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.