Climate Feedback

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 (1) | TrackBacks (0)

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.

Those, Lehmann stresses, are rough calculations to highlight the potential, not realistic scenarios. But might it not make sense to start developing them into realistic scenarios? If you have inexpensive feedstock, this is a pretty intriguing technology.

Posted by Oliver Morton on May 11, 2007
Categories: Mitigation, Oliver Morton | Permalink | Comments (6) | 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 (3) | 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)