Q1. Which approach should we implement?
Q2. Will geoengineering happen?
Q3. Will the USA re-join climate negotiations?
Q4. Can we solve climate change?
Saturday 23 December 2017
Saturday 16 December 2017
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...
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.
|
|
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.
|
 |
Saturday 9 December 2017
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
- Small-scale
- Only 17 fully operating CCS facilities.
- Little progress for large-scale deployment since 2008.
- High profile projects cancelled
- Storing CO2 permanently
- 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.
- Costly
- To meet 1.5C CCS must capture 5 gigatonnes of CO2/year from 2050-2100, costing approximately $500 billion/year.
- May contaminate groundwater supplies.
- Morally wrong
- Enhancing oil recovery prolongs the use of fossil fuels.
- Pressure on freshwater supplies.
- 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).
Perhaps, Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), is the future for long-term sustainability of CCS. We shall see...
"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.
Saturday 2 December 2017
 |
| 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
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) |
Saturday 25 November 2017
Discussions regarding geoengineering are centred around stakeholders, scientists and academics (dominates the hyperlinks used in posts). Today's post focuses on the significance of other stakeholders from the public, policymakers as well as 'expert-knowledge' in making critical decisions about geoengineering (fig.1).
 |
| Fig.1 Quote from IAGP showing why stakeholders are important in geoengineering discussions (IAGP, 2014) |
Stakeholders
The ongoing debate on how scientists and academics communicate with the public, in a meaningful and engaging manner can be emphasised, through upstream engagement (an approach originally adopted during the development of nanotechnologies and GM crops). By opening a dialogue between 'expert-knowledge' and public views. Scientific bodies (ie. NERC, IAGP), argue that this allows us to 'democratise' decision-making around geoengineering technologies so that research can continue in a responsible manner.
Upstream engagement is illustrated by the UK government funded SPICE project, a real-world experiment assessing the feasibility of stratospheric aerosol release. The two-way dialogue indicated strong support for public consultation, going on to state that other stakeholders must be involved such as the media, to inform the public and encourage engagement, as well as local governments in decision making (pg.22).
IAGP (2014) engagement concluded:
- The public to favour CDR over SRM - as they become more aware of the pitfalls of solar methods.
- Though the public largely supported geoengineering, mitigation strategies like scaling-up of renewable technologies are prioritised by the public, NGOs and policymakers.
Considerations
However, this does not mean the public views are listened to, concerning research development or policies implemented (fig.2). For instance, the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRGMI) adopted upstream engagement in developing nations in 2010. But, public views from these communities were reported to be insignificant (IAGP, 2014).
 |
| Fig.2 Screenshot from lessons for future practices of upstream engagement (NERC & Sciencewise, 2014) |
The overuse of the media in public engagement was cautioned by SPICE participants stating the risk of manipulation and even sensationalism of geoengineering. Which may have massive ramifications in geoengineering development because of 'fake news' (ie. Chemtrails conspiracy), or heavy backlash from NGOs like Greenpeace.
Policymakers also have a considerable role in geoengineering decisions. Simulations show that if SRM methods are implemented globally and interrupted (ie. terrorism/conflict), it would result in even more drastic warming than today. Present-day governance approaches to geoengineering do not address the following critical questions and are illustrated by the top-down governance of the Arctic (fig.3).
Who owns it?
Who will be responsible if things go wrong?
Who will profit from it?
 |
| Fig.3 Case study of how we could govern Arctic geoengineering (blue) existing Arctic Council (green) new international organisation based on Keith et al. (2010) and critiqued and sourced from Parthasarathy et al. (2010) |
Conclusions
Including public, NGOs and policymaker views into decision-making about emerging geoengineering technologies are important, ensuring development occurs responsibly and considers the ethical, societal and unknown implications of the technology, in the early stages of development. However, views from 'non-technical' individuals may not necessarily be listened to over 'expert-knowledge', but this does not mean they should not get involved. The public can lobby or support current geoengineering developments shaping how it is governed in a sustainable way.
.
Climate change is an all-encompassing issue, that will affect us all.
Saturday 18 November 2017
The past
Vostok ice core records demonstrate a correspondence between temperature fluctuations and levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. A sawtooth pattern of temperature ranges (+2 to -9o C), concentrations of CO2 (280 to 190ppm), and methane (0.78 to 0.32ppm) from 160,000-year records. A consequence of the Earth's orbit and for the absorption of CO2 from vegetation and weathering (fig.1).
 |
Fig.1 Fluctuating temperature, methane and atmospheric CO2 concentrations from air samples in ice cores taken from the Antarctic (adaptations of Sowers and Bender, 1995; Blunier et al. 1997; Fischer et al. 1999 & Petit et al. 1999).
|
What isn't shown in Fig.1 is the rapid present day increases in GHGs, particularly CO2. Professor Tim Lenton states, that plants significantly reduce atmospheric CO2, cooling the planet, but this is inhibited by the rate of anthropogenic-induced GHGs. Natural sequestering cannot keep up with the rate of burning woodlands, fossil fuel processing and peatlands that release stored CO2 and methane (86 times greater than the warming potential of CO2), amplifying warming (fig.2).
- For the interests climate sceptics that argue that CO2 increases lag whilst temperature rises over Antarctica please watch this video.
 |
Fig. 2 Illustration of two positive feedbacks as a result of warming temperatures in the Arctic. A negative feedback would be a cooling in temperature ie. promoting sea ice extent, increasing albedo, radiation reflected and hydroxyl production.
The present |
Over recent years the Arctic has become less ice-solated, the body Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA), reported that over the past three decades the total area of sea ice in the Arctic has declined by more than half, also predicting that by 2040 the Arctic will be free of sea ice during summer, 30 years earlier than previous estimations.
Global populations would have to be carbon zero by 2035 if we want to avoid Arctic melting. - Dr Hugh Hunt
There is a growing consensus that geoengineering is necessary. Historical records suggest we may have passed the 'carbon tipping-point', accelerating unprecedented warming that isn't solved by stabilising and/or reducing GHGs emissions. SRM may, therefore, have a role to play.
Though SRM does not tackle atmospheric CO2 concentrations, multiple studies indicate SRM's massive cooling potential, that may reduce warming and in turn, reduce the impacts on biodiversity in tundra biomes. Supported by Applegate & Keller (2015), who state stratospheric aerosol stimulation mitigates the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, aiding the growth in sea ice and more importantly thickness during summer. It could, in theory, do the same for the Arctic.
Astrophysicist Steven Desch et al. (2017), proposed that wind turbines on the Arctic sea ice that pump water from below onto the surface, to thicken the sea ice during winter so that in summer ,sea ice does not retreat to the same extent. Simulations suggest that turbines covering 10% of the Arctic ice would result in a meter of thickening per year. And if implemented over the entire Arctic by 2030 a year of adding a meter of ice would revert the Arctic back to present day volume and size. But this simple idea is plagued with issues surrounding:
- Freezing seawater and promoting growth of old ice and not new.
- Estimated cost of $500 billion (£400 billion).
- Logistics of shipping 10 million wind turbine pumps and individual weight of 10 tonnes of steel.
It is important to understand that SRM albedo modification is not a new concept. These approaches are often not as extreme, large in scale or as effective as the construction of solar reflectors or releasing aerosols. But they seem to be working, with minimal negative effects after implementation (Fig.3).
Fig.3 Screenshot of examples of small-scale SRM methods being applied in real life Ming et al. (2014).
Source: Save the Arctic illustration.
The future
The imbalance between winners and losers, and the unforeseen consequences of environmental and governance issues, means SRM, cannot be used exclusively. Dr Hugh Hunt, states SRM is required if we urgently need to slow melting in the Arctic. But if we are too late and Arctic permafrost starts to thaw then we will need to implement other means to capture billions of tonnes of atmospheric methane released. The debate still exists concerning which geoengineering approach is better SRM or CDR? Conclusions are blurred, and perhaps policy makers, scientists and societies need to consider a diverse approach to tackling climate change.
Though SRM does not tackle atmospheric CO2 concentrations, multiple studies indicate SRM's massive cooling potential, that may reduce warming and in turn, reduce the impacts on biodiversity in tundra biomes. Supported by Applegate & Keller (2015), who state stratospheric aerosol stimulation mitigates the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, aiding the growth in sea ice and more importantly thickness during summer. It could, in theory, do the same for the Arctic.
Astrophysicist Steven Desch et al. (2017), proposed that wind turbines on the Arctic sea ice that pump water from below onto the surface, to thicken the sea ice during winter so that in summer ,sea ice does not retreat to the same extent. Simulations suggest that turbines covering 10% of the Arctic ice would result in a meter of thickening per year. And if implemented over the entire Arctic by 2030 a year of adding a meter of ice would revert the Arctic back to present day volume and size. But this simple idea is plagued with issues surrounding:
Astrophysicist Steven Desch et al. (2017), proposed that wind turbines on the Arctic sea ice that pump water from below onto the surface, to thicken the sea ice during winter so that in summer ,sea ice does not retreat to the same extent. Simulations suggest that turbines covering 10% of the Arctic ice would result in a meter of thickening per year. And if implemented over the entire Arctic by 2030 a year of adding a meter of ice would revert the Arctic back to present day volume and size. But this simple idea is plagued with issues surrounding:
- Freezing seawater and promoting growth of old ice and not new.
- Estimated cost of $500 billion (£400 billion).
- Logistics of shipping 10 million wind turbine pumps and individual weight of 10 tonnes of steel.
It is important to understand that SRM albedo modification is not a new concept. These approaches are often not as extreme, large in scale or as effective as the construction of solar reflectors or releasing aerosols. But they seem to be working, with minimal negative effects after implementation (Fig.3).
 |
| Fig.3 Screenshot of examples of small-scale SRM methods being applied in real life Ming et al. (2014). |
|
| Source: Save the Arctic illustration. |
The future
The imbalance between winners and losers, and the unforeseen consequences of environmental and governance issues, means SRM, cannot be used exclusively. Dr Hugh Hunt, states SRM is required if we urgently need to slow melting in the Arctic. But if we are too late and Arctic permafrost starts to thaw then we will need to implement other means to capture billions of tonnes of atmospheric methane released. The debate still exists concerning which geoengineering approach is better SRM or CDR? Conclusions are blurred, and perhaps policy makers, scientists and societies need to consider a diverse approach to tackling climate change.
