Category Archives: Carbon Dioxide

Climate data shows clear signs of warming

Wreckage caused by Super Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines last year Image: Eoghan Rice, Trócaire/Caritas via Wikimedia Commons
Wreckage caused by Super Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines last year
Image: Eoghan Rice, Trócaire/Caritas via Wikimedia Commons

By Alex Kirby

Hundreds of scientists from 57 countries have fed evidence into a new report that provides a clear picture of how patterns, changes, and trends of the global climate system show that our planet is becoming a warmer place.

LONDON, 24 July, 2014 − However you view the evidence, whatever set of measurements you examine, the picture that emerges is consistent: the Earth is heating up.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports: “In 2013, the vast majority of worldwide climate indicators − greenhouse gases, sea levels, global temperatures, etc − continued to reflect trends of a warmer planet.”

This, NOAA says, is the picture painted by the indicators assessed in a report, State of the Climate in 2013, published online by the American Meteorological Society.

Scientists from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center were the lead editors of the report, compiled by 425 scientists from 57 countries. It provides a detailed update on data collected by monitoring stations and instruments on air, land, sea and ice.

“These findings reinforce what scientists for decades have observed: that our planet is becoming a warmer place,” said the NOAA‘s administrator, Dr Kathryn Sullivan.

Changes tracked

The report tracks patterns, changes, and trends of the global climate system, including: greenhouse gases; temperatures throughout the atmosphere, ocean, and land; cloud cover; sea level; ocean salinity; sea ice extent; and snow cover.

It says greenhouse gases continued to climb, with concentrations of major gases − including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide − once again reaching historically high levels. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose by 2.8 parts per million (ppm) in 2013 and reached a global average of 395.3 ppm for the year.

Many scientists argue that once CO2 concentrations reach 450 ppm it will be difficult to prevent global average temperatures from rising more than 2°C above their level for most of human history. The present rate of increase suggests that, without drastic emission cuts, that threshold will be reached before mid-century.

Four major independent datasets show that 2013 was among the warmest years on record, ranking between second and sixth, depending upon the dataset used. Sea surface temperatures increased to place 2013 among the 10 warmest on record.

Sea level also continued to rise, in step with a trend of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm per year over the past two decades.

The Arctic went on warming , marking its seventh warmest year since records began in the early 20th century. Record high temperatures were measured at a depth of 20 metres at permafrost stations in Alaska.

The Arctic sea ice extent was the sixth lowest since satellite observations began in 1979. All seven lowest sea ice extents on record have occurred in the past seven years.

Contradictory trends

The Antarctic, too, was consistent, even if only in the apparently contradictory trends it showed. The extent of the sea ice reached a record high for the second year in a row, of 7.56 million square miles on October 1 −  0.7% higher than the previous record high of 7.51 million sq miles in 2012 and 8.6% higher than the record low maximum of 6.96 million sq miles in 1986. But the South Pole station experienced its highest temperature since records began in 1957.

The number of tropical cyclones during 2013 was slightly above average, but the North Atlantic Basin had its quietest season since 1994. However, in the Western North Pacific Basin, Super Typhoon Haiyan had the highest wind speed ever known for a tropical cyclone, with one-minute sustained winds estimated at 196 miles per hour. − Climate News Network

  • State of the Climate in 2013 is the 24th edition in a peer-reviewed series published annually as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Germany and UK top “Dirty 30” pollution league

Neurath coal-fired plant, Germany, is one of Europe's worst polluters Image: Bert Kaufmann via Wikimedia Commons
Neurath coal-fired plant, in Germany, is one of Europe’s worst polluters
Image: Bert Kaufmann via Wikimedia Commons

By Kieran Cooke

A new report naming the 30 energy plants pumping out most greenhouse gases in the European Union shows that coal-fired facilities are undermining Europe’s long-term targets on emissions reduction.

LONDON, 22 July, 2014 − It’s not the sort of league table that anyone is proud of leading, but a new report on the European Union’s power sector lists the EU’s 30 most polluting energy plants – all powered by coal.

Germany and the UK tie for first place overall in “Europe’s Dirty 30” league, each having nine of the most polluting power plants, pumping hundreds of tonnes of climate-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

In the individual polluting category, the mighty coal-fired Belchatow power plant in Poland tops the league, followed by two facilities in the north of Germany – one at Neurath, and the other at Niederaussen.

The report, which is based on 2013 statistics, is the work of a number of organisations, including Climate Action Network Europe, the World Wildlife Fund and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).

Low coal prices

The report says the EU’s coal-fired power plants – there are about 350 of them in total – are running at or near full capacity due to relatively low coal prices in Europe compared to other less polluting fuels, such as gas.

Although the EU’s use of coal for power generation has dropped significantly compared to 1990 levels, coal consumption in Europe’s energy sector has been increasing in recent years.

Much of the coal burned in Europe is lignite or hard coal – the most polluting kind. The EU has also been importing large amounts of coal, particularly from the US, where many power producers have been switching to fracked gas – less polluting and, in the US, a cheaper fuel.

The report says the price paid for electricity generated from coal does not reflect the damage it causes to the climate, air quality and human health.

“Europe’s coal addiction is bad for people’s health, bad for the environment, and has no place in our sustainable energy future,” says Christian Schaible, a senior policy officer at the EEB.

Arguing for exemptions

“Significant amounts of emissions could be prevented and reduced if operators would just use state-of-the-art techniques available, instead of arguing for exemptions.

“Environmental standards for power plants should serve to protect the people and the environment in Europe, and must be implemented swiftly to do so.”

The report’s authors point out that recent increases in emissions from the EU’s coal-fired power sector are not due to more coal-fuelled facilities coming on stream, but rather because existing plants are running at full capacity.

Some of these plants are due to be phased out under EU directives on pollution control. The study says this is vital if the EU is to meet its emission reduction targets, centred on cutting overall emissions of greenhouse gases by 40% on 1990 levels by 2030.

But there are signs that short-term economic interests are taking precedence over long-term goals on controlling climate change.

“Current developments in EU energy and climate policy may allow or even incentivise the prolonged operation of coal plants, and thus conflict with the EU’s own climate targets,” the report says. – Climate News Network

It’s the greenhouse gases, stupid!

An anti-coal protest outside the Parliament Hoiuse in Victoria last year Image: John Englart (Takver) via Wikimedia Commons
An anti-coal protest outside the Parliament House in Victoria last year
Image: John Englart (Takver) via Wikimedia Commons

By Alex Kirby

Critics accuse Australia of showing a complete disregard for the science of climate change and its impacts by voting to repeal the country’s carbon tax.

LONDON, 19 July, 2014 – Australia, one of the world’s principal emitters of carbon dioxide, has voted to cancel its carbon tax in what has been described as “the perfect storm of stupidity”.

The decision had cross-party support in the Senate vote, passing by 39 votes to 32, with only the Labor and Green parties voting against repealing the carbon pricing scheme they introduced, and which took effect two years ago.

By fulfilling what the prime minister, Tony Abbott, had called his “pledge in blood” to repeal the tax, Australia has left itself with no legal basis for trying to achieve its international 5% greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.

The former climate change minister, Penny Wong, said Abbott had “staked his political career … on fearmongering and scaremongering”. Repealing the tax meant “this nation will have walked away from a credible and efficient response to climate change”.

Selfish politics

She said: “I think future generations will look back on these bills and they will be appalled . . . at the short-sighted, opportunistic, selfish politics of those opposite, and Mr Abbott will go down as one of the most short-sighted, selfish and small people ever to occupy the office of prime minister.”

But one backbencher said opposition parties were hypocrites for refusing to accept the will of the voters. Insisting that he had ”an open mind”, he said Brisbane had recently had its coldest day in 113 years.

The agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, said the tax had imposed high costs on families, and questioned whether it was needed. “Look at the weather today, look at the way you are dressed,” he said. “No one thinks it is too hot.”

Roger Jones, a professorial research fellow at the Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic Studies (VISES) at Australia’s Victoria University, described the repeal of the tax as “the perfect storm of stupidity”.

“It’s hard to imagine a more effective combination
of poor reasoning and bad policy making”

Professor Jones said: “It’s hard to imagine a more effective combination of poor reasoning and bad policy making, a complete disregard of the science of climate change and its impacts . . . a total failure of governance by government.”

The non-partisan Climate Institute said Australia had taken “a monumentally reckless backward leap”, while the Australian Conservation Foundation said the vote “makes Australia an international embarrassment”.

The government claims that the carbon pricing scheme has been ineffective, although CO2 emissions fell by 0.8% in the first calendar year of its operation − the largest fall in 24 years.

No cap on emissions

It says it will now achieve its 5% emissions reduction target, compared with 2000 levels, by 2020 with its Direct Action policy, which will offer competitive grants over the next four years to companies and organisations that voluntarily reduce emissions. The policy puts no overall cap on emissions.

The Climate Change Authority, which provides expert advice on Australian government climate change mitigation initiatives, and which the government wants to abolish, has said Australia’s “fair share” of international emissions reductions has now increased to between 15% and 19% by 2020.

Scientists in the US say parts of Australia are being slowly parched because of greenhouse gas emissions – which means that the long-term decline in rainfall over south and south-west Australia results from fossil fuel burning and depletion of the ozone layer by human activity.

Australia is 15th in the list of the world’s largest CO2 emitters. It also makes a sizeable contribution to emissions overseas: in 2013, it was the world’s second largest coal exporter. − Climate News Network

Emissions are fuelling Australian droughts

Water depth marker in Lake Albert, South Australia Image: Bidgee via Wikimedia Commons
Water depth marker in the dried out bed of Lake Albert, South Australia
Image: Bidgee via Wikimedia Commons

By Tim Radford

The Australian prime minister may be scathing about climate science, but new research shows that burning fossil fuels is a significant factor in the long-term rainfall decline that is leaving southern regions of the country parched and sweltering.

LONDON, 17 July, 2014 − American scientists have just confirmed that parts of Australia are being slowly parched because of greenhouse gas emissions – which means that the long-term decline in rainfall over south and south-west Australia is a consequence of fossil fuel burning and depletion of the ozone layer by human activity.

Such a finding is significant for two reasons. One remains contentious: it is one thing to make generalised predictions about the consequences overall of greenhouse gas levels, but it is quite another to pin a measured regional climatic shift directly on human causes, rather than some possible as-yet-unidentified natural cycle of climatic change.

The other is contentiously political. Australia’s prime minister, Tony Abbott, has in the past dismissed climate science as “crap”, and more recently has cut back on Australian research spending.

Australia has already experienced a pattern of heat waves and drought – punctuated by catastrophic flooding – and even now, in the Australian winter, New South Wales is being hit by bush fires.

Tom Delworth, a research scientist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, reports in Nature Geoscience that he and a colleague conducted a series of long-term climate simulations to study changes in rainfall across the globe.

Pattern of change

One striking pattern of change emerged in Australia, where winter and autumn rainfall patterns are increasingly a cause of distress for farmers and growers in two states.

The simulation showed that the decline in rainfall was primarily a response to man-made increases in greenhouse gases, as well as to a thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer in response to emissions of destructive gases by human sources.

The computer simulations tested a series of possible causes for this decline, such as volcanic eruptions and changes in solar radiation. But the only cause that made sense of the observed data was the greenhouse explanation.

South Australia has never been conspicuously lush and wet, but decline in precipitation set in around 1970, and this decline has increased in the last four decades. The simulations predict that the decline will go on, and that average rainfall will drop by 40% over south-west Australia later this century.

Dr Delworth described his model as “a major step forward in our effort to improve the prediction of regional climate change”.

In May, scientists proposed that greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for a change in Southern Ocean wind patterns, which in turn resets the thermostat for the world’s largest island.

Australian scientists report in Geophysical Research Letters that they, too, have been using climate models to examine Antarctic wind patterns and their possible consequence for the rest of the planet.

Temperature rise

“When we included projected Antarctic wind shifts in a detailed global ocean model, we found water up to 4°C warmer than current temperatures rose up to meet the base of the Antarctic ice shelves,” said Paul Spence, a researcher at Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. This temperature rise is twice previous estimates.

“This relatively warm water provides a huge reservoir of melt potential right near the grounding lines of ice shelves around Antarctica,” Dr Spence said. “It could lead to a massive increase in the rate of ice sheet melt, with direct consequences for global sea level rise.”

Since the West Antarctic ice sheet holds enough water to raise sea levels by 3.3 metres, the consequences would indeed be considerable.

“When we first saw the results it was quite a shock,” Dr Spence said. “It was one of the few cases where I hoped the science was wrong.” – Climate News Network

Waste problems still haunt nuclear option

Closing shot: the nuclear popwer plant at San Onofre, California Image: D Ramey Logan/WPPilot via Wikimedia Commons
Closing shot: the nuclear power plant at San Onofre, California
Image: D Ramey Logan/WPPilot via Wikimedia Commons

By Paul Brown

Nuclear power is seen as one of the possible solutions to climate change, but the recent closure of five US power stations is forcing the industry to face up at last to the damaging legacy of how to deal with radioactive waste.

LONDON, 15 July, 2014 − Long-term employment is hard to find these days, but one career that can be guaranteed to last a lifetime is dealing with nuclear waste.

The problem and how to solve it is becoming critical. Dozens of nuclear power stations in the US, Russia, Japan, and across Europe and Central Asia are nearing the end of their lives.

And when these stations close, the spent fuel has to be taken out, safely stored or disposed of, and then the pressure vessels and the mountains of concrete that make up the reactors have to be dismantled. This can take between 30 and 100 years, depending on the policies adopted.

In the rush to build stations in the last century, little thought was given to how to take them apart 40 years later. It was an age of optimism that science would always find a solution when one was needed, but the reality is that little effort was put into dealing with the waste problem. It is now coming back to haunt the industry.

Profitable business

Not that everyone sees it as a problem. A lot of companies view nuclear waste as a welcome and highly profitable business opportunity.

Either way, because of the dangers of radioactivity, it is not a problem that can be ignored. The sums of money that governments will have to find to deal with keeping the old stations safe are eye-wateringly large. They will run into many billions of dollars − an assured income for companies in the nuclear waste business, stretching to the end of this century and beyond.

The US is a prime example of a country where the nuclear waste issue is becoming rapidly more urgent.

The problem has been brought to the fore in the US because five stations have closed in the last two years. The Crystal River plant in Florida and San Onofre 1 and 2 in California have closed down because they were judged too costly to bring up to modern standards. Two more − Kewaunee in Wisconsin andthe  Vermont Yankee plant − could no longer compete on cost with the current price of natural gas and increased subsidies for renewables.

Nuclear Energy Insider, which keeps a forensic watch on the industry, predicts that several other nuclear power stations in the US will also succumb to premature closure because they can no longer compete.

The dilemma for the industry is that the US government has not solved the problem of what to do with the spent fuel and the highly radioactive nuclear waste that these stations have generated over the last 40 years. They have collected a levy − kept in a separate fund that now amounts to $31 billion − to pay for solving the problem, but still have not come up with a plan.

Legal action

Since it costs an estimated $10 million dollars a year to keep spent fuel safe at closed stations, electricity utilities saddled with these losses, and without any form of income, are taking legal action against the government.

The US government has voted another $205 million to continue exploring the idea of sending the waste to the remote Yucca Mountain in Nevada − an idea fought over since 1987 and still no nearer solution. Even if this plan went through, the facility would not be built and accepting waste until 2048.

The big problem for the US, the utility companies and the consumers who will ultimately pay the bill is what to do in the meantime with the old stations, the spent fuel, and the sites. Much of the fuel will be moved from wet storage to easier-to-manage dry storage, but it will still be a costly process. What happens after that, and who will pay for it, is anyone’s guess.

The industry is having a Nuclear Decommissioning and Used Fuel Strategy Summit in October in Charlotte, North Carolina, to try to sort out some of these issues.

But America is not alone. The UK has already closed a dozen reactors. Most of the rest are due to be retired by 2024, but it is likely that the French company EDF, which owns the plants, will try to keep them open longer.

The bill for dealing with existing nuclear waste in Britain is constantly rising and currently stands at £74 billion, even without any other reactors being decommissioned.

The government is already spending £2 billion each year trying to clear up the legacy of past nuclear activities, but has as yet found no solution to dealing with the thousands of fuel rods still in permanent store at power stations.

As with the US, even if a solution is found, it would be at least 2050 before a facility to deal with this highly dangerous waste could be found. By that time, billions of pounds will have been expended just to keep the used fuel from igniting and causing a nuclear meltdown.

It is hard to know how the industry’s finances could stand such a drain on its resources without going bankrupt.

Similar problems are faced by Germany, which is already closing its industry permanently in favour of renewables, and France, with more than 50 ageing reactors.

Japan, still dealing with the aftermath of the Fukushima accident in 2011, is composed of crowded islands where few people will welcome a nuclear waste depository.

Many countries in the former Soviet bloc with ageing reactors look to Russia − which provided them − to solve their problems. But this may be a false hope, as Russia has an enormous unsolved waste problem of its own.

Dramatic rise

In all these countries, the issue of nuclear waste and what to do with it is a problem that has been put off − both by the industry and politicians − as an issue to be dealt with sometime in the future. But the problem is becoming more urgent as the costs and the volume of waste rises dramatically.

Unlike any other form of generation, even dirty coal plants, getting rid of nuclear stations is no simple matter. To cleanse a nuclear site so that it can be used for another industrial use is difficult. Radioactivity lasts for centuries, and all contamination has to be physically removed.

For many critics of the industry, the nuclear waste issue has always been a moral issue − as well as a financial one − that should not be left to future generations to solve. The industry itself has always relied on its continuous expansion, and developing science, to deal what it calls “back end costs” at some time in the distant future.

But as more stations close, and fewer new ones are planned to raise revenue, putting off the problem no longer seems an option, either for the industry or for the governments that ultimately will have to pick up the bill. – Climate News Network

Bold pathways point to a low-carbon future

Brighter future? Sunrise over a wind farm in the Cambridgeshire Fens, UK Image: David Clare/Climate News Network
Brighter future? Sunrise over a wind farm in the Cambridgeshire Fens, UK
Image: David Clare/Climate News Network

By Alex Kirby

The positive message from a scientific report for the UN Climate Summit is that the tough task of cutting CO2 emissions to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C is definitely achievable by following a set of bold, practical steps.

LONDON, 11 July 2014 − Scientists often hesitate to give a cut-and-dried, yes-or-no answer when asked how serious climate change is going to be, and whether the world can still escape significant damage.

Surprisingly, perhaps, a report prepared for a UN conference in September is unequivocal. Yes, it says − the worst is not bound to happen.

The good news is that the world can keep climate change within what are thought to be acceptable limits. The less good news is that while it is possible, it certainly won’t be easy.

The report shows how the countries that emit the most greenhouse gases (GHGs) can cut their carbon emissions by mid-century to prevent dangerous climate change. Prepared by independent researchers in 15 countries, it is the first global co-operation to identify practical pathways to a low-carbon economy by 2050.

The Deep Decarbonisation Pathways Project (DDPP) report is an interim version prepared for the UN Climate Summit to be held in New York on 23 September. The full DDPP report will be ready in the spring of 2015.

Dangerous change

The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, said the report tried to show how countries could help to achieve the globally-agreed target of limiting temperature rise to below 2°C. “Ambitious national action is critical to averting dangerous climate change,” he said. “This report shows what is possible.”

The report aims to help countries to set bold targets in the run-up to the UN climate talks to be held in Paris in 2015.

The work is led by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), an initiative of Columbia University’s Earth Institute for the UN, and the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), a policy research institute based in Paris.

Jeffrey Sachs, the director of the SDSN, said the world had committed itself to limit warming to below 2°C, but not to practical ways of achieving that goal.

He said: “This report is all about the practicalities.  Success will be tough – the needed transformation is enormous – but is feasible, and is needed to keep the world safe for us and for future generations.”

“The issue is to convince the world that the future is as important as the present”

Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency, said: “The issue is to convince the world that the future is as important as the present. Paris 2015 may well be our last hope.”

Despite the global agreement to stay below 2°C, the world is on a path that, without action, will lead to an increase of 4°C or more. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its Fifth Assessment Report, known as AR5, that such a rise might exceed the world’s ability to adapt.

It said that a 4°C rise could endanger harvests and cause drastic sea-level rise, spread of diseases, and the extinction of ecosystems.

Some leading climate scientists − including NASA’s former chief climate scientist, Professor James Hansen, who is now at Columbia University − say that even a 2°C rise would be very dangerous. But many politicians regard it as an essential commitment.

The 15 national pathways examined in the report all show the importance of three factors for achieving radically lower carbon emissions.

The first is greatly increased efficiency and conservation in all energy use.

Renewable sources

The second factor is taking the carbon out of electricity by using renewable sources, “such as wind and solar, as well as nuclear power, and/or the capture and sequestration of carbon emissions from fossil-fuel burning”.

Nuclear energy still attracts widespread and determined opposition, and carbon capture and sequestration (trapping CO2 emissions and storing them underground or beneath the sea floor) has not yet proved that it can work on a commercial scale.

The third factor involves replacing fossil fuels in transport, heating and industrial processes with a mix of low-carbon electricity, sustainable biofuels, and hydrogen.

The authors say their interim report shows the critical long-term importance of preparing national deep decarbonisation plans for 2050.

Emmanuel Guerin, the DDPP’s senior project manager, said the pathways were crucial to shaping the expectations of countries, businesses and investors. − Climate News Network

Gene machinery helps plants handle CO2 rise

 

The mouse-ear cress (Arabidopsis thaliana) provides vital scientific clues Image: Alberto Salguero Quiles via Wikimedia Commons
Mouse-ear cress (Arabidopsis thaliana) provides valuable scientific clues
Image: Alberto Salguero Quiles via Wikimedia Commons

By Tim Radford

The discovery of how plants respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could provide agricultural scientists with new tools to engineer crops that can deal with droughts and high temperatures.

LONDON, 10 July, 2014 − Biologists in the US have identified the genetic machinery that tells a plant how to respond to more carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Four genes from three different gene families together control the density of stomata, or breathing pores, on the foliage of the healthy plant. As carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise, plants respond and make fewer stomata.

That means they can detect a gradual change in the levels of a vital gas – a change from 280 parts per million 200 years ago to 400 parts per million now – and change their plumbing arrangements.

In theory, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should be better for plant fertility, and the reduction in stomata means that they should use water more economically. Water is a big expense for the growing plant.

Lose water

“For each carbon dioxide molecule that is incorporated into plants through photosynthesis, plants lose about 200 molecules of water through their stomata,” says Julian Schroeder, professor of biological sciences at the University of California San Diego, who led the team that reports in Nature  journal.

“Because elevated CO2 reduces the stomatal density in leaves, this is at first sight beneficial for plants, as they would lose less water. However, the reduction in the number of stomatal pores decreases the ability of plants to cool their leaves during a heat wave via water evaporation. Less evaporation adds to heat stress in plants, which ultimately affects crop yield.”

Quite how crops will respond to a greenhouse gas world has been exercising field biologists, agronomists and government planners for decades.

Plants respond to warmth and to plentiful carbon dioxide. But, as researchers found in April this year, that may not make crops more nourishing. It would be possible to have vigorous growth but lower protein yields in, for example, fields of wheat.

There is a second unresolved question: a warmer world will mean more evaporation, more rainfall in some regions, and greater aridity in others − not helpful to productive farming.

A third challenge is that extremes of heat in the growing season can have a catastrophic effect on the harvest later in the year.

But the San Diego research may, in the end, help tomorrow’s farmers. The study shows that when their test species Arabidopsis thaliana – a little mustard plant also known as mouse-ear cress − senses a rise in atmospheric levels of CO2, it increases the levels of a peptide hormone that alters the genetic machinery in the skin of growing leaves, and blocks the formation of stomata.

The challenge was to identify all the proteins involved, and the genes that are at work.

Plant health

“This change causes leaf temperature to rise because of a decrease in the plant’s evapotranspirative cooling ability, while simultaneously increasing the transpiration efficiency of plants,” the report says. “These phenomena, combined with the increasing scarcity of fresh water for agriculture, are predicted to dramatically impact on plant health.”

The more researchers know about the physiological response of a growing thing, the more confidently they can predict how it will react to changing conditions, the better they will be able to advise farmers on the plants to sow, and the more likely it is that they will be able to breed new strains that can adapt to new conditions.

“At a time when the pressing issues of climate change and inherent agronomic consequences which are mediated by the continuing atmospheric rise of CO2 are palpable, these advances could become of interest to crop biologists and climate change modellers,” said molecular biologist Cawas Engineer, lead author of the paper. – Climate News Network 

Critics refute assets claim by ‘Orwellian’ Shell

 

Clouded view? A Shell oil refinery in the UK Image: S Parish/geograph.org.uk via Wikimedia Commons
Clouded view? Sunset over a flare stack at a Shell oil refinery in the UK
Image: S Parish/geograph.org.uk via Wikimedia Commons

By Alex Kirby

The world’s biggest oil company has been accused of ‘doublethink’ in claiming that its fossil fuel assets will continue to be highly profitable and in demand, while recognising the need for decisive action on climate change.

London, 9 July 2014 − Is investment in fossil fuels a prudent bet? For some time, critics have been warning major oil and gas companies that their reserves could soon be worthless if the world acts decisively on climate change.

The world’s biggest oil company, Shell, recently insisted that its reserves would remain in demand and would continue to sell at a profit, and that no global climate agreement would damage its profits.

But now two groups − the Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI) and Energy Transition Advisors (ETA) − have today published a response to Shell’s “stranded assets” statement.

The debate itself is warming up, with one critic dismissing Shell’s statement as “Orwellian doublethink”.

The thinktanks’ reply is based on a detailed technical analysis of Shell’s argument. They say they welcome the company’s engagement with the issue, but accuse it in effect of cherrypicking the arguments to suit its case.

Weaker demand

Shell’s approach, they say, is based on dismissing potentially weaker demand for its oil as a result of tougher climate policies, technological advances and slower economic growth.

They also say the company selectively applies different timelines to fit its business strategy, highlighting conventional projects with short lead times and lower capital costs, rather than its growing unconventional and deepwater resources portfolio. This will be more capital-intensive, have longer lead times, and extended payback periods.

Shell, they say, considers only its proven oil and gas reserves, equalling 11.5 years of production at current rates. Adding existing discoveries would extend that period to 25 years, and possibly longer.

The analysis by CTI and ETA points out that while Shell recognises the need for urgent action, it argues that the world will fail to meet the internationally-agreed global warming target of no more than a 2°C rise in temperature.

“. . .as classic a case of Orwellian doublethink
as you are likely to find.”

Anthony Hobley, CEO of CTI, said: “Acknowledging the seriousness of the climate challenge whilst at the same time asserting no effective action will be taken until the end of the century is as classic a case of Orwellian doublethink as you are likely to find.”

The groups also say the company relies on carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a panacea to combat climate change, although it has yet to prove itself at a commercial scale. CTI’s 2013 research showed that CCS could provide only a limited extension (14%) of the carbon budget − the amount the world can afford to emit − to 2050.

Shell’s response, the report’s authors say, selectively focuses on producing oil fields and projects nearest to completion. They point out: “Our analysis examines a broader range of its assets. . . Over the next 10 years, we estimate that Shell could invest some $77 billion in high-risk, high-cost projects (needing a market price over US$95 per barrel).

“If Shell invests the proceeds from its producing assets into resources such as these, it will be at a progressively greater risk to changes in demand caused by measures to cut pollution.”

Unlike Shell, they say, they believe that climate regulation and related environmental policy is gathering pace, while other economic forces such as efficiency are also affecting demand.

Mothballed projects

They believe there is a real risk that global oil demand will decline within the next 10-15years − even without a global climate deal. They say that the lead times of 15-20 years required to bring many newly-discovered resources to market will only compound the possibility that scarce pension fund money and other investments will be lost in mothballed projects.

Oil companies, they recommend, should examine and disclose risks to all potential future production, rather than restricting focus to proven reserves alone.

Shell should also provide more detail on the role its internal carbon price of $40 per tonne plays in hitting demand for its oil, and its $77 billion of potential capital expenditure (2014-25) on new high-cost oil production (above a market price of $95 per barrel) ought to be a focal point for engagement with investors.

To help shareholders to assess risk, oil companies should disclose estimated break-even oil prices (BEOPs) of all new projects, CTI and ETA argue. − Climate News Network

Quick fixes won’t solve CO2 danger

 

Bleak outlook: smoke billows an oil-fired power station in Sweden Image: Mikeinc via Wikimedia Commons
Bleak outlook: smoke billows from an oil-fired power station in Sweden
Image: Mikeinc via Wikimedia Commons

By Tim Radford

New research backs up the growing body of evidence that the only way to limit global warming in the long term is a serious cut in carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

LONDON, 6 July, 2014 − Once again, US scientists have come to the same conclusion: there really is no alternative. The only way to contain climate change and limit global warming, they say, is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

It won’t really help to concentrate on limiting methane emissions, or even potent greenhouse gases such as hydrofluorcarbons, or nitrous oxide, or the soot and black carbon that also contribute to global warming. Containing all or any of them would make a temporary difference, but the only thing that can work in the long run is a serious cut in carbon dioxide emissions.

Raymond Pierrehumbert, a climatologist at the University of Chicago, combined new research and analysis and a review of the scientific literature. He reports in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences that although livestock emissions such as methane are – molecule for molecule – potentially more potent as global warming agents than carbon dioxide, there remains no substitute for reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

“Until we do something about CO2, nothing we do about methane or these other things is going to matter much for climate,” he said.

Same solution

The conclusion is not a new one. The same solution was recommended by a Californian-led team in June, and university researchers in Oxford, UK, and Bern, Switzerland also said much the same in November last year.

Other greenhouse gases certainly contribute to global warming, and researchers have urged new ways to to be adopted to contain global temperature rises by reducing grazing herds, or by introducing better livestock management, or by making a concerted effort to limit all the other short-lived pollutants.

But, Prof Pierrehumbert argues, that is the point: methane, hydrofluorocarbons and nitrous oxides are all short-lived gases. Remove them, and there is a benefit. But carbon dioxide lingers in the atmosphere, and goes on being a greenhouse gas. Any extra CO2 in the atmosphere will go on warming the planet.

Global thermostat

A one-ton–a-year reduction in methane brings a single lowering of the global thermostat, but a reduction in carbon dioxide of one ton a year yields a climate benefit that stays. That is because, had it been emitted, it would have gone on and on raising global temperatures.

Right now, according to the Earth Policy Institute, coal still accounts for 44% of fossil fuel emissions, oil accounts for 36%, and natural gas accounts for the remaining 20%.

Subsidies for fossil fuels in 2011 added up to more than $620 billion, while renewable energy that year received just $88bn in subsidies.

In the last 200 years, the planet has warmed by 1°C, and 2013 marked the 37th consecutive year of above-average temperatures. The institute calculates that 4 billion people alive today have never experienced a year that was cooler than last century’s average. – Climate News Network

Old phones offer lifeline to Africa’s forests

Smartphone tracking device ready for installing high in the forest canopy Image: Rainforest Connection
Smartphone tracking device ready for installing high in the forest canopy
Image: Rainforest Connection (RFCx)

By Alex Kirby

A hi-tech approach that uses recycled smartphones to crack down on illegal logging and poaching could help combat devastation of trees and wildlife in threatened forests.

LONDON, 4 July, 2014 – Some of the world’s most endangered forests may soon benefit from better protection, thanks to discarded treasures from the consumer society − mobile phones.

A Californian technology startup, Rainforest Connection (RFCx), has developed a tool − made from recycled smartphones − that it says will pilot new ways to monitor and stop illegal logging and animal poaching throughout Africa’s equatorial forests.

RFCx has formed a partnership with the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), an international scientific charity that works for the worldwide conservation of animals and their habitats.

The two organisations are planning to install the anti-deforestation, anti-poaching technology in Cameroon this year.

Instant alerts

RFCx says it has developed the first real-time detection system for protecting the forests and deterring illegal logging, using discarded Android smartphones to send instant alerts to forest rangers, enabling them to intervene swiftly. It says current monitoring methods often rely on aerial surveys or satellite surveillance, which usually detect deforestation days or even weeks after the event.

The RFCx system was first tested in 2013 against illegal loggers in Western Sumatra, Indonesia, and proved that the technology would work. Using highly-sensitive microphones, each autonomous, low-cost device can protect one square mile of rainforest, often home to over a thousand species of plants and animals.

The devices, built to operate for years, employ a unique solar panel design that can generate adequate electrical power even under the shadow of the tree canopy.

“We think this could be a critical new tool
for protecting large areas of rainforest”

Chris Ransom, programme manager for ZSL in Africa, said: “We think this could be a critical new tool for protecting large areas of rainforest. We’re excited to deploy it this year in collaboration with our local partners in Africa.”

Randy Hayes, the founder of the Rainforest Action Network, said: “This is the most exciting critical new tool I’ve seen that I think can help us get the job done.”

Topher White, RFCx’s founder, believes the right tools have been developed at just the right moment to make a difference. He said: “It’s clear that real-time awareness and intervention is a major missing piece in protecting the world’s last remaining rainforests.

“By using old smartphones and existing telecommunications infrastructure, we have built a system that we think could scale quickly enough to make a real impact.”

Species extinction

Deforestation is a leading contributor to climate change and to global species extinction rates. The US Environmental Protection Agency says that deforestation, land clearing for agriculture, fires or decay of peat soils accounted for 17% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2004.

RFCx says each of its devices installed is as effective as taking 3,000 cars off the road, in terms of carbon mitigation through averted logging activities.

Dave Grenell, RFCx co-founder, said: “We are experiencing one of the highest rates of species extinction since the time of the dinosaurs.

“Future generations will look back on this as a kind of holocaust. Protecting endangered forests is one of the most important things we can do today to help.” − Climate News Network