Wii? no.... We!

At the beginning of this month (actually, March 31st, to be exact), the man who won an Academy Award as well as the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change stepped to the plate yet again to try to shift the world's attention to action against climate change. Al Gore's nonprofit group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, has just launched the We Campaign, the main objective of which is to push for policy changes to help with the climate change problem, as well as to educate people around the world about how they can help stop global warming.

According to a recent news blurb on National Public Radio, the campaign will spend 300 million dollars over the next three years, with its first project being a television ad urging Americans to take action, because, as the ad says, "we can't wait for someone else to solve the global climate crisis". According to NPR, critics of Gore's own (rather large) carbon footprint will be silenced by the recent addition of solar panels and compact florescent light bulbs to his Tennessee home, and his driving a hybrid SUV.

Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership

I want to highlight a project happening in several western states aimed at preparing the 'Big Sky' region for mediation of energy use and carbon storage in the future. Centered at Montana State University, the Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership (part of the U.S. Department of Energy) is focused specifically on Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and South Dakota, although the work they do will have regional, national and global significance.

This partnership acknowledges that energy consumption is necessarily part of our country's well-being and growth. The key is to find ways to use local resources in a carbon neutral way in order to continue to meet society's energy needs. BSCSP is working on ways to harness the energy in the abundant fossil fuel reserves found in the Big Sky region, and safely and effectively store or offset the carbon emitted through sequestration and land-use mediation.

To this end, BSCSP is working on implementing two major sequestration test sites in underground geologic locations. The two test sites are in a mafic volcanic formation and in an underground saline aquifer, but the partnership is also studying and developing sequestration techniques for coal seams too deep for mining, and for empty oil reservoirs. As far as offset options, BSCSP is exploring terrestrial sequestration through mediation and management of land-use of agricultural crop lands, forests and range lands for livestock.

A cool interactive map can be found at BSCSP's Carbon Atlas site. Here you can explore the interactive GIS (geographic information system) map that the partnership has created through extensive field mapping and research. You can see regional variations in the amount of carbon currently emitted, projections of energy demand in the year 2020, and a comprehensive database showing where potential geologic carbon sequestration features are located: basaltic formations (mafic volcanic formations), deep coal beds, hydrocarbon reservoirs (old oil wells), and saline aquifers.

silver lining of ocean acidification

While the April 21st post on this blog made it seem as if enriching the world's oceans with CO2 was all doom and gloom for inhabitants of the marine world, it seems as if one member of kingdom Protista is actually rather enjoying the change. Coccolithophores are single-celled calcareous algae, also known as golden algae. They have inhabited the earth's oceans, predominantly occupying the mid to low latitudes, for roughly 220 million years. (Thanks to Tom Marchitto for this info)

These critters rely on the formation of coccoliths (round plates made of calcite, hence the adjective calcareous) to protect themselves, which has led scientists to predict that with the warming and related acidification of the earth's oceans, cocolithophores would suffer reduced populations. According to a recent article by Kenneth Chang of the NY Times, however, the reduction in the ocean's pH from 8.2 in pre-industrial times to 8.1 today, has resulted in a 40% increase in the average mass of coccolithophores in the oceans!

An article in the April 18th issue of Science, written by Dr. Iglesias-Rodriguez and her graduate student, Paul Halloran, may explain this observation. While prior lab studies of the effects of pH on coccolithophores had added acid to water in which the algae lived, the new study instead added dissolved CO2 to the water. The result was that the photosynthetic capabilities of the algae were substantially increased, resulting in individuals growing to larger sizes.

While, on the whole, ocean acidification is likely to prove a net detriment to marine ecosystems, it seems as if there are a few creatures who may actually benefit (at least in the short-term) from incremental decreases in the pH of the world's oceans as a result of greenhouse gases!

a big step backwards... europe turns to coal

Today, the New York Times reported what at first seemed to be a sure misprint: Europe Turns Back to Coal, Raising Climate Fears. Yes, in spite of the European Union's progressive actions to ensure sustainable and carbon-neutral development, the rising cost of oil and natural gas (a 151% increase since 1996 in Italy), combined with a shift away from nuclear power (nuclear plants have been banned in Italy and Germany) have resulted in several countries making plans to expand coal production.

The spotlight in this new trend falls mainly on Italy, whose main energy provider, Enel, has announced that it will increase the percent of electricity coming from coal-fired plants from the current level of 14% to 33% in the next five years. The first new plant is slated to open in just two months, affirming the sober reality of Italy's shift to coal. Those who support the opening of new coal-fired power plants claim that the new plants will be devoted to "clean coal". Upon closer examination of this term, however, it is evident that "clean coal" plants do not necessarily emit less carbon dioxide than other coal plants. Particulate matter (soot), sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions are reduced using the newer technology, but the impact on CO2 emissions is "minimal", according to the New York Times.

In addressing the impact that new coal plants will have on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, proponents of new coal development point to the potential of carbon capture and storage, where carbon could be captured as it leaves the smokestack, and then stored in underground reservoirs left vacant by oil extraction (see the February 19 and April 3 posts on this blog). The reality is, however, that this technique has not been developed to the point of utility yet, and even if it does become a viable option, it will be extremely expensive. Considering European countries are shifting to coal-fired power because of economic strains, it seems unlikely that they will be willing to shell out billions of extra dollars to fund the research, development, implementation and installation of carbon capture and storage technology. Also, many new plants coming online worldwide are not even being built with the proper infrastructure to accommodate this technology, should it become available.

Coal energy is the dirtiest option available in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. This new development in the global energy arena is nothing but bad news.

What about the other gases???

I want to make a note here, that often, in talking about carbon offsets, it is assumed that the only greenhouse gas accounted for or considered is carbon dioxide. In reality, there are many gases emitted by humans and through natural processes that act as greenhouse gases, for example: methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chloro fluoro compounds (CFC's). While having greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is necessary for making the earth habitable to humans and animals, too high a concentration of ghg's results in excess warming of the earth, often forcing positive feedback mechanisms to further enhance warming. While this discussion is beyond the intended scope of this blog, I bring it up to point out that, while the term "carbon offset" makes one think that it is only carbon that is being accounted for, this is not the case. Carbon offsets are measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, so that an offset of one ton of CO2e can equal either a ton of carbon dioxide or an equivalent amount of another greenhouse gas.

America's new pastime (hopefully...)

As baseball fans enter Safeco field tonight, to see the Seattle Mariners play the Baltimore Orioles, they will be not be going out to just any old ball game. They will be witnessing the first major league baseball game to be completely carbon neutral, down to the carbon emitted by the fans themselves en route to the stadium.

According to SPI, a local Seattle news source, the Mariners are shelling out $3,700 to purchase carbon offsets and 58,000 kilowatt hours worth of green credits. The offsets will come from a methane project (see February 27th post on this blog) in Pennsylvania and wind power in the Midwest, while the credits will go towards renewable energy projects closer to Seattle. The impetus behind making the game carbon neutral is to honor of Earth Day (which is today!).

A press release on the Mariners' website says that emissions due to both teams air travel, the teams' and umpires' hotel use, fans' ground transportation to the game, waste recycling and disposal from the game, and operation of Safeco today will amount to at least 230 short tons of CO2. They are partnering with Cedar Grove Composting to plan for the game's carbon neutrality, and contracting with NativeEnergy, Seattle City Light's Green Up! program, and the Stateline Wind Project.

This project is part of a greater effort by the Mariners to reduce the carbon footprint of the team as well as focus on recycling, composting and minimizing waste. Fans at the game will be given information on how to reduce their own carbon footprints, and there will also be recycling and composting bins throughout the stadium for the fans to responsibly dispose of their waste. Let's hope that in identifying America's favorite pastime, and a traditionally all-American sport, with green ethics and responsibility for the earth, Major League Baseball will get the average American motivated about composting, green energy, and reducing their carbon footprints.

ocean sequestration and acidification

A topic of grave concern, in light of global climate change, is ocean acidification. As the planet warms in response to enhanced concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the oceans will naturally absorb more CO2. This is a factor of both the increased atmospheric concentration of this gas as well as the tendency for warmer waters to be able to hold greater amounts of dissolved gases (picture a warm can of coke vs. a cold can of coke).

In addition to the natural increase in oceanic CO2 concentrations that will likely occur due to global warming, humans are seeking to enhance this effect. Various proposed mechanisms for sequestering excess atmospheric CO2 involve putting it into the ocean. For instance, as described in the April 9th post on this blog, the sequestration method of ocean fertilization involves greater uptake and subsequent burial/storage of CO2 in marine reservoirs through the photosynthetic activities of phytoplankton. Other mechanisms are not so discrete, for example, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (an international initiative to promote education and dissemination of information regarding CO2 sequestration) cites direct injection of CO2 into the ocean as a viable sequestration mechanism for the future. A direct quote from clsforum.org touts the potential virtues of the ocean as a sink for CO2:

"CO2 is soluble in ocean water, and oceans both absorb and emit huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through natural processes. It is widely believed that the oceans will eventually absorb most of the CO2 in the atmosphere. However, the kinetics of ocean uptake are unacceptably slow. The program will explore options for speeding up the natural processes by which the oceans absorb CO2 and for injecting CO2 directly into the deep ocean."

When one views the earth's systems in a simple way, sequestration of atmospheric CO2 in the oceans seems like an easy fix to the "global warming" problem. If we could only ratchet up the "unacceptably slow" uptake rates of the ocean, we could get that pesky greenhouse gas out of the air, and it would stop warming the planet... great! However, when one steps back to consider earth's systems in a realistic way, it becomes evident that it is not so easy to fix our problems. By transferring carbon from beneath the ground to the air and then to the oceans, we are drastically altering the planet's delicate, natural carbon cycle.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (as cited on the National Energy Technology Laboratory website) predicts U.S. Co2 emissions to reach 8,800 million tons by 2030. To put this in perspective, let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. Before the industrial revolution, the earth's ocean carbon reservoirs were as follows: the surface ocean contained about 700 gigatons of carbon, and the deep ocean held about 38,000 gigatons. If we put 8.8 gigtons of CO2 into the atmosphere, it amounts to roughly .02% of the deep ocean reservoir, and 1% of the surface ocean reservoir... and that's just the United States (and I'm guessing it's a conservative estimate, considering the source)! Maybe that sounds like small beans, but the chemical dynamics of the ocean are extremely sensitive, and adding extra CO2 could have major implications for marine life.

When the ocean becomes supersaturated in the dissolved equivalents of carbon dioxide, some marine creatures will no longer be able to create the calcium carbonate shells necessary for their survival. Corals will begin to dissolve. Some plankton and pteropods will not be able to live. A 2005 article in Nature, by James C. Orr and others, suggests that these changes will take place over the next few decades... a startlingly short timescale.

The moral of the story is that, although ocean sequestration of CO2 may seem like an enticing solution to our global warming quandary, it is essential to consider all of the consequences of human actions before implementing them. There is no easy fix to this problem. We must instead consider the more difficult task of drastically cutting our emissions of greenhouse gases, and we need to to do as soon as possible.

On a Walkabout

What do you think about when you consider the pros and cons of a potential residence? Do you think about the safety of the neighborhood? Number of trees? Ease and proximity of parking?
Walkscore.com is trying to get Americans to consider another, often overlooked, aspect of their potential homes, by providing a way for people to evaluate potential residences in terms of their "walkability".

According to the website, a neighborhood with a high walk score will have a few of the following characteristics: a community center, high enough density to make transportation easy, enough housing for all income levels so that all community members can work close to home, plenty of open space for recreation, accessibility for wheelchairs and pedestrians, narrow and shade-protected streets for speed control and walker comfort, parking in the back of buildings so that access is pedestrian-centric, and finally, proximity to schools and places of employment.

Walk scores range from 0 to 100, with low scores indicating neighborhoods without any destinations (schools, work places, grocery store, shopping, etc.) within reasonable walking distance. High scores indicate a "Walkers' Paradise", or a neighborhood where you don't need a car, and most people don't even need a bike to run errands or get to work.

While it may not be realistic year-round for the residents of northern Wisconsin or southern Texas, for most of us in the more forgiving latitudes of the United States, walking is a great way to reduce your carbon footprint, increase your energy level and stay fit, meet your neighbors, enjoy some quiet time outside, and stay safer by being off the roads.

According to the New York Times Green Issue:

"Between 1977 and 1995, the number of daily walking trips taken by adults declined by 40 percent — while more than a quarter of all car trips are now shorter than a mile."

Frankly, it is ridiculous to get in a car to drive less than a mile, even though we are all guilty of doing so on occasion. Kudos to Walkscore for providing insight and incentives for people to use their feet!!!

ocean fertilization

One method of carbon sequestration, which has not yet been discussed on this blog, is that of ocean fertilization. This idea has generated a great amount of controversy, primarily because of its potential implications for marine ecosystems and biodiversity. Debates about ocean fertilization center around uncertainty of the efficacy of the method in terms of sequestration, the potential of this method to threaten biodiversity and alter ocean ecosystems, and the various ethical dilemmas surrounding this action. While comprehensive coverage of these and other issues surrounding ocean fertilization deserve (and certainly have) blogs of their own, The Emission will at the least give a basic explanation of this carbon sequestration method.

Let's start with the basics. Oceans host an incredible variety of plant and animal forms, and right around the base of the food chain is phytoplankton. These tiny plants (which, as you may remember from grade school, are the main course for baleen whales) float around near the surface of the ocean and take up CO2 in the process of photosynthesis. As with most creatures, there are a few key nutrients that phytoplankton need to survive. One of these is iron.

In a few ocean basins, most notably the Southern Ocean, the number of phytoplankton living there is limited by the availability of iron, in other words, there isn't enough of this macronutrient to go around. The idea behind ocean fertilization, therefore, is to dump iron into regions like the Southern Ocean in order to stimulate phytoplankton growth and enhance CO2 uptake, as a result of more photosynthesis taking place in the surface waters. Those who support this method say that, upon death, phytoplankton will sink to the ocean floor to be buried as marine sediment, effectively putting fossil-fuel derived carbon back into underground storage. The great uncertainty is whether or not this actually occurs, or whether respiration and other processes simply put the CO2 back into the air, or leave it dissolved in ocean waters (which has its own set of complex consequences).

This idea has become a hot topic among those seeking a profit through sales of carbon offsets. Because of the extremely controversial nature of this method, however, there has yet to be a large-scale trial of ocean fertilization. Planktos was a hopeful upstart, with grand plans to seed the ocean waters near the Galapagos Islands, but because of difficulty in garnering support for such a contentious proposal, they were forced to file bankruptcy.

Agrichar

Another up and coming method for carbon storage provides both fertilizer for farmlands as well as an oil with potential use for fuel. This carbon-negative process is called agrichar. According to an article in the New York Times (also cited in yesterday's blog), the method involves burning agricultural plant waste at very high temperatures in an oxygen free environment. One product is an oil that can be converted to fuel for vehicles, and the other is a mineral-rich charcoal that, when incorporated into soil, can increase water retention and nutrient capacity of agricultural lands.

For more information, I turned to the International Biochar Initiative (IBI), a U.S. based non-profit organization that was formed at the International Agrichar Conference in 2007 with the goal of advancing R&D, deployment, and commercialization of this method. The IBI website explains that agrichar (agrichar and biochar are synonymous) is a carbon-negative process because it generates energy and sequesters carbon from plant material. As was explained in yesterday's post, plants pull CO2 from the atmosphere, so sequestration of their carbon back into the soil as charcoal (which will store the carbon for hundreds to thousands of years) results in a net flux of carbon from the atmosphere back to the earth. Additionally, agrichar is an effective fertilizer, stimulating more plant growth and consequently more draw-down of CO2 from the atmosphere.

A particularly interesting aspect of this method is that it has been in use for thousands of years. In the Amazon Basin, ancient people created what is called Terra Preta, or dark earth, through the process of burning agricultural waste and tilling it back into the soil. Today, thousands of years later, the soils are still fertile and carbon rich, a testament to the long-term effectiveness of this carbon storage technique.

more carbon gadgets

A few weeks ago, I heard a program on KUNC, the local National Public Radio station, about new research that correlates bad driving with poor fuel efficiency. It's no surprise that aggressive stopping and starting, revving the engine to keep within a cozy tail-gating distance, and slamming on the pedal to nip the tail end of a yellow light are all generally more gasoline-intensive actions than keeping a slow and steady pace along the highway. What some Denver researchers have introduced is a gadget that can be installed in a car that will actually measure "bad driving" indicators as well as changes in fuel efficiency. Hence, one more gadget that can allow people to gauge, and hopefully moderate, their gasoline use, with the added bonus of reminding folks to calm their road rage and drive like civil people should!

the next step: carbon-negative?

According to the IPCC, we need to cut our CO2 emissions by about 80 percent in order to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. At this point, however, we are on much different pathway, according to the same report:

"The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES, 2000) projects an increase of global GHG emissions by 25 to 90% (CO 2-eq) between 2000 and 2030, with fossil fuels maintaining their dominant position in the global energy mix to 2030 and beyond. More recent scenarios without additional emissions mitigation are comparable in range."

How are we to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, when projections show that we are only continuing to increase our rates of emitting them? We won't be able to prevent disastrous climate changes by only reducing our emissions (driving less, converting emissions back into synthetic gasoline - as described in the Feb. 19th post on this blog). Also, it would be next to impossible to achieve carbon-neutrality for every industry in the world; given that reality, we must find a way to draw down CO2. According to The New York Times, the inevitable answer is that businesses and industry will have to achieve more than carbon-neutrality; some will have to go beyond that goal to become carbon-negative.

How could this work? One method would make use of technology we have already created. As described in the February 15th post on this blog, we currently have the technology to sequester the CO2 produced by coal-fired power plants, by storing it in underground wells. This process is carbon-neutral, since coal originated underground. In other words, we dig up carbon (in the form of coal) that has already been sequestered underground by natural geologic processes, derive energy from it by burning it, and then we return the carbon back underground. Hence the process is carbon-neutral as far as the atmosphere is concerned. In order to make this to a carbon-negative process, we can instead burn plant matter or biomass. In this scenario, plants and trees take carbon out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis, the plants are harvested and burned for energy, and the carbon released by this burning is stored underground, in the same way described for coal emissions.

Other technologies described by Matthew Wald in the NY Times are more complicated. One idea would use the technology already in place of removing CO2 from the air as it passes through smokestacks, but instead of relying on smokestacks, this process would:

"[use] waste heat from a solar plant, which has no smokestack... the relatively small amount of waste heat from a solar-generating plant could do the job. They estimate that they could remove about five pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. (A coal plant emits about two pounds when it makes that much electricity.)"

How brilliant! By using the waste heat derived from producing renewable solar energy, CO2 emitted from non-renewable, dirty sources can be cleaned up from our atmosphere. This and other technologies aimed at a net reduction of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere pose the only realistic and meaningful methods for preventing global climate change. In some senses, working towards carbon-neutrality is only spinning our wheels... so to speak.

Carbon Labels

In addition to in-home gadgets that help consumers gauge energy consumption, those with an eye for carbon footprint reductions are also focusing on food miles, or the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in growing, processing and transporting foods from the source to your table. Distributers such as Tesco, in the UK, label select products with information regarding how much carbon and other greenhouse gases were emitted in the process of getting the food on the shelves in the market. According to a recent article in the Irish Independent,

"Tesco has begun putting carbon labels on around 30 of its own-brand products, ranging from vegetables, to fruit juice, to crisps and light bulbs."

It is difficult and complicated to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to producing and transporting a single green pepper, for instance. Not only must transport be considered, but also the gas emissions from fertilizer use and the energy used in cleaning, sorting, quality control, refrigeration, and display of the product must all be taken into consideration.

In the United States, we are often urged to "buy local", not only to support local farms and businesses, but also to limit the amount of energy consumed in transporting products from foreign countries to the local supermarket. In response to this seemingly green decree, I would implore consumers to think rationally before going out of their way to purchase local foods. In many cases, it may very well be more carbon intensive to drive an extra 15 minutes to whole foods or to the farmers market than it would be to shop instead at the Safeway that is within walking distance or a 5 minute drive. The aggregate of millions of consumers driving 15 minutes to the farmers market, plus the energy expended by farmers driving between rural farms and farmers markets, would likely add up to far more carbon expended than if those millions of people drove 1/3 of the way to purchase produce that had been shipped en masse via boat, truck or plane, even from another country.

Ultimately, carbon labels are a great way to educate consumers about the implications of their purchases, and also to provide consumers with a way to make environmentally conscious decisions about how they wield their buying power.

Carbon Gadgets

A recent article in the New York Times emphasized the importance of connecting people with their carbon footprints. There are very few Americans who could actually tell you how much electricity they use in one day, or how many tons of carbon they emit during a year, even just from driving or flying. Unfortunately, human nature generally follows this old adage to a tee: "ignorance is bliss". When we are not directly confronted with the results or magnitude of our actions, we tend to have no trouble shrugging off any moral qualms or ethical baggage associated with those actions.

One way to make people aware of their CO2 emissions is to create gadgets that calculate how much energy a person is using, or how "good or bad" one's carbon footprint is. The Ambient Orb and the Wattson are two devices that people can install in their homes, and which glow in different colors depending upon how much energy the home is using at any given time. According to John Tierny's NY Times article,

"utility customers in California [using the Ambient Orb]... promptly reduced their usage by 40 percent when the ball glowed red in peak periods."

For a society that is constantly searching for new gadgets, this sort of technology seems to have a lot of potential. Not only do Americans love new toys and new ways to strive toward small self-improvement goals, this technology also may also create an inroad for moral awareness of climate change into the American psyche. Recognition of one's contributions to this global problem is the first step toward taking responsibility for it and implementing changes.

EU policy goals and U.S. values

To follow up on the outcome of the meetings of the EU last week, I turned to the Presidency Conclusions, published by the Council of the European Union on march 14. In the Climate Change and Energy section, I found a summary of the goals and assessments made during the summit. In a nutshell, the EU hopes to agree on a package of proposals "before the end of 2008 [to] allow for their adoption within the current legislative term, at the latest early in 2009." As far as creating a new kyoto... "The objective is to secure an ambitious, global and comprehensive post-2012 agreement on climate change at Copenhagen in 2009 consistent with the EU's 2°C objective."

I was particularly interested in how the EU plans to ease its member countries into the transition to a low carbon economy, as fear of this transition has seemed to be a major impediment to action on reducing carbon emissions in the United States. According to the report, the EU has identified the main challenges of the transition to be maintaining: "sustainable development, competitiveness, security of supply, food security, sound and sustainable public finance and economic and social cohesion."

To address these challenges, and the effects they will have on the economy, politics and citizens, the EU compiled a list of policy goals:

• developing coherent R&D and innovation policies at European and national levels;
• unlocking the business potential of eco-industries and developing a sustainable
industrial policy and sustainable and globally competitive lead markets, while taking into account the impact of Energy and Climate Change measures on competitiveness;
• promoting a sustainable transport system which allows Member States, in the
framework of EU policies, to take necessary measures to combat climate change
effectively;
• considering a review of the Energy Taxation Directive to bring it more closely into line with the EU's energy and climate change objectives;
• improving energy and resource efficiency in all sectors;
• informing the consumer about the efficient use of energy in order to tackle social
impacts and opportunities of Energy and Climate Change.

Of these goals, those which speak most powerfully to me are: "unlocking the business potential of eco-industries" and "informing the consumer about energy use and opportunities of Energy and Climate Change". I think that once these two key components are identified on a national scale, then the rest will follow.

To clarify, however, I think that (at least in the U.S.) the consumer needs to be informed not only about efficient energy use, but first and foremost, the consumer must be able to identify with some deeper impetus for making life-style changes to stop global warming. Even after a consumer is acquainted with the potential opportunities for economic development (inherent in transferring to a low carbon economy), they may still, out of inertia, not change their habits. In order to change their habits, they must first identify with some value associated with a low carbon economy (think Shellenberger and Nordhaus). Perhaps there has already been a shift in values in the European Union, whereby consumers are ready to take risks (and maybe even make sacrifices) for reducing total carbon emissions. In the United States, however, this formidable barrier must still be crossed before we can begin to realistically consider policy options like those listed above.

how the EU can make emission caps effective

The previous post made mention of the summit taking place this week in the European Union to create a comprehensive cap-and-trade package for member countries. According to a news story yesterday in Reuters, the EU sees more value (in terms of preventing anthropogenic climate change) in a cap-and-trade system than in offsetting carbon emissions:

"If developing countries continue to be only offset suppliers we simply will not reach (desired) emissions levels," the Commission's Head of Emissions Trading, Yvon Slingenberg, told a carbon market conference in Copenhagen."We need a re-think. (Emissions cuts) would become more the contributions of developing nations," she told reporters. "(We want) a gradual shift from offsetting to cap and trade."

Aside from serious implications for the growing carbon market, the shift from carbon offsets to cap and trade still calls for control on leakage, as outlined in the previous post on this blog. The primary goal of the EU is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow and ultimately stop climate change (global warming). However, it is no less important to minimize the potential problems of leakage and reduced competitiveness of EU industries. To these ends, the summit this week will seek ways to globalize the impacts of their program.

According to The Canadian Press, one of the ways in which this will be accomplished is for EU countries to impose trade and other sanctions on both industrializing and industrialized countries who refuse to sign on to a new international accord to cut greenhouse gas emissions (the new Kyoto). Wake up, U.S.A., they mean us. The United States has traditionally been a world leader in matters of stewardship for human rights and security, but in the case of human-induced climate change (perhaps the #1 threat to global security), we have done nothing but drag our feet, arguing about the validity of the science to buy time for inaction. I applaud the European Union, and I hope they are not afraid to stand up to us in order to finally get us to change our ways. Through the use of sanctions, the EU will not only solve the problems of leakage and competitiveness, but it may also succeed in spurring the U.S., China, and other emissions giants into reducing their output of greenhouse gases.

leakage

The idea of leakage has arisen in a few of my blog postings, so I thought it would be a good idea to examine the meaning of this term. On February 25, I listed a few measures which must be taken in order to validate carbon offsets. One of these is that the seller of the offset must provide "evidence for no increase in emissions elsewhere as a result of project". In a nutshell, this explains the issue of leakage.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report, from 2001, gives a clear description of leakage in the mitigation section of the report:

"Leakage refers to the situation in which a carbon sequestration activity (e.g., tree planting) on one piece of land inadvertently, directly or indirectly, triggers an activity which, in whole or part, counteracts the carbon effects of the initial activity. It can be shown that most of these types of problems arise from differential treatment of carbon in different regions and circumstances, and the problem is not unique to carbon sequestration activities but pervades carbon mitigation activities in the energy sector as well."

A simple example of leakage, provided by the report, is when a piece of land or wetland set aside for preservation results in a different piece of land being cleared instead. A more complex instance of leakage can arise when carbon forests are paid for timber and carbon credits, but industrial forests are only paid for wood production, and not for carbon credits. In this scenario, timber companies may invest less in new forests, in anticipation of future timber production from carbon forests. Some of the carbon credits gained from carbon forests would therefore be nullified by the reduction in new forest planting by the timber industry. According to the IPCC's 2001 report:

"Leakage from industrial forests, resulting from forests established for carbon purposes, has been estimated by Sohngen and Sedjo (1999) to be about 40%, globally, assuming that all carbon forests are made available to the timber market."

The report suggests that national caps on total emissions would help alleviate the problem of leakage within national boundaries. In order to resolve the problem of leakage between nations, however, global caps would have to be implemented. This week, members of the European Union are meeting to discuss just such a system. They are working on the implementation of a cap-and-trade package which would require industrial emissions to be cut by 20% by the year 2020. Some have expressed concerns that capping industrial emissions in European countries will simply drive industries to countries outside of the EU. The resulting leakage would not only make industrial emissions caps ineffective in terms of reducing global atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, but it would also penalize those industries adhering to emissions caps within the EU. According to an article published yesterday in The Canadian Press:

"To prevent such "carbon leakage," the EU will insist on an international emissions plan to make the fight against climate change truly global and to create a level playing field for industries worldwide. The EU has said its emission system can easily be linked to a global network of pollution auctioning rights."

More about how the EU will impose and enforce an international emissions plan in the next post...

the role of the climate scientist

On Thursday, I listened to Jim White give the 'keynote address' to an international group of scientists in Boulder for the annual Arctic Workshop. The workshop was held at INSTAAR this year, and, given the extreme sensitivity of polar regions to climate perturbations, many of the talks and posters featured work related to global warming. Jim's talk was titled 'IPY: not just a year, it's a responsibility'. Most readers are probably scratching their heads right now, thinking... IPY? This year is the International Polar Year, a year of conferences and public outreach aimed at raising awareness of the importance and vulnerability of polar regions in the face of impending climate change.

Jim's talk was aimed at long-time friends and colleagues in the tightly-knit arctic research community, and, as such, it was not simply a recap of the science, challenges, and potential solutions to the global warming threat. It was more along the lines of a call-to-arms to those people who have the greatest potential to instigate public and political action to stop global warming. Scientists, particularly climate scientists, have a unique role to play right now. Those who understand our climate have the responsibility to step up and explain the science, clarify the role of uncertainty, and advocate for large-scale changes to be made so that we won't have to face the catastrophes and surprises that will inevitably come to pass when atmospheric CO2 reaches 500ppm... 600ppm... 800ppm... and it won't take much to reach those levels...

carbon karma on sale now... terminal B... next to Chili's

I flew out of Denver International Airport this weekend, and remembered having heard that DIA was planning on setting up vending stations for carbon offsets in its terminals. Intrigued by the idea of a Carbon Footprint Slimming Station alongside the Dunkin' Donuts, the Taco Bell, and the Snack and News Stand, I did a little research to find out if this is actually DIA's intent. In a recent article in the Rocky Mountain News, I found that, yes indeed, by August of this year, there will be vending machines of this nature in the airport. The plan is to offer folks the option to buy offsets (likely in the form of reforestation in Brazil and solar panels in India) equal to the emissions incurred during their air travels.

Upon initial consideration, it seems like a decent idea- for those of us who feel guilty flying, it's an option to redeem ourselves and relieve any bad carbon karma. But in reality, is this a sound and ethical solution to the problem of CO2 in the atmosphere? Here we are, creating new technologies and new marketing schemes (yes, marketing schemes... DIA will take up to a 14% cut of all sales of carbon offsets in its terminals) to address a problem that cannot be solved by offsets in the long run. Even if we could perfect our ability to quantify the balance between carbon drawn down or precluded from emission by reforestation and solar, versus the carbon emitted by one person's decision to fly in an airplane, we still would only be achieving carbon neutrality. At some point, we are going to have to change our habits and begin cutting back on energy-expensive activities, or find clean alternative means to the ends we seek.

On another note, I am disturbed by the public reaction to this issue; the comments posted on the Rocky Mountain News website in response to this article express nothing but distrust of the players in the carbon market and scorn for the so-called "suckers" who would purchase offsets equivalent to their travel emissions. It is scary to think that the general public may have absolutely no intention of pursuing this option, but I can certainly understand why consumers would be critical or suspicious of the idea. For one thing, people have trouble buying into the idea that buying solar panels for the other side of the world could possibly have any positive benefits for the American traveler. Wouldn't it be a far more marketable and effective (and, frankly, believable) idea to use money earned by offset sales to install solar panels on the roof of the airport itself? Or to invest in wind farms at least in the same state? I can also see why people would be cynical of a "big-corporate-airport-owner's" sales ploy to save the world... especially when DIA is taking a cut of would-be offset money for their own 'administrative' uses.

more about trees...

Thanks to Chuck, for posting a question about the February 25 entry. His question was: "Do tree-based carbon offsets work off of predicted future growth, or actual real time growth?"

To investigate this question, I turned, of course, to the world wide web. After a good surfing session, the only thing I can come up with is that methods for calculating offsets can vary from company to company. Terrapass, a popular seller of other types of carbon offsets, suggests that the most common way that companies market carbon offsets from reforestation is by advertising sequestration rates of 40 year old trees. There is an obvious problem with this ploy, given the fact that saplings and young trees don't sequester nearly as much carbon as a 40 year old tree. This is just one of the reasons cited by Terrapass for not using this method of carbon sequestration. Other reasons they list are: sales of offsets for reforestation make the hefty assumption that the forest will be permanent, and that the trees won't die or burn, also it is difficult to measure the amount of carbon offset by tree planting, thirdly leakage can occur (see 2/25 post), fourth there is some evidence that forests decrease the earth's albedo (reflectivity) enhancing global warming, fifth monoculture has its own host of issues, and the list goes on. Of course, Terrapass's website may be biased since they don't actually offer this sort of offset, but the opinions and ideas expressed are echoed all over the scientific community.

Whereas selling carbon offsets for tree planting is relatively laissez-faire in the market at large, there are more stringent rules if you wish to register your offsets in some official context. One example is the Wisconsin Emission Reduction Registry, a service of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The DNR website offers an explanation of and access to a spreadsheet that anyone can use to calculate the offsets produced by planting a given number of a variety of different types of trees. They also outline a set of rules that must be adhered to if one wants to register voluntary offsets in the state of Wisconsin. These comprehensive guidelines require the budding offsetter to determine the baseline (I'm assuming this means starting conditions of carbon flux on the land to be reforested), quantify their offsets using the aforementioned spreadsheet, verify their offsets, and keep close records of the activity.

By including calculations for tree classification, tree age, growth rate and survival rate, users of the DNR's spreadsheet can determine total carbon sequestered over time as well as individual year carbon sequestration amounts. The Wisconsin Emission Reduction Registry does not allow for aggregation of carbon sequestered over a number of years, however, if emissions can be accurately calculated, then the carbon sequestered by a given tree in a given year can be considered an offset for that year. For instance, the carbon sequestered in 2008 by 4-year-old tree counts for equivalent offsets in the year 2008, but you can't also consider the tree's total life-time carbon sequestration. At least, that's how I understand it.

At any rate, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a universally mandated procedure for calculating the carbon offsets for planting trees, unless you wish to register your offset with a group like the Wisconsin Emission Reduction Registry. Until there are stricter regulations, I don't view this method as either very reliable or effective. It is wonderful to plant trees, and there are a host of positive environmental contributions associated with restoring native forests to deforested lands. I am suspicious of this activity, however, in terms of its efficacy in offsetting the CO2 spewing out of my tailpipe.

Cow Power

There are various new carbon offset projects being undertaken that focus on harnessing agriculturally produced methane through anaerobic digestion. Three of the most promising methods are covered lagoons, plug-flow, and complete-mix digester systems, according to the National Carbon Offset Coalition. Bacteria will produce methane from manure whether or not it occurs in an open field or in an anaerobic digester, but when it is in a digester, it can accomplish two important goals. First, it provides a source of renewable energy, which can be used to run turbines or generators for energy production, or it can be burned in boilers to produce heat. The second, and perhaps even more important goal, is that it keeps methane, an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, from entering the atmosphere.

Methane is produced from manure via a chain of reactions driven by bacteria, as is illustrated below by a simple flow chart from wikipedia. First, bacteria break down the large organic molecules in manure into sugars, fatty acids and amino acids through a process called hydrolysis. Methanogens (or, methane-producing bacteria) can eat these components, or they can be further broken down by acidogenic bacteria in the process of fermentation. The products of fermentation (carbonic acids and alcohols, hydrogen, carbon dioxide and ammonia) can then be broken down into hydrogen, carbon dioxide and acetic acid by acetogens. Finally, methanogens create methane, carbon dioxide and water out of the final remaining components.


(CLICK on the flow chart to make it BIGGER)

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources gives a good overview of the three main ways harnessing methane through anaerobic digestion. The first is the covered lagoon system, where waste manure from farm animals (cows, pigs, etc.) is stored in an above-ground lagoon, which is covered by impermeable tarps and sealed at the edges. A pipe runs under the cover to collect the biogas that is created through anaerobic digestion, and send it to generators or boilers.

The second method is the plug-flow digester system. Manure and water (to maintain the proper consistency) are added to a mixing tank, or plug, which is stored below-ground. The tank is sometimes heated (with energy produced by the tank itself!) in order to speed up production of biogas, which is then driven out, either via a pump or the pressure built up by gas production, into a pipeline to be sent to a generator or boiler.

The third way of harnessing methane from manure is called the complete-mix digester system. In the complete-mix system, manure is collected in an above-ground tank (or below-ground in colder regions). The manure is heated in this tank, to begin the anaerobic process, before being pumped into a reactor tank, where it is mechanically mixed to keep the solids separated from the liquids. As biogas accumulates, it is pumped away for use, and the left-over solids can be used as fertilizer.

The Iowa DNR estimates that manure-derived methane from Iowa, if harnessed, has the potential to fulfill all of the power needs for 325, 000 homes. For this to happen, however, the price of installing and managing anaerobic methane digesters will need to decrease. According to the DNR, installation of a new system costs between about $300,000 and $500,000, which is a substantial cost to farm-owners. Perhaps in the future, as prices fall and demand increases, this renewable energy source will become a reality for more farmers.

FTC and carbon offsets

Currently the carbon offset market functions on an entirely voluntary basis. Even so, it is growing at an incredible rate. According to the August, 2007 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report by New Carbon Finance, a carbon market analyst and advisory firm, the number of organizations selling carbon credits into the marked has increased by 200% since 2002. In 2006, some 23.7 million tons of CO2 equivalent were traded in the voluntary markets. There are various ways to quantify carbon offsets, and there is also uncertainty about the efficacy of different methods. For this reason, and amid growing concerns that consumers are actually getting what they pay for and that offset projects aren't double-selling credits, the Federal Trade Commission has been looking into ways to regulate the market. The FTC held a conference in early January to discuss these issues, but so far, no new 'green guides' have come out.

In an effort to press the issue, the Attorney General's Offices from 10 states issued a request for the FTC to take the following steps in hopes of preventing fraud in the carbon market: 1) research on consumer perceptions of what carbon offsets are, 2) commission research into the efficacy of disclosure, or labeling (the AG's suggest putting a "carbon facts" box on marketing materials), 3) consumer education encouraging reduction of emissions, and guidelines for purchasing offsets, 4) require substantiation of projects, including evidence for permanence of projects, no double-selling of offsets, no selling offsets for projects that are undertaken for compliance with existing laws, evidence for no increase in emissions elsewhere as a result of project, and scientific evidence for the quantity of carbon offset (scientific evidence, as defined in the FTC's green guides). A statement and a copy of the letter can be found at the Vermont Attorney General's Office website.

Carbon offsetting is growing into a multi-million dollar market, and as such, it is in desperate need of regulation. As mentioned above, quantifying and verifying offsets is sticky business. For example, planting trees is a common carbon offset mechanism. Reforesting areas that were previously subjected to deforestation is one way to draw down atmospheric CO2 through photosynthesis by trees. The problem is that if that tree burns or dies and decomposes, the CO2 it once took out of the atmosphere is put back into the air. Another potentially negative implication of this practice is for biodiversity. Some tree plantations are being planned for areas that have never naturally had forests. Also, many plantations are only reforested with one type of tree for potential future use in logging or biodiesel production, and these monoculture tree farms can have serious impacts on biodiveristy.

Let's hope the FTC gets down to business and provides the carbon market with some rules and regulations as well as providing consumers with guidelines to navigate this complex arena.

Green Freedom

Here's a new idea (at least to me): why don't we sequester CO2 emissions right back into the form of gasoline and pump it into our cars and airplanes? This is the line of research being pursued right now at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Scientists there are pursuing the relatively simple concept that CO2 can be chemically absorbed from the air, using liquid potassium carbonate, for later conversion to synthetic gasoline. The chemical reaction involved is: (CO2 + CO3 +H2O -> 2HCO3), where CO3 comes from potassium carbonate (K2CO3).

While this technology has been explored in the past, the scientists at LANL claim that they have finally figured out a way to make CO2-scrubbing energy efficient enough to be carbon neutral and to produce competitive prices at the pump. The only glitch? The processing plants that would capture/convert CO2 to synthetic gasoline require a significant energy input. In order to maintain the carbon neutrality that makes this process so appealing, LANL scientists suggest nuclear energy. They tout nuclear as being the most cost effective at this point, although in the future, perhaps renewables (such as wind and solar) will be able to take up the slack. LANL has figured that with an initial investment of $5 billion in a nuclear plant, they can generate prices of between $3.40 and $4.60 at the pump.

This is certainly an interesting avenue for our country to be pursuing; leave it to Americans to find an economical and 'carbon neutral' way to keep plugging along at the status quo emissions-wise. I am somewhat skeptical, however, of the feasibility of this project. It seems unlikely that sucking air into towers attached to geographically dispersed production plants could actually have any effect on the overall concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. Also, what about the other toxins spewed from the tailpipes of our cars and trucks? Perhaps this will be a viable solution for some technologies (jetliners, for example), but I think we're barking up the wrong tree as far as cars are concerned. Internal combustion engines are extremely inefficient machines, and I think that the most viable solution to this problem is to switch to fuel cell or battery-powered cars that we can plug into a grid powered with an integrated system of renewable energy sources. For airplanes this is not yet a reality; perhaps LANL's innovative ideas will effectively neutralize the carbon input/output of jetliners by powering them instead with synthetic gasoline.

Jeffery Martin, the principal investigator on the project will be presenting LANL's ideas tomorrow (February 20, 2008) at the Alternative Energy NOW conference in Florida. For more information, check out the official public release on Green Freedom from LANL. Also, running the search "Green Freedom" on the LANL site will yield access to some good pdf's detailing the science behind this technology.

the ecopsychologist

Another interesting character in the complicated realm of carbon emissions (and, more importantly, what to do with them) is that of the ecopsychologist. In a nutshell, the new and growing branch of ecopsychology deals with existential issues arising out of the human race's separation from nature. As humans' cultural evolution has outpaced that of the natural world, we tend to find ourselves (especially in America) substantially separated from the earth's complex network of ecosystem interactions. Humans suffer from this separation not only because of our loss of a connection with nature, but also because of the moral dilemmas which stem from the cause and effect relationship between our consumption and the destruction of natural resources and biodiversity.

So what sort of cure might be prescribed to a distraught earth inhabitant, reclining in despair on an ecopsychologist's couch? You guessed it-- the Rx of the 21st century is to start chipping away at the old carbon footprint. Of course, this is just one of the ways in which a person ailing from the ethical woes of an over-consumer or global-warming-catalyst can calm their karmic disquietudes, but it is one that is rising in popularity. Take the McLendon family, for example; two days ago this family was covered by the NY Times for their unique response to family therapy sessions. Instead of prozac or continued therapy, this family was advised to retrofit their house to be more green, and to take their kids outside more for play time and community service. The go-to source for those interested in this brave new foray into the ever more complicated American psyche is Ecopsychology.org. Here you can find literature, events, and lists of practitioners- there may be an eco-doc in your hometown, especially for those in (here's a shocker) California.

sequestration?

To continue our brief overview of what carbon offsetting and carbon sequestration are, let's focus on the latter. New technology and ideas focused on carbon sequestration are aimed, in a general sense, at pulling CO2 out of our atmosphere. Whether by enhancing natural sinks, or by creating new sinks, the idea is to draw down this greenhouse gas or trap it at its source, and then sequester it, or isolate it from the atmosphere.

The website of the Department of Defense's Office of Science provides an overview of the technologies that currently exist or are being developed to sequester carbon. One idea, already being tried at one coal-fired power plant in West Virginia, is to trap carbon before it is emitted into the atmosphere and to store it underground, typically in empty oil reservoirs. A New York Times article about this plant describes the process: as CO2 passes through the flue, chilled ammonia traps it and compresses it into liquid form so that it can be injected some 9,000 feet below the surface of the earth.

The second major realm of sequestration technologies is enhancement of natural sinks on land. The projects focus mainly (as I understand them) on enhancing photosynthesis and carbon fixation, conversion of carbon into organic matter, reducing re-emission of CO2 through respiration, and increasing primary productivity in degraded lands and deserts. Examples include forest harvesting and pasture management (storage of CO2 in the soils of pasture lands).

A third focus area is on carbon sequestration in the ocean, as earth's oceans naturally represent about half of the world's atmospheric CO2 sink. Current proposed projects include fertilizing the ocean with limiting nutrients to enhance primary productivity and direct injection of CO2 into the deep ocean (1000m+). Great uncertainty surrounds both of these methods both in terms of effectiveness and environmental implications.

A final idea proposed on the DOE website is that of sequencing the genomes of microbes that generate or ingest carbon compounds. The DOE suggests that with greater understanding of the genetic pathways which allow organisms to manipulate carbon, we may some day be able to develop a microbial carbon sink, possibly one that converts methane to hydrogen.

So.... what's an offset?

To get this blog started, I thought it would be best to begin by reviewing what carbon offsetting and carbon sequestration are... we'll start with carbon offsets: how does it work? why is it important? who are the key players?

First, Why? The purpose of this blog is not to delve into explanations or philosophical discussions of what global warming is and why it is bad for our planet. Suffice it to say that human activities have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from preindustrial levels of 280 ppmv to around 380 ppmv today. Geologically speaking, this rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented. Furthermore, the Earth has not seen such high levels of atmospheric CO2 for roughly 40 million years. Carbon offsetting is a way for people to reduce their individual CO2 emissions in an attempt to slow anthropogenic global warming. In the words of carbonfund.org, the idea is to reduce what emissions you can, and offset the rest.

Second, How? What does carbon offsetting actually mean? A key idea in considering one's impact on the planet is that of the carbon footprint, or how much CO2 is emitted as a result of one's actions. For instance, driving my subaru outback 2,000 miles emits about .74 tons of CO2. This is just one of the many components of my carbon footprint; others include how I heat my home and how often I fly. Once you've calculated your carbon footprint, you can turn to a company like carbonfund.org to buy carbon offsets. When you pay for carbon offsets, you are paying for the equivalent of your energy use (using the currency of CO2 emissions) in alternative energy, energy efficiency, or carbon sequestration (for example, through reforestation). According to carbonfund.org, it would cost about $4 to offset that 2,000 mile road trip in the subie.

So, who are the main players in this seemingly simple equation of buying and selling carbon offsets? First, there are those who purchase offsets: businesses, individuals, event coordinators, organizations... the list goes on. Second, there are those who sell offsets: including groups like carbonfund.org, LiveNeutral, Terrapass, and NativeEnergy. Some groups are non profit, others are for profit. Third in the equation are those who are actually producing and developing projects to generate alternative energy, improve energy efficiency or sequester carbon. These groups can range from owners of wind farms to producers of new technology for fuel efficiency. Yet another key group are those who certify the producers of marketable offsets; they are poised to act as watch-dogs to ensure that buyers don't get 'greenwashed'. There is also a host of mediators and third parties involved in the trading of carbon credits and offsets. The final player, and one that is poised to become more involved in the near future, is the Federal Trade Commision. The F.T.C. is in charge of guidelines for environmental advertising, and there haven't been changes made to these rules since 1998. Given the myriad of new activity on this front since then, it is long past time for the F.T.C. to step in and insert a legal backbone into the carbon trading market.