12 October 2017, WIRED, The Dirty Secret of the World’s Plan to Avert Climate Disaster. IN 2014 HENRIK Karlsson, a Swedish entrepreneur whose startup was failing, was lying in bed with a bankruptcy notice when the BBC called. The reporter had a scoop: On the eve of releasing a major report, the United Nation’s climate change panel appeared to be touting an untried technology as key to keeping planetary temperatures at safe levels. The technology went by the inelegant acronym BECCS (Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage), and Karlsson was apparently the only BECCS expert the reporter could find. Karlsson was amazed. The bankruptcy notice was for his BECCS startup, which he’d founded seven years earlier after an idea came to him while watching a late-night television show in Gothenburg, Sweden. The show explored the benefits of capturing carbon dioxide before it was emitted from power plants. It’s the technology behind the much-touted notion of “clean coal,” a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow down climate change…..But here’s where things get weird. The UN report envisions 116 scenarios in which global temperatures are prevented from rising more than 2°C. In 101 of them, that goal is accomplished by sucking massive amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—a concept called “negative emissions”—chiefly via BECCS. And in these scenarios to prevent planetary disaster, this would need to happen by midcentury, or even as soon as 2020. Like a pharmaceutical warning label, one footnote warned that such “methods may carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale.” …… Still, negative emissions are not mentioned in the Paris Climate Agreement or a part of formal international climate negotiations. As Peters and Geden recently pointed out, no country mentions BECCS in its official plan to cut emissions in line with Paris’s 2°C goal, and only a dozen mention carbon capture and storage. Politicians are decidedly not crafting elaborate BECCS plans, with supply chains spanning continents and carbon accounting spanning decades. So even if negative emissions of any kind turns out to be feasible technically and economically, it’s hard to see how we can achieve it on a global scale in a scant 13 or even three years, as some scenarios require. Read More here
Category Archives: The Science
11 October 2017, Carbon Briefing, Geoengineering: Scientists in Berlin debate radical ways to reverse global warming. Research scientists, policymakers and ethicists gathered in Berlin this week to discuss the emerging field of “climate engineering” and what it could mean for the planet. Climate engineering, also known as geoengineering, is a term used to describe an array of technologies – many of which remain hypothetical – for altering the global climate in order to lessen the effects of climate change. The four-day conference has been organised by the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam, Germany, and includes speakers and participants from across the world, including Japan, Jamaica, the US and India. Tuesday Tuesday’s proceedings kicked off with talks aimed at bringing the audience up to speed with the latest research into the two main categories of geoengineering technologies: carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). First up was Dr Naomi Vaughan, a researcher from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia. Her talk touched on recent research into a variety of CDR technologies, including biomass energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS), soil carbon sequestration and reforestation projects, and how important these techniques could be to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. She told the conference: Read More here
2 October 2017, Think Progress, Courts back climate scientists, but right-wing attacks are disrupting research. Right-wing groups inappropriately using open records requests has had a chilling effect on scientific inquiry. People play dirty when they can’t win by playing fair. This is, more or less, the story of climate change denial in the United States. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are altering the climate, reaping changes with potentially catastrophic consequences. Climate deniers can’t dispute the data. They can’t win on facts. Instead, they impugn the credibility of scientists, a tactic which has proved both ugly and effective. Right-wing groups are using open records laws to obtain scientists’ emails — and then misrepresenting the content of those emails to question the integrity of researchers and cast doubt on their findings, all of which has a chilling effect on scientific inquiry. But scientists have earned powerful allies in the fight to protect their research — including, by a strange set of circumstances, the Trump administration. Read More here
29 September 2017, Carbon Brief, Analysis: What does revised methane data mean for the Paris Agreement? A study released today finds that global methane emissions from agriculture are much larger than previous estimates have suggested. Revised calculations find that methane emissions from livestock in 2011 were 11% higher than modelled estimates based on data produced in 2006 by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). In response, media outlets including the BBC Radio 4 Today programme and Agence France-Presse (AFP) released reports suggesting that the findings could mean that it will be harder for countries to meet the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement. Carbon Brief spoke to the authors of the new study, as well as scientists from the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, and asked them to analyse these claims. What did the new study find? Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and the second biggest contributor to human-caused global warming after carbon dioxide. Livestock produce large amounts of methane as part of their normal digestive process, largely through passing wind. Also, when the animal manure is stored or managed in lagoons or holding tanks, more methane is released into the atmosphere. The extent to which methane emissions from agriculture could contribute to future global warming has been examined by international scientific bodies including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Read More here