Monday, 8 January 2018

So Long, Farewell.

January 08, 2018 CDR , climate change 2 Comments

Word map of words used frequently throughout my posts (Word Clouds).


Over the past months, we have explored the viability of geoengineering techniques that are receiving traction, from stratospheric aerosols to CCS. Throughout the blog, my standpoint for SRM and CDR has developed. From yes! SRM could work. To no, it tackles the disease not the cause. To CDR is better and BECCS is going to save us! to I don't really think it can... Overall, I'm feeling conflicted. I want there to be a solution but instead, this has highlighted that there is no 'silver bullet', inevitably climate change and geoengineering will force us to deploy a utilitarian view on the issue. And the moral debates ensue further.

Unfortunately, it has been impossible to cover all the techniques listed in the initial second and third posts and I have not been able to dedicate a post to moral debates, but this article explores this. I can now understand why it is difficult to reach global agreements and set genuine targets, and many considerations must be made. 

Finally, lay-persons should not feel disconnected from climate change discussions, though easy to do so. By adopting an active approach to this issue, we could collectively make a huge impact on GHG emissions and aid in meeting targets. By making a small change in your lifestyle.

Geoengineering should not be viewed as a last-ditch attempt to addressing climate change, an aggressive reduction in GHG emissions should be "Plan A", and failing to do so may leave us with no "Plan B". All geoengineering techniques are unproven to work in real-life. But, if they can be used responsibly with moral decisions considered, perhaps we can  engineer our own climate and Friedrich Nietzche will be correct:

"The time is coming when the struggle for dominion over the earth will be carried on. It will be carried on in the name of fundamental philosophical doctrines"

 .

Farewell for now. I have enjoyed this experience and hope you've learnt something new. Check out the other blogs on the sidebar to learn more about your changing environment.
- 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, 7 January 2018

A World Gone Plastic

January 07, 2018 0 Comments


Undoubtedly, climate change is one of the greatest issues facing humanity, however, this is not our only concern as shown by the nine planetary boundaries developed in 2015. Arguably climate change is something we can't solve in our lifetime. But we can address novel entities like marine plastics - a concept yet to be defined.



Marine plastics is increasingly publicised throughout social media and the news, YouTube has over 42,800 videos. The key implications of marine plastics are listed below and expanded by the IUCN:
  1. The marine environment 
  2. Food and health
  3. Climate change 
  4. Tourism

For an in-depth look at marine plastics, check out this blog and short videos below.




Before the New Year, the UNEP proposed a resolution on marine plastics and microplastics, marking a significant and genuine attempt in addressing marine litter. It builds on the voluntary #CleanSeas campaign of February 2017, which has since gained pledges from 40 countries. However, there are alarming parallels to climate change resolutions which to this day are not binding and progress is slow. a

Let's hope to eradicate marine litter by 2025!

Here are 9 ways YOU CAN reduce plastic use.

- No comments:

Saturday, 6 January 2018

YOU CAN Tackle Climate Change

January 06, 2018 climate change , solution 2 Comments
In a world where Donald Trump has continuously disregarded climate change, and coal consumption is once again #1. It is easy to feel downhearted. But, it's not all doom and gloom!  YOU CAN tackle climate change by reducing your carbon footprint.

1. Walk, Bike or use Public Transport

In 2016, the transport sector in the UK accounted for 32% of the nation's total GHG emissions. Opting for active transport like walking, cycling or using a scooter can not only drastically reduce your own carbon footprint but also save money, It's a win, win, win!

If this isn't possible using public transport can significantly reduce emissions. It is estimated that if passenger and mileage on railways were doubled, this could reduce UK transport emissions by 9%.

2. Switch Off

We are all guilty of not doing this, though the average UK household's footprint has reduced significantly, an extra 3.6 tonnes reduction from 8.1 tonnes by 2030 will ensure we reach our 80% nationwide emission target by 2050 necessary for addressing climate change.

You can help meet this by switching off your lights and devices, 4 light bulbs switched off every night can save the same amount of CO2 produced by 20 car trips from London-Paris.

3. Eat Less Meat


Here's some food for thought: livestock farming produces 20-50% of all human-induced GHG emissions, this doesn't even account for the GHGs produced for feeding, processing and transporting meat around the world.

By eating less red meat like beef and lamb you can reduce your footprint by a quarter, good for the environment, animals and your health!

4. Consume Locally Sourced Products



Cut your footprint by up to 7% by eating locally, seasonally produced food and products, as supposed to imported food! Reduce your food miles, energy used for packaging and eat your way to a smaller carbon footprint!

 .

It's important to remember that climate change is a contextual issue. It requires a multi-stakeholder approach that means we, as individuals have a responsibility and a role in ensuring we meet our climate goals, we cannot rest on our morals and assume that governments, agreements and technology can solve this issue alone. 

For more ways on how you can reduce your carbon footprint, check this article out!
- 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, 23 December 2017

Opinion Polls & Games

December 23, 2017 Geoengineering , Opinions 0 Comments



Q1. Which approach should we implement?

Solar Radiation Management (SRM)
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)
Neither, we should stop using fossil fuels and reduce emissions 
Both



Q2. Will geoengineering happen?

Yes
No 
Unsure



Q3. Will the USA re-join climate negotiations?

Yes, they should and will
No, they shouldn't and won't
Unsure




Q4. Can we solve climate change?

Yes
No
Perhaps


- No comments:
Labels: ,

Saturday, 16 December 2017

Negative emissions II: Bio-energy with CCS the Saviour

December 16, 2017 2 Comments

.

Following COP21, nations largely in Europe are exploring the viability of deploying Bio-energy with CCS (BECCS) (ie. the UK, Finland, Sweden & USA). However, this change 'saviour' just won't work!

BECCS is touted as carbon-negative but many assumptions are made. Firstly, we can produce enough biomass to replace the majority of fossil-fuel produced electricity and that these would be carbon-neutral. Advocates argue that as plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere then, burning these would not contribute to a net gain in CO2. This does not account the energy needed for growing, harvesting, processing and transporting the biomass.

Ask yourself this...

Q1.
Would you sacrifice precious land for producing biomass or for food? Especially as human population growth continues to explode towards 9.7 billion by 2050.
Q2.
Would you happily pay more for food? As competition for arable land increases.
Q3.
What is more important, retaining stores of carbon from forests or woody Savannah or producing biomass for fuel? Isn't this counterproductive?
Q4.
Should we invest time, effort and resource into BECCS when there is no evidence to suggest it will work on a large-scale?
Q5.
Do we have enough room for food and biomass production? The illustration below, certainly suggests we don't.






- 2 comments:

Saturday, 9 December 2017

Negative Emissions I: CCS A Costly, Risky Distraction?

December 09, 2017 Carbon Dioxide Removal , CDR 0 Comments
To meet targets, we must stop emitting GHGs by 2050. However scepticism around meeting the desired 1.5C is increasing, many believe this can only be achieved using CDR negative emission technologies like Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) and Bio-Energy with CCS (BECCS), mentioned in over 80% of IPCC pathways to emissions reductions.


There is increasing interest in adapting pre-existing industries. Today there are 17 fully operating CCS facilities that annually captures 31 million tonnes of CO2. Contrary to popular belief (or my ideas) OPEC countries and oil companies (example Shell, 2015), are investing in greener technologies. The Al Reyadah project is a joint venture between Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and Masdar, it's facility captures 800,000 tonnes of CO2/year from the Emirates Steel factory and sequesters captures CO2 to enhance oil recovery, (with more facilities planned to be built).

Despite, steps in the right direction, it is opposed strongly by environmental groups like Greenpeace branding CCS as a 'costly, risky distraction'. 

Problems

  1. Small-scale
    1. Only 17 fully operating CCS facilities.
    2. Little progress for large-scale deployment since 2008.
  2. High profile projects cancelled
    1. UK 2015.
    2. Norway 2013.
    3. USA 2015.
  3. Storing CO2 permanently 
    1. An oil company in Mississippi sequestered CO2 underground that created well blowouts releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, and in one case released so much, it suffocated wildlife.
  4. Costly 
    1. To meet 1.5C CCS must capture 5 gigatonnes of CO2/year from 2050-2100, costing approximately $500 billion/year. 
    2. May contaminate groundwater supplies.
  5. Morally wrong
    1. Enhancing oil recovery prolongs the use of fossil fuels.
    2. Pressure on freshwater supplies.
    3. Does not address ocean acidification and may enhance this.


The Future

Further research and innovation into negative emissions technologies may overcome major limitations of current CCS technologies. For instance, Origen Power, a by-product of heating limestone can be used to neutralise acidic waters and capture atmospheric CO2 (see video below). But, at present, this has not been implemented on a commercial scale.


TED talk: Can we stop climate change by removing CO2 from the air? (Tim Kruger, 2017).
 "All [CDR] ideas come with trade-offs, none of them are perfect, but many have potential."

Perhaps the future solution should be a mixture of CDR negative emissions technologies like CCS, alongside reductions in GHGs. CCS alone will not solve climate change, especially when there are only 17 facilities worldwide and finite sources of fossil fuels left, it's long-term sustainability is questionable. But more research and funding is required for the development of all geoengineering approaches.



Perhaps, Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), is the future for long-term sustainability of CCS. We shall see...
- No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, 2 December 2017

What the COP?

December 02, 2017 CDR , COP23 0 Comments

We need CDR geoengineering,
here's why:

The Climate-Interactive simulations developed by the Massachusetts Institute for Technology, engage the public in climate change discussions. It illustrates the challenges in negotiating a comprehensive agreement that meets 2C agreed temperature increase (COP16) and further 1.5C (COP21).


Rounds 1&2 



During the COP23 simulation, I represented India with four peers, and other members forming: The USA, EU, Other Developed Nations, Fossil Fuel Companies, China, Other Developing Nations and climate lobbyist.

I was apprehensive during the initial rounds of negotiation, it was difficult to negotiate with more developed groups than ourselves, their priorities seemed to be more important, we focused on ensuring economic growth, alleviating poverty and improving living standards in our country, but other groups didn't seem to care. After reporting our pledges, a maximum temperature increase of 2.8C was obtained, an improvement from current pledges, estimated at 3.3C by 2100. But, ultimately we were unable to agree on how to split the funds available to developing countries (India, China and other), and no agreement was made (even the USA was willing to reduce emissions!).



During round 2, all parties pledged a massive 3% reduction in deforestation, use of fossil fuels and increase in afforestation by 2050-2060. But this still did not result in a temperature increase of 2C. 

So why didn't we reach the 1.5-2C? Simply put we need(ed) to act sooner than 2050 and more drastically (fig.1). 
Fig.1 Quotes from scientists and academics in ways we can meet the agreed targets (Source: The Guardian, 2016).

Outcomes

    1. An understanding of why countries' pledge to particular targets.
    2. Allocating power to the public to challenge governments and demand more.
    3. Publicising the progress of global negotiations.

A reinforcing for need for geoengineering in tackling climate change, particularly CDR when meeting challenging pledges.  By no means should we stop aiming to stabilise GHG emissions and diversify away from fossil fuels, but this may not be enough to reverse a prolonged period of climate warming, modelled by Matthews (2006). Lastly, I highly recommend taking part in a COP23 simulation.

In the end, one person can change it all.
(for the good or for the bad, it's up to you)
- No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,