or 450ppm.

Continue reading "AGU 2008: Uncertainty and overshooting 2°C" »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on December 18, 2008
Categories: AGU, Climate Science, Climate prediction, GHG emissions, Olive Heffernan | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Whether peak oil is good news for the climate ultimately depends on what replaces oil as our staple fuel source. It will be unsurprising to most that replacing dwindling oil reserves with coal would do little to solve the climate problem, but how much coal remains is also highly uncertain, according to Prof. David Rutledge of Caltech, who spoke to the press at the AGU this morning.

Andy Dessler of Texas A&M touched on this in a guest commentary posted here last month. In short, Dessler called for a global IPCC-like assessment of our fossil fuel reserves, pointing to a new analysis by Rutledge that shows the world’s available coal reserves are far lower than traditional estimates would suggest. If Rutledge’s estimates are correct, combustion of all remaining conventional oil, gas, and coal reserves would produce an atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide of approximately 470 ppmv in 2100, near the stabilization target that many climatologists argue we must achieve to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

While Rutledge’s estimates suggest that the worst-case scenarios of the IPCC may be unachievable, Ken Caldeira of Washington’s Carnegie Institute had a more sobering message. Caldeira and colleagues used a climate and carbon cycle model to look at how running out of oil could affect future climate scenarios. Their analysis showed that if we replaced oil with liquefied coal fuel promptly, we would reach 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures in 2042 instead of 2045. Replacing oil with renewables, however, would delay reaching 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures by 11 years. This is simply because per coal emits more carbon dioxide per unit of energy than oil; add to that the energy costs associated with conversion of coal to liquid fuels, a likely option if we run out of oil.

Continue reading "AGU 2008: Peak fuel reserves " »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on December 17, 2008
Categories: AGU, Climate prediction, Energy, GHG emissions, Olive Heffernan | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

After eleven months of legislative work, the European Parliament gave its backing today to the European Union’s (EU) climate change package which aims to ensure that the EU will achieve its self-set climate targets by 2020: a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 levels, a 20% improvement in energy efficiency, and a 20% share for renewables in the EU energy mix.

EU heads of states, who had hammered out the agreement last week, called the legislation "historic". But critics say the reduction targets are less ambitious than they appear, basically a bluff. What bothers environmentalist most are the many far-reaching concessions to power plants and other emission-intensive industries participating in the EU’s mandatory emissions trading system.

More about this is in my story over on Nature News.

Quirin Schiermeier

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on December 17, 2008
Categories: Carbon markets, Climate Policy, GHG emissions, Politics, Quirin Schiermeier, Topics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Arctic tundra is letting loose a large and unexpected burst of methane in the autumn, finds a new study out in Nature today. Unlike the oceanic methane bubbles that made headlines a few months ago, this isn’t suggested to be an effect of climate change – it’s the formerly overlooked (or rather, never-looked-for) tail of a natural seasonal cycle. But it’s important for understanding natural methane-emitting processes that may be affected by future warming. I’ve got the full story over on Nature News.

The newly discovered surge of greenhouse gas is brought to you by International Polar Year. Thanks to that research push, a team led by biogeochemist Torben Christensen of Lund University, Sweden, got a two-month extension on the usual field season at a monitoring station in northeast Greenland. Scientists have been measuring methane emissions from far-northern tundra during the growing season for decades, but it had been assumed that once methane levels taper off in late summer, they stay at next to nil over the freezing fall and winter.

Far from it. Emissions actually spike as the ground starts to frost over, the researchers found, and cumulative emissions during the freeze-in are about equal to those in summer. If all wet meadow tundras release a similar methane burst, they calculate, about 4 million tonnes may be emitted each winter. That’s not enough to affect estimates of the total annual methane emissions from tundra (30 to 100 million tonnes), but it’s just right to account for an observed autumn surge in atmospheric methane over the frozen north that had previously gone unexplained.

Continue reading "Frozen tundra bursting with gas" »

Posted by Anna Barnett on December 03, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Cryosphere, GHG emissions, In the News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cranking out 11th-hour regulations has become a tradition among exiting US presidents, and despite early hopes to the contrary it looks like this year will be no different.

Topping the list in terms of energy this year is a pair of industry-friendly regulations that critics say would increase pollution from coal-fired power plants. In this week’s edition of Nature, we take a quick look at these and a few others that are moving through the system as the Bush administration prepares to hand the reigns to Barack Obama in January.

The regulations in question are technical in nature, which means the overall result is not always obvious. One of the rules being proposed would change the way power plant pollution is measured in national parks and wilderness areas. By shifting from an annual emissions calculation to a short-term maximum measured over the course of hours, for instance, power plant managers can increase their energy output and effectively put more emissions into the air over the course of a year.

Continue reading "'Midnight regulations' target power plants, and more" »

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on November 05, 2008
Categories: GHG emissions, Jeff Tollefson | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In July, a feature in Nature Reports Climate Change
first reported concerns that Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), a greenhouse gas at least 12,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide, could be substantially more prevalent in the atmosphere than previously estimated.

Now the first actual measurements of the gas, conducted at two clean-air sites in California and Tasmania, confirm that University of California chemist Michael Prather’s initial suspicion was right: The gas, widely used as an etchant in the plasma screen production process, does escape in quite significant amounts to the atmosphere, scientists with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography have found.

Over the last 30 years, the atmospheric concentration of NF3 has increased more than 20-fold, they write in a paper in press at Geophysical Research Letters (subscription). The overall amount of the gas in the atmosphere, currently some 5,400 tonnes, is rising by 11% per year.

In light of these new measurements, the idea that the global warming potential of atmospheric NF3 is negligible must surely be revised. The Nature news story here has more details and explains what experts say should be done about the problem.

Quirin Schiermeier

Image: Punchstock

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on October 27, 2008
Categories: GHG emissions, Quirin Schiermeier | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Is the global financial crisis good or bad for green issues? The ongoing controversy over the European Union’s ambitious climate and energy package suggests the latter might be the case. But political and economical analysts seem to be increasingly confident that the current crisis might give rise to environmentally healthier policies and investment decisions.

The EU heads of state are still determined to finalise the package before the end of the year, but they expect tough negotiations with a group of reluctant countries led by Poland.

An editorial in this week’s Nature lays out the options and prospects for EU climate policies in light of the financial crisis:

“Striking the required bargains may require more time than the remaining two months under French presidency. But a well-weighed set of rules is far and away preferable to a rushed political compromise that would substantially water down the EU’s ambitious climate plan. (…) Meanwhile, the current economic turbulence cannot be allowed to serve as a pretext for lessening climate protection efforts.”

Meanwhile, United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said in a statement that the EU plan “could also be a boon for the economy, generating millions of new jobs at a time when the world is suffering from the financial crisis.”

Any agreement will come too late for the international climate talks next month in Poznan, Poland (of all places). But a strong European commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 % would be a much-needed signal to the UN climate meeting in Copenhagen 2009, where nations hope to conclude on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.

Continue reading "From greed to green?" »

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on October 23, 2008
Categories: Business, Carbon markets, Climate Policy, GHG emissions, Opinion, Politics, Quirin Schiermeier, Topics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The European Parliament’s environment committee yesterday voted largely in favour of the ambitious European climate action plan (subscription) proposed in January.

The decision, although preliminary, allows the European Union (EU) to go into the upcoming next round of international climate negotiations with a common goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions across Europe by at least 20 % by 2020. The European commission, Council and Parliament must yet formally agree on details of the plan, but substantial changes are now considered unlikely.

Power plants in Europe will no longer receive free allowances for their greenhouse-gas emissions.TRAVELPIX/GETTY

Most hotly contested were the amendments to the EU’s emission trading system (ETS) which the European commission had proposed in January to strengthen the effectiveness of the scheme.

Introduced in 2005, the ETS is as yet the only mandatory emissions trading system in the world. Until now, power stations and other large European industries have benefitted from generous supply of free permits to release carbon dioxide. Much of the commission’s proposed reform was aimed to end the over-allocation of emission allowances.

The compromise now agreed upon in parliament doesn’t pull the teeth out of the original plan. As of 2013, power stations will not receive free emission allowances anymore. Instead, they will have to obtain 100% of allowances at auction.

Other energy-intensive industries, such as steel and cement facilities which, unlike the power sector, have to compete with suppliers outside the EU, will in a first phase merely have to obtain 15% (rather than 20 % as the commission had initially proposed) of emission allowances at auction. But the allocation of free allowances to manufacturing industries is to be gradually phased out by 2020.

The environment committee did make some concessions to industry, though. The threshold for facilities – currently around 10,000 - which participate in the ETS is to be raised from 10,000 to 25,000 tonnes of annual carbon dioxide emissions.

Continue reading "EU Parliament backs climate plan" »

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on October 08, 2008
Categories: Business, Carbon markets, Climate Policy, Energy, GHG emissions, In the News, Politics, Quirin Schiermeier, Topics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

“In the 1970s, all the scientists were saying an ice age was coming.” This seems to be a popular sentiment echoed in blogs and novels aimed at challenging the consensus views regarding future climate change. It was even a key theme in Michael Crichton’s State of Fear , when a character suggests that scientists only jumped on the global warming bandwagon in a bid to secure funding.

But a new article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society challenges the idea of a 'global cooling ' consensus. Thomas Peterson of NOAA teamed with William Connolley of the British Antarctic survey and science reporter John Fleck to create a survey of peer-reviewed climate literature from the 1970s. Looking at every paper that dealt with climate change projections or an aspect of climate forcing from 1965 to 1979, they were able to assess the ‘trends’ in the literature. They found that only 7 of the 71 total papers surveyed predicted global cooling. The vast majority (44) actually predicted that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming.

Continue reading "The great global cooling myth" »

Posted by Alicia Newton on October 07, 2008
Categories: Alicia Newton, Climate Science, Climate prediction, Communicating Climate Change, GHG emissions | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0)

The recent Summer Olympics in Beijing has drawn international attention to China’s efforts to improve air quality and reduce pollution, both during the Olympics and in the long term. According to Chinese officials, they have made tremendous strides in raising air quality levels since 1998, reporting ever increasing numbers of 'Blue Sky Days’.

However, a new study by Steven Q. Andrews of Princeton University in Environmental Research Letters suggests this may have more to do with reporting than actual increases in air quality. Andrews reanalyzed air quality data and found that much of the improvement reported for Beijing can be attributed to changes in the locations of monitoring stations and revisions to the air quality standards, rather than changes in the level of pollutants. Using the 1996 air quality standards and the original monitoring stations, Andrews finds 55 fewer ‘Blue Sky Days’ in 2007 than the official reports.

Continue reading "Clouding the Blue Skies" »

Posted by Alicia Newton on October 02, 2008
Categories: Alicia Newton, GHG emissions, Society | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If carbon dioxide is trump, then methane is the joker in the greenhouse game. The flammable gas (CH4) is produced in wetlands, landfills and in the guts of cattle and sheep, and it is stored in vast amounts in so-called clathrates, or gas hydrates, in the ocean floor.

The latter stuff has always kindled imagination. In the 1930s, dumbfounded Russian sailors who had lit dynamite for navigational purposes in the Siberian Arctic reported that the air around them started to burn. Had they set on fire methane released from clathrate reservoirs? Perhaps.

Less likely is that methane bubbling up from the ocean floor can makes the water so foamy that ships floating above sink like a rock. File this under Bermuda triangle myths.

But catastrophic methane bursts do seem to be linked with anomalous warming episodes in the Earth’s past, such as the one that occurred at the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum around 55 million years ago. Dissociating clathrates may well have been the culprit then.

What had uncorked the bottle is unclear. But in any case, reports this week of methane emissions from sub-sea permafrost beneath the Siberian shelf, and from the seabed off Svalbard, sound alarming.

Geologists assume there are large methane hydrate reservoirs in both regions. Are they beginning to destabilize? Have we lit a time bomb? Is global warning getting out of control?

Media reports this week imply all this, some more and some less cautiously. It’s a wonderful story of course: Weird things happening in the Arctic, strange tales from the bottom of the ocean, Apocalypse Soon! It’s new, it’s exciting, it’s scary - no wonder journalists love it.

But wait a minute. The methane system discovered off Svalbard has probably been active for thousands of years, it’s only that no-one has ever looked for it.

The methane emissions detected in the Laptev Sea are also not a new phenomenon. Russian scientists have observed methane plumes there since the mid-1990s when they began to regularly visit the remote and inaccessible region. It does seem that there are many more, and possibly more vigorous, emission hotspots than was previously thought. But observations are still few; it’s not too much of a surprise that the harder they look the more they will find. I have tried to put the recent discoveries in context in my news story here.

That’s not to say that rising methane emissions, and thawing permafrost, are no concerns. They are, and their sources and causes need to be studied carefully. Long-overlooked methane emissions from living plants, as were just recently confirmed, are proof enough for how poorly methane cycles are actually understood.

But not only in matters climate change there’s a danger of confusing people by media coverage that alternates between alarmism and appeasement. Andrew Revkin of the New York Times has appositely termed the effect a journalistic whiplash for the public.

Science, although intrinsically a never-ending process, will every so often generate journalistic scoops - and sometimes journalistic kitsch. The methane story is exciting, but inflationary use of ‘dramatic’, 'alarming' etc in science stories produces only cheap thrills.

Quirin Schiermeier

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on September 28, 2008
Categories: Recent contributors, Biosphere feedbacks, GHG emissions, In the News, Ocean science, Palaeoclimate, Quirin Schiermeier | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I wrote here yesterday that ‘I don’t think that anyone knows for sure how close we are to reaching tipping points in the climate system’. As it so happens, a pair of articles published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week illustrates this point nicely.

The first is a Perspective by atmospheric scientist V Ramanathan and postdoctoral researcher Yan Feng from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, who argue that the Earth is now committed to a 2.4°C rise in temperature above pre-industrial levels.

Anything above a 2°C increase is generally considered to be ‘dangerous’ climate change and would likely trigger several of the Earth’s tipping points, such as the complete loss of Arctic summer sea ice and melting of the Greenland ice sheet. And according to the IPCC, a rise in global temperature by 1-3°C will commit the planet to widespread loss of biodiversity, widespread deglaciation of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and a major reduction of area and volume of Hindu-Kush-Himalaya-Tibetan glaciers, which provide the head-waters for most major river systems of Asia.

The authors argue that for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to remain constant at 2005 levels for the rest of the century, aggressive emissions reductions would be required – yet emissions are rising.

Currently, the warming effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is being masked by the cooling effect of other air pollutants – such as smoke from cooking and agricultural waste burning – that create a dimming effect at the Earth’s surface.

Assuming policies to reduce these air pollutants are successful, the full warming potential of greenhouse gases will soon be realized. So as air pollution measures become effective (and much headway is being made here), the need for reducing carbon dioxide emissions becomes even more urgent, say Ramanathan and Feng.

Continue reading "Could tipping happen any time soon? " »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on September 26, 2008
Categories: Climate Policy, Climate Science, Features, GHG emissions, Journal Club, Mitigation, Olive Heffernan | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Cross posted from The Great Beyond

The latest global carbon budget numbers are just out, and they make interesting, if slightly depressing, reading. (Global Carbon Project site – will be updated at midnight)

Most striking is that, despite years of effort, carbon dioxide emissions are increasing at an alarming rate of 3.5% a year– faster than the 2.7% predicted by the IPCC in their worst case scenario, and miles ahead of the 0.9% annual rise in the 1990s. Worst still, current measures have been based on a middle-ground IPCC scenario. Pep Candell from the Global Carbon Budget told me that this was “astonishing”.

For the first time, we have hit 10 billion tonnes of carbon emitted annually.

The other thing to note is that China and India are galumphing their way up the table of biggest carbon dioxide emitters. Ten years ago the top four were: USA, China, Russia, Japan. Today that list reads: China, USA, Russia, India – and I am assured by Candell that next year India will have jumped into third place.

This is a worry – when the Kyoto Protocol was first talked about, the countries of the developing developed world were overwhelmingly the highest emitters of CO2. But in the meantime, whilst decisions were made, details argued out and paperwork signed, the developing world has taken pole position.

China has, since 2002, jumped from being responsible for 14% of the global carbon dioxide emissions, to 21%. At the same time the US has been hovering at around 20%.

Slightly good news is that our natural saviours - the oceans, forests and soil, are still doing a sterling job. In 1959, natural sinks removed just over 50% of the carbon dioxide man emitted. And today, they do the same - gobble up just over half. The efficiency of these natural sinks has dropped by about 5% in the intervening years, which isn't ideal, but means that the overall news is not disastrous.

Response to the news – which will be officially announced tomorrow – from the media is widespread. It’s a ‘reality check’ according to the Daily Green; Zee News runs with the rise of India in the emission charts; while other reports tell it like it is: carbon dioxide emissions still rising.

Katharine Sanderson

Posted by Olive Heffernan on September 25, 2008
Categories: Climate Science, Features, GHG emissions, In the News | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

For all tree huggers out there, this week’s Science is dedicated to ‘forests in flux’, paying tribute to the trees and their contribution to the greater good. A special collection of articles in print, with complementary and online material, examines the fate of the world’s forests, in the face of climate change and an escalating human population.

If it’s been a while since you’ve had the chance to appreciate the languid leafiness of forest foliage, check out the online video. Or for those of you hoping for a more ‘hands on’ experience, there’s a whole section of Science Careers dedicated to opportunities in forest ecology.

There’s lots of serious science, with six Perspectives and one Review by researchers from all over the globe who give their tuppence worth on what’s needed to better understand forests and manage them properly.

Of particular relevance to discussions on how forests can mitigate global warming, Lera Miles and Valerie Kapos have a Perspective highlighting the risks involved in proposed schemes such as REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) and how to minimize them. Also on this topic, Josep Canadell and Michael Raupach write on what science currently tells us is the best way to manage forests for sequestering carbon.

Drew Purves and Stephen Pacala discuss how forest dynamics remain one of the largest uncertainties in predicting future climate change and detail some of the efforts underway to improve their representation in models. Or for a really solid review of how forests affect climate change, check out Gordan Bonan’s piece here.

Or if that seems like a lot of tree pulp to get through, here are some interesting stats from the issue:

Forests cover ~42 million km2 in tropical, temperate, and boreal lands, and cover ~30% of the land surface

They store ~45% of terrestrial carbon and account for ~50% of terrestrial net primary production.

Forests hold more than double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

Carbon uptake by forests in the 1990s contributed to ~33% of anthropogenic carbon emission from fossil fuel and landuse change.

Olive Heffernan

Image: Plantations of Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus nitens in Gippsland (Victoria, Australia); courtesy of Michael Ryan.

Posted by Olive Heffernan on June 13, 2008
Categories: Biodiversity and Ecology, Biosphere feedbacks, Carbon markets, Climate Policy, Climate Science, Climate prediction, Deforestation, GHG emissions, Mitigation, Olive Heffernan, Uncertainty | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the Times and the Guardian, a new study led by economist Deiter Helm of Oxford finds that the UK's greenhouse gas emissions have actually risen 19% above 1990 levels, not fallen 15% as officially reported to the UN. The discrepancy comes from the official figures' neglect of emissions from aviation, shipping, overseas trade and tourism, and undermines Britain's image as a world leader in greening its economy.

The study itself (PDF), though, doesn't so much expose hypocrisy as highlight a tough methodological question: should we measure greenhouse gas produced within each country, or should we look at fossil fuel consumption? The UNFCCC required the UK to report only greenhouse gasses emitted within its borders, which have decreased in part because domestic manufacturing in the UK has given way to more imports. The finding of a 19% emissions rise comes from flipping that viewpoint to count emissions associated with goods consumed in the UK, no matter where they are manufactured, as well as the impacts of international aviation and shipping and of UK citizens travelling abroad. Call it international roaming of the country's carbon footprint.

The fact that emissions from international aviation and shipping aren't being counted in anybody's carbon budget at the moment is clearly a problem, and one that may not go away anytime soon -- the aviation industry has vowed to fight against joining the EU carbon-trading scheme.

And if British consumers are effectively outsourcing their greenhouse gas production by buying iPods made in China, where 'production' emissions have been rising, it does the planet no good. Unfortunately, the study takes the tactic of thinking globally but blaming locally. To really understand what consumption-based emissions numbers imply about how to grow a low-carbon economy, don't we need to see the equivalent figures from China - and everywhere else?

Photo: Getty

Anna Barnett

Posted by Anna Barnett on December 12, 2007
Categories: Anna Barnett, GHG emissions | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This year marks not only the release of a clarion IPCC report and the convening of an enormous UN climate conference, but also the 50th anniversary of the Keeling curve -- the longest continuous recording of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, revealing a gradually rising carbon dioxide profile that helped trigger early concern about global warming. As part of this week's Earth Observation special (subscription required), Nature has a commentary by Euan Nisbet, atmospheric scientist at Royal Holloway, on the Keeling curve -- which "ranks very high indeed among the achievements of twentieth-century science", he says -- and similar studies in the field of Earth monitoring. Nisbet writes:

Monitoring is science's Cinderella, unloved and poorly paid. Sustaining a long-term, ground-based programme that demands high analytical standards remains challenging. Funding agencies are seduced either by 'pure' notions of basic science as hypothesis-testing, or by the satanic mills of commercial reward. Neither motive fosters 'dull' monitoring because meeting severe analytical demands is not seen as a worthwhile investment. At one stage, Keeling was ordered to guarantee two discoveries per year and today, modern research has become a planned journey through set 'milestones' to deliverable destinations.

What do you think -- how important is this 'Cinderella science' to ongoing climate research and policy, and how could we secure reliable long-term support?

Image credit: Global Warming Art

Anna Barnett

Posted by Anna Barnett on December 05, 2007
Categories: Anna Barnett, Climate Science, GHG emissions, Opinion | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Olive Heffernan

While I usually find the FT an excellent source of comment and discussion on climate change, I was somewhat bemused by last week’s Comment from the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, who writes that “global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem” and urges society to “resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term 'scientific consensus', which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority”.

Though clearly no climate expert, Klaus feels sufficiently component to write on the topic of global warming “as someone who lived under communism for most of his life”. He says “I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism”.

From a man who regards Michael Crichton and Richard Lindzen as voices of reason come denunciations of "Al Gore’s so-called documentary film", "Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report" and the IPCC’s and G8 Summit’s "ambitions to do something about the weather". (For a direct response to both Crichton’s and Lindzen’s climate denialist arguments, listen to the recent debate with climate scientists Gavin Schmidt and Richard Somerville, among others).

Klaus fails to even attempt to challenge any specifics of the scientific literature on climate change, but instead writes climate science off as ‘propoganda’, making his Comment absurd.

“One exceptionally warm winter is enough…for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather”, he writes. Actually, the latest IPCC report on the physical science basis of climate change, which represents the work of thousands of researchers, compiled by hundreds of climate experts, found that “eleven of the last twelve years rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature”.

He then goes on to claim it is "proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment". But with higher per-capita income, the demand for ecosystem services grows. This places more pressure on the environment, often with detrimental effects. For more on this, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment provides a comprehensive discussion of the relationship between wealth and the environment.

As Felix Salmon points out on the Market Movers blog, much of Klaus’ Comment is rather woolly in meaning, with statements such as ‘small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures’ being so general as to be meaningless.

The FT invites readers to challenge Klaus by posting questions to ask@ft.com before this Thursday, June 21, when answers to a select few will appear online from 1pm BST – although the Q&A session is situated in the somewhat misleading category ‘ask the expert’! Personally, I find it disappointing that they are only allowing questions rather than comments, and select ones at that.

Posted by Olive Heffernan on June 19, 2007
Categories: Climate Science, GHG emissions, In the News, Olive Heffernan | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (1)

Posted by Olive Heffernan on behalf of Maxwell T. Boykoff

The climate talks at the G8 summit (see Olive Heffernan’s post on the G8 climate talks) have spurred a recent increase in media attention. At the center of this coverage is discussion of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Over the past week, proposals ranged from binding emissions cuts across all G8+5 countries by mid-century to ‘aspirational goals’ of cuts, decided on a country-by-country basis through talks over the next two years.

As these rival ‘visions’ of international policy action to combat anthropogenic climate change have been negotiated, the June 7 ‘agreement’ within the G8 put forward a simple plan: 50% emissions cuts by 2050. While this pronouncement has the makings of progress, one of the key yet unresolved facets of the agreements is that of time-scale. While Japan and the EU have pushed for 1990 as the baseline for the metric of 50% emissions, the US has proposed 2007 as the baseline. This tweaking of time scales has a real impact on the actual volume of greenhouse gas emissions that will be removed from the atmosphere, and/or prevented from being emitted.

Continue reading "Climate change and media, science and policy: is time on our side?" »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on June 11, 2007
Categories: Climate Science, Communicating Climate Change, GHG emissions, Maxwell Boykoff | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Olive Heffernan

The latest news from the G8 Summit meetings in Heiligendamm, Germany is that leaders of G8 nations have agreed to a ‘compromise deal’ to tackle climate change. According to the BBC, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that

'nations have agreed that CO2 emissions must first be stopped and then followed by substantial reductions.’

Although Merkel pushed for a mandatory 50% slash in carbon emissions by mid century, no specific emissions reductions targets have been agreed. Leaders have purportedly said they will negotiate the successor to the Kyoto Protocol within a UN framework. If true, this in itself would be an achievement, as the US recently announced its refusal to participate in global post-2012 negotiations scheduled for the end of the year. Without a consensus on mandatory global emissions reductions, however, today’s compromise deal may be worth little. The need for effective emissions caps is simply the first of numerous contentious issues to be hammered out in determining a global post-Kyoto pact, as reported by Amanda Leigh Haag on Nature Reports: Climate Change, launched today.

Launching in the midst of the G8 climate talks, the site has kicked off with a strong focus on climate policy, emissions reductions, carbon storage and offsetting, as well as covering climate science in research highlights, news and views and in the Journal Club. In our main feature, Amanda takes an in-depth looks at how the Kyoto Protocol has fared thus far – its major triumphs and downfalls. Perhaps the most prominent disappointments have been the failure of some nations to meet what seemed to be modest emissions reduction targets at the outset, and the backtracking of the US on their commitments in 2001. As well as bringing the US back on board, key issues beyond 2012 will include persuading countries such China, India and Brazil to take bold steps to reduce emissions in the next phase, assisting developing nations to adapt to climate change, and avoiding further deforestation, to name but a few.

While some believe that a global extension of the European Trading Scheme is what is needed for mandatory and aggressive reduction of emissions, others are not convinced. In a Commentary, also published today on Nature Reports: Climate Change, Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, argues against ‘an unwieldy global emissions permit system that would be virtually impossible to negotiate and even harder to police’. Yet, despite the considerable global efforts needed to reduce emissions, avoiding dangerous climate change is both practically and economically achievable, says Sachs, if we use a targeted approach aimed at specific sectors.

Continue reading "Shaping the Kyoto successor" »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on June 07, 2007
Categories: Recent contributors, Climate Policy, Climate Science, Conferences and Meetings, GHG emissions, In the News, Olive Heffernan | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Olive Heffernan on behalf of Paty Romero Lankao

It does make sense to compare the per capita CO2 emissions of Mexico City and Los Angeles (see figure below) to illuminate the debate on shared but differentiated responsibilities on greenhouse gases emissions and show that just as urban centers register different levels and paths of economic development, cities do not contribute at the same level to global warming. For instance, the real GDP per capita of Los Angeles (US$40,031) is almost 3 times that of Mexico City (US$13,470). The paradox here is that many of those urban centers with almost negligible contributions to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are more vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change are. One reason of this relates to the local level of expenditures per capita in Mexico City, which are similarly tiny when compared with those of Los Angeles. In such conditions, the binding constraint for this and other cities of the developing world is the lack of economic resources from peoples’ taxes and of economic growth to deal with any component of the climate agenda.

Continue reading "Does it make sense to compare cities’ per capita emissions?" »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on May 12, 2007
Categories: Climate Science, GHG emissions, Paty Romero Lankao | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)