Economic Recession May Be Needed to Slow Down Global Warming

It’s hard to imagine any politician calling for a recession but that might be what is needed to fight global warming according to the results of a study that compared year-to-year changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels with four factors: volcanic eruptions, the El Niño Southern oscillation, world population, and the world economy. The factor that best correlated with CO2 increases was above-trend economic activity as measured by gross domestic product. The level of CO2 deviated from the trend by about one half part per million for each trillion in U.S. dollars that the GDP deviated from the trend. Tapia Granados, a University of Michigan researcher who participated in the study, which was published on-line in the journal Environmental Science and Policy, told the University of Michigan News Service that “If ‘business as usual’ conditions continue, economic contractions the size of the Great Recession or even bigger will be needed to reduce atmospheric levels of CO2.”

This is not the first time that research results have indicated the need for economic contraction to fight global warming. A study released by Britain’s Tyndall Center for Climate Change in 2009 reached the same conclusion (see Lower Standard of Living Called for to Fight Climate Change). The Tyndall study called for a reduction in living standards in the wealthier countries over the next 10 to 15 years. Obviously this would be political poison. As it is, masses of people have been out in the streets of several European countries protesting austerity measures and here in the US the main issue in the presidential election battle is how to rebound from the economic collapse of 2008 by creating more economic growth. And Japan is still reeling economically from a tsunami as well as the effects of a nuclear power plant disaster. Slowing down global warming simply may not be possible politically.

Carbon Dioxide Increasing at a Record Rate in the Arctic

Measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels in northern Norway show that last week the levels hit a peak of over 397 parts per million (ppm). What was even more alarming than the actual level was the rate of increase because compared with the 2008 peak level the increase was more than 2.5 ppm. Professor of Atmospheric Physics at the Norwegian Polar Institute, Johan Strom, told The Guardian that “It is not the level of CO2 that is the problem, because the earth will adapt. What is very worrying is the speed of change. Levels [at this measuring station] are now increasing 2-3 ppm a year. The rate of increase is much faster than only 10-20 years ago. You can almost see the changes taking place. Never before have CO2 levels increased so fast.” The level of CO2 increased annually by about 1.5 ppm from 1970 to 2000 but has accelerated to about 2.1 ppm during this decade. The measurements obtained in the Arctic are typically a little higher than those obtained in Hawaii by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A climate scientist from the Met Office Hadley Center in Britain, Dr. Vicky Pope, said that “These are quite large numbers. It sounds like this is an Arctic phenomenon. It fits with the general increase in emissions. You would expect the concentrations of CO2 to grow.” Despite all this alarming information we still hear reports that leaders in China and India and even in the United States contend that coal needs to play a large role in meeting future energy needs. This vision of the future which includes more coal burning is not very promising.

The Path to 350 ppm CO2

Scientists who have changed the atmospheric carbon dioxide level target from stabilizing CO2 at a level of 450 parts per million to a much lower level of 350 ppm have been tinkering around with the problem of how to accomplish this much more ambitious goal. One of these scientists is Pushker Kharecha from NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Dr. Kharecha told BBC News that his group’s research showed that the only possible way was to promptly enact a moratorium on new coal use that does not capture CO2 and to phase out existing coal emissions by 2030. Also, he noted that reforestation and better agricultural practices could remove some CO2 from the atmosphere which would help. Dr. Kharecha also stressed the importance of energy efficiency and conservation in the short term as longer-term efforts are taken to provide alternative energy sources to fossil fuels.

Right now the world seems to be going in the direct opposite direction. Rather than a moratorium on coal plants that do not capture C02 the plans are in the works in a number of countries for hundreds of more typical coal plants. China itself is building one or two new plants each week. The promise of capturing and storing CO2 emissions from coal, which has been dubbed “clean coal” by the coal industry, so far has remained no more than a promise and seems likely never to be fulfilled.

The gap between what it will take to lower the CO2 level to a climate-stabilizing 350 ppm from the ice-melting present level of about 386 ppm and the reality on the ground appears unbridgeable. All the momentum is toward ever upward CO2 levels. Since the United States is responsible for more of the CO2 up there than any other country it seems logical that we should take the first step, that is, declare a moratorium on new coal plants that can’t capture CO2 emissions. Time to leave square one.

Al Gore Supports 350 ppm Target for CO2 Levels

Addressing delegates yesterday in Poznan, Poland at a UN meeting on climate change, Al Gore told them that the present target of stabilizing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide at 450 part per million (PPM) should be abandoned for a new target of 350 ppm. Present levels are about 386 ppm. Since many experts believe that even achieving the 450 target is beyond feasibility, achieving the 350 target might be thought of as just wishful thinking. However, if we don’t get back to 350 ice in the polar regions could just keep melting and melting with catastrophic consequences. According to The Independent, Gore said that to combat climate change the world needs to focus more on global warming and less on celebrities, naming three in particular, O.J. Simpson, Paris Hilton, and the late Anna Nicole Smith. That’s going to be difficult. Clearly advertisers are willing to pony up a lot more money to back shows featurings non-news about the three celebs Gore mentioned and many others than gloom and doom real news about global warming. It appears that the free press is a two-edged sword. You get to find out what governments are really up to, at least sometimes, but you also get endless drivel. It would seem that the climate change crisis is unfolding too slowly to have much chance of driving Brittany Spears out of the news. The Dr. J. TV ad for Dr. Pepper says that “slower is better.” Well maybe for sipping soft drinks, but not for getting the media to pay attention to serious problems. Based on where the world focuses its attention we will be lucky to hold the line at 600 ppm. And maybe even that is a stretch.

Methane Levels on the Rise Again

After being fairly stable for almost 10 years methane levels in the atmosphere went up in 2007. This gloomy news was reported yesterday by the US Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). How gloomy this news really is depends on why methane levels are increasing again. The gloomiest reason would be that thawing permafrost in Arctic areas are releasing methane, a positive feedback from rising global temperature. Such a release of methane has been reported by researchers but according to scientist Ed Dlugokencky from NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory the most probable reasons for the recent increase in methane are rapidly growing industrialization in Asia and rising wetland emissions in the Arctic and tropics. Dlugokencky also said that ”We’re on the lookout for the first sign of a methane release from thawing Arctic permafrost. It’s too soon to tell whether last year’s spike in emissions includes the start of such a trend.” As almost a side note, the NOAA scientists found that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to surge upward, with the annual rate of increase again exceeding 2 parts per million (the increase was 2.4 ppm) which has been a disturbing trend that began after the year 2000. The level of carbon dioxide is now 385 ppm. That’s 35 ppm above the level that climate scientist James Hansen now says we should be aiming for. Needless to say, things don’t look good.

FutureGen “Clean Coal” Project Bites the Dust

Citing rising costs, the US Energy Department cancelled a project called FutureGen which was supposed to demonstrate how carbon dioxide released by burning coal could be captured and stored. With the price of the project, which was supposed to be built in Mattoon, Illinois, reaching $1.8 billion and seemingly still going up the Energy Department called it quits. According to a report in The New York Times the Deputy Secretary of Energy, Clay Sell, said that the project would be revamped. The chief executive of the FutureGen Alliance said that canceling the project would probably result in a 4-year delay.

So, where does this leave us. With a leading climate scientist James Hansen calling for a moratorium on new coal-burning power plants which can not capture and store carbon dioxide to keep carbon dioxide from increasing to atmospheric levels that will cause catastrophic climate change this decision clearly leaves us in a bad spot. Efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy simply do not seem to going fast enough to provide enough electricity if new coal plants are entirely out of the picture. However, if more new coal plants are built without the capture and storage capability carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will almost surely overshoot the target of 450 ppm which is supposed to limit warming to 2C above preindustrial levels.

The cancellation of the FutureGen project should be a wake-up call. Maybe capturing and storing carbon dioxide from coal plants is just pie in the sky, either technologically impossible or so expensive that coal could not economically compete as a fuel. Maybe instead of holding on to the coal option, we should start gradually dismantling coal plants and go all out to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy. Do we really have any other good choice?

The Carbon Dioxide Emissions Per Capita Problem

If there is any issue that appears to be an insurmountable obstacle to reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally it appears to be the issue surrounding per capita emissions of carbon dioxide. Spokesmen for China, which has recently been crowned as the number one greenhouse gas polluter in the world, displacing the long-time reigning champion the United States of America, are quick to point out that on a per capita basis their emissions are far below those of the US, which is correct since each of us in America on average is responsible for more than four times the amount of emissions than those who live in China.

If global emissions of carbon dioxide are now about 30 billion tons a year, then on average the 6.5 billion inhabitants of our planet are responsible for about 4.5 tons each. With the average American responsible for emitting about 20 tons annually we are way above the average. The climate scientists say that to have a decent chance of avoiding the most serious consequences of global warming we have to reduce our emissions globally by about 80% by 2050. So the 30 billion tons a year would have to fall to roughly 6 billion tons a year. It is predicted that there will be 9 billion people on Earth by 2050 so on average they would have to be responsible for emitting only about 0.7 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Hopefully the math here is wrong (it probably is) because that seems like a very difficult goal to achieve, particularly in face the demands for equality in emissions per capita between the developed countries and developing countries.

China Zips Past the US as Number One Carbon Dioxide Emitter

After all the speculation about when China would pass the US in emissions of carbon dioxide, this year, or in 2008, or later, it turns out that China has already attained the dubious distinction as the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide according to an article in the Guardian. It was the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency which came up with this surprising finding. The calculations show that China actually outdid the US in carbon dioxide emissions last year by a whopping 8%. A scientist from the agency in the Netherlands said that the difference in carbon dioxide emissions between China and the US was so great in 2006 that almost surely China also took the lead as the number one greenhouse gas emitter. There it is, we have a new champ. Of course on a per capita basis China isn’t close to the US in pumping out greenhouse gases. The US quadruples China. No contest. Now that the China has passed the US in carbon dioxide emissions the prognosticators can turn their attention to India. In what year will India pass the US? Let the guessing begin.

Bulldoze Coal-Fired Power Plants Before 2050 Says Climate Expert

The Houston Chronicle reports that well-known NASA climate scientist James Hansen is calling for all older coal-fired power plants that do not capture and store the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide to be bulldozed before the middle of the century. Hansen is also calling for a cessation of the building of coal-fired power plants. To put this in context, over 150 such plants are in the planning stage in the United States. Hansen is speaking today at the National Press Club.

Hansen believes that energy efficiency measures can make the sharp reduction in coal use that he calls for feasible. Since coal is used for about one half of all electricity generated in the United States these energy efficiency measure would have to be sweeping. Since climate scientists say that we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 to limit global warming to a level that would not be catastrophic Hansen’s proposal seems quite sensible. The alternative, of continuing to use coal to meet increasing energy demand in the United States, can only lead to disaster on scale that is difficult to contemplate.

A Presidential Campaign Goes Carbon Neutral

Running for president of the United States these days can generate a lot of carbon dioxide emissions with all the plane flights crossing the country, offices churning out campaign literature, and so forth. According to a report in the Contra Costa Times one of the Democratic presidential candidates, Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa, has decided to try to offset all of the carbon dioxide emissions that his campaign produces. His strategy is based on paying money to a company in Vermont that invests in renewable fuels. With regard to global warming, Vilsack’s communications director is quoted as saying “No question that this is one of the, if not the most important issue in the presidential campaign.” This suggests that Vilsack really “gets it.”

It will be interesting to see if any other presidential candidates attempt to elevate global warming as an issue to the level that Vilsack appears to be trying to do. Since Vilsack’s strategy includes the controversial topic of carbon offsets this could make him a political target as well as someone to emulate.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue to Spike

It is bad enough that climate change is occurring more rapidly than scientists predicted, but things may be even worse because now we are finding out that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing faster than they predicted. For 30 years, starting with 1970, the average increase in carbon dioxide was about 1.5 parts per million. Based on estimates of carbon dioxide emissions there did not seem to be any reason for this trend to change. Yet, beginning in 2001 carbon dioxide levels have spiked to average about 2.2 parts per million and that trend has continued through 2006 according to a report in the Guardian. What this seems to mean is that when climate scientists such as James Hansen say we have less than 10 years to begin to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid extremely serious consequences of global warming this warning may not even be urgent enough. Further concerns are raised because the cause of the spike has not yet been identified. Whether it is due to warming itself, emissions that actually exceed estimates, or some other reason remains obscure. As time goes on it appears that the truth about global warming is growing more and more inconvenient.