Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

December 28, 2009

Hope you had a great holiday and best wishes for 2010!. May you be healthy and prosperous.

By: Steven L. Hoch

Ed note: Over the past 6 months I have tried to point out the problems (and some times the hypocrisy) in dealing with climate change. In 2010, my goal is to offer solutions with short commentary meant solely to be productive in stimulating discussion and fixes to the problems we now see popping up as the world attempts to develop solutions. Such solutions hopefully will have a positive effect on the environment, the economy and to each of us as individuals.

The Given and Take for Adaptation to Climate Change

Environmentalists across Calif. torn over proposed mega-farm

This may be the key issue. How do we (and can we) change our carbon use without some other concessions? Maybe talking about the big picture, necessary energy changes, should come first?

Some environmentalists have come out against efforts by a Silicon Valley company to build the world's largest solar farm in the Panoche Valley, a sunny and isolated stretch of land 90 miles southeast of San Jose. The $1.8 billion project by Cupertino-based Solargen Energy would include 1.2 million solar panels across 18,000 acres, producing 420 megawatts of electricity. Set to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in federal tax credits, the solar farm could power 315,000 homes while virtually eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Several chapters of the Audubon Society have opposed the proposal, questioning the potential impact of the solar project on endangered species that live in the valley. Though the environmentalists would normally support solar energy, they would prefer that panels not be placed on largely unspoiled frontier land. See:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14050919?source=most_emailed

Copenhagen

Something missed at Copenhagen

Here’s something that needs attention. Will these industries feel the pressure?

In the Kyoto Protocols international maritime shipping and aviation was left out mainly because no country wanted to count those emissions, which usually occur beyond national borders, as part of its emissions-reduction target. In Copenhagen, this issue was not dealt with. Left unchecked, pollution from the two sectors is expected to double or triple by 2050. Negotiators are still attempting to remedy the omission. Since 1990, planet-heating pollution from maritime shipping has grown by more than 85%, and aviation emissions have grown by more than 50%. Together, they account for up to 8% of global greenhouse gas pollution. China, India and Saudi Arabia oppose controls on their shipping and aviation and the United States, while agreeable to setting emissions targets, has reportedly refused to consider funds from maritime shipping and aviation as part of a global financing scheme. The EU recently decided to include aviation under its own cap-and-trade system as of January 2012, covering all flights to and from EU airports. U.S. carriers have threatened lawsuits. See:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2009/12/global-warming-shipping-aviation.html

Bad News

Study shows temperatures to rise even more than predicted
It would be better if this was a prediction about the stock market, but it isn’t.

Increases in carbon dioxide may trigger higher global temperatures than previously thought, says a team of U.S. and Chinese researchers. The research team's long-term model of carbon dioxide concentration based on ancient sediment drilled from the ocean floor suggests that during the last sustained global warming period with geography similar to today's -- 4.5 million years ago -- a relatively small rise in CO2 levels was associated with substantial global warming. At that time, global temperature was between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius higher than today's -- even though carbon dioxide levels were similar to the current ones. The findings published online Sunday by Nature Geoscience reiterate those of a similar British study released earlier this month that said calculations for global warming may have been underestimated by between 30 and 50 percent. See:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jye_vRRbnHiD_kLyWGPBOfoa_cvg

Under the icy north lurks a ‘carbon bomb’
If its not one thing, its another. This one though, is really a shocker.

North of Canada’s capital, underneath an endless expanse of spruce, pine, and birch, ticks what some scientists are calling a carbon bomb: Peat. A thick layer of the black spongy soil, the remnants of ancient forests, wraps the globe’s northern tier. Deeper than 15 feet in places, the peat layer extends over more than 6 million square miles across Russia, Scandinavia, China, Canada, and the United States. Carbon that those forests absorbed from the air over thousands of years is stored in the peat and suspended in waterlogged bogs or permafrost. When it is disturbed or drained - as is happening in some areas - the peat can start to decompose and dry out, unleashing greenhouse gases. In North America alone, the peat and the trees growing in it hold as much carbon as would be emitted worldwide by 26 years of burning fossil fuels at current rates. It’s like a great big stew of carbon percolating away for centuries,’’ said Janet Sumner, executive director of the Wildlands League in Ontario, a conservation group pushing to preserve the northern, or boreal, forests from development. “If we don’t protect the boreal, it will mean more emissions and climate change.’’ See:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/canada/articles/2009/12/13/under_the_icy_north_lurks_a_carbon_bomb/?page=2

Australia’s carbon emissions soar

If we can’t agree on the rules, then we can’t all play the game correctly.

Australia's annual greenhouse gas emissions have soared by more than four-fifths since 1990. The 82 per cent rise in emissions is due to a blow-out of 657 per cent in emissions from land use between 1990 and 2007. There is wild natural variation in land-use emissions - for example, there was a massive spike in 2002-03 from Victorian bushfires - and so Australia joined others in not counting most land categories towards its Kyoto target for 2012. Australia wants to be able to count ''carbon sinks'' in agricultural land but exclude the impact of extraordinary events or circumstances such as bushfires and drought. Environmentalists say it is hard to measure land-use emissions, opening up the possibility of "accounting frauds". See

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/carbon-emissions-soar-20091213-kqi2.html

Study finds plants, animals must scurry as climate changes

May not seem like much to us, but to some species it is.

Changing climate means changing habitats, and the species that survive will need to move about a quarter-mile each year, according to a new study. The report, published yesterday in the journal Nature, estimates the "velocity of climate change": how quickly rising temperatures will force an ecosystem to relocate -- if it survives at all. Creatures in flat areas, especially lowland tropics, mangroves and deserts, will have to move the fastest. In mountains and valleys, a small change in altitude can bring a wide swing in temperature, so an adjusting species doesn't have to move as far. But on flat ground, a species' comfort zone recedes more rapidly, testing its ability to stride to safety. Unfortunately, not all species are equipped to make such changes.

See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091223133337.htm

Credits

Closed UK steel plant to get 2010 CO2 permits
This is why its important to get it right the first time. This kind of thing is just wrong.

A steel plant in northeast England due to close in January will likely get its 2010 quota of free European carbon permits, a windfall worth around 100 million euros ($147.3 million), the UK government explained recently. The plant in Teesside is likely to get the permits next February, despite the fact that owner Corus, Europe's second largest steelmaker, announced last Friday that the plant will be mothballed and 1,700 jobs cut. See: 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BA2JJ20091211

Solving Global Warming

A cheap and reliable way to solve global warming?
Nathan may either be a genius or a nutcase. Will someone please check out the science on this?

Nathan Myhrvold is a former technology officer for Microsoft has posed as a solution to global warming running a hose up to the stratosphere with balloons and using that hose to pump out enough sulfur particles to dim the sun's heat just enough to counteract the effects of global warming. The estimated cost would be about two hundred and fifty million dollars. He suggests that volcanoes and other natural processes already pump out sulfur into the stratosphere and that his scheme, if adopted, would increase that amount by only one percent and therefore thinks that there would not be any unintended consequences (like starting a new ice age.)

See: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html?cat=15

Using Carbon Credits to Pay for Legal Fees

Pay your legal fees with carbon credits
Gives a new meaning to alternative fee arrangements.
Clients of the Cueto Law Group in Miami, Florida can now pay up to 20% of their legal fees with carbon credits. Although the Cueto Law Group will be receiving up to 20 percent fewer revenue dollars, they will be able to offset a portion of the firm’s carbon footprint thanks to the clients that choose to participate. See: http://www.mnn.com/business/finance/blogs/pay-your-legal-fees-with-carbon-credits