Climate Feedback

The authors of the bestselling Freakonomics, which was largely an attempt to make sense and fun of economics for those who don’t think they care about such things, are now back with a title that sounds like a bigger and better version of the original: Superfreakonomics. Exploring the topics of global cooling, patriotic prostitutes, and why suicide bombers should buy life insurance, economist Steven Levitt and New York Times journalist Stephen Dubner are again unabashedly aiming for mass appeal.

But on the topic of global cooling….(er, don’t they mean warming, or is that just the theme of the week?), critics are none too impressed with Levitt and Dubner’s analysis. Having tried their utmost to discredit global warming, the authors none-the-less propose a solution, which goes something like: basically, let’s forget about mitigation, pump a load of sulphur into the atmosphere and be done with it.

The trouble here, as Joe Romm and William Connolley have already detailed on their respective blogs, is that Levitt and Dubner clearly have virtually no understanding of atmospheric science. As such, they fail to account for some of the other planetary woes their proposed scheme - a sulphur-spewing 18-mile-long hose pipe - would engender. Ocean acidification? Ozone depletion? Alan Robock’s latest paper gives a more complete list.

"We could end this debate and be done with it," Levitt says, in Monday’s Guardian, "and move on to problems that are harder to solve."

Sorry guys, but it looks like we’ll still need to redefine our energy system and the global economy too.

Olive Heffernan

Posted by Olive Heffernan on October 14, 2009
Categories: Communicating Climate Change, Economics, Olive Heffernan, Opinion, Technology | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology – an international body that traditionally has represented marine industry and more recently, scientists too – today released its position statement on climate change.

The institute has been somewhat slower than many scientific bodies to release such a statement, perhaps given that much of its member base is in shipping, oil and gas. I was involved in helping to ensure the scientific accuracy of the statement, and I joined a panel discussion at the institute this morning, together with oceanographer Ralph Rayner of the London School of Economics (and various other institutes), Colin Summerhayes (executive director of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research), commercial oceanographer Mark Calverley (who instigated IMarEST’s observer status with the IPCC), Ian Leggett (formerly with Shell, now the head of Metocean Engineering for Europe) and Malcolm Newell (marine engineer and former consultant for Shell, Golar, Exxon Mobil, among others).

I was prepared for a certain amount of scepticism from the audience, which may seem surprising in this day and age (or maybe not, given the recent news coverage). But reassuringly this morning’s discussion suggested that views in the industry are now aligned with the scientific evidence. Without exception, members were keen to discuss the practicalities of how to reduce emissions from shipping, and how to move to a low carbon economy.

The institute now has the task of putting together detailed synopses on the science, impacts, mitigation, and adaptation, with specific relevance to the marine sector. I’ll update as and when those reports come out.

Olive Heffernan

Posted by Olive Heffernan on October 13, 2009
Categories: Business, Communicating Climate Change, Energy, Ocean science, Olive Heffernan, Technology | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

As promised, Nature’s film on climate change went online last week on October 1. You can view the film in full on nature.com (it lasts about twenty minutes in total). It will also be on YouTube next week, at which stage I’ll embed it here.

The film was shot this July on location in Lindau at the 59th meeting of Nobel Laureates, and follows three young researchers – Brian Krohn, Faroha Liquat and Brandi Kiel Reese – on a journey to discover how their work on various aspects of chemistry can help solve the climate change problem.

Brian Krohn is interested in how algae can be used as a source for biofuels. He was based at the company SarTec Inc. in Minnesota at the time of filming, where he was converting oil extracted from algae to biodiesel using a novel process that is more economical and more environmentally friendly than traditional methods. Now Brian is at the University of Oxford studying for a degree in Environmental Change and Management, for which he received a Rhodes scholarship. He’s going to use this opportunity to look at how governmental policies can best stimulate alternative energy research.

Faroha Liquat, a PhD researcher based at Quaid-i-Azam University in Pakistan, is interested in devising novel ways to harness the power of the sun for the benefit of mankind. She’s especially interested in developing cost-effective photovoltaic cells. During the film, she has a very valuable interaction with the IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri on whether developing countries can prosper and be part of the climate change solution. She’s currently visiting Pachauri’s institute, TERI, in Delhi.

Brandi Kiel Reese is also doing a PhD and is based at Texas A&M. Having previously worked as an environmental consultant, Brandi is now looking at how humans are impacting the Gulf of Mexico, a region that has become increasingly devoid of oxygen due to the massive influx of nitrogen fertilizers and due to warming.

During their week at Lindau, our young researchers hear about the changes already underway from climate experts, they challenge (and in some cases agree with) the views of political scientist Bjørn Lomborg, and they learn about the social responsibilities of scientists from the Nobel Laureates who first discovered the danger of CFCs.

Through these interactions, they explore the challenge of keeping global temperatures to within the 2 °C target. Their take: we have the brains and the tools to solve this problem, we just need the political willpower. Despite the expert nature of many of our interview subjects, the film provides a great overview of the climate change problem for anyone in need of an update in the run-up to Copenhagen.

What are the chances of staying within 2 °C? Let us know what you think.

Olive Heffernan

Posted by Olive Heffernan on October 09, 2009
Categories: Climate Policy, Communicating Climate Change, Mitigation, Olive Heffernan, Technology | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

In 2006, Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen suggested that we might need to start deliberately engineering the climate if no progress could be made on curbing our emissions. Since then, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have continued to rise. So it’s perhaps no surprise that what once seemed like a outlandish idea has recently become a subject of serious scientific endeavour.

Injecting sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere has been one of the various proposed ‘geoengineering’ schemes; others include fertilizing the ocean with iron and stimulating cloud formation.

A new study [subscription] led by Alan Robock at Rutgers University in New Jersey now looks at the prospects for stratospheric ‘geoengineering’ in terms of its benefits, costs and risks. Writing in Geophysical Research Letters, they highlight the pros of injecting a sulphate gas into the stratosphere in the face of a climate catastrophe: it would cool temperatures, stop the melting of sea and land-based ice, slow sea level rise and increase the planet’s ability to sequester greenhouse gas.

But if the public sees geoengineering as a low-cost and easy ‘solution’ to climate change, then it could erode backing for mitigation, say the researchers, who weight the benefits against the associated risks and costs. Among the dangers of such a scheme is the risk of substantial ozone depletion, including delayed the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, they say. Other risks include regional drought, ocean acidification, a reduction in sunlight and the end of blue skies. The cost would ultimately depend on how the gas was deployed. Robock and colleagues say that using existing US military planes would be the cheapest option, at roughly several billion dollars per year. Lofting the gas using artillery shells or balloons would be more expensive. Other options, such as pumping the gas through a tall tower or lifting it into the stratosphere using a space elevator, may be possible in the future, say the scientists, but their cost cannot be evaluated just yet.

The dangers, rather than the cost, will ultimately limit the potential of geoengineering as a solution to climate change, conclude Robock’s team.

Olive Heffernan

Posted by Olive Heffernan on October 08, 2009
Categories: Geoengineering, Olive Heffernan, Politics, Technology | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Considered by some a silver bullet and by others a hopeless dream, the idea that we can simply capture our carbon dioxide emissions and store them safely away is nothing if not compelling. After all, it lends an air of practicality to the notion that human ingenuity can somehow continue the unabated use of fossil fuels over the coming decades without dangerously warming the climate.

This week’s Science (subscription) looks at how close we are to being able to capture carbon dioxide, both from the point of emission at coal- or gas-burning power plants, and directly from air. A series of news, opinion and review articles shows that while many obstacles need to be overcome before carbon capture and storage (CCS) is implemented effectively, there are also abundant reasons to hope that it will happen.

But the scale of the challenge is palpable. In a review, Stuart Hazeldine of the University of Edinburgh, UK, says that the construction of many tens to hundreds of large CCS plants worldwide would be needed to reduce future worldwide emissions from energy by 20%. And in order for the technology to make a substantial contribution to climate mitigation, a viable CCS industry needs to be in place between 2020 and 2030. Construction would have to start now if plants fitted with CCS technology are to be operational by 2014, giving enough time to demonstrate commercial credibility by 2020.

Last year, G8 leaders called for upwards of 20 demonstration CCS projects around the globe. A recent report from
the U.S. National Research Council reiterated this statement, calling for a suite of 15 to 20 power plants with CCS to be built before 2020. Today, a few such projects are in development, each of which is shown on a map accompanying the Science news feature. Most of these projects will take CO2 from natural gas reservoirs and bury it or pump into oil reservoirs to force more oil to the surface, thus making the whole process commercially viable. One such project is China’s first large-scale CCS effort, which is due to launch at a site on the plains of Inner Mongolia in the coming weeks.

But many more such plants are needed, and despite a recent boost in available money for CCS, Hazeldine notes that there is still a “lamentable lack of financial commitment to real construction”. His take home message? Technology isn’t the bottleneck in getting CCS off the ground. On the 10 year timescale, it’s legal permission, business development, and public opinion that could prevent CCS from being up and running by 2020.

Also featured in the Science special issue is a perspective by David Keith on the potential for direct capture of CO2 emissions from air, which Nicola Jones covered in a news feature for Nature (subscription) back in May. The special also has a number of perspectives on the technological aspects of CCS, from capturing CO2 to storing it onshore in geological formations or offshore in deep-sea sediments.

Olive Heffernan

Image credit: Carbon storage at Sleipner field, North Sea. Alligator film /BUG / StatoilHydro

Posted by Olive Heffernan on September 24, 2009
Categories: Funding, Mitigation, Olive Heffernan, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cross-posted from Geoff Brumfiel on The Great Beyond

Yesterday the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific body, delivered its official view on geoengineering. Scientists analyzed a dozen different approaches and weighed their pros and cons. Then, being scientists, they plotted their results in a bizarre phase space that nobody could understand. Many a reporter, myself included, were scratching our heads when co-author Ken Caldeira popped this little gem up onto the screen:

(Note: error bars are purely symbolic. Huh?)

Now I want to be fair, the Royal Society report is actually very well written and it contains a lot of good information about the geoengineering proposals out there. But it's a nuanced take on a complex issue. So it's not surprising that you saw a range of headlines. The most inaccurate enthusiastic one by far, came from those lovely folks at the Register:

Boffins: Give up on CO₂ cuts, only geoengineering can work

The Financial Times landed on the other end of the spectrum:

Hopes dashed for geo-engineering solutions

And in between came everybody else:

Study says 'geoengineering' to flight climate likely, but risky (USA Today)

Royal Society warns climate engineering 'could cause disaster' (the Times)

World must plan for climate emergency-report (Reuters)

Investment in geo-engineering needed immediately, says Royal Society (the Guardian)

These headlines make the report look like a Kurosawa film, but most of the actual stories are pretty accurate in my opinion. The bottom line is that the Royal Society felt that the only sure way to save the planet is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But in the event of a global climate emergency, we should at least know the consequences of geoengineering.

You can read our coverage here.

Update: The Register headline was referring to an article in Physics World that came out the same day.

Update: I've included the updated diagram off the Royal Society website.

Geoff Brumfiel

Posted by Anna Barnett on September 02, 2009
Categories: Geoff Brumfiel, In the News, Mitigation, Technology | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

The concept of active human efforts to artificially limit or reverse climate change has been around for some years. Collectively called geoengineering, many such plans, some more fanciful than others, have been proposed by the scientific community, and several were discussed during the final days of the AGU Joint Assembly in Toronto.

One plan, described by Alan Robock of Rutgers University, New Jersey, US, would involve continuously placing fine particles of sulphur dioxide (SO2) into the stratosphere, to block sunlight from reaching Earth’s surface. This, proponents say, would be benign, simply mimicking the effect of large volcanic eruptions, and simulations confirm that northern hemisphere or even global cooling would follow.

Although there is currently no way to do it, the problem is not the technology, Robock said in an interview, amplifying on his oral presentation at the meeting. The technology to inject SO2 particles into the stratosphere might not be that difficult; high altitude military planes could be adapted to do it, he suggested, although there are questions about their ability to deliver particles of the appropriate size. Regardless, the ancillary effects of the experiment could be devastating, he said, by reducing the amount of precipitation associated with the summer monsoon in Asia and Africa, thereby threatening the food supply for billions of people.

A secondary proposal that Robock described in his presentation would provide the SO2 seeding only in the Arctic. The problem is, he said, that winds blow the particles southward, with comparable effects on the monsoons, according to simulations, so there would be no advantage to year-round Arctic-only seeding.

Continue reading "AGU 2009 Joint Assembly: Solutions, and sayonara " »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on May 28, 2009
Categories: AGU 2009 Joint Assembly, Harvey Leifert, Politics, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cement and pinot noir were among the highlights of the AGU Joint Assembly in Toronto Tuesday.

Sequestration of carbon dioxide, that is, pulling it out of the air and storing it where it cannot affect climate as a greenhouse gas, is a quest that engages many scientists and engineers. Proposals have been made to store CO2 deep in the ocean and in depleted mines far underground. Soon, though, you may be able to walk on sequestered CO2, says Sidney Omelon, a chemical and materials engineer with Calera Corporation, a California start-up.

The purpose of a project under study and described in Omelon’s Joint Assembly poster Tuesday is to capture CO2 from concentrated sources, such as emissions from power plants. Step one is to channel the gas into an aqueous environment, in order to precipitate carbonate minerals. The novel part is what happens next. Calera is developing a process to incorporate this precipitate into the built environment, specifically in concrete used for street paving and buildings.

Cement, a key ingredient of concrete, is an ideal substance into which the precipitate can be added, Omelon said in an interview. She does not know of any other comparable projects. Surprisingly, in her view, it hasn’t been tried until now. “Honestly, I can’t believe no one [else] thought of it first,” she said.

Calera is also looking into using captured CO2 in aggregate, another key component of concrete. Even when concrete structures eventually crumble, the material itself would remain stable, Omelon said, and the CO2 would not escape to the atmosphere.

We are looking at CO2 as a resource, not just as a pollutant, Omelon concluded. “I think if we just turn our brains to this, we can do some really useful things with carbonate minerals and also just try and reduce our general energy consumption, so that we don’t emit as much CO2.”

Continue reading "AGU 2009 Joint Assembly: From paving to pinot noir " »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on May 26, 2009
Categories: AGU 2009 Joint Assembly, Harvey Leifert, Mitigation, Regional climate, Technology | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Australia, the world’s largest coal exporter, launched an institute last week to galvanise large-scale demonstrations of carbon capture and storage (CCS) (or ‘clean coal’) technology [see Nature coverage here; press release].

Australia is ploughing AU$100m (£48m) a year into the Global CCS Institute (GCCSI). That money’s far short of the billions needed to finance commercial-scale projects. Instead, the GCCSI is acting as an oversight operation, smoothing the progress of those schemes which have been proposed. It will track projects and identify gaps in the types of projects that have been agreed on – perhaps even brokering new ones. The institute will also coordinate and pool knowledge gained from small-scale CCS pilots and analyze sticking points which are stopping projects moving forward.

If the GCCSI is to be successful it will have to get companies to share the lessons they learn from their tests – including information on what doesn’t work. “No-one really understands what knowledge needs to be shared at this time,” says GCCSI head Nick Otter, when queried on the difficulties that may pose for intellectual property.

It will also have to work carefully with existing organizations, such as the International Energy Agency (IEA)'s carbon capture programme and the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) - a network run by the US Department of Energy. These focus more on technical analyses of the technology, and on its surrounding policy and regulation. The CSLF – for a long time scorned on account of its American origins – may try to rejuvenate itself in a London meeting in October, now that it is backed by the Obama administration.

Ultimately networks like these are necessary but not sufficient for getting CCS demonstrations off the ground. What’s needed is a massive amount of public spending.

Richard van Noorden

Posted by Olive Heffernan on April 20, 2009
Categories: Features, In the News, Richard Van Noorden, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Leaders of the world’s 20 richest nations “missed an opportunity” to kick start the green economy in their efforts to arrest the global financial downturn at a summit in London yesterday.

Science and green leaders expressed “disappointment” at the G20 summit’s failure to include a commitment to spend a proportion of the agreed $1.1 trillion financial injection to resuscitate the global economy on a low carbon stimulus package.

The meeting’s final agreed statement on actions to take forward leaves mention of climate change and low carbon technologies to the final paragraphs. It says, “We agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus programmes towards the goal of building a resilient, sustainable and green recovery. We will make the transition towards clean, innovative and resource efficient, low carbon technologies and infrastructure.”

The statement adds that world leaders “reaffirm” commitments to address climate change and to reach a deal at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December.

Responding to the outcome, Martin Parry, past co-chair of the IPCC’s working group II on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, told Nature, “The statement on climate change looks like an afterthought and appears to restate commitments that have already been made.”

David King, chief scientific advisor to the UK government from 2000 – 2007 and a vocal campaigner on the need to tackle climate change, told Nature that world leaders had “missed an opportunity” to integrate the recovery of the world economy with the future sustainability of the global financial system.

Camilla Toulmin, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development, an independent research organisation based in London, UK, told Nature, “There was very little recognition of the real crunch issues of climate and natural resources. It could be really damaging to restart the global economy on the same line as we left it.”

World leaders agreed to a further G20 meeting later this year, to review progress made on goals set at the London summit. Read the full story on Nature News [subscription].

Natasha Gilbert

Posted by Olive Heffernan on April 03, 2009
Categories: Conferences and Meetings, Economics, G20 London Summit, 2009, Natasha Gilbert, Politics, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cross posted from The Great Beyond

A controversial experiment which poured iron into the Southern Ocean has also poured cold water on the idea that such ‘ocean fertilization’ can mitigate against climate change.

The Lohafex project was investigating suggestions that carbon dioxide can be removed from the atmosphere by promoting algal blooms with iron. Despite protests from some groups, researchers aboard the Polarstern research vessel carried out their experiment this month.

However, the Alfred-Wegener institute, which was backing Lohafex, says “only a modest amount of carbon sank out of the surface layer by the end of the experiment. Hence, the transfer of CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean to compensate the deficit caused by the LOHAFEX bloom was minor compared to earlier ocean iron fertilization experiments.”

Continue reading "Results cast doubt on potential ‘climate fix’" »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on March 24, 2009
Categories: Daniel Cressey, Features, In the News, Ocean science, Technology | Permalink | Comments (2) | 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)

The data on 2008 venture capital investment are predictably grim, but in a year of financial heartbreak, the cleantech sector stands out as one of the rare winners.

According to a MoneyTree report, US venture capitalists invested 52% more money in the sector in 2008 than in 2007, bringing the year’s total to $4.1 billion. Compare that to the 8% drop in overall venture capital investment during 2008.

Meanwhile, the folks at Cleantech Group, LLC have international numbers spanning North America, Europe, China, and India. Their 2008 total: $8.4 billion – 38% higher than in 2007.

Cleantech Group says that solar power companies were the biggest winners, capturing $3.3 billion in venture capital funds last year. After that came biofuels ($904 million), transportation ($795 million), wind ($502 million), smart grid ($345 million), agriculture ($166 million), and water ($148 million). US solar companies swept up four of the top five deals: together, NanoSolar, Solyndra, SoloPower, and Solar Reserve garnered $859 million. (The outlier in the top five list was WinWinD, a Finnish wind power company.)

These cheerful numbers don’t mean that the financial crisis has left the industry unscathed. Growth in the industry appears to be slowing down, judging from data in the MoneyTree report. US cleantech investment increased 85% in 2007 compared to 2006, and investment in 2006 was a whopping 160% greater than investment in 2005. In addition, investment in cleantech dropped 14% in the fourth quarter of 2008 compared with the third -- many say the fourth quarter is a more realistic predictor of what’s to come in 2009 than the 2008 totals.

Still, Mark Heesen, president of the National Venture Capital Association says consumer fervor and government support of cleantech will buffer the industry against the growing economic storm. “Even with a tough economic situation, I think cleantech kind of rises above the economic uncertainty,” he said recently.

For the full story on how the cleantech boom is defying the downturn, see the latest issue of Nature.

Heidi Ledford is a reporter with Nature's online news team

Posted by Olive Heffernan on February 05, 2009
Categories: Business, Economics, Heidi Ledford, Technology | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Among the many proposed techno-fixes for climate change, ‘air capture’ seems like one of simplest solutions – what could be more straightforward than sucking greenhouse gases out of air and storing them somewhere else?

But various proposals for the direct removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere have largely been sidelined from serious discussions on climate control. Noteworthy scientists and engineers – including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – have regarded the technology as a non-starter owing to the large amounts of energy involved. After all, energy costs money and unless we find ourselves in ‘climate crisis’ mode, solutions to climate change will be considered on economic grounds as well as on efficacy.

But a new study by Roger Pielke, Jr. (of the University of Colorado and Prometheus blog) shows that air capture could be a cost-competitive mitigation option. His analysis, soon to be published in Environmental Science and Policy [uncorrected proofs available from Pielke], compares the average costs of air capture over the 21st century to other mitigation options (namely international greenhouse gas regulation under the UN framework convention) assuming that technologies available today are used to fully offset net human emissions of carbon dioxide. He runs the analysis for 3 different (and citable) estimates of the cost of air capture – $500, $360 and $100 per ton of carbon. The IPCC estimate falls near the middle of this range.

For the two upper values, the cost of air capture would be comparable to the estimated cost of stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide at 450 ppm or 550 ppm given by Nick Stern in 2007 and by the IPCC in its last report. But if the costs of air capture decrease to $100 per ton of carbon, then it would prove much more cost-effective than stabilizing at 450 ppm or 550 ppm. We must therefore give air capture the same attention as other approaches to mitigation, argues Pielke, Jr.

Continue reading "Could we count on air capture?" »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on February 04, 2009
Categories: Economics, Journal Club, Mitigation, Olive Heffernan, Technology | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Among the many technologies contending for a role in the future energy mix, thermoelectricity is one area where researchers have hoped that a big breakthrough in technology could reap equally large benefits in improving energy efficiency.

Up until this point thermoelectric technologies, which use materials to draw electricity from heat, haven’t been widely applied to electricity generation owing to their high cost and inefficiency. But changing the materials and their properties could — in theory at least — make a wide range of products more energy-efficient at a lower cost.

Last year the field made some important gains and seemed to be at a high point in terms of both the science and business potential. Early in the year, a MIT spin-off focused on energy efficient thermoelectric products won seed funding from venture capitalists Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Then in July researchers reported in Science [subscription] that adding trace amounts of thallium to lead telluride, a thermoelectric material used to produce electricity onboard deep space probes, could double its performance.

Continue reading "The truth about thermoelectrics " »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on January 26, 2009
Categories: Features, Journal Club, Olive Heffernan, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Stimulating algal growth by adding iron to nutrient-poor ocean regions is one of several geo-engineering methods that could possibly mitigate greenhouse warming. But given widespread worries about possibly harmful side-effects on marine life, large-scale ocean ‘fertilization’ is currently not considered advisable.

Predictably, environmental groups have therefore jumped on an iron fertilization experiment which an international team of oceanographers is set to conduct over the next two months in the Southern Ocean near the island of South Georgia. Critics claim that LOHAFEX violates the moratorium on ocean fertilization activities which the United Nations had agreed upon last year. The Nature news story here has more details.

The somewhat ambivalent wording of the legally binding UN Convention on Biological Diversity adds to the controversy. ‘Small-scale’ scientific experiments in ‘coastal waters’ are exempted from the moratorium, it reads. But ‘small-scale’ is a relative term, and where exactly coastal waters give way to the open ocean remains also undefined.

Picture: The Polarstern (Alfred Wegener Institute)

The team on board the German ‘Polarstern’, who plan to spread 20 tonnes of iron sulphate over less than 20 by 20 kilometres-large patch of ocean surface in the Scotia Sea, hope that the study will provide new insight into how ocean ecosystems respond to fertilization – the very data, hence, that are needed to assess whether or not larger-scale future activities might be justified. But opponents counter that such doing already qualifies as an activity banned by UN law. Pressure groups have launched a signature campaign aimed at stopping the Polarstern crew, which will reach its destination by the end of the week, from dumping its load.

A number of companies, such as the now defunct Planktos Inc., had in the past hoped to commercialize ocean fertilization for the carbon credit market. Scientists and institutes participating in LOHAFEX stress that the experiment has no commercial background whatsoever.

UPDATE:
The Indo-German ocean fertilization experiment, LOHAFEX, has been suspended. The German science ministry, in response to environmental concerns, has asked the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Bremerhaven that an additional independent assessment be conducted before the planned activities can commence.

Meanwhile, the Polarstern, scheduled to reach the planned study region in the Scotia Sea by the end of the week, will continue its journey as planned. On arrival, the 48 scientists on board will start doing preparatory work, but the team will have to await permission from the ministry before they can dump any nutrients into the ocean. AWI has today commissioned two undisclosed institutions to carry out the required extra assessment. It hopes the reports will be delivered within ten days.

Quirin Schiermeier

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on January 14, 2009
Categories: Biosphere feedbacks, Business, Carbon markets, In the News, Mitigation, Ocean science, Politics, Quirin Schiermeier, Research, Technology | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Whose opening lines are these: "The world's energy system is at a crossroads. Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable ... but that can - and must - be altered.”

Sound like another renewables naysayer upholding the fossil-fuel status quo? That's what the International Energy Agency is being accused of in a report picked up by the Guardian on Friday and endorsed by Grist today.

The IEA is slammed by an international group of legislators and scientists called Energy Watch, best known previously for their oil-has-peaked stance. The group’s new report, on wind-power prospects, is one of a handful it has to its name. In the wind report, the Guardian’s David Adam writes,

The experts … say the International Energy Agency (IEA) publishes misleading data on renewables, and that it has consistently underestimated the amount of electricity generated by wind power in its advice to governments. They say the IEA shows "ignorance and contempt" towards wind energy, while promoting oil, coal and nuclear as "irreplaceable" technologies.

Continue reading "IEA responds to attacks" »

Posted by Anna Barnett on January 12, 2009
Categories: Anna Barnett, Energy, In the News, Mitigation, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With serious talk about geoengineering options now on a serious roll (“Not so sotto voce any more” is how RealClimate put it back in August) 80 climate researchers have been polled by the Independent about whether we should prepare techno-fixes such as ocean fertilization or aerosol clouds as an emergency lever on the Earth system.

The paper reports today that 54% - i.e. 43 of them - think we should draw up such plans. Here's the actual poll question - not reprinted by the Independent, but reproduced by a recipient (via the geoengineering Google Group):

Do you agree that we now need a “Plan B” whereby a geoengineering strategy – research, development and possible implementation – is drawn up in parallel to a treaty to reduce carbon emissions (subject to international agreements and a scientific assessment of risk)?

35% disagreed and 11% were undecided.

This survey of scientists is hardly a scientific survey, as climatologist Myles Allen of Oxford points out in a Tyndall Centre newslist post. But it does give some kind of temperature reading - especially in the scientists’ direct comments, which the Independent has published for about half the respondents (listed roughly in order of famousness).

There’s a lot more nuance in those comments than ‘Plan B or not plan B?’ But the overall temperature? Lukewarm.

Continue reading "Geoengineering: Plan B or not plan B?" »

Posted by Anna Barnett on January 02, 2009
Categories: Anna Barnett, In the News, Technology | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Cross-posted from In the Field

This according to Stanford University researcher Mark Jacobson, who has compared various energy technologies in terms of not only greenhouse gas emissions but also conventional pollutants, land use, water resources and more. Speaking after a news conference here, Jacobson said he is trying to provide a more holistic analysis of the various energy options. "There's a lot of misinformation out there," he said.

A few of the key results follow:

Life cycle emissions -- Wind and solar thermal come out on top; tidal, wave and hydro all beat out solar photovoltaics, geothermal and nuclear, thanks to energy spent on equipment and installation; coal was the big loser, even with carbon sequestration (CCS), thanks to energy spent on mining and transport.

Mortalities due to air pollution from US vehicles -- For gasoline, projected deaths drop from 20,000 to 15,000 annually in 2020 due to improved technology and air quality standards. That figure would remain steady or perhaps even rise if ethanol (corn or otherwise) made up 85 percent of the transport fuels. Assuming electric transport takes off, wind reduces mortalities to almost zero, although the full suite of renewables fared almost as well. Coal with CCS would cut mortalities by upward of two-thirds. Nuclear falls between coal and renewables (assuming non-proliferation regimes hold and there aren't any explosions).

Footprint required to power US vehicle fleet -- Accounting for the base of the turbine alone (not roads), wind could power the entire vehicle fleet using less than 3 square kilometers of land. Corn ethanol and concentrated solar power are the big losers, with each requiring a chunk of land that is larger (and perhaps significantly larger) than the state of California.

Water usage -- Wind, solar photovoltaic, geothermal, tidal and wave all come in around zero; coal, nuclear and concentrated solar do well; hydropower gets a poor rating, thanks to evaporation rates from reservoirs (Jacobson divvies up the losses among energy and other uses). But the clear loser is ethanol, whether the source is corn or something else.

Jeff Tollefson

Posted by Olive Heffernan on December 19, 2008
Categories: AGU, Energy, Jeff Tollefson, Technology | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Next Wednesday, Nature is co-hosting a conference with Imperial College London on the Elucian Islands archipelago in Second Life on carbon capture and storage. Details here. Attendance is free – you’ll just have to direct your avatar accordingly….

Posted by Olive Heffernan on November 28, 2008
Categories: Conferences and Meetings, Olive Heffernan, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The world’s first climate collective intelligence experiment is looking for participants.

The aim is to develop a comprehensive, distilled, visual map of the issues, evidence, arguments and options facing the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, that will be available for all to explore and enrich across the web, writes event organiser Dr Simon J. Buckingham Shum over on Nature Network.

The event kicks off in January and will culminate in a conference in April. Now in its pre-launch phase, the organisers are trying to bring together teams of scientists, industrialists, campaigners and policy makers to work with the tool developers on specific aspects of the complex set of issues around climate change.

So, if you are a scientist, industrialist, campaigner, policy maker, tool maker — or someone with other ideas and resources to contribute — and are interested in participating, check out the site here.

Olive Heffernan

Posted by Olive Heffernan on November 17, 2008
Categories: Communicating Climate Change, Olive Heffernan, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Though experts have pegged China as the world’s biggest carbon dioxide emitter for well over a year, it was only two weeks ago that the government first openly admitted China's emissions have caught up with the US (just barely, they insist).

This acknowledgment came the day after a senior Chinese climate policy official said rich nations should earmark a wopping 1% of their GDP to help the developing world tackle climate change. Swift to follow was an international climate conference in Beijing, run jointly by China's government and the UN, which ambitiously proposed a new international agency to push technology transfer. Jane Qiu reports the meeting’s outcome in Nature this week (subscription required).

In short, it’s not just the rather ghastly Christmas tree in my hairdresser’s window that’s signaling December is around the corner. Next month ushers in the UN climate conference in Poznan, Poland, a major stop on the road between Bali and the Son of Kyoto treaty to be hammered out next year in Copenhagen. The formerly reticent China seems to be after a louder voice at the table.

Reuters reports:

"There's growing external pressure on China and also its own problems with energy and the environment, and these factors are coming together to make it more active and focused on climate change," said Goerild Heggelund, an expert on Chinese climate change policy at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Norway.

President-elect Barack Obama's entry into the White House early next year, vowing greater action on climate change, will also lift expectations of China, said Guan Qingyou, a climate policy researcher at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

"With U.S. policy changes, there will also be more pressure on China to show initiative," he said. "Eyes will be on us."

The 1% of GDP demanded last month, Qiu says, would cash out at US$284 billion - more than twice what the eight largest economies pledged to the climate-challenged developing world at July’s G8 summit. Even if the North agreed to such a sum - or the 0.5% or 0.7% the Chinese have previously suggested - countries heading toward a global recession seem unlikely to improve on their poor records of delivering foreign aid.

Perhaps more UN-friendly is the new plan for stepping up the transfer of technologies that would allow the South to produce clean energy and adapt to unavoidable climate change. Writes Qiu:

Under the framework proposed in brainstorming sessions at the Beijing conference, the new inter-government agency would be an independent body able to make and implement decisions and monitor compliance. It would oversee and verify mitigation targets of developing countries, identify barriers to technology transfer, and propose countermeasures. Developed countries would commit to providing it with a steady stream of income for its primary operating budget, possibly supplemented with money from the private sector and other sources.

Continue reading "Pre-Poznan: China makes the first move " »

Posted by Anna Barnett on November 14, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Climate Policy, In the News, Mitigation, Technology | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Last month I wrote that geoengineering proposals had practically made the scientific mainstream, gracing a special issue of one of the Royal Society’s journals. With global emissions steadily rising and policy responses slow to take hold, scientists have begun to call more loudly for research into the last-ditch technological fixes that might - or might not - be able to reset a rapidly changing climate.

The journal’s special issue turns out to have been just a preliminary move for the UK scientific academy. Today the Society announced it is launching a project to review and compare, on paper, the merits of different geoengineering schemes.

Mentioned in the press release are some of the classics: reflecting sunlight with space-based mirrors, pumping cooling aerosols into the atmosphere, and fertilizing the ocean with iron to create carbon-sucking plankton blooms. (Trials of that last one by startup company Climos, who hope to make carbon-credit money off it, are up for consideration by international regulators this week, Reuters reports.) A working group will assess such ideas’ feasibility - “separate the science from the science fiction”, in the words of chair John Shepherd - as well as the huge side effects we could incur by trying to manually turn the thermostat on an incompletely understood planet. A report will be out in mid-2009.

Philip Boyd of New Zealand’s University of Otago demanded an assessment much like this only a few days ago in a Nature Geoscience Commentary (subscription), as The Great Beyond reported. It’s been 15 years, says Boyd, since geoengineering ideas were comprehensively scrutinized and ranked according to their promise (by Keith and Dowlatabadi in Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 1992, if you're wondering). Here is Boyd's example of what he's looking for (more color denotes a higher ranking - this is one for the imaginative graphics file).

Continue reading "Royal Society launches geoengineering review" »

Posted by Anna Barnett on October 30, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Mitigation, Technology | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The third and final debate in the US Presidential elections took place at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York last night. Moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS news, it took as its theme domestic policy.

As pointed out over on Gristmill, the debate yielded nothing new from either candidate on climate and energy issues, though it did serve to highlight the differences in the candidates’ positions as well those topics where they differ from their party positions.

John McCain set himself aside from the GOP is taking credit for "bringing climate change to the floor of the Senate for the first time", while Barack Obama noted that his support for clean coal technology “doesn't make me popular with environmentalists."

The discussion on climate and energy focused almost exclusively on energy independence, and on the timescale to eliminating foreign oil imports. Here’s the transcript of that part of the debate (taken from CNN politics):

Continue reading "Focus on energy independence in final debate " »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on October 16, 2008
Categories: Energy, Features, In the News, Olive Heffernan, Politics, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When Nature (subscription) looked over the whole portfolio of carbon-free electricity options last month, it left wave power for last. In contrast to mature technologies like hydropower and up-and-coming ones like solar, most ideas for capturing the energy of pounding surf “remain firmly in the testing phase”, they wrote.

One project moving out of that phase involves three ‘wave snakes’ that the company Pelamis has just installed off the coast of Portugal - long, cherry-red tubes that wiggle in the waves and use the motion to drive generators, whose electricity passes onto the Portuguese grid. This video hosted by the Guardian shows how they work (and couples soothing music to the animated undulation - I may save the link for next time I’m up at night worrying about the energy crisis).

Continue reading "Snakes on a wave" »

Posted by Anna Barnett on September 25, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Energy, Features, In the News, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cross-posted from Heliophage

Commuting in this morning on the boat, I was struck by a Guardian article on a new McKinsey report (pdf) about carbon capture and storage:

The study shows that such plants could be economically viable by 2030 at the latest. But it would require substantial public subsidies to get 10-12 plants running by the EU target date of 2015...McKinsey said that, with coal still likely to make up 60% of EU power generation by 2030, CCS could be a vital solution to ensuring security of energy supply and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It could reduce emissions by 400m tonnes a year by 2030, or a fifth of planned European savings. The consultants' report, published yesterday, showed that with an aggressive commercial push from the middle of the next decade, CCS costs could come down from as much as €90 for a tonne of CO2 initially, to about €30-45 in 2030 - or in line with expected carbon prices then.

But of course we can't; not now. Spending $700 billion + on bailing out banks is going to make the US, at least, less able to spend comparatively small amounts on other things. As my old boss Bill Emmott but it, also in the Guardian:

The true impact of this expansion of public spending lies in politics, and in what this rescue will now make more difficult or perhaps impossible: the expansion of other areas of public spending, such as healthcare or public programmes for alternative energy. If Barack Obama is elected president in November, he will find his fiscal hands tied a lot tighter than he may have hoped, even with a Democratic Congress alongside him - unless, of course, he wants to raise taxes.

Continue reading "Damn, a trillion dollars would have come in handy" »

Posted by Oliver Morton on September 24, 2008
Categories: Business, Climate Policy, Energy, Oliver Morton, Politics, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cross posted from The Great Beyond

Criminal damage in the name of climate change is not a criminal offence, according to a shock ruling from a British court.

A jury yesterday acquitted six Greenpeace activists who claimed that the threat of global warming was a ‘lawful excuse’ for the damage they caused while protesting at a coal power plant (see this blog post for background).

Climate change scientist James Hansen had previously backed the six: he released a statement declaring “We will need our Mercedes-driving lawyer friends to tell us if the verdict has greater significance -- but the jurors were common people, not politicians.

“The main point, that the government, the utility, and the fossil fuel industry, were aware of the facts [of climate change] but continued to ignore them are more generally valid worldwide. It raises the question of whether the right people are on trial.”

Eco-warriors’ UK paper of choice The Independent says the verdict “will have shocked ministers and energy companies”. In the Guardian, veteran environment correspondent Jon Videl says it will “embarrass the government and lead to more direct action protests against energy companies”.

Continue reading "Shock climate change verdict acquits Hansen’s heroes " »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on September 11, 2008
Categories: Daniel Cressey, Features, In the News, Politics, Society, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week NASA climatologist Jim Hansen came to London to testify on behalf of activists who defaced the Kingnorth coal-fired power station in Kent, which we recently blogged about here on Climate Feedback. Nature reporter Geoff Brumfiel caught up with Hansen in a London hotel to find out what has got him all hot and bothered. You can read the full story over on Nature News.

Olive Heffernan

Posted by Olive Heffernan on September 08, 2008
Categories: Energy, Features, In the News, Olive Heffernan, Politics, Society, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After decades on the fringe, geoengineering proposals have almost become mainstream in the last couple of years. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A now has a special issue on the topic (free access as of 5 Sept.).

There are plenty of ideas these days for purposefully messing with large-scale Earth systems in the hope of offsetting global warming. The Phil Trans A articles don't catalogue them, though Stephen Schneider of Stanford touches on many in a great review article. A pair of papers by the University of Edinburgh's Stephen Salter, NCAR's John Latham, and their colleagues discuss spraying micron-wide particles of sea water into the air to make clouds whiter so that they reflect more light. Ocean fertilization is defended against 20 years of outcry by Victor Smetacek of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research and Wajih Naqvi of the Indian National Institute of Oceanography. And one from Philip Rasch of NCAR and co-authors deals with sulphate aerosols.

But the journal also gives space to plans for power-plant carbon capture - which in fairness was only recently promoted (or de-promoted) out of the geoengineering category - and one of the lesser-known alternative fuels. And the overall focus is the same philosophical question discussed at a recent EGU meeting: how seriously should we pursue geoengineering, given the dangers of huge side effects?

Continue reading "Geoengineering: preparing for the worst " »

Posted by Anna Barnett on September 05, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Mitigation, Technology | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Protests at the climate camp in Kingsnorth, Kent, the site of a proposed new coal fired power plant, reached a climax this weekend, as reported by various news sources. Demonstrators, who promised to reach the site by air, land and sea, reached about 3,000 in number during the course of the week, but – met by some 1,500 police officers - failed to halt business at the site’s existing plant.

There was an excellent article in Saturday’s Guardian on how the outcome of Kingnorth will have implications for similar plants under development worldwide. In total, approx 100 similar plants are in the planning stage – more than half of these are in China, with the others split between the UK, Germany and the US – and governments are watching closely to see what decision is taken in the UK.

The main question is whether the UK government, which has argued for tough international regulations on climate change, will allow the power plant to go ahead without carbon capture and storage (CCS). UK energy minister Malcolm Wicks argues that new coal fired power plants such as the one being proposed in Kent are needed to demonstrate the feasibility of CCS technology, which remains unproven. This may be true, but if demonstrating CCS really is the priority, then why is it that there is no obligation for the owners of Kingsnorth to use CCS, should it be proven?

Continue reading "Debate on coal heats up as climate protests reach climax" »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on August 10, 2008
Categories: Energy, In the News, Olive Heffernan, Politics, Society, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A couple of weeks into the early reporting for a story on the prospects for advanced coal use in China, which I wrote for the latest issue of Nature, I started to get nervous. I had already talked to several Western researchers and observers, but our first major contact in China fell through (for reasons that were never entirely clear) and the dozens of emails I sent out to Chinese scientists and policymakers simply disappeared into a void.

But our thesis seemed sound, and everybody I talked to who had experience in China suggested that things would fall into place once I got on the ground, made a few contacts and then started working the network via cell-phone. In the end, we decided to give it a go.

Jane Qiu, a Nature correspondent stationed in Beijing, was able to set up several interviews in advance, and we had a clean coal conference in Shanghai as a backstop. And earlier reporting eventually paid off in a big way as a few key industry and university contacts came through, just days before I hopped on the plane.

Continue reading "Nature takes a closer look at coal in China" »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on July 28, 2008
Categories: Energy, Features, In the News, Society, Technology | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Twenty-five Nobel laureates convened early this month on the island of Lindau, Germany, to meet with 567 talented young physicists from universities and laboratories around the world. After several lectures on Bose-Einstein condensates, high-energy particle physics, and carbon nanotubes, as well as presentations on biophysics from the winners of the 1988 Nobel prize in chemistry, seven laureates got on stage for a panel discussion of climate change and energy challenges.

Though they were all admittedly speaking beyond their fields of expertise, the scientists offered unfiltered political and social advice.

Continue reading "Nobelists talk energy" »

Posted by Anna Barnett on July 15, 2008
Categories: Christina Reed, Conferences and Meetings, Energy, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thin-film solar cell technology is starting to get hot. This week in Science, a paper by Marc Baldo and friends at MIT applies thin films, stuffed with organic dyes, to a piece of glass. This concentrates the light to just the edges, where small amounts of expensive PV materials can soak up the rays as much as they like. (see Nature news story)

This, the authors say, could provide solar power at, or below, the magic US$1 per watt that everyone in the industry talks about. But they had better get a move on because other firms are claiming to almost be there already. And the industry is full of competition for heavy investment, even in flaky economic times.

Continue reading "Solar cells: thin is in" »

Posted by Anna Barnett on July 14, 2008
Categories: Business, Energy, Katharine Sanderson, Technology | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Don't grieve the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner climate bill, urges Joseph Romm in a Nature Reports Climate Change Commentary this week. Romm, voice of the Climate Progress blog, writes:

Although hailed as landmark legislation, the proposal, which died after it failed to muster close to the required 60 votes [in the US Senate], would not have put the nation on the path required to help avert catastrophic climate change.

The bill, like most climate plans now up for serious debate around the world, relied heavily on imposing a financial penalty for carbon emissions. But Europe's up-and-running emissions market has done little to curb the continent's appetite for carbon, and that should make legislators and negotiators queasy, argues Romm.

"The United States simply cannot wait another decade to find out whether domestic cap-and-trade legislation will drive carbon dioxide to a high enough price to curb emissions growth sharply," he says. Nor is new technology the answer:

Such is the urgent need to reverse emissions trends by deploying a multitude of low-carbon technologies that we must rely on technologies that either are already commercial or will very shortly be so. Fortunately, venture capitalists and public companies have begun to inject many billions of dollars into the development and short-term commercialization of most plausible low-carbon technologies. Governments should now focus their R&D spending on a longer-term effort aimed at a new generation of technologies for the emissions reduction effort after 2040, but the notion that we need a Manhattan Project or Apollo programme for technology development is mistaken. Instead, what is urgently needed is an effort of that scale focused on the deployment of technology.

Romm said more about this Thursday in a cross-posted entry at Climate Progress and Grist, in the process resurrecting a set-to with Roger Pielke, Jr, on their respective blogs in April and May.

Romm at that time argued for the importance of carbon costs - though only as one prong on the pitchfork he was wielding against a Nature Commentary by Pielke and co-authors.

Meanwhile, the most recent opinion Pielke's offered on our site is that the need for R&D isn't up for debate anymore - it's all about how to price carbon.

Anna Barnett

Posted by Anna Barnett on June 23, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Climate Policy, Mitigation, Opinion, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Whether and how to put a price on carbon has been something of a hot topic this week, primarily due to the proposal of a landmark climate change bill to the US Senate that would "cap and trade" emissions of the greenhouse gas.

Perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly, the climate change bill offered by Senators Boxer, Lieberman, and Warner died today in the Senate after Democrat leaders fell a dozen votes short of the 60 needed to defeat Republican obstruction.

Republicans opposed the global warming bill over fears of the economic costs of pricing the greenhouse gas, though Democrats argued there would be no cost to consumers, who would be aided with tax relief. The debate over "cap and trade" legislation is now expected to be postponed until next year, when there is a new president in the White House.

Both presidential nominees back mandatory greenhouse gas reductions and indicated they supported moving forward on discussing the bill offered to the Senate this week, but whether "cap and trade" is the the best way to price carbon remains contentious.

The issue is taken up this week on Nature Reports Climate Change by Roger Pielke Jr who reviews Earth: The Sequel by Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn of the Environmental Defense Fund. The basic tenet of the book is that a US carbon market with tradable credits would provide the profit incentive needed to energize potential innovators of low or no-carbon technology – thus meeting the world's escalating demand for green energy. But Pielke Jr argues:

By placing their attention on the need for innovative energy technologies, Krupp and Horn have focused on the one area where advocates for action on greenhouse gas reduction are in strong agreement. They have avoided engaging in the real debate over the policies necessary to decarbonize the growing global economy and, crucially, over whether and how to put a price on carbon dioxide.

You can read the full review here.

Meanwhile, over on Dot Earth, Andy Revkin has written about an alternative, though less popular, pricing approach known as “cap and dividend”. The scheme, being strongly endorsed by NASA climatologist James Hansen, is based on the principle of making the polluter pay without placing the burdening of rising costs on the consumer, the most commonly cited down-side of "cap and trade" (discussed by Pielke Jr in the above review).

Revkin explores two proposals for “cap and dividend”: one by Hansen that involves taxing fuels by their carbon content, and another by investment pioneer Peter Barnes that entails selling a steadily declining number of permits for emitting carbon dioxide. The latter would force polluters to eventually pay the full whack of their carbon consumption, and the revenue would be returned to citizens. You can read the full story here.

Olive Heffernan

Posted by Olive Heffernan on June 06, 2008
Categories: Carbon markets, Climate Policy, Features, In the News, Olive Heffernan, Politics, Technology | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

While most Londoners spent last week maximising their time spent basking in the glorious sunshine that so rarely comes our way, I spent it largely indoors - at a place that predicts these sorts of unusual occurrences, otherwise known as the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) in Reading.

The World Modelling Summit for Climate Prediction held there last week was itself something of a rare event – a union of the weather and climate communities, who met to discuss whether – and how – they can eventually provide climate predictions that are as useful, and as useable, as weather forecasts.

The four-day summit culminated in a call for a massive investment, around a billion dollars, to fund a new global research facility or facilities with computer and research resources that would ‘revolutionize’ climate modelling capabilities, bringing into view the holy grail of ‘seamless’ weather-to-climate prediction.

We’ve covered the summit in some detail in this week’s Nature [subscription], in my news story and an editorial by Oliver Morton.

In short, the idea is that an injection of cash on this scale could bring about a quantum leap in climate simulations by funding climate computers far beyond those in use today. Currently, computers used for modelling the climate are in the 10-teraflop range, which means that they operate at inconceivably high speeds and run models that divide the globe into 100 kilometre cells to roughly project how global climate is likely to change in the long-term.

Though these models have had a key role in warning us of the gradual warming of our planet, they’ve fared pretty poorly when it comes to gauging the likelihood of extreme localised events, such as flooding or more frequent hurricanes. But scientists at the conference said that if they had access to supercomputers – with speeds in the range of hundreds of petaflops (basically 10,000 times more processing power) - they could resolve climate globally on the scale of kilometres, potentially creating models good enough to inform nations of the specific regional challenges they can expect in adapting to climate change.

Continue reading "A revolution - for climate model evolution " »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on May 14, 2008
Categories: Climate Science, Climate prediction, Features, In the News, Journal Club, Olive Heffernan, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If there was an eye in the sky keeping watch on our greenhouse gas emissions, what carbon crimes would it reveal?

The ability to measure greenhouse gases from space, soon to become a reality, could answer this question.

Currently, it’s virtually impossible to identify the exact source – and destination - of greenhouse gases, a prominent theme at this year’s European Geosciences Union conference in Vienna.

But, according to scientists speaking today at the conference, this is all set to change within the coming year when two major satellites designed to monitor greenhouse gases will be launched into space.

Due to leave Earth on December 15, the first of these is the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), a US$300 million-or-so innovation of scientists and engineers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. The Japanese version, known as the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite, or GOSAT, has an anticipated launch date in January or February 2009.

For a detailed low-down on the satellites and how they will work, see Amanda Haag’s news feature in Nature (subscription) last December. Since then, the scientists have mostly been testing and calibrating the instruments to make sure they work once they’re orbiting the Earth.

Within a year or two, if not sooner, they will enable scientists to identify major sources and sinks or carbon, says Charles Miller, one of the Principal Co-ordinators of the OCO mission. The greenhouse gas measurements taken by the instrument, which will orbit the planet 14.5 times per day, will be three times more precise than any trace gas measurements ever taken from space.

All-in-all, the missions represent an unprecedented effort to collect global climate data from space. While this is fascinating from a scientific perspective, it should also have some interesting political implications by enabling the easy identification of climate culprits.

“If one were to imagine a way to monitor or verify [emissions], then this would be the way to go”, says Miller. For instance, it should quash (or raise, depending on who you’re talking to) fears that nations claiming credits for avoiding deforestation under the Kyoto Protocol will be able to divert the problem elsewhere.

Miller says they often joke that the instrument could detect the greenhouse gas emissions of serious carbon heaveyweights from space. But while the new satellites won’t realistically help reporting on individual carbon crimes, it could act as a ‘big brother’ to keep countries in line with their Kyoto commitments. Personally, I’m curious to know the OCO’s own carbon footprint!

That’s all from me from this year’s European Geosciences Union conference in Vienna. Over and out….

Olive Heffernan

Posted by Olive Heffernan on April 18, 2008
Categories: Atmospheric Science, Conferences and Meetings, EGU 2008, Olive Heffernan, Technology | 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)

The dizzying economic growth in Asia threatens to disappoint expectations that new technologies will provide an easy fix for our climate problem, warn the authors of a commentary article in Nature this week.
Roger Pielke, Tom Wigley and Christopher Green believe that the Intergovernmental Panel on Change Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year for its work, plays “a risky game” when assuming that “spontaneous advances in technological innovation will carry out most of the burden of achieving future emissions reductions.”

Most of the emissions scenarios that the IPCC considered for its last report include significant ‘built-in’ technological change. In other words, the IPCC assumes that a good deal of climate-friendly innovation will happen spontaneously, in the absence of climate policy measures.

Now, necessity, economic growth and pursuit of profit do generate all kinds of more or less useful new technologies, from atomic bombs to iPods. But assuming that pure market forces will readily come to our aid in matters of climate change might be too optimistic, the commentary authors warn. Worse, they say, the assumption of a lot of spontaneous technological change could be misinterpreted as a license for policymakers not to take aggressive action.

Pielke, Wigley and Green have stirred up a hornets’ nest with their analysis. Some initial reactions to their call to arms are collected in an accompanying news piece. Expert opinions range from “overdue” to “totally misleading”.

So who’s right and who’s wrong, then? Are we dramatically underestimating the challenge of climate change? Or is this just one more twist exercised to unnecessarily dramatize an admittedly serious problem? Or is it all just shadow-boxing in the arcane world of scenario-making?

Economics of climate change are a politicized field. Depending on one’s standpoint (on what market forces can or cannot do, for example), one may find different answers to these questions. Less disputable is the fact that some two billion people in China and India are on the point of adapting to western living standards. Their consumptive power and increasing mobility will add to the global climate and energy problem. Let’s hope that their creativity and engineering skills will also add to its solution.

Quirin Schiermeier

Illustration: B. Mellor

Posted by Anna Barnett on March 31, 2008
Categories: Climate Science, Quirin Schiermeier, Technology | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

In the race to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, the Royal Society now plans to back promising new technology with venture capital as well as intellectual clout. The Society announced Thursday it will sink its first-ever investment fund into businesses developing carbon capture and renewable energy, along with water purification and other world-saving innovations (Financial Times).

Continue reading "Royal Society to fund carbon capture and renewables ventures" »

Posted by Anna Barnett on February 29, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Business, In the News, Technology | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

AAAS, Boston -

Whether technology can cure the world’s ills has been a hot topic at this year’s AAAS conference.

I joined Alok Jah and James Randerson as a guest commentator on the Guardian’s weekly science podcast yesterday to discuss, among other highlights from the AAAS meeting, whether we can rely on technology as our sole solution to climate change.

We recorded in Toscanini’s ice-cream café in Cambridge, MA, an institution as famous for its clientele (nobel and ignoble laureates and the Dalai Lama), as much as for it’s delectable ice-cream….the wort variety comes highly recommended!

The impetus for our technology discussion was the release of a report at AAAS by a specialist panel convened to predict the great engineering challenges that humanity will face in the 21st century.

A select group of big names and big thinkers, the blue ribbon panel included Larry Page, co-founder of Google, Craig Venter, entrepreneur, geneticist and billionaire, Lord Broers, a former president of the Royal Academy of Engineering and Ray Kurzweil, futurologist, software engineer and alleged recipient of some 14 honorary doctorates.

Kurzweil sees no end to the possibilities of what technology can achieve this century – from creating artificial intelligence to match the human intellect to reversing the signs of aging. His basis for these assertions is the rate at which technology is advancing – a doubling every two decades. Though this may sound modest, its cumulative effect is worth contemplating – that’s 32 times more technical progress over the next 50 years than there has been in the past half-century!

The views of the panel are positively circumspect in comparison to Kurzweil’s, though are none-the-less fascinating.

Continue reading "Can technology stop the world from warming (and my ice-cream from melting)? " »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on February 18, 2008
Categories: AAAS, Conferences and Meetings, Energy, Olive Heffernan, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A novel approach to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere based on the Earth's natural weathering process, which Olive Heffernan reported on in November, is getting more attention.

John Shepherd discusses the technique, developed by graduate student Kurt Zen House and colleagues, in a Journal Club column in Nature today, concluding:

The scheme House et al. outline looks promising if it were operated using a solar or geothermal electricity source near a supply of basic rocks. A mid-ocean volcanic island would be good. And the environmental consequences of the scheme's discharges should be less severe than those of the ocean acidification that humans are already causing.

A simple geoengineering solution to soak up carbon dioxide without catastrophic side effects should raise interest, and it has. But Shepherd says that what geoengineering ideas need now, and haven't got, is seed funding for pilot projects. "None of the research councils has so far felt that it's their patch," says Shepherd, but "DEFRA are beginning to take an interest, and both the Tyndall Centre and the Royal Society are now contemplating meetings or studies on geoengineering, so maybe things will hot up a bit sometime soon."

Anna Barnett

Photo: Getty

Posted by Anna Barnett on February 14, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Technology | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Did you resolve to use less energy for your home appliances in 2008? In a study released yesterday, a lab within the the US Department of Energy found that lots of Americans (or at least lots of Pacific Northwesterners) want to do the same - and given more information, tools, and sophisticated market incentives, they'll actually do it. To the tune of 15% less peak power use and 10% lower household electric bills.

Continue reading "Technology lessens Americans' power hunger " »

Posted by Anna Barnett on January 10, 2008
Categories: Anna Barnett, Climate Policy, Energy, Personal action, Technology | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)