15 February 2016, Science Daily, Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. You may as well learn the expression “carbon-negative technology,” or Bio-CCS, right away, because it has become a talking point in technological circles. Gemini explains why. There exists a method, or technology, that is capable of reducing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “In practice, the methods consists of capturing carbon dioxide emitted by “climate-neutral” processes such as the combustion of organic waste, pellets or sawdust,” explains SINTEF research scientist Mario Ditaranto, a specialist in combustion technology. It is then stored safely underground for ever, thus reducing its concentration in the atmosphere, because it has been eliminated from the natural carbon dioxide cycle. This is the only method we have to lower the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is an important cause of our climate problems. The method is called Bio-CCS, and it is not new. Until now it has suffered from a rather mixed reputation as insignificant, expensive and limited in its range of applications. However, in the light of climate change and the recent COP21 summit in Paris, it is on the of everyone in the climatology field. In Norway, it has led to SINTEF, the environmental organisation Bellona and certain branches of Norwegian industry working together for a rapid breakthrough. “Superlight” geoengineering The reason for the growing popularity of Bio-CCS is that at the very least it can be regarded as an extremely mild and non-hazardous form of geo-engineering. The aim of geo-engineering is to counteract anthropogenic climaste changes by means of physical interventions. Launching huge sunshades into space and spraying >> millions of ?? tonnes of sulphur into the atmosphere to filter sunlight are a couple of suggestions. These have naturally led to heated debates about both the ethics and safety of such solutions. After all, what might be the consequences if we fix things in ways that only make them worse? Unavoidable More than 1000 estimates brought together in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/) show that even a significant but gradual brake on carbon dioxide emissions will not be sufficient if we are to avoid a serious climatic crisis. Read More here
Tag Archives: Emissions
15 February 2016, Renew Economy, BP’s energy outlook barely changed after Paris climate agreement to achieve net zero emissions this century. Yet the 2016 BP energy outlook, published this week, shows the oil company’s views on the shape and direction of energy demand over the next 20 years have barely shifted. Carbon Brief explores why BP’s outlook appears impervious to the world’s first universal, global commitment to cut emissions. Models are wrong Before looking at the findings of BP’s outlook, it’s worth remembering that it is a modelling exercise. While models can be useful, they’re always wrong, particularly when it comes to energy. Forecasts often say more about the assumptions of the modellers than anything else. The most rigorous projections explore a range of plausible assumptions. Aware of these limitations, BP’s outlook starts with a hefty disclaimer that’s worth quoting from: “Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties because they relate to events, and depend on circumstances, that will or may occur in the future. Actual outcomes may differ depending on a variety of factors.” Likely outlook Now that we’ve got the small print out of the way, let’s turn to the main findings of the outlook. The report’s focus is a “base case”. This is the “most likely” future scenario, according to BP. Has that future shifted as a result of the Paris climate agreement? Has its expectations shifted after 189 countries pledged to tackle their emissions? The charts below compare the path of energy and CO2 emissions growth between 2015 and 2035, according to BP’s energy outlooks from 2014, 2015 and 2016. The most striking feature is how little has changed. It is almost as if Paris never happened. Where there are differences, economic factors seem to be at work rather than the climate treaty. Read More here
9 February 2016, Renew Economy, Coalition restates wish to axe CEFC, then unveils its largest program. The Jekyll-and-Hyde nature of the Coalition’s clean energy policies were underlined again on Monday, with the Federal government trumpeting one of the biggest ever programs by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, just hours after it repeated its wish to close the agency down. On Monday, Coalition MP Jane Ruston, appearing before a Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee hearing, had confirmed that it remained the Coalition’s intention to dismantle the CEFC, if it could get enough votes in the Senate. Greens Senator Scott Ludlam: Is it still government policy to abolish the CEFC? Ruston: …Yes. Ludlam: …Why? Ruston: …I think the government made it pretty clear when we were elected that we didn’t believe we should be in the job of being a bank. (Ruston apparently forgot that the Coalition has proposed the $5 billion northern Australia infrastructure fund, which is to operate on the same principles as the CEFC, just in a different area). Hours later, federal environment minister Greg Hunt trumpeted the launch of one of the green bank’s biggest investments yet, claiming credit for a $250 million energy efficiency program targeting community housing in Australian cities.
Hunt – in a media release sent while he was in Dubai, where he is attending the World Government Summit, and is thought to be a finalist in the “world’s best minister” award – said the CEFC-led program would drive the construction of market-leading energy efficient community housing project in 2016. He said this would contribute to the greening of Australia’s cities and built environment. It will provide as many as 1,000 new energy efficient dwellings Australia wide. Interestingly, Hunt said his department “had directed the CEFC to focus on cities and the built environment under its new Investment Mandate, which also included financing emerging and innovative renewable energy technologies as well as energy efficiency.” Read more here
8 February 2016, Climate Home, EU faces two-year wrangle to ratify Paris climate deal. The European Union faces months of internal wrangling before it can ratify the UN climate deal agreed in Paris last December. Brussels will take part in a signing ceremony to be hosted by Ban Ki-moon at UN headquarters in New York this April. But experts say it could take until late 2017 or 2018 to get the detail member states need to formally accept the agreement. And the 28-strong bloc’s leaders are showing little appetite for raising ambition during that time, despite Brussels backing a tougher global goal at the critical UN summit. At a panel event hosted by think tank Bruegel on Monday, climate and energy commissioner Miguel Arias Canete reeled off a long list of policies. “We will have to work very hard in 2016 to overcome the last hurdles of the agreement,” he said. “All signatories have to live up to their responsibilities and implement the agreed provisions.” What was not evident was any shift in strategy post-Paris. It was left to Hendrik Bourgeois of General Electric to point out that the EU’s 2030 climate targets were inconsistent with the Paris pact. At the UN summit, Canete boasted of helping to build a “high ambition coalition” between rich and poor nations. The resulting text promised to hold global warming “well below 2C” and “pursue efforts” for a 1.5C limit. The EU2030 package agreed in 2014 – emissions cuts of “at least” 40% from 1990 levels – was based on an earlier, less demanding 2C threshold. “Things will have to change and action will be necessary,” said Bourgeois. Read More here