The first document I'm covering will be "Views on the issues
identified in decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 72 and appendix II.
Submissions from Parties" from the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technological Advice. The recommendations were supposed to be submitted
by February 28th, 2012. Almost every country had their submissions
sent in by the 29th. The US sent their response in on March 6th.
Decision1/CP.16 paragraph 72 and appendix II
covers the creation of a new mechanism to track and limit deforestation.
It is called the Joint Mitigation and Adaptation Mechanism for the
Integral and Sustainable Adaptation of Forests.
India's position on the decision seems self-serving. I think
it's obvious from India's position on the methodology for how forests
should be measured and indigenous peoples included in governance that
they are looking to subvert the proposal. First they state that ToFs
(trees out of forest) need to be accounted for in surveying. This is a decision
dedicated to deforestation, not just carbon sequestration, and as a
result would have to take into account biological diversity and
ecological resilience. India's suggestions seem an attempt to
circumvent both. They suggest that the means for determining
how the trees are accounted for be determined by each individual state,
so that it is done according to their needs. While it is important that each state is able to implement projects in a way that conforms to their national regulations and development needs, counting outside of forests does not contribute to the health of forests. In addition, India
suggested that the researchers assessing the amount of 'forest' should
also have their work reviewed by outside experts and independent
experts.
Ecosystems decay quicker the more biodiversity, land, or
services you cut out of them. By allowing ToFs to
be counted you are creating another forest that is wholly non-existent,
especially in a country as large as India. Ecosystem services would be
non-existent and there would be no additional biodiversity. This would
allow for the additional degradation of land and loss of soil to be
included as a success in the conservation of forests. New trees planted that had not
matured could be considered forested area without additional ecosystem
services being present. For example, NTFPs (Non-tree Forest Products)
would not be nearly as prevalent as they should be given the amount of
trees in place. While this would mean there is an increase in the
amount of GHG being sequestered, since young trees absorb more CO2 than
older trees, the absence of a genuine forest system should make individual
and newly planted trees subject to their own form of accounting.
Allowing
India to establish its own methodology could also create additional loopholes.
India does not identify what type of experts would be involved in the
review of the forest information that must be analyzed and
disseminated. This leaves a large amount of room for political
manipulation. Political appointees with no scientific background could
write the summary and general reports on the data. These could easily
mislead those who know little about the science or bring about the
dissemination of false information to decision-making bodies.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Bonn Climate Talks
The Bonn talks were held this week. They were meant to be a lead up
to the COP 18 UNFCCC talks in Doha, Qatar this year. This is the year
to finalize any plans for a the second round of Kyoto Protocol cuts,
making it very important. The COP 15 talks were supposed to be the
meetings at which we got the ball rolling on establishing new emissions
restrictions, however most consider that to have been a failure. With
the COP 17 talks however the developing world, the BRICS in particular,
have made concessions that the developed world has asked for consistently. That may make it easier for the various developed nations to
bring back a treaty requiring further reductions to their electorates at home.
In my opinion the Kyoto Protocol was not very successful. Many say that the absence of the US was the downfall the treaty. While I agree that without US reductions the success of the treaty is moot, the real disappointing part was the failure of the treaty without the US. Political pressure could have brought the US into the treaty which would have put them on track with the rest of the world in cleaning up their emissions. I'll admit that I'm not sure at what level emissions need to be cut to prevent dangerous climate change. That's not my central problem however. Excess carbon credits flooded the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme through the CDM creating an artificially high number of credits for European firms to buy. That then allowed those firms to emit in excess of what they otherwise would have.
All of these credits came from about 17 HFC-23 abatement projects in China and India making these projects very easy to regulate. However, no regulation was forthcoming once the abuse was pointed out, not for a few years at least. Once it was acted upon leniency was still granted to the manufacturers. And the manufacturers knew what they were doing. I'll explain HFC-23 abatement and its impact on the EU ETS later but this is not an example of negligence on the part of CDM officials. It is too large of a mistake to be anything other than corruption.
As this week passes I'll be giving my reactions on the various reports I read from the conference.
In my opinion the Kyoto Protocol was not very successful. Many say that the absence of the US was the downfall the treaty. While I agree that without US reductions the success of the treaty is moot, the real disappointing part was the failure of the treaty without the US. Political pressure could have brought the US into the treaty which would have put them on track with the rest of the world in cleaning up their emissions. I'll admit that I'm not sure at what level emissions need to be cut to prevent dangerous climate change. That's not my central problem however. Excess carbon credits flooded the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme through the CDM creating an artificially high number of credits for European firms to buy. That then allowed those firms to emit in excess of what they otherwise would have.
All of these credits came from about 17 HFC-23 abatement projects in China and India making these projects very easy to regulate. However, no regulation was forthcoming once the abuse was pointed out, not for a few years at least. Once it was acted upon leniency was still granted to the manufacturers. And the manufacturers knew what they were doing. I'll explain HFC-23 abatement and its impact on the EU ETS later but this is not an example of negligence on the part of CDM officials. It is too large of a mistake to be anything other than corruption.
As this week passes I'll be giving my reactions on the various reports I read from the conference.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Arctic Methane as a Driver of Climate Change
Last summer, 2011, there were reports of the ocean bubbling from
tankers traveling through the Chukchi Sea north of Russia. The Chukchi Sea is north
of Siberia, a section of the Arctic Ocean, and one of the last places in
the Arctic to receive extensive research. It runs along the coast of
northeastern Siberia which is home to the East Siberian Arctic Shelf
(ESAS). The ESAS is the shallowest portion of the Arctic Ocean with an
average depth of 50m.
In response to the freighter's reports a team from the University of Alaska Fairbanks that had been studying the area for the past decade launched an expedition to the region. What they found were plumes of methane bubbling from the ocean up to a km across. These areas had not been explored yet by the team. Areas close to it however had only had plumes tens of meters across. Why does this matter?
Methane is one of the more potent greenhouse gases (GHGs) that occur naturally on Earth in large quantities. Over 20 years methane has 72 times more warming potential than carbon dioxide and 25 times more over 100 years. Scenarios from the SRES, SREX, and the two latest comprehensive climate change reports from the IPCC, the TAR and AR4, don't include methane emissions outside of anthropogenic sources (agricultural emissions due to livestock and rice and other industry). As a result, the effects of methane emissions from many natural sources has not been quantified and the effect of such large additions of methane into the atmosphere is unknown.
The ESAS is home to the largest concentration of methane hydrates or clathrates in the world. Clathrates are solid crystal structures created under pressure near the bottom of the ocean or within the sediment. Beneath the sediment clathrates extend until the geologic heat from the Earth becomes too much for the solid crystal structure to be maintained. 80% of the world's clathrates are located in the ESAS. It is estimated that around 1750Gt of methane are stored within the ESAS.
In 2010 Shakhova et. al estimated that it was possible for a 50 Gt release of methane from the clathrates of the ESAS to happen at any time. 50 Gt of methane is enough to double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, pushing us into the region of dangerous climate change.
In earlier periods, methane release from clathrates played a role in massive extinctions. In fact, the largest extinction known to date, occurred in conjunction with massive methane releases from clathrates. The Permian-Triassic extinction killed off 70% of terrestrial vertebrates, 90% of marine life. and is the only know mass extinction of insect life. During that period carbon supersaturated the oceans turning the ocean from a carbon sink to a carbon source. Oxygen levels are presumed to have been at such a low proportion that some forms of life could not be supported. Massive wildfires roamed the continents.
This is an extreme example of the ability methane has of wreaking havoc on our climate system. There is not nearly as much methane deposited in hydrates as there had been at that time. It is also believed that the release of the hydrates was caused by the seismic activity of volcanoes located in Siberia. Both of these point toward changes in climate not being as drastic as the Permian extinction. Any change caused by the release of large amounts of methane from the ESAS however would be swift and have a large impact on the climate system.
What is most worrisome about this latest development in the ESAS is that the Arctic is already warming quicker than the rest of the world. Some of this warming is unaccounted for. It has been acknowledged that there is a feedback mechanism that inherently speeds the loss of Arctic ice as it melts. As the ice melts and breaks apart it becomes surrounded by water which has a lower albedo (or reflectivity). Heat energy is more easily trapped by surfaces with low albedo, causing the water surrounding the ice to heat up faster, causing the ice to melt quicker. This vicious cycle does not account for all increases in warming however.
Recently, NASA performed flyovers of the oceans spanning from one pole to the next. They flew over the Arctic five times and discovered that methane levels from the Arctic ocean were .5% higher than background levels. (See my entry from April 24, 2012.) The higher methane levels were concentrated where there were leads in the ice, meaning the methane was coming from the ocean and not already present in the atmosphere. This discovery may account for the additional warming we are experiencing in the Arctic. The source of this methane has not been identified yet. This leaves us with the question, "What is happening in the Arctic?"
It would seem to me that the increasing levels of methane are indicative of a positive feedback beginning in the Arctic. The ocean water that is coming in contact with the permafrost on the ESAS is 12-17 degrees Celsius warmer than the ice that had previously covered it. With the greater release of ESAS methane Arctic waters will become supersaturated with carbon, become warmer more easily, turn the ocean into a source, and aid the release of additional clathrates in Arctic. GHG emissions must be limited NOW in order to prevent this...
References
Kort, E., Wofsy, S., Daube, B., Diao, M., Elkins, J., Gao, R., et al. (2012). Atmospheric observations of Arctic Ocean methane emissions up to 82 north. Nature Geoscience, 5, 318-321.
"Methane releases from Arctic shelf may be much larger and faster than anticipated." National Science Foundation - US National Science Foundation (NSF). Version 10-036 . N.p., 4 Mar. 2012. Web. 11 May 2012..
Romm, Joe. "Science stunner: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting | ThinkProgress." ThinkProgress. N.p., 4 Mar. 2012. Web. 11 May 2012..
Shakhova, N.E, V.A Alekseev, and I.P Semiletov. "Predicted methane emission on the East Siberian Shelf." Doklady Earth Sciences 430.2 (2010): 190-193.
Shakhova, N., Semiletov, I., Sergienko, V., Pipko, I., & Dudarev, O. (2012). On carbon transport and fate in the East Siberian Arctic land–shelf–atmosphere system. Environmental Research Letters, 7, 1-13.
Shen, S, J.L Crowley, Y Wang, S.A Bowling, D.H Erwin, P.M Sadler, and C Cao. "Calibrating the end-Permian mass extinction." Science 334 (2011): 1367-1372.
In response to the freighter's reports a team from the University of Alaska Fairbanks that had been studying the area for the past decade launched an expedition to the region. What they found were plumes of methane bubbling from the ocean up to a km across. These areas had not been explored yet by the team. Areas close to it however had only had plumes tens of meters across. Why does this matter?
Methane is one of the more potent greenhouse gases (GHGs) that occur naturally on Earth in large quantities. Over 20 years methane has 72 times more warming potential than carbon dioxide and 25 times more over 100 years. Scenarios from the SRES, SREX, and the two latest comprehensive climate change reports from the IPCC, the TAR and AR4, don't include methane emissions outside of anthropogenic sources (agricultural emissions due to livestock and rice and other industry). As a result, the effects of methane emissions from many natural sources has not been quantified and the effect of such large additions of methane into the atmosphere is unknown.
The ESAS is home to the largest concentration of methane hydrates or clathrates in the world. Clathrates are solid crystal structures created under pressure near the bottom of the ocean or within the sediment. Beneath the sediment clathrates extend until the geologic heat from the Earth becomes too much for the solid crystal structure to be maintained. 80% of the world's clathrates are located in the ESAS. It is estimated that around 1750Gt of methane are stored within the ESAS.
In 2010 Shakhova et. al estimated that it was possible for a 50 Gt release of methane from the clathrates of the ESAS to happen at any time. 50 Gt of methane is enough to double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, pushing us into the region of dangerous climate change.
In earlier periods, methane release from clathrates played a role in massive extinctions. In fact, the largest extinction known to date, occurred in conjunction with massive methane releases from clathrates. The Permian-Triassic extinction killed off 70% of terrestrial vertebrates, 90% of marine life. and is the only know mass extinction of insect life. During that period carbon supersaturated the oceans turning the ocean from a carbon sink to a carbon source. Oxygen levels are presumed to have been at such a low proportion that some forms of life could not be supported. Massive wildfires roamed the continents.
This is an extreme example of the ability methane has of wreaking havoc on our climate system. There is not nearly as much methane deposited in hydrates as there had been at that time. It is also believed that the release of the hydrates was caused by the seismic activity of volcanoes located in Siberia. Both of these point toward changes in climate not being as drastic as the Permian extinction. Any change caused by the release of large amounts of methane from the ESAS however would be swift and have a large impact on the climate system.
What is most worrisome about this latest development in the ESAS is that the Arctic is already warming quicker than the rest of the world. Some of this warming is unaccounted for. It has been acknowledged that there is a feedback mechanism that inherently speeds the loss of Arctic ice as it melts. As the ice melts and breaks apart it becomes surrounded by water which has a lower albedo (or reflectivity). Heat energy is more easily trapped by surfaces with low albedo, causing the water surrounding the ice to heat up faster, causing the ice to melt quicker. This vicious cycle does not account for all increases in warming however.
Recently, NASA performed flyovers of the oceans spanning from one pole to the next. They flew over the Arctic five times and discovered that methane levels from the Arctic ocean were .5% higher than background levels. (See my entry from April 24, 2012.) The higher methane levels were concentrated where there were leads in the ice, meaning the methane was coming from the ocean and not already present in the atmosphere. This discovery may account for the additional warming we are experiencing in the Arctic. The source of this methane has not been identified yet. This leaves us with the question, "What is happening in the Arctic?"
It would seem to me that the increasing levels of methane are indicative of a positive feedback beginning in the Arctic. The ocean water that is coming in contact with the permafrost on the ESAS is 12-17 degrees Celsius warmer than the ice that had previously covered it. With the greater release of ESAS methane Arctic waters will become supersaturated with carbon, become warmer more easily, turn the ocean into a source, and aid the release of additional clathrates in Arctic. GHG emissions must be limited NOW in order to prevent this...
References
Kort, E., Wofsy, S., Daube, B., Diao, M., Elkins, J., Gao, R., et al. (2012). Atmospheric observations of Arctic Ocean methane emissions up to 82 north. Nature Geoscience, 5, 318-321.
"Methane releases from Arctic shelf may be much larger and faster than anticipated." National Science Foundation - US National Science Foundation (NSF). Version 10-036 . N.p., 4 Mar. 2012. Web. 11 May 2012.
Romm, Joe. "Science stunner: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting | ThinkProgress." ThinkProgress. N.p., 4 Mar. 2012. Web. 11 May 2012.
Shakhova, N.E, V.A Alekseev, and I.P Semiletov. "Predicted methane emission on the East Siberian Shelf." Doklady Earth Sciences 430.2 (2010): 190-193.
Shakhova, N., Semiletov, I., Sergienko, V., Pipko, I., & Dudarev, O. (2012). On carbon transport and fate in the East Siberian Arctic land–shelf–atmosphere system. Environmental Research Letters, 7, 1-13.
Shen, S, J.L Crowley, Y Wang, S.A Bowling, D.H Erwin, P.M Sadler, and C Cao. "Calibrating the end-Permian mass extinction." Science 334 (2011): 1367-1372.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)