Climate Feedback

Declan Butler has a feature (subscription required) in this week's Nature on the potential of green architecture for mitigating climate change. On his blog, he writes:

It’s been one of the most challenging articles I’ve had to write, as I had to leave out so much, but at the same time one of the most satisfying. This is a hugely important topic. Buildings account for up to half of all energy consumption, and are the biggest single contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Much attention is given to exotic future remedies, such as carbon sequestration and clean coal. But a way to slash emissions using existing technologies is sitting under our noses: simply rethinking how we design the buildings we live and work in, to use much less energy.

The arguments for building with energy needs met largely by marrying with the local environment and passive strategies are so compelling that the research for this article is persuading me to switch my own plans to buy a place in French Touraine, where I live, to instead build a zero-energy home — no small challenge, though, given that French builders are far behind their German, Swiss, and Austrian neighbours here.

Image: Low-income “passive” terrace houses in Lindas, Sweden; M. Wall

Posted by Anna Barnett on April 07, 2008
Categories: Declan Butler, In the News, Mitigation, Personal action | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In Bangkok last week, the first UN climate meeting since Bali wrapped up after struggling til after midnight Friday - not to hammer out emissions targets or controversial new approaches to climate change mitigation, but just to agree on how long to wait before restarting discussions of such matters.

Planned from the start as a meeting to decide what would be decided at future meetings, it was never expected to yield any big breakthroughs. But the hard slog required even to set the work schedule for the next two years worried NGO observers.

“The talks managed to keep the momentum going … but it’s hard to leave Bangkok confident that the deadline can be met,” said Elliot Diringer, director of international strategies at the Pew Center on Climate Change. Marcelo Furtado of Greenpeace Brazil agreed, "If we took all these hours to agree on a workplan, one can only imagine what will happen when the real negotiations take place."

Why so slow? For one thing, the G77 group of developing nations finally dug in their heels against Japan's week-long steady pressure to plan greenhouse gas limits for particular global industrial sectors, in addition to Kyoto-style national targets. Sectoral approaches - heralded recently in Nature Reports Climate Change via this commentary by Glen Peters and Edgar Hertwich and this book review by Gwyn Prins - have the advantage of directly pushing the dirtiest industries to clean up, without leaving less carbon-stringent havens overseas for them to be pushed into. They also distribute mitigation responsibilities to the developing as well as the developed world, something which the US has previously insisted on but which developing countries have warned they cannot afford without more help from the rich North.

An attempt Thursday to summarize the first few days of talks noted emerging views that sectoral approaches could be used to support national targets, though they should not replace them. Made sense to me: sectoral limits could make deep emissions cuts less painful, while national emissions targets maintain a bottom line necessary for keeping the temperature down. But according to ENB, the summary raised a concerned buzz among delegates. That's generally how things were going, though: the day before, ENB had reported that "Some delegates realized that they didn't have a shared vision on a workshop on shared vision."

By Friday, Japan met surprisingly fierce opposition to holding a workshop on sectoral approaches at the next climate conference, to be held in Bonn, Germany, in June. G77 countries, including China, had been pointing to promises from Bali that rich countries would set new national targets and provide mitigation and adaptation funds enabling the South to share the burden of industrial emissions cuts. After wrangling at length, they compromised on a sectoral workshop in August.

The difficulties raise a post-Bali paradox. With the the US back at the table and all eyes on a new deal to dwarf Kyoto, stakes are high. The greater the political will for change, the more there is for each party to gain or lose in the shakeup. We'll see in Bonn whether the cautious rehashing of familiar arguments - typical of first negotiation rounds, as Diringer points out - gives way to actual steps forward.

Anna Barnett

Image: The closing session, just after midnight on Friday; photo courtesy of IISD/Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Posted by Anna Barnett on April 07, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Climate Policy, Conferences and Meetings, Mitigation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today Australia sees the opening of the world's largest trial carbon storage plant (Sydney Morning Herald, BBC, Reuters), the construction of which was covered by Hannah Hoag in Nature Reports Climate Change last year. Since then, soaring costs have prompted the US to junk plans for its FutureGen clean coal power plant, and the down-under demo project is the most massive noncommercial carbon burial site to make it off the drawing board (this Nature News feature rounds up the other contenders as of 2006; subscription required).

For background on how natural rock formations are being used to trap carbon dioxide - and why environmentalists have called the plant a waste of time and money - check out Hannah's report.

Anna Barnett

Posted by Anna Barnett on April 02, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, In the News, Mitigation, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Canadians are set to slap the first price tag on their greenhouse gas emissions, thanks to some very different initiatives in the works.

Reuters reported Friday that the long-awaited Montreal Climate Exchange will open on May 30, buying and selling voluntary emissions reductions in the same fashion as the Chicago Climate Exchange, its US partner.

Meanwhile, the Canadian government had a few days earlier put out the details of its plan for mandatory emissions reductions, which had likewise been in the works for over a year (a good summary is here; registration required). They're proposing to cut absolute emissions 20% from 2006 levels by 2020 (for those scoring at home, 20% down from 2005 levels would be 0% below 1990 levels, compared to the standard-bearing EU's 20% cut from 1990 levels).

But absolute emissions isn't what they'll limit - they're talking about regulating emissions intensity, or the amount of emissions per unit of production, from 2010. That could make it tough to integrate into a global climate deal, since the EU caps absolute emissions and all three US presidential candidates want to do the same. Interestingly, the plan also mandates carbon capture and storage for oil sands, a carbon-intensive economic lynchpin of the country.

Besides the voluntary market, local measures could already be in play when and if these limits come down. British Columbia is leading the way with what is to be the first carbon tax implemented outside of Europe. Although the tax hasn't been looking very popular and faces the same too-much-is-never-enough criticism that the EU climate bill came in for, liberal leader Stephane Dion now says he'd like the national strategy to be a carbon tax - or something. Anything. "We can talk about what the best model for putting a price on carbon across Canada might be –– but the fact is we need to JUST DO IT. That is what this provincial government has done, and that is what a Liberal government will do," Dion said in a speech in Vancouver.

Conservatives, who will be defending their control in the next election, countered with praise for the Montreal market. And while other provinces remain skeptical of the carbon tax, B.C. and Manitoba are considering joining western US states in a new cap-and-trade system - so a regulatory patchwork looks likely. As in the US recently, though, the question is no longer whether the Canadian government should intervene to raise fossil fuel costs, but how.

Anna Barnett

Posted by Anna Barnett on March 19, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Business, Carbon markets, Climate Policy, In the News, Mitigation, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Judging by the press coverage, it would appear that the Bush administration just turned green. A flurry of stories has hit the press after James Connaughton, a senior environmental advisor, suggested the White House would be willing to “enter into an international agreement” on climate change, “if other countries do, too.” That’s according to the New York Times. The BBC focused on three words - “binding international obligations” - uttered by Daniel Price, a national security advisor to President George W. Bush.

Although it remains unclear what, exactly, this means, it is perhaps telling that such statements could grab headlines around the world. The administration seems eager to clarify what it considers misunderstandings about its position on global warming (namely the general perception that it will stop at nothing to quash or at least cripple any international treaty to protect its industry friends). Bush’s critics aren’t going to buy it, of course, but they appear to be more than happy to watch the president try to wiggle out of what has become an increasingly lonesome political corner.

The problem here is that there isn’t much new. In trying to explain the president’s call for “aspirational” climate goals last year, Connaughton used similarly vague language. Under Bush’s plan, countries could institute various voluntary and regulatory measures at the national level. Those commitments would become binding under an international treaty, he said.

So are those the same “binding international obligations” that Connaughton discussed this week? The answer would appear to be no: Most stories suggest that “binding obligations” refers to various proposals to reduce emissions by some percentage by a specific date.

If that were the case, this might be newsworthy. But Connaughton’s suggestion that major developing nations (think China and India) would have to do the same is, if interpreted literally, a tad unrealistic. It also goes against the administration’s entire strategy for global warming, which has up until this point emphasized a decentralized approach based on various national strategies that could be developed by countries according to their specific needs and resources.

Oddly enough, this is one area where the Bush administration’s arguments seemed to (quietly) resonate. Following the principle of “common but differentiated” responsibilities for poor and wealthy nations, many in the climate community had already come to accept the idea that a one-size-fits-all approach simply would not work. If, on the other hand, Connaughton meant to say that major developing nations could sign up for various national policies as opposed to strict emissions targets, the question is then whether the United States would be able to do the same thing. If that were the case, nothing would have changed.

Where does all this leave us? I’m not sure. Connaughton says he is trying to reframe the administration’s position on climate change by emphasizing what it is willing to do, rather than what it is not willing to do. If would be easier to evaluate if the administration would offer some numbers.

Cross posted from Jeff Tollefson on The Great Beyond

Posted by Olive Heffernan on February 28, 2008
Categories: Recent contributors, Climate Policy, In the News, Jell Tollefson, Mitigation | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The European Commission's draft blueprint for tackling climate change, announced January 23rd, is praised in today's Nature editorial for hitting "the sweet spot" between politically pragmatic but shortsighted proposals and implausably idealistic ones. Other groups - idealists and pragmatists alike - have reacted differently.

Continue reading "EU climate plan "hits the sweet spot"?" »

Posted by Anna Barnett on January 31, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Carbon markets, Climate Policy, Energy, In the News, Mitigation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Royal Society today released a report on the future of biofuels, which have recently been the subject of intense debate, as Kurt Kleiner reported in Nature Reports Climate Change last month. New UK rules to begin this April require transport fuel suppliers to include a small percentage of 'renewable fuel' in their fuel sales, working up to 5% by 2010. But according to the Royal Society report, this policy intiative (called the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation or RTFO) is not guaranteed to meet its climate-preserving goals. When it comes to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, the report points out, there are biofuels and biofuels. That is, while some plant fuel sources promise as much as 80% greenhouse gas savings over fossil fuels, it's also possible to keep trashing the planet by using unsustainable methods to produce and supply renewable fuels. Unless the UK sets emissions targets per se in its fuel policy, warns the report, the new UK rules and the EU Biofuels Directive that they reflect "will do more for economic development and energy security than combating climate change".

Continue reading "Making biofuels sustainable" »

Posted by Anna Barnett on January 14, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Climate Policy, Energy, Mitigation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

How expensive is climate change, what's the cost of stopping it, and should we pay now or pay later? Scientific American gets a three-sided look at these questions in side-by-side interviews with Nicholas Stern, Bjorn Lomborg and Gary Yohe.

Stern and Yohe push raising the price of carbon emissions via caps and taxes, respectively, as insurance to ward off big future risks, with Lomborg taking the contrarian view that we shouldn't mitigate until renewable energy is cheaper -- and shrugging off the risks. (Lomborg thinks that other problems like HIV/AIDS and malaria need money more immediately, an argument Olive Heffernan took on in NRCC's editorial last month.) Interesting discussions of the values assigned to human lives in the present vs. future (Stern, Lomborg), and to lives threatened by asbestos vs. temperature rise, also ensue.

Anna Barnett

Posted by Anna Barnett on November 29, 2007
Categories: Adaptation, Anna Barnett, Carbon markets, Climate Policy, Mitigation, Opinion | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

There's an interesting commenary in Nature this week (currently free to access) by Steve Rayner of the James Martin Institute in Oxford and Gwyn Prins of the LSE, arguing that while emissions abatement is a global priority, the Kyoto Protocol is the wrong tool for the job -- a one-size-fits-all approach that, among other failings, doesn't actually look likely to deliver the reductions that it has promised. Unfortunately, as they argue, this sub-optimal approach has developed an iconic status of its own, so that in many minds to be against Kyoto is tantamount to being against any form of action on climate. They're worried that this means people will uncritically attempt to follow up the Kyoto protocol (which expires in 2012) with a son-of-Kyoto that contains many or all of the same flaws, when they should be having a much more radical rethink.

In their words:

The Kyoto Protocol is a symbolically important expression of governments' concern about climate change. But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, it has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth. And it pays no more than token attention to the needs of societies to adapt to existing climate change. The impending United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Bali in December — to decide international policy after 2012 — needs to radically rethink climate policy...Already, in the post-Kyoto discussions, we are witnessing that well-documented human response to failure, especially where political or emotional capital is involved, which is to insist on more of what is not working: in this case more stringent targets and timetables, involving more countries. The next round of negotiations needs to open up new approaches, not to close them down as Kyoto did.

Continue reading "The wrong trousers" »

Posted by Oliver Morton on October 24, 2007
Categories: Adaptation, Carbon markets, Climate Policy, Mitigation, Oliver Morton | Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBacks (0)

Olive Heffernan

In Correspondence in this week's Nature, John Shepherd from the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton and colleagues challenge the scheme proposed by James Lovelock and Chris Rapley to help the planet cure itself from the disease of global warming.

For those of you who missed it, a couple of weeks ago, Lovelock and Rapley put forward a geo-engineering solution to climate change in Nature, which involves the installation of large vertical pipes in the ocean that would pump nutrient-rich water from depth to the surface. This, they said, would enhance the growth of algae in the upper ocean, which in turn would transport more carbon to the deep sea.

Now, Shepherd and colleagues claim that the proposed scheme is based on false assumptions. They say the scheme would not lead to enhanced storage of carbon in the deep ocean below 1,000m and in deep ocean sediments, which is necessary for effective long term removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Instead, they maintain the scheme could actually worsen global warming by bringing high levels of particulate carbon back to the surface, where it could be released to the atmosphere. The authors also argue that such large scale engineering solutions could harm fragile ecosystems.

Peter Williams from the School of Ocean Sciences at Bangor University raised some of these same issues on the blog here last week, and also challenged the feasibility of the scheme from an engineering perspective.

Posted by Olive Heffernan on October 17, 2007
Categories: In the News, Mitigation, Olive Heffernan | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Olive Heffernan

In a Correspondence in this week's Nature , James Lovelock and Chris Rapley propose a way of stimulating the Earth to cure itself from the disease of global warming.

Lovelock, author of the Gaia hypothesis and his co-author Chris Rapley, newly appointed director of the Science Museum in London, argue that drastic action is needed to help heal the planet, as they believe it is "doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will restore the status quo".

They turn to the ocean for solutions. Their proposed scheme involves placing vertical pipes some 200 meters long in the sea to pump nutrient-rich water from depth to the surface, thus enhancing the growth of algae in the upper ocean. The algae, which are key in transporting carbon dioxide to the deep sea and producing dimethyl sulphide involved in the formation of sunlight-reflecting clouds, should help to prevent further warming.

Although fertilizing the ocean with iron as a way of stimulating algal growth is being considered, the use of pipes to use the ocean’s existing nutrients as fertilizer is certainly novel.

Lovelock and Rapley admit that the scheme may fail or impact the ocean in negative ways, such as through further acidification (which is recognized a significant threat to marine life and water quality) but they argue that the stakes are so high now that we can’t afford not to try such a solution.

Read the news story by Quirin Schiermeier on the proposed scheme here.

Posted by Olive Heffernan on September 26, 2007
Categories: In the News, Mitigation, Olive Heffernan | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBacks (0)

Roger Pielke, Jr.

On the BBC Today program this morning the head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Yvo de Boer
is quoted as saying the following, as subsequently reported online by the BBC:

The UN's binding global climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, currently requires industrialised nations to reduce the majority of emissions themselves.

But Mr de Boer said this was illogical, adding that the scale of the problem facing the world meant that countries should be allowed to invest in emission cuts wherever in the world it was cheapest.

"We have been reducing emissions and making energy use more efficient in industrialised countries for a long time," he told BBC News.

"So it is quite expensive in these nations to reduce emissions any more.

"But in developing nations, less has been done to reduce emissions and less has been done to address energy efficiency," Mr de Boer observed.

"So it actually becomes economically quite attractive for a company, for example in the UK, that has a target to achieve this goal by reducing emissions in China."

He said rich nations should be able to buy their way out of 100% of their responsibilities - though he doubted that any country would want to do so.

This statement is simply factually incorrect on many levels. For instance:

1. Industrialized countries have not seen their emissions decrease, quite the opposite.

2. On a per capita basis people in developing countries emit far, far less than people in developed countries, whether in North America or Europe.

3. Given the long residence time of atmospheric carbon dioxide, concentrations cannot be stabilized if developed countries do not reduce emissions by a great deal.

Expect a retraction soon.

Posted by Olive Heffernan on August 22, 2007
Categories: Climate Policy, In the News, Mitigation, Roger Pielke, Jr | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

Olive Heffernan

Apparently, an all white computer screen, such as an empty Word page, or the Google page, uses 74 watts to display, whereas a black screen consumes only 59 watts. So claimed Mark Ontkush in a post on the ecoIron blog in January. Doing a few back of the envelope calculations based on numbers of users per day and wattage for different coloured screen from EnergyStar, Ontkush figured that the energy saving would be 750 Megawatt hours per year if Google had a black screen.

And so, with the help of Heap Media, Google created a black version of its search engine, called Blackle.

The Wall Street Journal did some of their own calculations, which challenge the energy-saving claims of Blackle. In a blog post from May, they point out that the "savings are most likely to accrue from older CRT (cathode-ray tube) monitors, rather than the more modern, energy-efficient LCD (liquid crystal display) screens that dominate the market (representing three quarters of all monitors world-wide as of last year, by some estimates)." They did some tests using Blackle, Google and the New York Times on a CTD and LCD monitor and found the difference "so slight as to be within the margin of error for the power meter".

Since then, it's been blogged about here, here and here. Anyhow, check it out - it's certainly novel, whether or not it's especially efficient.

Olive Heffernan
News Editor
Nature Reports Climate Change

Posted by Olive Heffernan on July 26, 2007
Categories: In the News, Mitigation, Olive Heffernan, Personal action | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBacks (1)

Posted by Olive Heffernan

Solutions to climate change could come in extremely small sizes, according to a report released last week by the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies: Barriers and Opportunities” explores the application of nanoscience in five key areas that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, namely: insulation, photovoltaics, electricity storage, engine efficiency and the hydrogen economy.

Nanotechnology is a hugely exciting, if relatively young, branch of science with seemingly limitless possibilities. What scientists are discovering is that everyday materials, at very small sizes of one or several nanometers (a nanometer is equivalent to one billionth of a metre), can behave in completely out of ordinary and rather strange ways. This knowledge is resulting in an explosion of nanotechnology-enabled products entering the market, with the number expected to grow dramatically from $30 billion in 2005 to $2.6 trillion by 2014.

The report suggests that applying nanotechnology in these five key areas could contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 2 % in the short term and up to 20 % by 2050 with similar reductions in air pollution.

In the short term, nanotechnology has the potential to improve fuel efficiency and eliminate CO2 emissions from transport, concludes the report. Adding nanoparticles as a fuel additive to diesel engines could reduce emissions by 2.1 million tones with little infrastructural change. Nanomaterials could improve the efficiency of fuels cells, and their incorporation into batteries and supercapacitators could reduce the charge time for electric cars. In the longer term, the report says that nanotechnology could play a key role in developing renewable hydrogen production. A hydrogen economy is estimated to be 40 years away from potential universal deployment, but nanotech developments could be crucial to achieving efficient hydrogen storage, which is thought to be the largest barrier to wide scale use.

Nanotech innovations could also provide a solution to reducing cost and increasing efficiency of solar cells. The report says this is unlikely to result in significant GHG emission reduction in the UK, where there is relatively little sun, but could be of significance to reducing global emissions. Jonathan Kohler at the Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, however, believes that photovoltaics can have a significant output even in British climatic conditions. If the cost was reduced through advances in nanotechnology, we could see the large scale application of photovoltaics in the UK in the next twenty years, he says. A nanotech application with clear benefits for a country like the UK where 50% of energy demand is domestic would be the development of effective insulation for solid walled buildings.

As a branch of science in its infancy, significant peer-reviewed research in this area is yet to come – as a result the latest IPCC WGIII report on mitigating climate change doesn’t consider nanotech solutions to climate change. Aside from the funding and research required to develop these concepts, there are specific concerns that need to be addressed such as the potential toxicity of newly developed materials and the need to allay public fears that the materials could behave both strangely…and unpredictably.

This area of science looks set to offer some interesting green applications in the future. To keep on track of the latest research developments in nanotechnology, check out Nature Nanotechnology.

Posted by Olive Heffernan on May 25, 2007
Categories: Mitigation, Olive Heffernan | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Olive Heffernan

Warnings that switching to biofuels as a ‘clean’ energy source could threaten food security and increase deforestation have become increasingly stark this week.

A UN report, released last Monday concluded that, despite offering considerable benefits such as clean energy for millions and the creation of wealth and jobs in poorer countries, biofuel production also has the ability to cause real destruction.

The report warned that increasing production of liquid biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, could increase the price of agricultural commodities with negative economic and social impacts, especially for the world’s poor who spend a large proportion of income on food. It also raised the issue that, where forests are cleared to make way for energy crops, GHG emissions may actually be higher overall from biofuels than from fossil fuels. The report states:

Unless new policies are enacted to protect threatened lands, secure socially acceptable land use, and steer bioenergy development in a sustainable direction overall, the environment and social damage could in some cases outweigh the benefits

Today, BBC News reports on new study by the UK based Co-op Insurance Society that reiterates some of these concerns. The CIS report warns of the potentially severe environmental impacts of increased biofuel production. According to the BBC, the study found that as much as nine per cent of the world's agricultural land could be needed to replace just 10% of the world's transport fuels. The land needed for energy crops could encroach on what little land is available for food in countries threatened by famine.

Though not the first time these concerns have been raised, the reports, in particular the UN study, represent significant efforts to investigate the pros and cons of bioenergy production. For previous discussions of these issues, see George Monbiot’s series of articles on the ills of biofuels, in particular his recent piece in The Guardian in which he argues that we need a five year freeze on biofuels if we are to save the planet

The recent boom in the bioenergy sector looks set to continue. Worldwide biofuel production fdoubled in the last five years and will double again in the next four years, says the UN report. The latest IPCC Working Group III SPM, projects that biofuel use for transport will grow to 3% of total transport energy by 2030. Growth could reach up to 5-10% of total transport energy, depending on future oil and carbon prices, improvements in car efficiency and technological advances.

In the meantime, the EU and the UK have set a target of 10% of all car fuel to come from biodiesels by 2010. At the start of the year, the EC made proposals for a new EU-wide energy policy, which includes a binding target of 10% of biofuels in petrol and diesel in all member states. The public consultation on how this could be achieved – and sustainably – is open until June 4.

Posted by Olive Heffernan on May 13, 2007
Categories: Climate Policy, In the News, Mitigation, Olive Heffernan | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (3)

Via Gary at Muck and Mystery, various reports on the conference on biochar/agrichar/terra preta nova/what-you-will that just ended down in Australia. If you're not up to speed on this, the general idea is that people could help solve a great many problems by enriching soils with reduced carbon in charcoal-like form. This gets rid of the carbon for a long time (charcoal is very refractory) and improves the soil in various not yet fully understood ways. My colleague Emma wrote a lovely feature on the subject last year. There's what seems to be a thriving discussion board on the subject at Hypography. And we have an article on the subject in Nature this week (see below).

The conference was opened by Tim "Weather Maker" Flannery, which is a pretty big name for a new field to manage to attract, I'd have thought. Here's an overview of the conference by Kelpie Wilson of the Energy Bulletin. One interesting aspect is the idea of tying this issue to the issue of crappy stoves that drive indoor air pollution and waste a lot of energy.

Transect points, a blog by soil scientist Philip Small who, like Gary, is tracking this issue, has more reports in a round-up. As one of the people quoted says, the great thing about this field is that it opens up in so many different directions. Its also low tech enough to be of real use globally. The flip side of that is that different techniques will be needed in different places -- this is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all technology.

As I mentioned we've a look at the subject in Nature this week, too -- a commentary (pdf) from one of the field's main men, Johannes Lehmann of Cornell, which takes things forward nicely, I think. One of the advantages he points out for biochar sequestration -- as opposed, say, to sequestration of carbon in aquifers -- is that once the carbon is in the soil "it is difficult to imagine any incident or change in practise that would cause a sudden loss of stored carbon". And he also argues that this sort of practise could be carried out at a serious scale:

I have calculated emissions reductions for three separate biochar approaches that can each sequester about 10% of the annual US fossil-fuel emissions (1.6 billion tonnes of carbon in 2005). First, pyrolysis of forest residues (assuming 3.5 tonnes biomass per hectare per year) from 200 million hectares of US forests that are used for timber production; second, pyrolysis of fast-growing vegetation (20 tonnes biomass per hectare per year) grown on 30 million hectares of idle US cropland for this purpose; third, pyrolysis of crop residues (5.5 tonnes biomass per hectare per year) for 120 million hectares of harvested US cropland. In each case, the biochar generated by pyrolysis is returned to the soil and not burned to offset fossil-fuel use. Even greater emissions reductions are possible if pyrolysis gases are captured for bioenergy production.

Similar calculations for carbon sequestration by photosynthesis suggest that converting all US cropland to Conservation Reserve Programs — in which farmers are paid to plant their land with native grasses — or to no-tillage would sequester 3.6% of US emissions per year during the first few decades after conversion; that is, just a third of what one of the above biochar approaches can theoretically achieve.

Posted by Oliver Morton on May 11, 2007
Categories: Mitigation, Oliver Morton | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Olive Heffernan on behalf of Paty Romero-Lankao

Cities play key and diverse roles in the climate change arena. Regarding mitigation, a high proportion of energy, industrial and transportation emissions is generated by urban areas. Although most of the electricity and fuels are produced outside cities, they are aimed at satisfying cities’ “thirst” of energy. Therefore, urban areas place a huge burden not only on the absorptive capacity of the local environment; they also influence wide patterns of energy and land use in the surrounding and more distant areas, in the livelihoods and quality of life of people living outside cities’ boundaries.

As of vulnerability and adaptation, urban centers concentrate a large proportion of coastal and other populations most at risk from the effects of climate change (IPCC Summary for Policy Makers). The need for urban and local authorities and civil groups to develop actions to reduce greenhouse gases is part of the agenda of several cities in United States, Europe, Asia and Latin America (www.iclei.org). Yet, the need to act to increase cities’ capacity to adapt to climate change and to understand the mechanisms to increase their resilience is not so well established, especially in developing countries. The irony here is that many of the urban areas more vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change are those with almost negligible contributions to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. For instance, each citizen of Los Angeles emits an average of 15.6 tons CO2 e. These amounts are huge when compared to amounts in Mexico City, where each inhabitant releases four times less than in Los Angeles (3.6 tons CO2 e). If we multiply the per capita numbers by the total population, then Los Angeles and Mexico City emit 234 and 64.8 million Tons per year respectively (See footnote 1).

At the same time, cities are centers of diverse kinds of innovations (including technological innovation) that may contribute to de-carbonizing our societies and making them more sustainable and resilient. Only through the transformation of the infrastructure, especially transport, and the use of power in cities’ buildings, in the behavior, and in the production and consumption patterns of their residents, will it be possible to reduce greenhouse gases. Furthermore, urban centers might cope with the impacts of climate related events by introducing changes in the availability of water and other natural resources, in environmental conditions, and in buildings characteristics. There are examples of well governed cities, which have introduced actions to ensure the provision of infrastructure and services, and urban planning and management that reduces the vulnerability of people, industries and infrastructures. Yet, those cases are exceptional, and adaptation practices which increase cities’ resilience are taking place on a very limited basis (IPCC Summary for Policy Makers).

Further reading:
Romero Lankao, P. 2007: “Are we missing the point? Particularities of urbanization, sustainability and carbon emissions in Latin American cities”, Environment and Urbanization Volume 19, No. 1, pp.159-175

Hunt, J. (2004), “How can cities mitigate and adapt to climate change?, Building, research and information 32(1), p.55

Posted by Olive Heffernan on May 09, 2007
Categories: Mitigation, Paty Romero Lankao | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

(Posted by Oliver on behalf of Roger)

Our research suggests that the answer to this question is a clear "No!"

With the IPCC reporting that greenhouse gas concentrations can be stabilized at an extremely small cost relative to global GDP, why should advocacy press right up to the scientific frontier where claims are most vigorously contested and knowledge most uncertain? The case for mitigation is already strong without invoking hurricane damages.

And consider this: even if we simply assume that greenhouse gases have a large and immediate impact on hurricane intensities, there is little that mitigation efforts can do anyway to stem the ever-growing economic toll associated with hurricanes.

Continue reading "Should Hurricanes be Part of the Mitigation Debate?" »

Posted by Oliver Morton on May 07, 2007
Categories: Mitigation, Roger Pielke, Jr | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)