Archive for the ‘climate change’ Category

Peak coal looming?

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

Unlike the high concern over peak oil, discussions about peak coal have tend to produce less energy, so to speak. This might change with a new study that adds weight to the idea that global peak coal will happen sooner rather than later, and this should make coal reserves a bigger consideration in today’s decisions about climate change and energy security.

The study says peak coal will happen next year or near to it, and studies and policies based on assumptions about centuries worth of coal remaining available are flawed. For instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has incorrectly assumed 100 years of increasing carbon dioxide emissions under business-as-usual scenarios, according to the study’s authors.

At the same time, the study’s lead author, Tad Patzek, said in a press release that carbon sequestration efforts are misguided:

“The current global hysteria around carbon capture and sequestration is leading to desperately poor government policies,” says Patzek. “For instance, large-scale subsurface sequestration of CO2 will decrease power plant efficiency by up to 50 percent. The same resources could be spent more wisely on increasing U.S. coal-fired power plant efficiency by 50 percent from the current 32 percent.”

Making coal-fired power plants emit less carbon may be a better route than trying to capture some of the carbon they produce, but this is arguing at the margins of the larger problem. We’ve already emitted enough carbon dioxide to assure nasty climate change effects. We need to drastically reduce emissions rather than simply slow their growth.

The notion that peak coal is just around the corner complicates efforts to model climate change. But it doesn’t change the problem we face or the stark choices we’re left to consider.

Peak coal will increase the cost of coal over time, but it’s not likely to do so sharply enough for soon enough to substitute for a price on carbon emissions. And growing energy demand could easily lead governments to find ways to increase coal subsidies.

From an energy security perspective — if nothing else — peak coal should spur us on to kick the carbon habit (no, it won’t be easy; yes, there will be pain). I worry when, instead, people talk about devoting resources to getting the most out of the fossil fuels we have left.

Community Remote Sensing

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Community Remote Sensing is a neat variation on the potential of citizen science to help track climate change. It melds citizen science with remote sensing (e.g. satellites).

The idea is to use data collected by people to augment or fill in the gaps in data collected by satellites and other remote sensing technologies. The data can be reported directly, harvested from social networks, collected by sensors on cars, homes, phones, etc.

Here’s an article on the subject. Here’s a previous post on citizen science and climate change.

Fossil fuel subsidies by the numbers

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

The International Energy Agency has fossil fuel subsidies in its sights. The agency’s report The World Energy Outlook 2010, due out November 9, will include a special focus on the subject.

The agency released preliminary highlights showing that worldwide fossil fuel subsidies are higher than previously thought. They rose from $342 billion in 2007 to to $557 billion in 2008.

The highlights also include some of the benefits of cutting those subsidies. Here’s an excerpt:

Compared with a baseline in which subsidy rates remain unchanged, IEA modelling indicates that phase out between 2011 and 2020 would:
§ Cut primary global energy demand by 5.8% by 2020. This is equivalent to the current energy consumption of Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand combined.
§ Cut global oil demand by 6.5 mb/d in 2020, predominately in transport sector. This is around one third of current US oil demand.
§ Reduce CO2 emissions by 6.9% by 2020 – or 2.4 GT of CO2. This is equivalent to the current emissions of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK combined.

Charts and graphs from the preliminary report are here.

A call for scientists to call on citizens

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

A research paper in tomorrow’s Science shows that higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide inhibit plants’ ability to take up nitrogen from the soil. This counteracts much of the boost plants get from breathing more carbon dioxide, and it could pose a threat to agriculture.

What flashed in my mind when I saw the paper was that I’d like to find a way to track changes in the Community Supported Agriculture farm I belong to. I’ve been a member for more than a decade and I’m likely to remain so for years to come. Maybe I could contribute to climate change science by collecting data. But there are several problems: I don’t know what data to collect or how to collect it, and I don’t know who to collect it for.

Citizen science, the idea of ordinary citizens contributing to science, could be especially helpful for monitoring the effects of climate change. People are everywhere, and they usually have the means of communicating what they observe.

A research paper in the April 6, 2007 Science is a good example of the potential of citizen science. The paper showed that the length of the fungi fruiting season in southern England more than doubled in the last half century due to warmer summers and wetter autumns. The data for the paper — more than 55,000 records — was collected between 1950 and 2005 by a nonscientist.

Scientist and writer Aaron E. Hirsh wrote an essay in the New York Times in 2009 that called for greater citizen participation in science. He singled out climate change:

“Widespread networks of observers are especially well-suited to detecting global change — shifts in weather patterns; movements in the ranges of species; large-scale transformations of eco-systems…”

Hirsh wrote the essay before a series of stolen e-mails touched off the recent media storm that has hurt climate scientists’ standing with the public, but it could hold the key to repairing the damage and preventing similar events in the future. As Hersh put it:

“What may be most important about Citizen Science is what it could mean for the relationship between citizens and science. When everyone is gathering data, that rather austere and forbidding tower becomes a shared human pursuit.”

An example of climate change citizen science is Project BudBurst, which taps the public to collect data about the timing of leafing and flowering.

I’d like to see more scientists develop how-to kits for citizens. Online tools should make developing and promoting citizen science fairly straightforward. Websites with how-to videos and forms for recording data are well within the means of most researchers.

Social media could be useful for matching citizens with science projects. The data collector in the fungi study was the lead author’s father. The key is making it easy for people without connections in the world of science to contribute.

A few questions: how do we expand citizen science beyond visual observations of plants and animals? For example, are there ways citizens can contribute to monitoring the hydrological cycle, say by collecting data on soil moisture? What about collecting and transporting samples?

I imagine a network of laboratories that cooperate by analyzing locally-collected samples and making the results available to researchers around the world. If that were to materialize, it would be no sweat for me to swing by a nearby university to drop off samples on my way home from picking up the vegetables.

Climate and energy bill goes public

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

The American Power Act made its debut today. The climate and energy bill was introduced by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. The wide-ranging bill includes a section on supporting clean energy research and development that singles out ARPA-E, the Department of Energy’s funding program for high-risk, high-reward research.

The Clean Energy Technology Research and Development section of the bill calls for “significant continuing support” for developing energy technologies that

  • Reduce imports of energy from foreign sources
  • Reduce energy-related pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions
  • Improve the energy efficiency of one or more economic sectors

It’ll be interesting to see what “significant” turns out to be, assuming the bill passes.

Here’s some coverage of the bill:

Details of new Senate climate bill, Reuters
Senate Energy Bill Unveiled, Technology Review
Senate Climate Bill Makes Its Debut, New York Times

Statistical illiteracy

Sunday, April 25th, 2010

Clive Thompson has a nice piece in Wired on statistical illiteracy. He points out that without a good understanding of statistics it’s hard to understand climate change, among other issues. As he puts it:

“There are oodles of… examples of how our inability to grasp statistics — and the mother of it all, probability — makes us believe stupid things.”

Caldeira on geoengineering: scary if we do, scary if we don’t

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

Scientific American has a meaty interview with climate scientist Ken Caldeira about geoengineering. He describes plausible scenarios where we could deploy solar radiation management schemes to avert catastrophes, and he also describes some of the risks involved:

“The offsetting of sunlight and CO2 is not perfect. We would expect there to be some impact on ocean circulation. Ocean currents could change dramatically. We’re basically entering into uncharted territory here. There’s a host of potential bad things that could happen…. Any time you try to intervene in a complex system, you have unexpected results.”

One risk the interview didn’t cover is the rebound effect if a solar radiation management scheme is halted. I had the chance to ask Caldeira in 2007 about his research on the rebound effect (Climate Engineering Is Doable, as Long as We Never Stop). Here’s an excerpt from that article:

Bring the geo-engineering process to a halt, and those sun-warmed carbon sinks spit the carbon dioxide right back into the atmosphere. The rebound warming, to temperatures that would have been reached without the geo-engineering, would be 10 to 20 times the pace of today’s global warming. The rapid warming, up to 7 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, would wreak havoc on the planet and threaten civilization.

To prevent disaster, the geo-engineering process would have to continue as long as carbon-dioxide levels were elevated. A quarter of the carbon dioxide that comes out of your car’s tailpipe is still in the atmosphere a thousand years later, Caldeira said.

“We’ve never had systems work for a thousand years without failure,” he added.

Even scarier is the potential political and military fallout from geoengineering that Caldeira touches on in the SciAm interview:

“I think it’s highly likely that as a result of any climate intervention there will be winners and losers. In a nuclear-armed world, a world with terrorism and where losers have the ability to strike back at winners, the potential for the kind of political or military risk to overwhelm any environmental benefits is very real.”

Hansen in town

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

Famed NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen is scheduled to speak at the Down2Earth conference here in Boston on Saturday. Hansen has been sounding the alarm about global warming since the Reagan administration.

Fine-grained predictions

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

A US government program to develop better tools for predicting climate change aims to reduce the uncertainty of how global warming will change the planet.

Decadal and Regional Climate Prediction Using Earth System Models (EaSM), a joint program of the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture, aims to foster climate models that work on finer geographical and time scales than today’s models.

The government’s announcement stresses expected impacts:

The consequences of climate change are becoming more immediate and profound than anticipated. These consequences include prolonged droughts, increased ecosystem stress, reduced agriculture and forest productivity, altered biological feedbacks, degraded ocean and permafrost habitats and the rapid retreat of glaciers and sea ice — all of which are expected to have major impacts on ecological, economic and social systems as well as on human health.

The models developed with the program’s support promise to aid climate change adaptation:

…planning for the management of food and water supplies, infrastructure construction, ecosystem maintenance, and other pressing societal issues at more localized levels and more immediate time periods…

Metaphorically speaking, this is about battening down the hatches. There was no mention of using the models to better predict what will happen depending on how successfully we curb carbon emissions. Even though climate change adaptation is the program’s focus, it would have been nice to see mitigation or emissions at least mentioned.

No doubt the models will be useful for gauging climate change mitigation efforts, particularly for regional impacts, whatever the stated purpose. And no doubt we’ll need all the help we can get to adapt to the consequences of the changes that are “baked into the system.”

On a related note, Rob Day’s most recent Cleantech Investing blog post gives a snapshot of climate and energy legislation after his visit to DC.

Another methane timebomb?

Friday, March 5th, 2010

Turns out that the Siberian permafrost many of us have been keeping a wary eye on is not the only potential climate timebomb.

There’s also permafrost under the Arctic Ocean, and it’s leaking methane into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. According to a paper in the journal Science, the Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf is emitting as much methane as previous methane emissions estimates for all of the worlds oceans. The key question is whether the methane is seeping out gradually or is poised for a major meltdown.

Methane accounts for less than 10 percent of the climate impact of greenhouse gases. It’s about 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, however. A little goes a long way toward producing a runaway positive feedback loop.