Bringing Up the Rear

by Matt DeNoto

Fair warning, this is a bit of a rant.  Apologies.

One of the major arguments politicians have been making regarding the recently passed (by the House) American Clean Energy and Security Act is that the steps that it takes to try and cut America’s CO2 output are practically useless, because countries like China and India also produce a lot of CO2.

These politicians have been saying this quite a bit lately.  So much so that I feel the need to point out something that seems to me to be pretty obvious.

We can’t make laws for China and India.  They have their own governments.  If you would like to make laws for China and/or India, you probably have to move there first.

The argument also seems to imply that if we can’t make laws for China and India’s CO2 output, we just shouldn’t make any CO2 laws at all.  Which means we’ll just be sitting on the sidelines while the rest of the world innovates and reinvests and cleans up.  South Korea just dedicated 2% of its GDP over the next 5 years develop environmentally-friendly industries.  There’s a small town called Guessing, Austria that already produces more electricity than it consumes using natural biofuels.  The rest of the country also hopes to be energy self-sufficient by the end of 2010.

What will America look like then, if we still haven’t addressed our own environmental concerns?

We will look obsolete.  Antiquated.  Desperately clinging on to outdated, dirty methods, blindly insisting that we are keeping prices low for taxpayers, and profits high for companies.

And what happens when China and India’s lawmakers DO decide to pass regulations in those countries?  Will those who complained so loudly here be proud that America held out the longest?  That America dug in its heels and refused to do what reason and responsibility required?  That America, known and respected for so long for its progress and leadership, continued to wallow in its own crapulence even after it knew better?

It’s fascinating how much of the anti-environmental movement seems to be driven out of nothing but spite.  There’s a Volkswagen commercial being played now that mocks the sound hybrids make.  As if to suggest that what’s really important is having a car that makes the right engine noises.  Loud ones.  Ones that you can only get from combusting gasoline.

It’s a distraction, and in the coming years when people see the real benefits of living more while taking less, those spiteful whimperings will grow fainter and fainter.

Now let’s hope the Senate doesn’t give in.

miracle plant?

When you think of global warming certain images always come to mind: polar bears, penguins, clear cutting, and the ever melting icebergs.

However, the melting of the icebergs, may be creating a global warming paradox. Those melting bergs may just be a key to saving our planet, so says some researchers in the Antarctic, on the HMS Endurance.

They have found that when the icebergs melt, small particles of iron are being released into the water. Those particles are feeding algae, which in turn blooms, and sucks up all the extra CO2.

Due to this finding there is a push for researchers to be allowed to dump massive amounts of iron sulfate into the oceans to prove that the hypothesis is accurate. Doing this would create an algae bloom that would be big enough to see from space. However, many environmentalists are warning that this experiment should not happen. Siting that the excess amount of iron sulfate may do irreparable damage to an already failing ecosystem.

Regardless, the new findings are compelling enough that the scientists have been granted approval by the UN to proceed with the experiement.

The aim is to discover whether artificially fertilising the area will create more algae in the Great Southern Ocean. That ocean is an untapped resource for soaking up CO2 because it doesn’t have much iron, unlike other seas.

It covers 20million square miles, and scientists say that if this could all be treated with iron, the resulting algae would remove three-and-a-half gigatons of carbon dioxide. This is equivalent to one eighth of all emissions annually created by burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

It would also be equal to removing all carbon dioxide emitted from every power plant, chimney and car exhaust in the rapidly expanding industries of India and Japan.

Of course, the experts warn it is too early to say whether it will work. This entire exercise may be for nought. And, the flip side is that if it doesn’t work, we may be in more trouble than we are in now. Oceans are not isolated boxes, whatever is done in the ocean will have an affect on the surrounding areas. As stated that ocean is unaccustomed to having large amounts of iron present, and ecosystems have flourished, as a result. If the algae does not bloom, there could be damage due to a high level of iron. Or, the blooming could cause unnecessary resource depletion resulting in mass extinction of otherwise healthy species.

Or, it could all work out and global warming and the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is resolved.

HERE is the article, via The Daily Mail.

the carbon atlas

The Guardian UK published a very interesting chart. It is an interactive map in which you can view the carbon output of almost every country in the world. The data is from 2006, but I think we can assume it has gone up since then. And, since the numbers seem very high… I think that’s worrisome.

New figures confirm that China has overtaken the US as the largest emitter of CO2. This interactive emissions map shows how the rest of the world compares. Global C02 emissions totalled 29,195m tonnes in 2006 – up 2.4%.

Go HERE. It’s pretty cool.

are we a lost cause?

Early next year, leaders from around the world are meeting to reevaluate and ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Many had the chance to put this into place and honor it many years ago, and the fear now is that is simply too late.

More and more data is being released that we are in a much more severe crisis than originally thought and we are going to get much, much worse before we get better.

Kevin Anderson, from Exeter University, is one scientist that is making a very difficult presentation to his peers: despite the political rhetoric, the scientific warnings, the media headlines and the corporate promises, he would say, carbon emissions were soaring way out of control – far above even the bleak scenarios considered by last year’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern review. The battle against dangerous climate change had been lost, and the world needed to prepare for things to get very, very bad.

Many numbers are thrown around that may not make much sense: 280, 350, 450, 650. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the worlds CO2 level was at 280 parts per million. We are currently at 386ppm by most estimates. Why does this matter and what does it mean? The reason that carbon dioxide is considered the most important greenhouse gas is because it absorbs more infrared radiation on a per molecule basis than any other molecule in our atmosphere. So, as we put more in the air, through burning fossil fuels, we are putting a molecule into the air that traps and holds onto heat more than any other. Where once the presence of CO2 created a nice atmosphere for our species to flourish, because we were trapping an appropriate amount of heat from the sun, we are now creating an atmosphere in which we are over-heating. The more CO2, the more trapped heat. And with more heat comes the accumulation of the effects of having that heat present; warming temperatures leading to melting ice leading to raising sea levels, etc., etc. (It should also be noted that at a certain point, somewhere around 5% total CO2 in the atmosphere, humans are greatly impaired by our bodies ability to process the molecule.)

Now, the other aspect of CO2 that must be noted is its longevity in the atmosphere. CO2 has a half life on 10 years; or, if I put 100ppm in a container it takes 10 years for it to get to 50ppm and 20 years for it to be gone. Also, there is a cumulative affect to CO2. If I have that same container of 100pp and I add 50ppm one year and another 50ppm the next, I know have just shy of 200ppm. Even though two years have gone by, the removal of CO2 is at a much slower pace then the addition. (I’m sorry if this is so elementary, but it is really important for everyone to really understand what all these scientists have talked about). Going back to the topic, what we put into the atmosphere as CO2 in 1978 has finally gone as of today. We still have 1979 pollution in our air. Which means in 2028, we will have today’s CO2 still in the air. And every year, it accumulates on itself. What we do today, literally, affects the future, because it will still be around.

I hope that makes sense because I am going to go back to the latest research on this….

Many scientists feel that the global community needs to put a cap on allowable emissions so that our CO2 concentration never gets to 450ppm. What many are saying now is that is absolutely impossible because what we are putting into the atmosphere today, may already have us at that goal, when you consider the cumulative effect. The number that scientists have decided on (450ppm) is proportional to a 2C increase in temperature, which they feel is the highest we can go for a sustainable planet. The estimates now are that we may be able to cap at 650ppm, which is a 4C increase in temperature, which is an unsustainable level.

And even putting a cap on these emissions is a political hot topic when discussing compromise: Many small island states are predicted to be swamped by rising seas with global warming triggered by carbon levels as low as 400ppm. “It’s really difficult for countries to sign up to something that loses them half their territory. It’s not going to work.”

On top of that there is very early research that indicates that the ocean’s have stopped absorbing CO2. They have been a huge work horse in keeping CO2 levels in check. If they aren’t doing their job, we have no idea what that will translate too, regarding CO2 levels.

OK. So, this is all pretty bleak and literally makes you want to throw in the towel, take a 30 minute shower, turn on the heat, and use hair spray again. I know. I battle it everyday.

I have known the science for a while and have feared a negative outcome no matter what I might do. A while ago I was asked why I keep trying to educate people about this and if I felt it was a lost cause. The only way I could answer was “I don’t know, but if I had to, I was going to die trying.”

There are two interesting websites to go to for education on CO2. I recommend HERE, which is an article about what scientists are discovering. And HERE, which is a lesson in CO2.

buffer zone

New data suggests that the ocean acidity levels are raising 10 times faster than previously thought.

Professor Timothy Wootton from the department of ecology and evolution, University of Chicago, in Illinois, says such dramatic results were unexpected as it was thought that the huge ocean systems had the ability to absorb large quantities of CO2.

“It’s been thought pH in the open oceans is well buffered, so it’s surprising to see these fluctuations,” he said.

The findings showed that CO2 had lowered the water pH over time, demonstrating a year-on-year increase in acidity.

As a result, mollusks like barnacles and muscles are being affected. Most of their shells are made of calcium carbonate, which cannot be sustained in high acid environments. The populations are shrinking at very high rates. In fact, the scientists feel that all of our past models on ocean acidification need to be erased, since the ocean is not buffering the CO2 absorption as thought.

The entire article can be found HERE, via BBC.