Category: The environment

Atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, etc – everything about life and the state of this planet

Greenhouse gases other than CO2

Rusty metal pipes

A recent Newsweek article discussing Al Gore’s new book made reference to recently published work on how different gases are contributing to anthropogenic climate change: Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions, written by scientists from NASA’s Goddard Institute including Drew Shindell and Gavin Schmidt.

Two especially notable points are made. Firstly, the researchers estimate that carbon dioxide (CO2) is ‘only’ responsible for 43% of observed warming, once interactions between gases and aerosols were taken into account. At the same time, methane accounts for 27% of warming, halocarbons 8%, black carbon 12%, and carbon monoxide and volatile organics 7%. Secondly, there are the policy implications that flow from this. Preventing CO2 emissions basically requires reducing deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels – with the latter being an especially challenging thing to do in a world as promiscuous with energy as ours. Reducing methane, by contrast, may be as simple as capturing and burning gases from landfills, and adopting other comparatively low-cost and low-sacrifice strategies. The authors conclude that strategies that incorporate all greenhouse gases (GHGs) are “likely to be much more cost-effective than CO2-only strategies.”

There are other complications involving GHGs, including atmospheric lifetime. CO2 is removed by various means, across different timescales. Methane doesn’t last as long, but does cause more warming than CO2 when present and often breaks down into it later. Black carbon is washed out of the atmosphere quite quickly, meaning that eliminating its production could yield reduced radiative forcing relatively quickly.

The greater importance of non-CO2 gases described in this study is potentially good news for climate change mitigation, given how challenging it has been to convince governments to accept even very minor costs in order to reduce the risks associated with climate change. Developing an improved understanding of exactly how much various GHGs alter the climate should also allow for more efficient carbon pricing, where the incentives to reduce the most harmful GHGs are the strongest.

Mapping 4°C of warming

The UK’s Met Office has released an interesting interactive map showing what the world would be like with a 4°C rise in global temperatures. Impacts considered include fires, agricultural impacts, water availability, sea level rise, loss of permafrost, extreme weather, health, and more.

The map also shows how Canada’s high latitude location will mean more than average temperature increases across the country, ranging from around 7°C to more than 10°C.

There is more information about the map over at World Changing Canada.

Water in California

A briefing on the state of water policy in California contains a passage that I think is illuminating when it comes to the relationship between humanity and the natural environment in general:

Californians hate rain but love water, so three-quarters of them live in the arid south, spurn the wet north where three-quarters of the rain falls, and expect water to come to them by pipe, canal or aquifer, preferably courtesy of the taxpayer.

That sort of brute force approach will become harder and harder to sustain as we give up fossil fuels, both because of their growing scarcity and because of the damage they do to the climate.

U.S. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu has already raised questions about what climate change will do to California’s water supply, particularly as higher temperatures lead to a loss of summer snowpack.

Can Canada meet the Conservative GHG targets?

Small red apples

The Globe and Mail is full of coverage of a ‘landmark’ new report, considering whether and how Canada could meet the stated greenhouse gas reductions of the current government (20% below 2006 levels by 2020, 60-70% below by 2050). The report was paid for by the Toronto Dominion Bank and compiled by the Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation. Economic modelling was done by M.K. Jaccard and Associates Inc, Canada’s ubiquitous non-governmental providers of projections on climate plans.

The report includes estimates of what the GDP cost of meeting the government’s targets would be, for each province. Overall, the cost is estimated at 1.5% of GDP in 2020. Alberta would be the most affected, with an economy 8.5% smaller than it would be in a scenario with new restrictions on emissions. Saskatchewan is projected at -2.8% and B.C at -2.5%. Ontario would actually be 0.9% richer with regulation, while Quebec would be 0.3% poorer. Given the risks associated with climate change, such an investment seems appropriate. That is especially true when you recognize that we will inevitably have to abandon fossil fuels anyhow.

Of course, much depends on the precise methodology used to compile the report. It isn’t clear how the government’s Regulatory Framework would actually operate in practice – for instance, which compliance options firms would choose to employ, and how much of an effect that would have. The plan also assumes that carbon capture and storage (CCS) will rapidly emerge as an effective and affordable technology, though it isn’t quite as dependent on that outcome as Alberta’s even more worrisome climate plan. In an editorial by Jeffrey Simpson, he claims that:

The government must know its policies will fail. But if the Conservatives expect people can be fooled or will tune out because they don’t care or the issue’s too complicated, why not?

Another editorial argues that the targets were set without a plan for achieving them established. Very disappointingly, it then goes on to argue that since meeting Canada’s targets would involve “unacceptable damage to Canada’s economy and national unity,” the targets should be further loosened. What this ignores is the critical issue of dealing with climate change. If Canada and the world fail to adopt effective mitigation policies, the alternative isn’t going to be unity and prosperity amidst ever-higher greenhouse gas concentrations and temperatures. The future of Canadian and global prosperity depends on maintaining a climate that is compatible with human prosperity. Furthermore, it seems absurd to say that growth of 8.5% below business-as-usual is a terrifically awful thing to inflict on Alberta. That’s the kind of impact that might arise as the result of some modest global economic blip or disruption in fossil fuel markets. Only in this case, the cost would be borne in order to help Canada make a credible start on the critical path to a low-carbon economy.

The ethics of letting Alberta and the oil sands off the hook are also highly dubious. People don’t have the fundamental right to keep doing what they have been, even when it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that their actions are harming others. Aside from those suffering now from the air and water pollution associated with rampant oil sands development, there is the key issue of the defenceless and innocent members of future generations who will suffer as the result of these emissions. Indeed, extracting and burning just 10% of the oil sands resource would release 15 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, a quantity sufficient to have a significant temperature effect in and of itself. In addition, continued failure to act on the part of Canada makes it less likely that a strong international agreement will emerge. Given the importance of reaching such an agreement soon, and setting the world on the path to decarbonization, more foot-dragging from Canada is shameful and inappropriate.

Among others, I have long argued that the targets lacked a credible plan for implementation. The government seems to be banking on the fact that they won’t be around in 2020 or 2050 to be held to account. As such, nearer term targets – such as those in the 10:10 campaign – could be usefully adopted in Canada. Anything else leaves too much of a gap between promises and mechanisms of accountability.

The full report is available online (PDF).

Climate change and food production

A recent report from the International Food Policy Research Institute highlighted the degree to which climate change threatens global agricultural output:

In parts of the developing world some crop yields in 2050 could be only half of their 2000 levels. Irrigation may not help: climate change will hit irrigated systems harder than rain-fed ones. And the hope that gainers from climate change will outweigh losers looks vain: the damage from higher temperatures and erratic rainfall will be too big.

Couple that with ever-increasing population, and you have a recipe for a lot of suffering and strife.

The climate impact of pets

A new book estimates that the climate change impact of pets is considerable:

In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.

They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle’s eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog’s.

They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV.

Just another thing that needs to be tallied up when considering one’s individual climate impact. It is also another reason to support carbon pricing, such as through an economy-wide carbon tax. Such a tax would make people consider the climatic impact of their pets more appropriately, and possibly consider smaller and/or vegetarian options.

All that being said, having a pet is a lot less carbon intensive than having a child. For those out there who are using dachshunds or tabbies as alternatives to procreation, carry right along.

Fill the Hill 2009 video

Today’s climate change rally on Parliament Hill was a great success, with a huge number of people showing up despite the nasty weather. The speakers were strong, and the mood in the crowd was very positive. It’s great that people have rallied around such a challenging target, with the 350 campaign. Let’s hope that this movement can grow to the point where policies to end deforestation and the use of fossil fuels become mainstream and effective, around the world. That’s the only way we will be able to avoid dangerous climate change.

I don’t have my brother Mica’s talent for editing video. If someone wants access to the unedited files, please let me know and I will provide them. Perhaps they can be incorporated into a more sophisticated product, with music and such.

LED lighting, effectiveness and efficiency

Perhaps the only thing that will ever silence the various overblown objections to compact fluorescent lights is when they are replaced by solid state lighting systems, based on light emitting diodes (LEDs).

Unfortunately, as a post on BoingBoing points out, there is still a way to go before such lighting systems will be viable options for most people. For one thing, they are still expensive. For another, the light they produce may start out not being white, or drift away from being white over time. Worse, it is very difficult for people to distinguish between high and low quality products currently on offer.

Another problem is that LEDs aren’t unambiguously more efficient than fluorescent lighting systems: “The more lumens per watt, the better the energy efficiency. The kind of fluorescent lamps used in offices–the long, narrow ones that are called T-5 or T-8s in Technicalland–regularly get more than 100 lumens per watt. An LED T-8 lamp tested by CALiPER last year got 42.” It seems those of us pushing for more energy efficient lighting may have to continue rebutting claims about mercury and flickering for some time yet.