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) |
