Category Archives: Carbon Dioxide

Committed carbon emissions are rising fast

The Pątnów power plant in Konin, Poland Image: Flyz1 via Wikimedia Commons

The Pątnów power plant in Konin, Poland
Image: Flyz1 via Wikimedia Commons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Tim Radford

As countries build ever more fossil fuel power plants, they commit the atmosphere to rapidly increasing levels of carbon dioxide – the opposite of what governments say they intend.

LONDON, 28 August 2014 – Challenging news for those climate campaigners who believe that renewable sources of energy are on the increase: they may be, but so are carbon dioxide emissions.

Steven Davis of the University of California, Irvine and Robert Socolow of Princeton University in the US report in the journal Environmental Research Letters that existing power plants will emit 300 billion tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere during their lifetimes. In this century alone, emissions have grown by 4% per year.

The two scientists have already reported on the increasing costs of delay in phasing out fossil fuel sources of energy. This time they have looked at the steady future accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from power stations.

“We show that, despite international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, total remaining commitments in the global power sector have not declined in a single year since 1950 and are in fact growing rapidly,” their paper says.

Massive commitment

“We are flying a plane that is missing a crucial dial on the instrument panel,” said Professor Socolow. “The needed dial would report committed emissions.

“Right now, as far as emissions are concerned, the only dial on our panel tells us about current emissions, not the emissions that capital investment will bring about in future years.”

Governments worldwide have in principle accepted that greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced and average global warming limited to a rise of 2°C.

The scientists asked: once a power station is built, how much carbon dioxide will it emit, and for how long? They assumed a functioning lifetime of 40 years for a fossil fuel plant and then did the sums.

The fossil fuel-burning stations built worldwide in 2012 alone will produce 19 bn tons of carbon dioxide over their lifetimes. The entire world production of the greenhouse gas from all the world’s working fossil fuel power stations in 2012 was 14 billion tons.

“Far from solving the problem of climate change, we’re investing heavily in technologies that make the problem worse”

The US and Europe between them account for 20% of committed emissions, but these commitments have been declining in recent years. Facilities in China and India account for 42% and 8% respectively of all committed future emissions, and these are rapidly growing in number. Two-thirds of emissions are from coal-burning stations. The share from gas-fired stations had risen to 27% by 2012.

“Bringing down carbon emissions means retiring more fossil fuel-burning facilities than we build,” Dr Davis said. “But worldwide we’ve built more coal-burning power plants in the past decade than in any previous decade, and closures of old plants aren’t keeping pace with this expansion.

“Far from solving the problem of climate change, we’re investing heavily in technologies that make the problem worse.” And Professor Socolow said: “We’ve been hiding what’s going on from ourselves. A high-carbon future is being locked in by the world’s capital investments.

“Current conventions for reporting data and presenting scenarios for future action need to give greater prominence to these investments.” – Climate News Network

Politicians ignore people’s power pleas

A community-owned solar farm in the UK Image: Neil Maw/Westmill Solar Co-operative via WEikimedia Commons
Field of dreams: a community-owned solar farm near Oxford, UK
Image: Neil Maw/Westmill Solar Co-operative via Wikimedia Commons

By Paul Brown

Consumers worldwide increasingly want renewable energy sources to provide their electricity, yet many governments are ignoring them by continuing to exploit fossil fuels.

LONDON, 26 August, 2014 − Public support for renewable energies across the world continues to grow, particularly in more advanced economies − with solar power being especially popular.

At the same time, the policies of the governments in most of these richer countries do not mirror public opinion as many continue to develop fossil fuels, which do not command such popular support.

An example is the UK, where the government wants to exploit gas reserves by the controversial method of fracking – fracturing rock to allow the gas to reach the ground surface. The Conservative government is also promising to cut down on subsidies for onshore wind farms and to build nuclear power stations.

According to the public attitudes report published this month by the British government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change, 36% of the population supports the plan to build new nuclear stations, and only 24% support shale gas extraction by fracking.

Widespread support

In contrast, 79% of the public is in favour of renewable energies to provide electricity. The UK has plentiful renewable energy and is exploiting several different types. Solar panels are the most popular form, with 82% of the public supporting their widespread use on the roofs of private houses and, more recently, solar farms in fields in the countryside.

Other high scores for renewables were offshore wind (72% in favour), onshore wind (67%), wave and tidal (73%), and biomass (60%) − even though all need public subsidy to compete with fossil fuels.

Despite the government’s public support for nuclear, there has been no start on a new station because a subsidy offered by the government is being investigated as potentially illegal under European Union competition legislation. Fracking is still at the exploratory stage and requires years of investment before any power could be produced.

Massive growth

Meanwhile, renewables keep on growing. In the first three months of this year, they produced nearly one-fifth of the UK’s electricity. Renewable energy generation was 43% higher than a year previously, showing the massive growth in the industry.

Both onshore and offshore wind farms are growing quickly, with the UK now having the largest offshore wind industry in the world.

The electricity output from renewables this year was boosted by high rainfall in Scotland, helping the country’s hydropower stations to produce more power, and windy conditions over the whole of the UK improving wind power output.

The British government’s response to these successes has been a policy to reduce the subsidies for both wind and solar power, as improving technology and mass production lower unit costs, while increasing Treasury support for nuclear power and fracking.

Germany has a similar public support for fossil-free energy – with 69% of consumers agreeing that the subsidies are needed to switch electricity generation to renewables. Unlike in Britain, all nuclear stations in Germany are being closed because of public demand, and fracking is unlikely to be considered.

This is partly because 380,000 Germans already work in the renewable energy sector and its development is credited with helping Germany through the recent recession by creating manufacturing and maintenance jobs.

Attitudes in the US to climate change and renewables have also changed in recent years, despite a barrage of propaganda from the fossil fuel industry attempting to cast doubt on the scientists’ predictions of global warming. The public supports renewable energies, irrespective of their views on global warming.

Actively concerned

The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication reports that 18% of Americans are alarmed by climate change and its effect on their country, and 33% are actively concerned. This is in contrast to 11% who are doubtful that climate change is man-made, and a very vocal 7% who believe it is a hoax or conspiracy got up by scientists and journalists.

Dr Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale project, said “Whatever people’s view on whether climate change was man-made or not, all sectors agreed that there should be support for alternative energies. Subsidies for more fuel efficient and solar had wide public support. This cut across voters of all parties and no party.”

Even in Australia, where the government has repudiated all efforts to combat climate change, 70% of the public support renewable energies.

In the developing world, public knowledge of renewable energies is less, and so is the support − although solar power is popular. In India, where power cuts are a major headache for businesses, a recent poll showed that 50% of Indians want more renewable energy, and particularly solar power, believing it will help them get a more consistent electricity supply. – Climate News Network

Human factor speeds up glacial melting

Glaciers such as Artesonraju in the Peruvian Andes are melting at record rates Image: Edubucher via Wikimedia Commons
Glaciers such as Artesonraju in the Peruvian Andes are melting at record rates
Image: Edubucher via Wikimedia Commons

By Tim Radford

Scientists simulating changes in mountain glaciers over the last century and a half have established that rates of melting have increased greatly in recent years – and that humans are the main culprits.

LONDON, 17 August, 2014 – The impact of human activity is melting the glaciers in the world’s mountain regions, and is doing so at an accelerating rate.

Ben Marzeion, a climate scientist at the University of Innsbruck’s Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics, Austria, reports with colleagues in the journal Science that they used computer models to simulate changes in the world’s slow-flowing frozen rivers between the years 1851 and 2010. The study embraced all the world’s glaciers except those in Antarctica.

This kind of manipulation allows researchers to play with the possibilities and see, for instance, how much changes in the sunlight patterns, high-level atmospheric changes because of volcanic eruptions, or simply slow cycles of natural weather patterns might be at work in the ice record.

The answers were unequivocal about human impact on the environment. “In our data, we find unambiguous evidence of anthropogenic contribution to glacier mass loss,” Dr Marzeion says.

In retreat

That glaciers are losing mass − retreating uphill, and melting at a faster rate − is not in doubt. A year ago, one group established without any doubt that worldwide, and overall, glaciers are in retreat.

In South America, some glaciers in the Andes are melting at a record rate, while satellite measurements show that the Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland doubled its flow speed between 1997 and 2003, and has doubled it again since 2003.

In Europe, 19th-century landscape painters, pioneer photographers and mountain guides unwittingly made permanent, easily-accessible records of Alpine glacier geography. These now set a baseline for all modern measurements, and researchers have established that the melt is getting faster.

The challenge is to determine how much of this is due to natural causes, and how much to changes in human land use, and the emission of greenhouse gases.

Higher proportion

The Innsbruck team has calculated that around a quarter of all the melting between 1851 and 2010 can be put down to human activity. But that is the overall picture: the proportion gets higher with time. Between 1991 and 2010, the fraction of melting due to human activity rose to two-thirds.

“In the 19th century and first half of the 20th century we observed that glacier mass loss attributable to human activity is barely noticeable, but since then has steadily increased,” Dr Marzeion says. – Climate News Network

Tar oil pipeline’s hidden pollution danger

Keystone pipeline protest in Olympia, capital of Washington state, US Image: Brylie Oxley via Wikimedia Commons
Keystone XL pipeline protest in Olympia, capital of Washington state, US
Image: Brylie Oxley via Wikimedia Commons

By Alex Kirby

European researchers say a 2,000-mile pipeline designed to carry controversial tar sands oil from Canada to the southern US may lead to much more pollution than previously calculated.

LONDON, 14 August, 2014 − The oil industry has high hopes of the US$5.4 billion Keystone XL pipeline, which on completion is planned to carry crude oil from Canada’s tar sands in Alberta to refineries more than 2,000 miles away in Texas.

With President Barack Obama saying he will approve Keystone only if it “does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution”, the pipeline’s future is seen by many inside and outside the US as an acid test of his resolve to tackle climate change.

But in a report that questions US State Department calculations of Keystone’s impact, researchers in Europe say it could increase carbon emissions by much more than anyone has so far calculated.

Emissions increase

The research team, from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), says the pipeline could increase world greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 121 million tons of carbon dioxide a year − more than four times higher than the State Department’s estimated total of 30 million tons at most.

The official figure, the SEI says, ignores the fact that the extra oil refined once the pipeline is working will cause prices to fall by about $3 a barrel, increasing consumption and, with it, carbon emissions. The SEI report is published by the journal Nature Climate Change.

To put the possible 121 million ton figure in perspective, the total amount of CO2 emitted globally in 2013 was 36 billion tons.

The American Petroleum Institute said the study was irrelevant because the tar sands would be developed anyway and oil would be transported to the southern refineries by rail if not by pipeline.

But Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology in Washington, while agreeing that the total emissions increase is small, said the concern was more about the idea of boosting emissions than the degree of change.

Tar sands arouse vehement opposition from environment groups and from many communities in Alberta.

Concerns about exploiting the sands include the impact on health and safety, water resources, air pollution and soil damage. Beyond that, some analysts are increasingly arguing that the world cannot afford to burn most of its fossil fuel reserves (including unconventional oil, such as that from tar sands) if it is to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Oil prices

The authors of the SEI study, Peter Erickson and Michael Lazarus, found that, for every barrel of increased production, global oil consumption would increase by 0.6 barrels because of the resulting fall in world oil prices.

Taking other variables into account, they calculated that the net annual impact of Keystone XL could range from virtually nothing to 121 million tons of CO2 equivalent − a spread much wider than that found by the State Department, which did not account for global oil market effects.

“The key message is that the oil market impacts of Keystone XL could be significant – and have an emissions impact four times greater than the US State Department found,” Erickson told Responding to Climate Change, a London-based news and analysis website.

“That also suggests that more of this type of analysis − analysing the possible market effects of other fossil fuel infrastructure projects − could be warranted, as they could have similar effects”. − Climate News Network

New rules could block biofuel’s alien invaders

The invasive giant reed (Arundo donax) has been approved in the US as a biofuel crop Image: H Zell via Wikimedia Commons
The US approved the invasive giant reed (Arundo donax) as a biofuel crop
Image: H Zell via Wikimedia Commons

By Alex Kirby

Producing biofuel from plants can help to reduce fossil fuel use and climate change emissions, but scientists warn of risks that some species may become unwelcome and damaging invaders.

LONDON, 10 August, 2014 − Researchers in the US have warned those anxious to cut greenhouse emissions to make quite sure that the cure they choose will not turn out worse than the disease.

They have developed a tool that should help to avoid the danger that efforts to address climate change could allow invasive plant species to spread where they are not wanted.

Making fuel from plants avoids using fossil fuels − although it does use land that could otherwise grow crops. But scientists are concerned that plants grown for their energy could damage their new environment.

If a plant grown as a biofuel crop is approved solely on the basis of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists from the University of Illinois warn that its potential as the next invasive species may not be discovered until it’s too late. So they have drawn up a set of regulatory definitions and provisions.

White list

They also assessed 120 potential bioenergy feedstock taxa (biological classifications of related organisms) and came up with a “white list” of 49 low-risk biofuel plants − 24 native and 25 non-native − from which growers can choose.

Lauren Quinn, an invasive plant ecologist at the university’s Energy Biosciences Institute, and her colleagues set out to create a list of low-risk biofuel crops that can be safely grown for conversion to ethanol. But in the process of doing that, they recognised that regulations were needed to instill checks and balances in the system.

“There are not a lot of existing regulations that would prevent the planting of potentially invasive species at the state or federal levels,” Dr Quinn says.

In approving new biofuel products, she says, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not formally consider invasiveness at all – just greenhouse gas emissions related to their production.

“Last summer, the EPA approved two
known invaders . . . despite public criticism”

The report’s co-author, A. Bryan Endres, professor of agricultural law at the university, says: “Last summer, the EPA approved two known invaders, Arundo donax [giant reed] and Pennisetum purpurem [napier grass], despite public criticism.”

The researchers say there is no clear and agreed scientific definition of what “invasive” means, although the UN Convention on Biological Diversity has made a brave attempt, while also broadening the category. It says: “Invasive alien species have devastating impacts on native biota, causing decline or even extinctions of native species, and negatively affecting ecosystems.”

Dr Quinn says: “Our definition of invasive is ‘a population exhibiting a net negative impact or harm to the target ecosystem’ . . . We want to establish guidelines that will be simple for regulators, and informed by the ecological literature and our own knowledge.

“We also need to recognise that some native plants can become weedy or invasive. It’s complicated, and requires some understanding of the biology of these plants.

High risk

“Some of the biofeedstocks currently being examined by the EPA for approval, like pennycress, have a high risk for invasion. Others have vague names such as jatropha, with no species name, which is problematic.

“For example, there are three main Miscanthus species, but only sterile hybrid Miscanthus giganteus types are considered low risk. However, the EPA has approved “Miscanthus” as a feedstock, without specifying a species or genotype.

“That’s fine for the low-risk sterile types, but could mean higher-risk fertile types could be approved without additional oversight.”

Dr Quinn thinks the team’s list of  low-risk feedstock plants will serve to clear up the confusion about plant names. It was developed using an existing weed risk assessment protocol, which includes an extensive list of 49 questions that must be asked about a particular species − based on its biology, ecology, and its history of being invasive in other parts of the world.

Although a plant may be native to a part of the US, it could be considered invasive if it is grown in a different region, Dr Quinn says. “For example, Panicum virgatum is the variety of switchgrass that is low risk everywhere except for the three coastal states of Washington, Oregon and California.

“But future genotypes that may be bred with more invasive characteristics, such as rapid growth or prolific seed production, may have higher risk.” − Climate News Network

Canada puts oil exploitation before forests

A plane drops a water bomb on a forest fire in Ontario, Canada Image: {Per via Wikimedia Commons
A plane drops a water bomb on a forest fire in Ontario, Canada
Image: Per via Wikimedia Commons

By Paul Brown

Having repudiated the Kyoto Protocol on reducing fossil fuel use, Canada is still exploiting tar sands for oil − despite accepting that climate change is destroying its forests.

LONDON, 9 August, 2014 − Detailed evidence that Canada’s vast natural areas are undergoing major changes because of climate change is produced in a new report by Natural Resources Canada.

The government body describes problems with disappearing glaciers, sea level rise, melting permafrost and changing snow and rainfall patterns. One of the country’s most important natural resources, the forests that cover more than 50% of its land area, is under pressure because of pests, fire and drought.

There may, the reports says, be some pluses for Canada in climate change − at least in the short term − because some staple cereal crops will also be able to be grown further north because of warmer weather, assuming that the soil is suitable.

The report, Canada in a Changing Climate, concentrates on impacts and adaptation, but does not mention the causes, or the fact that Canada is now an international pariah in the environmental community because of its exploitation of tar sands for oil.

The country does attempt, for economic reasons, to be more energy efficient, but has repudiated the Kyoto Protocol and international efforts to curb fossil fuel use. The country had accepted a target of cutting emissions on 1990 levels by 5% by 2012, but the government backed out in 2011.

Highest emissions

Average greenhouse gas emissions for oil sands extraction and upgrading are estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive per barrel as for conventional crude oil produced in Canada or the US. If Alberta, where the oil is produced from tar sands, was a country and not a merely a province of Canada, it would have the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world.

The only mention the report makes of tar sands extraction is the problem caused by its large use of water, and it makes the point that the industry is recycling as much as possible.

A tar sands mine at Mildred Lake, Alberta Image: TastCakes/Janitzky via Wikimedia Commons
A tar sands mine at Mildred Lake, Alberta
Image: TastyCakes/Janitzky via Wikimedia Commons

Mitigation is not on the agenda, as the country’s politicians are intent on exploiting as much of the country’s oil and gas as possible.

A study of forests says that 224,410 people are directly employed in the sector, although it makes up only 1.1% of GDP. About 5% of the forests are damaged annually because of outbreaks of pests and fire. Temperatures in the forest areas have risen far more sharply than on the rest of the planet, with far-reaching consequences for the future, the report says.

In 2009, over three million hectares of forest were destroyed by fire in a single year. The number of fires is expected to increase, with the area being burned being three to five times as much in Western Canada by the end of the century. Large fires are raging again this year, but the quantity of the damage has yet to be assessed.

Severe outbreaks

One of the pests moving north and devastating mature trees is the mountain pine beetle. The beetle is endemic, but is killed by winter temperatures below minus 35˚C, thus limiting its numbers from year to year. However, winter temperatures in many areas now fail to drop below this level, leading to larger and more severe outbreaks of the pest.

A report in 2012 concluded that 18.1 million hectares of forest dominated by mature Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) had been affected. Scientists conclude that productivity of the forests will decline rapidly in British Columbia, and thousands of jobs will be lost. Meanwhile, the beetle is continuing to move north and east.

One advantage of the increased temperatures in Canada is that trees can grow further north and higher up mountains than previously, and there is a longer growing season.

Trees that live 100 years cannot migrate fast enough to take advantage, so local governments are going in for assisted migration.

This involves planting the seeds of suitable species 100 to 200 metres above the existing tree line on mountains, and in some cases two degrees of latitude northwards (about 100 miles) of the existing forests into what is currently tundra or scrub. – Climate News Network

Rise in flights will outweigh carbon cuts

Low-cost airlines have led to more travel for leisure Image: Kurush Pawar via Wikimedia Commons
The proliferation of low-cost airlines has driven up demand in leisure travel
Image: Kurush Pawar via Wikimedia Commons

By Alex Kirby

Researchers warn that the cost of airline tickets will need to rise steadily to decrease demand and counteract the effects of aviation’s growing carbon emissions.

LONDON, 8 August, 2014 − The aviation industry insists that it is making only a tiny contribution to global warming, with just 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions coming from its aircraft.

The problem is the speed at which aviation itself is growing. One aircraft builder believes the number of planes in service in 2011 will have doubled by 2031.

Whatever the industry’s efforts to reduce its carbon emissions, they will be outweighed by the growth in air traffic, even if the most contentious mitigation measures come into force, according to researchers in the UK.

Cut substantially

More aircraft, more flights and more passengers mean more fuel will be burnt and more CO2 emitted − so much more that air traffic growth is likely to prevail over emissions cuts, unless demand for flights is cut substantially.

The researchers, from the University of Southampton, have published their report in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

“There is little doubt that increasing demand for air travel will continue for the foreseeable future,” says co-author and travel expert Professor John Preston. “As a result, civil aviation is going to become an increasingly significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.”

The authors have calculated that the ticket price increase needed to drive down demand would value CO2 emissions at up to 100 times the amount of current valuations.

“This would translate to a yearly 1.4% increase on ticket prices, breaking the trend of increasing lower airfares,” says co-author Matt Grote. “The price of domestic tickets has dropped by 1.3% a year between 1979 and 2012, and international fares have fallen by 0.5% per annum between 1990 and 2012.”

However, because any move to suppress demand is likely to be resisted by the airline industry and by governments, the researchers say that a global regulator “with teeth” is urgently needed to enforce CO2 emission cuts.

“Some mitigation measures can be left to the aviation sector to resolve,” says Professor Ian Williams, the head of the Centre for Environmental Science at the university, “For example, the industry will continue to seek improvements to fuel efficiency as this will reduce costs.

“However, other essential measures, such as securing international agreements, setting action plans, regulations and carbon standards, will require political leadership at a global level.”

The literature review conducted by the researchers suggests that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) “lacks the legal authority to force compliance, and therefore is heavily reliant on voluntary co-operation and piecemeal agreements”.

Fuel efficiency

Current targets, set at the most recent ICAO Assembly session in October 2013, include a global average fuel-efficiency improvement of 2% a year (up to 2050), and keeping global net CO2 emissions for international aviation at the same level from 2020.

Global market-based measures have yet to be agreed, while the US plane maker Boeing predicts that the number of aircraft in service in 2011 will have doubled by 2031.

And the aircraft are only one part of aviation’s contribution to warming the planet. Airports themselves are huge emitters of greenhouse gases.

Making flying more expensive will have immense economic and social consequences − if it can be achieved.

In May 2013, the website Air Traffic Management reported that the number of seats offered by low-cost carriers in Europe has increased by an average of 14% per year over the last decade, according to OAG, a leading provider of aviation information and analytical services

This compares with an average annual rise of only 1% in capacity among “legacy carriers” – a term derived from the major airlines that existed before the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act in the US.

Thanks largely to the low-cost airlines, flying for leisure is now seen as an unquestioned right, and the national economies of many travellers’ destinations depend, at least in part, on traffic growing, not slackening. − Climate News Network

Polluting the planet before you take off

London's Heathrow airport: A European airport may emit as much greenhouse gas as a city of 100,000 people Image: Fingalo Christian Bickel via Wikimedia Commons

London’s Heathrow airport: A European airport may emit as much greenhouse gas as a city of 100,000 people
Image: Fingalo Christian Bickel via Wikimedia Commons

By Paul Brown

Airports are disastrously inefficient buildings which belch greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and contribute hugely to climate change, a European study has found.

LONDON, 7 August – Airlines are under increasing pressure to use more efficient aircraft to reduce the damage the industry is doing to the planet as it continues to grow.

In its defence the industry says it produces only 2% of the world’s carbon dioxide, and 12% of the total from the transport industry, and that it is therefore a tiny problem compared with private cars which produce 74% of transport’s CO2.

But in this battle of statistics the role of airports, the vast air-conditioned waiting rooms and shopping malls containing thousands of waiting passengers, has not so far been taken into account.

Now a European Union study has shown that Europe’s 500 airports in the 28 member countries together emit as much CO2 as a city of 50 million people.

The paper says airport buildings are disastrously inefficient structures which produce large quantities of greenhouse gases. Big airports each have emissions equal those of a city of 100,000 people.

With new airports and vast terminals being built across the planet at an ever-increasing rate to provide for booming international tourism as well as business travel, pressure is bound to grow on the industry to improve its performance.

In a bid to try to curb the problem the EU has begun a three-year programme costing more than €3 million (US$4m) to try to get the continent’s largest airports to be less wasteful of energy. The plan is to cut emissions by 20% over the period the programme runs.

Cheap and easy

The problem is the heating, ventilation and air conditioning plants which consume half the energy used in each airport. The EU’s solution is to use computers to control the plants so that faults are detected immediately and waste is kept to a minimum by careful management.

Two Italian airports, Fiumicino in Rome and Malpensa in Milan, used by 55 million people a year, agreed to act as pilots to see if the scheme would work.

The engineers concentrated on the large air conditioning units, chiller plants and cooling towers at the airports. They found equipment running when it was not needed, incorrect heating and cooling settings, poor positioning of sensors and poor maintenance.

Just by simple inexpensive measures like re-setting heating controls and replacing faulty sensors, each airport could save 3,500 tonnes of CO2 and €70,000 a year, the study found.

The project coordinator, Nicolas Réhault, head of group building performance optimization at the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in Freiburg, Germany, said the same software could be applied to other complex buildings and save large quantities of energy and the subsequent emissions.

False comparison

He explained: “Airports are very complex infrastructures. We have gained a lot of know-how on how these infrastructures work. This can be replicated to other highly complex buildings such as hospitals and banks. And it could be downscaled to simpler things, too.”

Already Airports Council International is so impressed by the results that it has undertaken to demonstrate the results of the pilot project to the biggest 400 of Europe’s airports in an attempt to get them to adopt the system.

The project will no doubt help the European Commission’s goals in reducing is overall carbon dioxide emissions. But this focus on airports’ wasteful use of energy will also increase pressure on the industry to improve its performance.

Already the simple use of quantities of emissions from each source – aircraft, trains and cars, for example – is not a fair comparison of their contribution to climate change. For example, aviation is said to be more damaging because its emissions are high in the atmosphere and cause contrails which trap heat.

Environmental groups are likely to factor in the role of airports in increasing emissions when lobbying governments to take some action on aviation in future climate talks. - Climate News Network

Ignoring climate risks could sink US economy

Flood devastation after Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana in 2005 Image: Infrogmation via Wikimedia Commons
Harsh reminder: devastation after Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana in 2005
Image: Infrogmation via Wikimedia Commons

By Alex Kirby

Failure to factor immediate action on climate change into American policies and business plans aimed at economic prosperity will lead to havoc, warns former US Treasury Secretary.

LONDON, 3 August, 2014 − For the second time in a month, Americans have been warned that the economic cost of not acting on climate change is likely to be calamitous.

Robert Rubin, the co-chairman of the influential, non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations, says the price of inaction could be the US economy itself.

Writing in the Washington Post, Rubin, a former US Treasury Secretary, argues: “When it comes to the economy, much of the debate about climate change − and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are fuelling it − is framed as a trade-off between environmental protection and economic prosperity,

“But from an economic perspective, that’s precisely the wrong way to look at it. The real question should be: ‘What is the cost of inaction?’”

Widespread disruption

He backed the Risky Business Project, a research initiative chaired by a bi-partisan panel and supported by him and several other former Treasury Secretaries. It reported in June that the American economy could face significant and widespread disruption from climate change unless US businesses and policymakers take immediate action.

In his opinion article in the Washington Post, Rubin argues that, in economic terms, taking action on climate change will prove far less expensive than inaction. He wrote: “By 2050, for example, between $48 billion and $68 billion worth of current property in Louisiana and Florida is likely to be at risk of flooding because it will be below sea level. And that’s just a baseline estimate; there are other scenarios that could be catastrophic.

“Then, of course, there is the unpredictable damage from superstorms yet to come. Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy caused a combined $193 billion in economic losses; the congressional aid packages that followed both storms cost more than $122 billion.

“And dramatically rising temperatures in much of the country will make it far too hot for people to work outside during parts of the day for several months each year − reducing employment and economic output, and causing as many as 65,200 additional heat-related deaths every year.”

Rubin believes a fundamental problem with tackling climate change is that the methods used to gauge economic realities do not take climate change into consideration. He wants climate-change risks reflected accurately, and companies required to be transparent in reporting vulnerabilities tied to climate.

“If companies were required to highlight their exposure to climate-related risks, it would change investor behaviour, which in turn would prod those companies to change their behaviour,” he argues.

Flawed picture

“Good economic decisions require good data. And to get good data, we must account for all relevant variables. But we’re not doing this when it comes to climate change − and that means we’re making decisions based on a flawed picture of future risks.

“While we can’t define future climate-change risks with precision, they should be included in economic policy, fiscal and business decisions, because of their potential magnitude.”

Rubin says the scientific community is “all but unanimous” in agreeing that climate change is a serious threat. He insists that it is a present danger, not something that can be left to future generations to tackle.

“What we already know is frightening, but what we don’t know is more frightening still,” he writes. “For example, we know that melting polar ice sheets will cause sea levels to rise, but we don’t know how negative feedback loops will accelerate the process. . . And the polar ice sheets have already started to melt.”

He concludes: “We do not face a choice between protecting our environment or protecting our economy. We face a choice between protecting our economy by protecting our environment − or allowing environmental havoc to create economic havoc.”

The White House’s Council of Economic Advisers  has estimated that the eventual cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions will increase by about 40% for every decade of delay, because measures to restrict them will be more stringent and costlier as atmospheric concentrations grow. − Climate News Network

Pakistan ill prepared for climate crises

A family is carried to safety by donkey cart during the 2010 floods in Sindh province Image: Saleem Shaikh
A family is carried to safety during the 2010 floods in Sindh province
Image: Saleem Shaikh

By Saleem Shaikh

Evidence that shifting weather patterns are adding to flooding and drought emergencies in Pakistan has failed to stir the government into preparing for disaster management, say climate seminar delegates.

ISLAMABAD, 1 August, 2014 − Scientists and opposition politicians in Pakistan have strongly criticised the government for what they say is its neglectful attitude towards coping with the challenges posed by climate change.

“The government’s insufficient response to shifting weather patterns continues to cost the national economy dearly and is depriving people of their livelihoods, particularly in the agricultural sector,” Malik Amin Aslam Khan, a former state minister for environment, told a climate change seminar in Islamabad.

Local institutions are ill-prepared in disaster management, said Amin Aslam , and there is an urgent need for more co-ordination with various international bodies in order to cope with climate extremes.

The seminar, Climate Resilient Economic Development in Pakistan, was organised by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute, a Pakistan-based not-for-profit organisation, with the aim of pressuring government to prepare better for the impacts of climate change.

Pakistan, with a population of nearly 180 million, is considered to be one of the countries most vulnerable to changes in climate.

Devastating floods

In each of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, devastating floods hit the country, with hundreds of people killed and millions forced from their homes. IAnd in 2013, the farming sector was hit by a serious drought.

Qamar uz Zaman, a former director general of the Pakistan Meteorological Department, told Climate News Network that there are signs that the summer monsoon rains – vital to millions of the country’s farmers – are well below normal, which only adds to the country’s problems.

Germanwatch, an independent organisation promoting sustainable development policies, produces an annual assessment of countries around the world most exposed to climate-related risks. In its latest risk survey – based on events and statistics collected for the year 2012 − Pakistan is ranked third most exposed country, after Haiti and the Philippines.

Ahsan Iqbal, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission of Pakistan, told Climate News Network that the government was prevented from responding to climate change due to a lack of funds.

He said: “The country has suffered economic damage of more than US$16bn as a result of floods in recent years – and it now needs more than US$20bn to restore infrastructure to pre 2010 levels.”

Delegates at the seminar said the government was reducing, rather than increasing, expenditure on climate-related mitigation and adaptation projects. A Climate Change Division, overseen by Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister, had a budget of only US$350,000.

Grave challenges

“The paltry allocation for the Climate Change Division indicates that the government is dismissive about the grave challenges of climate change, despite highlighting its far-reaching impacts on the economy,” said Shafqat Kakakhel, a former deputy executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme.

Deforestation is seen as one of the main reasons behind the floods and devastation of recent years.

Rehana Siddiqui, a forest researcher at the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, told the seminar that Pakistan had the highest deforestation rate in Asia, and if trees continued to be cut down at the present rate, the country’s forests would vanish completely within 35 to 40 years.

Siddiqui said that tree loss meant more flash floods, landslides and erosion, yet there was no national programme on how to regenerate forest cover. – Climate New Network

  • Saleem Shaikh is a climate change and science journalist based in Islamabad.