28 January 2016, Climate Home, Scientists pour cold water on ocean geoengineering idea. One keenly-argued possible way of moderating the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may not work, scientists have concluded. They say there is evidence that seeding the oceans with iron so that the algae that live there will multiply and devour more CO2 − thus preventing it reaching the atmosphere and intensifying the human contribution to global warming – is not as promising a solution as its supporters hope. The extra iron can certainly stimulate the algae to grow more vigorously, but at a cost. More algae in one part of the oceans may mean there will be fewer in other areas, the researchers say. Report: Scientists warn against geoengineering as short-term climate fix. They report in Nature journal that the depths of the central Pacific Ocean contain ancient sediments that cast doubt on iron’s ability to slow the Earth’s steady temperature rise. In parts of the oceans that lack the iron that plants need, algae are scarce. Experiments have shown that dumping iron into these areas can encourage algal growth, so large-scale fertilisation could theoretically reduce atmospheric CO2. The seafloor sediments the team studied show that, during past ice ages, more iron-rich dust blew from cold and barren landmasses into the oceans, apparently producing more algae in these areas and, presumably, a creating natural cooling effect. But the researchers say increased algal growth in one area can inhibit growth elsewhere, because ocean waters are always on the move and algae also need other nutrients, such as nitrates and phosphates. Read More here
Category Archives: The Mitigation Battle
24 January 2016, Climate Home, 8 climate change takeaways from Davos. As global elite gather at the World Economic Forum1, moving to counter climate change competes with economic fears. It is the first major meeting of politicians and business leaders since 195 nations struck a landmark deal to limit carbon emissions in Paris in December. Thousands of luminaries have come to a Swiss ski resort to unpack the opportunities and challenges of the future. ‘Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution’ is the theme meant to guide high-powered panel sessions. Among talk of robotics, 3D printing and nanotechnology, the Paris agreement should merit mention. It aims to radically shrink the usage of fossil fuels, which the world consumes for 87% of its energy. Innovation is crucial to neutralise carbon emissions in the next half-century. As the forum nears its end, here’s what we conclude. 1. Market turmoil dominates” A global selloff of stocks has crowded out much discussion of a new global warming pact at the World Economic Forum. Markets have plunged more than US$4 trillion in value since 1 January – the worst start in yearly trading since the 2009 financial crisis – on weak Chinese growth and low oil prices. Opinion is divided on the impact of cheap crude on climate plans. Benchmark prices of $30 a barrel are “very detrimental for any [clean energy] policy”, according to Total chief Patrick Pouyanne. But analysts Climate Home asked are not worried. 2. Climate action is the smaller conversation: A climate change-induced disaster was named the greatest threat to the global economy in 2016, in a WEF survey ahead of the event, but that wasn’t fully borne out in discussions. Cutting carbon is an “issue for mainstream business, but of course not everyone is paying attention,” says Paul Simpson at the Carbon Disclosure Project. Read More here
21 January 2016, Reuters, U.S. appeals court declines to block Obama carbon emissions plan. In a big victory for the Obama administration, a U.S. federal court on Thursday rejected a bid by 27 states to block its Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of its strategy to combat climate change by reducing carbon emissions from power plants. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a brief order denying an application seeking to stay the rule while litigation continues. The states, led by West Virginia, and several major business groups in October launched the legal challenges seeking to block the Obama administration’s proposal to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. More than a dozen other states and the National League of Cities, which represents more than 19,000 U.S. cities, filed court papers backing the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule. The rule aims to lower carbon emissions from the country’s power plants by 2030 to 32 percent below 2005 levels. It is the main tool for the United States to meet the emissions reduction target it pledged at U.N. climate talks in Paris last month. For President Barack Obama, executing his climate change strategy would be a legacy-defining accomplishment. “We are confident that the plan will reduce carbon pollution and deliver better air quality, improved public health, and jobs across the country,” the White House said in a statement on Thursday. The court action means the regulation remains in place but it is not the final word in the legal fight. The appeals court still has to hear oral arguments on June 2 and decide whether the regulation is lawful. Read More here
21 January 2016, Climate News Network, Carbon capture plans need urgent aid. Call for governments to give financial backing for technology that could help save the world from overheating by preventing CO2 escaping into the atmosphere. Governments may no longer be investing in the capture of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But a new study says that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. It argues that the world just needs to think harder and spend more to make the technology work because, to contain climate change, it may prove the only realistic and affordable way to dramatically reduce carbon emissions. Many governments appear to agree, and include carbon capture and storage in their plans to keep the world from dangerous climate change, But, at the same time, many are abandoning many trials that are needed to make it work. David Reiner, senior lecturer in technology policy at the University of Cambridge Judge Business School, argues in the new journal Nature Energy that stopping trials is foolish. Effective answer In a world addicted to fossil fuel energy, but threatened with catastrophic climate change driven by the greenhouse gas emissions from those same fossil fuels, he says that one effective answer would be to capture the carbon dioxide before it gets into the atmosphere, and then store it. He writes that the only way to find out how to do this is to spend billions on a range of possible attempts at carbon capture and storage (CCS), and then choose the best one. “If we are serious about meeting aggressive national or global emissions, the only way to do it affordably is with CCS,” Dr Reiner says. “But, since 2008, we have seen a decline in interest in CCS, which has essentially been in lock step with our declining interest in doing anything serious about climate change.” Just before the UN climate change summit in Paris last December, the UK government cancelled a £1 billion competition to support large-scale demonstration projects. Since 2008, other projects have been cancelled in the US, Canada, Australia and Europe. Read More here