America's global warming cover-up - BBC 06 June 06

The Reuters article is talking of global emissions of CO2 exceeding 15 billion tons a year-that seems very high. A presentation by James Hansen late last year -see http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf

put the figure at 7.5 gigatons which I understood meant 7.5 billion tons. Apologies if I am reading this incorrectly.

Interesting that Hansen in the Panorama programme stated that we now have just 5 years in order to take action to avoid dangerous change! I get the impression that he is getting more and more alarmed as time goes on!

Mark,

Emission calculations do not take into account the interrelationship between nations with respect to manufacturing and world trade. Many of America’s products are manufactured in China using coal-generated electricity. If an American buys a product made in China and shipped to the USA who owns the emission? Would it be China or America?

When it comes to manufacturing, if Japan runs a manufacturing plant in America and hires Americans, would the products produced be Japan’s emissions or America’s emissions?

We can assume that we can assign emissions on basic utilities such as space heating, cooling, and hot water to the people who live in the country. We can also assign emissions based on transit and similar infrastructure. Still, there is this enormous “gray area” worthy of further investigation on how emission accounting is done.

Embedded emissions created from manufacturing, transit, and construction must be subtracted from the lifetime benefits of a renewable energy source or an efficiency improvement. Any fossil-fuel energy used for the manufacturing of wind turbines and the erection of them would have to be subtracted over a time frame of the reduced emissions from the manufacturing electricity produced. Then there is replacement of parts and other maintenance. Interestingly, if more energy used for manufacture came from renewable energy or came from efficiency improvements, then these embedded emissions would reduce.

These emission accounting aspects cannot be understated. If embedded emissions are not accounted for, then the actual emission reductions can be exaggerated. Also, the benefits of reducing embedded emissions in the manufacturing and transport sectors by using efficient energy or renewable energy may be missed as well.

For example, if solar panels were used to create the electricity to create more solar panels, then the net emission reduction potential of those panels will be higher. Maybe this focused investment of government could lower manufacturing costs by reducing the energy portion of it. Likewise, if the solar panels are manufactured locally or net low-carbon fuels used in transport, then this also will help reduce the emission-reduction potential.

So, what would be the next level of proper emission-reduction accounting?

First, the whole system may need improvement whereby embedded emissions are calculated for both raw materials and finished goods with a bar code. If we can do this for the price and inventory of finished products, then why not do it for energy and carbon. If this system is established, then we have created a way to account for everything.

Second, I am a believer in instrumentation to provide feedback to individuals on their energy usage and energy waste. I think everyone should know where their energy goes. With this system in place, then it would be easier to create incentives and disincentives.

Third, with respect to “population growth”, defining and identifying a family structure of “living relatives” and accounting for their total aggregate energy/emissions would provide the basis for advocating a shared responsibility for the sustainability of the entire clan.

In other words, if families want to reproduce more, then they must share a total family responsibility for their own sustainability. It is inherently unfair for families with a tendency for higher progeny plus higher energy consumption to simply be free to increase their own numbers adding more high energy consumers at a greater planetary expense.

The above formula which relies on measurement and accounting may seem overly intrusive but for me this is a better idea and much less intrusive than prescribing how many babies a family can have as China does. It is not the number of people as much as aspects about their sustainability that matter most. If a “rich” family wants more children, then they must invest in their own sustainability or that of others. If they demand a high-energy lifestyle, then they can invest in a hundred families to reduce their impact to net-zero emissions. This models the capitalistic world better (as long as “natural capital” is included in the equation).

Now, can we take it to another level? I think so. In my mind, the proof is in the atmospheric accounting. Not only must natural systems be accounted for but the human accounting must show up in the atmospheric measurements to insure we have confirmation on our emission-reduction strategy. Also, the emissions from peat bogs, human-induced forest burning, melting permafrost, etc must be accomplished with a certain accuracy and precession.

Now, can we take it to another level still? Yes! Using all these established systems, we can assign the precise atmospheric concentration of each major GHG by year (including a safety factor) so we can insure the polar ice does not melt.

Reality Check: Can we be assured today, that if this type of comprehensive world-wide emission-reduction strategy were implemented, that we can be assured to avoid dramatic climate change?

Unless anyone in the whole world can say with 100 percent certainty that this will be sufficient (and prove it), then I suggest we may have to employ additional strategies that most of you already have seen me post before. Honestly, even if this could be assured to work, then it may be miraculous that our collective societies would band together and be so diligent before being prompted by world-wide chaos and catastrophe to take more decisive action.

My Professional Opinion: No matter what our options are, I suggest we use all of them. I wrote about reflective strategies before plus ocean thermal systems. I have looked at recent data on the polar melting and I believe strongly that without some sort of reflective strategy, no feasible emission-reduction plan will stop the current forces of the Arctic “positive feedback loop” from melting it. In my mind, even if the previous emission-reduction scenario I outlined earlier were employed successfully, it would still be insufficient to do the job.

I say this based on larger areas of Arctic open-ocean in the summer plus increasing percentages of Arctic open-ocean not refreezing in the winter. This has accelerated in the last few years. The positive feedback loop is forcing this with a 10-fold absorption of solar energy in the summer plus the physics of melting ice is an additional factor.

Ice absorbs lots of heat energy. You know this intuitively when you thaw frozen food. The same heat energy required to thaw frozen food is the same heat energy which can heat it (once thawed) to 80 degrees Celsius (176 degrees Fahrenheit) which is near the boiling point of water. So, for every 1 cubic kilometer of “no ice”, 80 cubic kilometers of ocean in the “liquid form” is raised 1 degree Celsius (If that cubic kilometer of ice were present, then it would have absorbed this energy by melting and the water would not rise in temperature).

What does a glass of ice water do when the ice has all melted? The water gets warmer pretty quickly does it not? If it warms to room temperature, then how long will one added ice cube last? We also have thermal inertia in liquid water which absorbs more heat over time so even more energy must be removed to bring the water back down to freezing again.

Where will we get the ice to cool the Arctic once the ice is gone and the water warms up to the point it requires many times the Arctic ice volume to cool it down again. Unfortunately, the Arctic is not a glass of ice water. We could not put the ice back once it melted.

So, with a 10 fold increase of solar energy plus “no ice” left to melt to absorb this energy, then these expanding open-ocean areas can only heat up even more and it is heating up so much that more and more open ocean remains even after the dark winter months. The fact that a higher percentage of open-ocean is still “open” is testimony to the intensity of this feedback loop and why it is overpowering the GHG contribution.

Question: Assuming the reader has absorbed this, then how can a decrease in emissions help?

Maybe! But in my mind, it would have to decrease below the current “carbon buildup”. I say this because it is obvious that it is this current “carbon buildup” which is retaining the summer Arctic heat. If the “carbon buildup” is reduced drastically, then this summer heat may escape more easily with less greenhouse gases over the Arctic during the dark winter months. This could not overpower the summer feedback loop.

Now, I did not say “emission reductions”. I said dramatically lowering the “carbon buildup”. This is not currently feasible at all. In fact, all emission reduction schemes suggest we will continue to build up atmospheric GHGs for decades and reach a peak without really ever lowering it at all. This is the best-case scenario. Now, after the ice is gone and the permafrost melting is in full swing releasing even more GHGs then how can an emission-reduction strategy prevent the Arctic or Greenland from “not melting”?

I challenge anyone on this planet to explain to me how we can continue to increase in the “current” carbon buildup, then reach a peak, and then “maybe” decline in carbon buildup and still save the Arctic ice and Greenland from melting! Seriously, I want to know how this works since many people believe this to be true. I don’t see the current “empirical” data supporting this at all. I am suggesting this to be impossible because it violates the laws of physics!

Therefore, no matter what the emission reduction scheme is, we need additional measures. Plus, the emission-reduction strategies, as they currently exist, appear pretty unsophisticated at best. Geo-engineering concepts such as orbiting space mirrors directing heat away from the vulnerable polar areas may help. This needs to be looked at plus other reflective strategies using the atmosphere. I have a bias toward space because it is less polluting, once in place, and orbiting reflectors can be controlled with precision from the ground.

Please take note. In addition to the geo-engineering concepts, I first advocated a more robust emission-reduction plan with better measurement, accounting, and enforcement. I also have taken into account one of the most important variables called “population growth”. I suggest a safety factor be included to account for uncertainties.

This problem desperately needs a technical focus instead of the political focus which created it. For me, any half-measure is “no measure”. Any plan which does not envision the total solution is “no plan” at all. Coming “close” is not an option! Coming “close” to a solution, although admirable, still brings with it the exact same dramatic failure that doing absolutely nothing would bring.

I want the reader to think deeply about what I wrote and to please offer any useful comments. What matters most is that we save the climate. What we do must be successful because our climate is a few magnitudes higher in importance than any other problem we have with regards to securing our collective societies.

Best wishes to all,

Dan

I think our global annual CO2 emissions contain 7-7.5 billion tons of carbon.

CO2 has a greater weight than just the carbon -and I presume the Reuters figure you refer to might have measured the full weight of CO2.

I used to get confused a lot about those different figures, until I realised that they are just two different ways of measuring CO2 emissions.

Almuth

Very interesting-I would have thought they would have come up with a standard way of measuring the emissions to avoid such confusion.

have you seen the realclimate article “Can 2C warming be avoided” (here); also www.gci.org.uk. Seems that the notion of a chain of positive feedbacks is in the ascendancy at the moment; seems the jury is out on how much of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice would melt permanently if we did follow the above emissions-cutting models.

Under the convention of the Kyoto protocol, emissions are simply assigned to where they are generated, i.e. China would pay in your example.

Prof. Stephen Salter has suggested mist- and salt- spraying windmills that could respectively help deserts bloom and increase oceanic albedo, but it’s all gone quiet on that front.

Dan,

I completely agree with you that emissions accounting must count life-cycle emissions from all the things we buy. Under the Kyoto Agreement, this does not happen, and it is one of the serious flaws with this agreement. It means, for example, that the Annex I nations (ie the richer nations committed to reducing their emissions by 2012) can reduce their emissions if protect and increase their own forests and instead buy illegal timber from the tropics, leading to massive carbon emissions as rainforest is logged and subsequently burned. Same problem with biofuels. And the other examples you give. The life-cycle assessments you speak of are already done routinely, so the methods and some of the data are there to use.

I find it hard to share your optimism about geo-engineering. I cannot think of a single example of the much smaller geo-engineering or ‘change nature for the better’ schemes that hasn’t turned out to be a complete failure and disaster! Think about all the former hype about ‘greening the deserts’ from California to Israel. As the UN recently reported, those mega-projects are turning sensitive ecosystems into virtual dead zones, because the planners never thought of salination. Or the massive river engineering programs and big dams responsible for some of the planet’s worst ecological disasters to date. Or the irrigation schemes which lead to the draining of the Aral Lake and the salt poisoning of vast numbers of people living there, plus the collapse of fish stocks. Every single time politicians were convinced that those huge engineering schemes worked on paper and were then faced with a disaster which either had not been foreseen, or which they had chosen to ignore. There was an interesting interview with Fred Pearce (on Climate Ark), where he argues that any greening of the Sahara could precipitate the death of the Amazon. Hence even a model which ‘shows’ that massive carbon coud be sequestered by transforming the world’s largest desert could accelerate global ecological collapse. Nobody is arguing that ‘geo-engineering’ might not be needed if we knew it could save us – but there are no grounds to think that it would work.

The reason I am “hoping” that the space reflector has merit is that it can be controlled from the ground.

My “hope” is this unique feature would be an asset in insuring its success. We can change its orientation easily. It needs more research.

On the consequences of non-action, we know that this is also bad and may be even worse.

Best Wishes,

Dan

The programme claims (about 25 mins in): “In the last 6 years most industrialised nations have cut greenhouse gas emissions, but under George Bush US emissions have increased by an average of 1 per cent a year”

Sorry, but I don’t see evidence that EU emissions have fallen (e.g. see graph here, which in any case excludes aircraft and ships), the UK’s own have certainly been on the rise, and I thought it was a similar picture in most industrialised countries.

The thread on the 2C article seems convoluted. I tend to look at it from an equilibrium standpoint instead of a temperature rise.

I believe the Arctic is out of control from an emission-reduction standpoint based on the simple physics of the positive feedback loop driving the melting. Once we get off balance, then nature takes over unless we intervene in a dramatic way. The focus, in my mind, should be how we can get the climate back to equilibrium? The climate has not always been benevolent in the past and it appears we have pushed it to go to another state which we will not like.

Without an additional strategy to complement emission reductions, it may be impossible for us to prevent the negative consequences to our planet from the damage we have already created. I only know of 2 other modalities other than GHG reductions (including sinks) and they are reflective strategies and using the deep ocean as a heat sink. None are sufficient by themselves and we may need all three and a lot of luck!

On the emission-reduction side of the equation, I believe in the philosophy of “Contraction-&-Convergence” which requires a very robust emissions accounting system as I mentioned in my previous post. My thoughts are in alignment with this philosophy and I would promote the use of instrumentation to aid people in designing their lives within specified boundaries.

Presently, almost all of us are not aware of our own carbon footprint. It helps for everyone to be aware of our own climate impact and only when we know it can we be influenced to correct it.

Also, I am interested in ideas such as suggested by Prof Stephen Salter.

I expect in the coming years a renewed interest in these ideas. I would like to see a means to evaluate them in terms of carbon equivalents so they can be evaluated equally along side all other strategies including emission reductions.

Kind Regards,

Dan

Mark, congratulations on becoming a (new) New Statesman columnist. I think I’ll subscribe. I hope this indicates the NS is going to take AGW/CC very seriously in its pursuit of the “new radicalism”. You can tell them I said that.

I’ve just re-read High Tide. It was 2 years ago I first read it in hb and it had a big effect. I enjoyed reading it again and am very impressed by the way you put it together. Even although I knew you survived the Peru adventure is very exciting – you must be mad! And there is so much science woven into the tale. I’d forgotten how much information there is in the book. You’ve been generous in your praise of Kolbert’s Field Notes … which is good but she doesn’t give you credit. I think she should have.

The BBC CC series was very welcome and also well done. I thought the first Attenborough show was stronger than the second, the 5 disasters programme was very good and the US political cover up Panorama was very useful for those who’d not previously come across Luntz (grrrrrrrr!) and the dissembling Connaughton (grrrrrrrr!). Pass the sick bag!

I note from today’s Guardian (Larry Elliot “Blue chips see the green light” here http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1795305,00.html) that big (responsible?) capital have, as some of them did last year, asked Blair (again) for a regulatory framework to follow in pursuit of lower CO2 emissions. Is Blair completely comatose on the issue now? And what horrors does Brown have for us on AGW/CC?

One thing still not discussed enough is the politics of all this. The forthcoming 6/8 parter to accompany Six Degrees (I know, I know, but if we keep talking about it maybe it will happen) should be accompanied by a couple of programmes exploring carbon taxes, carbon rationing, what Kyoto 2 should look like and of course how Contraction and Convergence might be factored in.

I’m sorry I was not able to hear you talk last week in London but a GP contact provided me with some notes on your talk. Sounds like Six Degrees will be a bit of a shocker! I was on my way to the IoW for the weekend. There is now a copy of High Tide on the bookshelves at The Grange Shanklin. (Here http//www.thegrangebythesea.com/) No flying necessary.

I’m wondering if 2006 will be seen as a tipping point. So many opinion formers “getting it” on AGW/CC although there is understandable criticism from some quarters that Attenborough did rather drag his feet. I wonder if we should seize the moment and organize one of those full page ads (financed by Zac?) in the papers with lots of important signatories declaring that they “get it” and AGW/CC needs addressing. If a few people with fat contact books contact others with fat contact books and a form of words can be agreed then who knows opinion formers and reps of big capital might be a force to reckoned with. Would this be part of the “new citizens’ movement” going hand in hand with the “new radicalism”?

Onwards and upwards.

Douglas Coker

Thanks for this, Douglas. Nice to hear your updates, and I’m glad the low-carbon holiday went well. I too had a certain sense of deja vu reading Kolpert’s book, and I’d be intrigued to know whether or not High Tide did help give her ideas, or whether it was all just coincidental. After all, I wasn’t the only person who’d been to Shishmaref or Tuvalu even then.

I’m still having meetings with TV people about Six Degrees, so maybe something will happen one day. Another one is coming up this week (the same people who made ‘walking with dinosaurs’), so I’ll try and keep you posted.

Cheers, Mark

All the more reason why ALL countries should sign up to a GLOBAL climate treaty

Then we can have a common global system for GHG emissions accounting.

If everyone’s in the system then the underlying carbon equivilent cost is paid nomatter where it is emitted or where the product eventually ends up.

No one can then complain about being hard done by.