Opposition to California Geoengineering Conference Is Growing

The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies will be held from March 22-26 2010. This conference is being organized by the US-based Climate Response Fund and its Scientific Organizing Committee. While some scientists may think this conference is a good idea there are people who do not and an open letter opposing the conference has been posted by the ETC Group for opponents of the conference to sign. The first paragraph of the letter states “As civil society organizations and social movements working to find constructive solutions to climate change, we want to express our deep concerns with the upcoming privately organized meeting on geoengineering in Asilomar, California. Its stated aim, which is to «develop a set of voluntary guidelines, or best practices, for the least harmful and lowest risk conduct of research and testing of proposed climate intervention and geoengineering technologies,» is moving us down the wrong road too soon and without any speed limit.” The open letter ends by saying “It is vital that the international debate about geoengineering not be left in the hands of those with a self-interest in its facilitation, pursuit, and profit. It concerns us all and must be brought out into the open where all can participate. That will not happen in Asilomar.”

One of the problems with geoengineering seems to be that no one is sure how to go about it. It looks like there will be many battles ahead as efforts to move geoengineering forward take place.

Effect of Soils on Global Warming Greatly Underestimated Say Finnish Researchers

Climate models may have to be revised to account for greater release of carbon dioxide by soils as the temperature increases. According to an article from AFP, Finnish researchers using radiocarbon measurements found that slowly decomposing compounds in soil are more sensitive to increasing temperature than more rapidly decomposing compounds. The scientists, who published their study in the journal Ecology, noted that if global temperatures increase by 5C above preindustial levels soils would release 50% more carbon dioxide than predicted from the usual methods that are used, which rely on short-term measurements.

The Finnish Environment Institute released a statement saying “The climatic warming will increase the carbon dioxide emissions from soil more than previously estimated. This is a mechanism that will significantly accelerate the climate change. Already now the carbon dioxide emissions from soil are ten times higher than the emissions of fossil carbon. A Finnish research group has proved that the present standard measurements underestimate the effect of climate warming on emissions from the soil. The error is serious enough to require revisions in climate change estimates. In all climate models, the estimates of emissions from soil are based on measurements made using this erroneous method. Climate models must be revised so that the largest carbon storage of the land ecosystems will be estimated correctly.”

If this research is confirmed we may be reaching catastrophic climate change even soon than thought. Revision of climate models based on this research could produce even more alarming results than they have already.

Research Ship Data Indicates Arctic Could Be Ice-Free by 2013

Once again changes are happening faster than climate models have predicted. This time it is the rate that ice is disappearing in the Arctic. According to an article in The Vancouver Sun scientists from Canada who studied the Arctic ice from a research ship last winter found much more melting than expected. In fact the melting was so profound that is was the first time a research ship was able to remain in open water during the winter. The leader of the research team, Professor David Barber from the University of Manitoba, said that the melting was occurring “much faster than our most pessimistic models suggested” and estimated that the Arctic would be ice-free during the summer between 2013 and 2030 (the article incorrectly says winter). Although the rate of melting surpasses the models Barber refers to other scientists have predicted the Arctic being ice-free by 2013 before. A BBC article from 2007 describes this prediction by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.

The findings by the Canadian scientists appear to confirm the possibility that sooner rather than later instead of ice reflecting sunlight in the Arctic during the summer months the darker ocean will be absorbing the sunlight, thereby creating more warming which in turn could speed up the thawing of Arctic tundra which could release the greenhouse gas methane which would produce more warming and so on. It seems hard to believe but according to the latest scientific research in only a little more than 1,000 days we may reach this ominous situation.

Will CO2 Catchers Start Catching On?

With hopes of avoiding catastrophic climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions rapidly fading it is getting time to look at what to do as a last resort. If there is any feasible last resort it may be employing millions of CO2 catchers to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and then probably store it underground. One major obstacle is that successful working models of these devices do not yet exist. The big problem is that while capturing CO2 is not difficult it tends to take a lot of energy to release it once it has been captured, which basically makes such a device impractical. However, there are reports that this major hurdle may be close to being solved. A Columbia University research team led by Klaus Lackner has been working with a synthetic resin which according to Lackner in an article posted on Spiegel Online International “attracts CO2 strongly when dry, but releases it again easily when wet.” and “the process produces only about a fifth as much CO2 as the device collects.” He estimates that to offset between 10 and 15 percent of annual emissions would require 10 million CO2 catchers. A blog on Grist reports that researchers in the Netherlands have developed a copper-based catalyst that can capture CO2 and then release it in a different form using relatively little energy. News of this discovery was reported in the January 15th issue of the journal Science. So if a landscape filled with wind turbines and solar panels isn’t enough to save us from global warming perhaps adding millions of CO2 catchers will do the trick.

Don’t Blame Me Says IPCC Head Pajendra Pachauri

Apparently, Dr. Pajendra Pachauri, chief of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, doesn’t believe that when mistakes are made by the organization he heads that the buck stop with him. In an interview with The Guardian Pachauri refused to accept any blame for the erroneous claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers could be completed melted by 2035. Pachauri says “You can’t expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report.” Clearly, Pachauri is no Harry Truman. It is not very comforting that the head of the IPCC won’t accept any responsibility for an important error. With the climate skeptics trying to take full advantage of any mistake that comes to light it would be desirable to have the IPCC led by someone who can accept blame for what happens on their watch. Instead there is Pachauri.

Copenhagen Accord Pledges Add Up to Climate Catastrophe

If anyone believed that the leading global warming polluters would have an epiphany and pledge greenhouse gas emissions reductions that would save us from climate catastrophe they must be sorely disappointed. Fifty-five countries met the deadline of January 31 to pledge for the hastily drawn up Copenhagen Accord and did exactly what they said they would do, which is nowhere near enough to avoid having the global temperature soar beyond the ominous 2C mark above preindustrial levels. An Associated Press article reports that the US stuck to its miserly pledge of 17% reduction below 2005 levels by 2020 and the biggest global warming polluter of all, China, will not pledge to reduce emissions but only to reduce emissions growth. Of course, these pledges are not legally binding so not only are they insufficient but may never be adhered to. So it looks like just about everyone is resigned to go over the climate cliff together. What does that say about human intelligence? Somehow it doesn’t translate into sane actions on a national level. It looks like mass stupidity has triumphed after all. Who would have guessed that millions of years of evolution would lead to that?

There Is Now No Clear Path to Preventing Catastrophic Climate Change

With the Copenhagen climate meeting ending with the UN taking “note” of the Copenhagen Accord agreed to by the US, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa the belief that a UN agreement signed in 1992 would lead to the world taking steps to prevent catastrophic climate change has been proven to be an illusion. Instead of the world trying to solve the global warming problem we are left with a blame game for who is to blame for the failure. The environmental organization Friends of the Earth is blaming the rich countries. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of the UK, a rich country, is blaming China and some other developing countries. And so forth. The Kyoto Protocol, ratified by all developed countries except the US was supposed to be the first step toward stopping global warming and the meeting in Copenhagen was supposed to be where the details of the second step would be agreed on. Well, it looks like there is no second step. Apparently the billions of people in the world will be left to face the consequences of the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere not to mention the acidification of the oceans that threatens to wipe out marine life. So far Barack Obama hasn’t given us any indication that he can step in and stop this hurtling toward self-destruction. Up against the powerful fossil fuel industry, a public that largely doesn’t want to pay more for electricity no matter what the long-term consequences, coal miners and many others who depend on the coal mining industry for their jobs, and a Republican party that just seems to say no to any call for change by the Democrats, what can Obama really do? Probably he should have spoken out more about this problem, but would that really have helped? I guess we better get ready to pass some climate tipping points. This is not going to be pretty.

Copenhagen Accord Provides Hope of Avoiding 5°C to 6°C by 2100

It is hard for climate scientists to find any good news in the Copenhagen Accord that was hammered out at the climate meeting that just ended but Andrew Waston from the University of East Anglia in Britain told the French news agency AFP that “At least it may signal that there is some willingness to take action, so that we might have a hope of limiting the rise to 3.0°C to 4.0°C and avoid the really unknown territory that lies beyond.” That unknown territory seems to be where we are heading by the end of this century according to some recent scientific studies. So if the bar is set low enough maybe the meeting wasn’t a failure after all. For all the talk at the meeting about staying below a 2.0°C or 1.5°C rise in global temperature above preindustrial levels it seemed none of the big polluters really cared about those targets at all. Based on their pledges to lower emissions or lower the rate of increase in emissions, staying below 5.0°C seemed good enough although that was never uttered in public. So perhaps the only positive legacy of the Copenhagen meeting will be getting us on track to avoid 5.0°C. That’s probably about as low as the bar can be lowered.

Can Obama Save the Climate Summit?

It is hard to believe that anybody can save the Copenhagen climate summit as the final two days for negotiating approach but British environmentalist and columnist George Monbiot thinks Obama can do it. In his column in The Guardian Monbiot writes that “Because of the size and weight of the United States, and the moral power invested in the current president, it is Barack Obama, and Barack Obama alone, who can rescue the climate negotiations from dismal bickering into which they have slumped.” I doubt if very many Americans believe Obama can save the day. After all, whatever he proposes has to be approved by the US Congress. How is that for an unmovable obstacle? Here is what Monbiot says Obama should say in his upcoming speech: "I hereby commit the United States to cutting greenhouse gases by 50% against our 1990 levels by 2020. I commit to this cut regardless of what other nations might do, but I urge you to compete with me to exceed it. We should be striving to outbid each other, not to undercut each other.” Congress is having trouble passing a bill with target as low as about 5% below 1990 levels. What Republican or Blue Dog Democrat would vote for 50% below? Monbiot says Obama should end his speech by saying "I have no illusions about the resistance these proposals will encounter. This will be the political battle of my life. But I know it is a battle worth fighting. If I duck it, future generations will never forgive me, just as they will not forgive anyone in this room for failing to rise to our greatest challenge. This is the battle we owe to our children and to their children. This is the time to do not what is expedient, but what is right." Last I heard Obama is hoping to get something passed on health care reform very soon and then take on financial regulatory reform and job creation next year. Where would he have time for waging this fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? At this point it doesn’t appear that President Obama or anyone else on the planet can save this meeting from tanking.

Keeping Global Temperature Rise Below 1.5°C Is Almost Impossible

When it comes to global warming there is little that the countries of the world seem to agree upon except perhaps that the rise in global temperature should be kept below 2°C (3.6°F). But now even that point of consensus has been shattered by a proposal at the climate meeting in Copenhagen by small island nations and poor African countries that the rise in temperature should be kept below 1.5°C. But according to climate science is that even possible? In a report from the BBC, the head of climate science at the UK’s Met Office, Vicky Pope, says "There's no way you'd get a 50% chance of avoiding 1.5°C…If you reduced everything to zero immediately you'd still get about 1.3°C because of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere." She noted that policies to ensure a reasonable chance of remaining under 1.5°C would involve "negative emissions" - sucking CO2 out of the air. So why are so many countries and climate activists embracing what seems to be virtually an impossible goal? Perhaps it is a symbolic way at making a statement that the richer countries are not doing enough. Or perhaps it is an act of desperation since anything approaching a rise in temperature of 2°C would probably lead to a sea level rise that would obliterate many of the small island countries and cause climate change in Africa that would be devastating.

What should the goal be? The 2°C target would expose us to a high risk of catastrophic climate change but while extremely difficult to meet according to the experts it remains realistically possible whereas the 1.5°C target would reduce the risks of catastrophic climate change but is apparently an unrealistic goal. Having postponed real action on this issue for two decades the world is left with no good choices.

Hopes for Copenhagen Climate Meeting Fizzling Fast

Once billed by some as the most important meeting in human history, the global climate meeting set to begin in Copenhagen in a little over a week is failing to live up to the hype. The major political leaders have been simply thumbing their noses at science with commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions falling way short of the mark as pointed out in an Associated Press article. So far Obama has pledged that the US will reduce emissions by a paltry 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and the leading global warming polluter China will not agree to reduce emissions at all but only to reduce “carbon intensity” which refers to emissions per unit of production. We know the jig is up but still the politicians pretend that it isn’t, that progress will go on and on. Americans can continue to enjoy affluence if they are just willing to pay about the price of a postage stamp a day more for electricity. Hundreds of millions of poor Chinese will continue to be lifted out of poverty as hundreds of millions have before them and same for the struggling poor of India, even though some critical resources are growing short as the world population balloons toward 9 billion and the evidence that climate change is much more serious than the scientists thought only a few years ago seems to grow almost every day and it appears that climate change could threaten civilization itself. So it turns out we are not going to be saved at December meeting in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 after all. And in fact it turns out we are not going saved period. Darn!

Lower Standard of Living Called for to Fight Climate Change

To avoid catastrophic climate change, lower levels of consumption are needed in the rich countries says Professor Kevin Anderson, director of Britain’s Tyndall Center for Climate Change which released a study on how to combat global warming. In an interview with The Times, Anderson said “That may mean having only one car per household, a smaller fridge, buying fewer clothes and electronics and curtailing the number of weekend breaks that we have…It’s a very uncomfortable message, but we need a planned economic recession. Economic growth is currently incompatible with reductions in absolute emissions.” That’s quite a message to countries trying to get out of an unplanned recession. It is also pretty much the opposite of the message that we hear from Al Gore, Thomas Friedman, and numerous Democratic politicians who have been trying to convince everyone that going green to fight global warming is the key to economic growth. It is hard to imagine any politician in one of the rich countries such as the United States running for office on a platform that includes calling for an unplanned recession and promising the voters to lower their standard of living. Who wouldn’t want to run against an opponent saying that. To have any chance of succeeding with calls for lower levels of consumption would require ratcheting up the fear of climate change among the voters to a level that right now is unimaginable. It would have to be palpable fear. The type that keeps you up at night. The type that drives people to drinking and other means of mental escape. Unless the television networks replace all their reality shows, games shows, sit coms, dramas, and sports events with documentaries on global warming it seems unlikely that fear of global warming will increase to above its present level which is nearly undetectable based on the polls that have been taken. It appears in all likelihood that the rich countries will continue to party on and our planet will continue to grow warmer and warmer.

Australia Overtakes the US as Leader in CO2 Emissions per Person

After being recently replaced by China as the number one greenhouse gas polluter in the world, the US has now been surpassed by Australia as the leading nation in CO2 emissions on a per capita basis. According to Reuters, the US emissions of 19.8 tons per capita annually was only good for second place, with Australia taking over the lead with 20.6 tons. In third place was Canada at 18.8 tons. Per capita emissions have become a major sticking point in the negotiations on a climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012 as developing countries, particularly China and India, have been arguing that developed countries should assume most of the burden for reducing emissions since on a per capita basis their emissions are several times higher. However, the British economist Nicholas Stern, who wrote an influential report on climate change, recently noted in a talk given in Beijing, China, that although China’s emissions on a per capita basis are much lower than those of developed countries, there were 13 provinces, regions, and cities in China that actually had higher emissions per capita than France and 6 with higher emissions than Britain. According to the AFP news agency, Stern has calculated that for the risk of dangerous climate change to be minimized emissions would need to be reduced to 2 tons per person worldwide. Unfortunately, with millions of people in China and India rapidly adopting Western lifestyles and many developed countries including the US refusing to commit to the necessary reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 called for by the leading climate scientists the prospects for minimizing the risks of dangerous climate change appear to be rapidly diminishing.

UK Royal Society Gives Geoengineering the Okay for Future Research

Geoengineering schemes to combat global warming got a boost from a study by the UK Royal Society which came to the conclusion that it is technically possible for geoengineering to play a role and research on the schemes should go forward. A report from BBC News says that the Society found that of the two basic approaches, carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere and reflecting sunlight, that the former was preferred. It may turn out that whether of not geoengineering schemes to alter the climate are technically possible may be beside the point as the study noted that “The greatest challenges to the successful deployment of geoengineering may be to social, ethical, legal and political issues associated with governance rather than scientific issues.” Yes, this could be one heck of a mess. Perhaps the best advice from this study is the recommendation for an international body to come up with some sort of procedure whereby treaties could be devised for determining who would have responsibility for carrying out the research that might have risks and benefits on a global scale. The situation we are in was nicely summarized by the chairman of the study group, Professor John Shepherd from the University of South Hampton, who said "Geoengineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change.” If things go unexpectedly wrong that could be quite a high price.

Indian Environment Minister Says Westerners Need to Live with Only One Car Not Three

With the countdown to the UN’s climate meeting in Copenhagen reaching the 100-day mark yesterday India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, gave a speech in Delhi in which he reiterated that India will not agree to a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to an article in The Guardian, Ramesh said that “For us this is about survival. We need to put electricity into people’s homes and do it cleanly. You in the west need to live with only one car rather than three. For you it is about luxury.” Luxury? Wait a minute! Perhaps if Ramesh has a family with a teenage driver he should rent a McMansion in one of our cul-de-sac suburban developments for awhile and try to live with one car. Good luck! He would quickly find out that to get to anything other than a nearby neighbor’s house that he would have to drive. If he takes the car to work his wife would be either stranded at home all day or unable to get to her job. If the teenage driver takes the car to see a friend in the evening or on weekends they would both be stranded at home. Ramesh would quickly come to realize that two cars are a necessity and even having that third car avoids a lot of conflicts. These houses don’t have three-car garages for nothing. To really change things Ramesh would have go back in time to the 1950s and stop our government from building the interstate highway system and subsidizing mortgages through the GI bill. In other words, he would have to stop the things that made building our sprawling suburbs possible. We can’t now in 2009 turn back time. “The die has been cast.” If Ramesh and India are waiting for us to go from three cars to one car it promises to be a very long wait.

Phase-out of “Super” Greenhouse Gases Through the Montreal Protocol Might Limit Climate Change

A report by the non-profit Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) says that using the Montreal Protocol ozone treaty to phase out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), chemicals that are now being used in refrigerators and air conditioners as a substitute for chemicals that are responsible for the ozone hole, could be a major step in the fight against global warming. In an article from the Inter Press Service News Agency, a senior U.S. climate campaigner from EIA is quoted as saying that “An HFC phase-down under the Montreal Protocol will do far more for climate protection than the Kyoto Protocol has accomplished in its entire history or than Copenhagen will achieve in the next decade.” The HCFs are called “super” greenhouse gases because these molecules can trap hundreds or thousands of times more heat than carbon dioxide. Phasing out HFCs is particularly important when considering projections of increased use of refrigerators and air conditioners in China and India between now and the year 2050. According to the EIA report, phasing out HFCs by 2050 would be the same as preventing from 118 to 224 billion tons of carbon dioxide being released. The G8 countries have made a commitment to phase-down HFCs. The members of the Montreal treaty next meet in November. So even with all the controversy over climate legislation in the U.S. and the bleak outlook for a global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Copenhagen maybe progress will still be made toward limiting climate change before it is too late.

Huge Antarctic Glacier Melting Much More Rapidly Than Believed

Here is yet another wake up call to the countries of the world that cannot agree on what to do about climate change, the massive West Antarctic Pine Island Glacier has been found to be melting four times faster than it was reported to be melting just 10 years ago. In an article posted on TimesOnline one of the British researchers who studied the glacier is quoted as saying “This is unprecedented in this area of Antarctica. We’ve known that it’s been out of balance for some time, but nothing in the natural world is lost at an accelerating exponential rate like this.” It is now predicted that if this accelerated melting continues the main section of the glacier will completely disappear in 100 years rather than the 600 years which was the previous estimate. Last year it was reported that this glacier was moving toward the sea at an accelerated rate of 7% greater than the previous year. Before the annual rate of increase was 1%. Scientists estimate that the melting of this glacier and the stationary ice behind it could raise sea level by about a foot. Adding that to predictions of sea level rise from other sources equals a more dire situation for coastal areas in the future.

Seal the Climate Deal or Face Disaster Warns UN Secretary-General

As the countdown to the December climate meeting in Copenhagen continues, Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, issued a stern warming in Seoul, South Korea that failure to reach an agreement will result in numerous devastating consequences. Reuters reports that Ban labeled climate change as a “fundamental threat to mankind.” The UN chief is so concerned about the lack of progress in negotiations so far that he has called for a special meeting of world leaders at the UN in New York City on September 22. This week the negotiators are at it again in Bonn, Germany trying to make progress on what appears to be a negotiation going nowhere. This negotiating process has been going on for almost 2 years now and so far there has been no breakthrough to bridge the gap in demands between the developed and developing countries. The two most important countries in this process, the US and China which presently account for almost one half of global warming pollution, remain far apart with China demanding that unless the US agrees to cut its emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 it will not agree to reduce its emissions and the US saying that it cannot reduce its emissions that much but that China must agree to reduce its emissions. The next most important country, India, has been saying that it will not agree to reduce its emissions under any circumstances but on a per capita basis its emissions will not rise above those of developed countries. With the Kyoto Protocol agreement ending in 2012 there is little time left to reach an agreement, ratify it, and then begin implementation. The scientists say that global emissions need to peak by 2015 to have any realistic chance of avoiding going over the warming threshold for catastrophic climate change. Under normal economic conditions global emissions increase by about 3%-4% annually so to level off by 2015 will take some doing. The good news is that in the past the world was able to reach an agreement to fix the problem of the ozone hole. The bad news is that the problem this time appears to be infinitely more complicated than finding substitute chemicals to keep air conditioners and refrigerators running.

Wind Turbine Syndrome a Possible Threat to Human Health

A prominent New York pediatrician, Nina Pierport, has identified a number of medical conditions caused by living close to wind farms, which she has dubbed the wind turbine syndrome. An article on her research was published in The Independent. Among the conditions that she says can be caused by wind farms are heart disease, migraines, vertigo, tinnitus, nausea, and sleep disturbance. Her research, which has been peer-reviewed, will be published in October. Dr. Pierpont has noted that not all people who live close to wind farms are susceptible. Her findings are based on a 5-year study of people living near wind farms in the US and four other countries. Central to her connecting wind turbines with various medical disorders is research conducted last year in the UK and Australia which showed that low-frequency vibrations and noise from the turbines can be transmitted through human ear bones. The research demonstrated that the human vestibular system is sensitive to low-frequency vibration, a phenomenon that was previously demonstrated in fish and frogs. The vibrations and low-frequency noise from the wind turbines therefore can cause abnormal stimulation of the vestibular system. Dr. Pierpont told The Independent that “The wind industry will try to discredit me and disparage me…This is not unlike the tobacco industry dismissing health issues from smoking.” Further research will surely be needed to prove that the wind turbine syndrome actually exists. But in the meantime Dr. Piermont’s research no doubt will be used as ammunition by opponents of wind farms when the siting is anywhere near residential areas and may be considered by planners when it comes to choosing sites.

Doubts Raised about Effectiveness of White Roofs for Combating Global Warming

The US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has advocated painting roofs white as a way to limit global warming. The advantage of white roofs over dark roofs is that white roofs reflect most of the sunlight hitting the roof back out into space whereas dark roof absorb most of the sunlight as heat. An article in the Washington Post says that according to Chu recent research shows that by painting about 63% of the roofs white in 100 large cities in temperate and tropical regions around the world that would equate to removing all of the cars in the world from the road for 10 years. However, the Post article notes that climate scientist Ken Caldiera from the Carnegie Institution in Stamford, California is less than enthralled with idea. Says Caldiera “It’s hard enough, in many of the cities in the world, to keep the streets swept, much less to keep the city reflective.” If painting roofs white includes slanted roofs such as those on houses, that raises the problem of aesthetics as the Post article points out. Of course, there are other things that can be done with roofs to help the cause besides painting them white. They can be covered with solar panels. Also, instead of white roofs they can be turned into green roofs by covering them with soil and adding plants. In any case, for flat roofs at least, white roofs, green roofs, and solar roofs all seem preferable to dark roofs.