EVEN with the best will in the world, reducing our carbon emissions is not going to prevent global warming. It has become clear that even if we take the most drastic measures to curb emissions, the uncertainties in our climate models still leave open the possibility of extreme warming and rises in sea level. At the same time, resistance by governments and special interest groups makes it quite possible that the actions advocated by climate scientists might not be implemented soon enough.
Fortunately, if the worst comes to the worst, scientists still have a few tricks up their sleeves. For the most part they have strongly resisted discussing these options for fear of inviting a sense of complacency that might thwart efforts to tackle the root of the problem. Until now, that is.
A growing number of researchers are taking a fresh look at large-scale "geoengineering" projects that might be used to counteract global warming. "I use the analogy of methadone," says Stephen Schneider, a climate researcher at Stanford University in California who was among the first to draw attention to global warming. "If you have a heroin addict, the correct treatment is hospitalisation, therapy and a long rehab. But if they absolutely refuse, methadone is better than heroin."
Basically the idea is to apply "sunscreen" to the whole planet. It's controversial, but recent studies suggest there are ways to deflect just enough of the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface to counteract the warming produced by the greenhouse effect. Global climate models show that blocking just 1.8 per cent of the incident energy in the sun's rays would cancel out the warming effects produced by a doubling of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That could be crucial, because even the most stringent emissions-control measures being proposed would leave us with a doubling of carbon dioxide by the end of this century, and that would last for at least a century more.
full article
Friday 20 July 2007
Meat is murder on the environment
A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home.
This is among the conclusions of a study by Akifumi Ogino of the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, and colleagues, which has assessed the effects of beef production on global warming, water acidification and eutrophication, and energy consumption. The team looked at calf production, focusing on animal management and the effects of producing and transporting feed. By combining this information with data from their earlier studies on the impact of beef fattening systems, the researchers were able to calculate the total environmental load of a portion of beef.
Their analysis showed that producing a kilogram of beef leads to the emission of greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide. It also releases fertilising compounds equivalent to 340 grams of sulphur dioxide and 59 grams of phosphate, and consumes 169 megajoules of energy (Animal Science Journal, DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x). In other words, a kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
The calculations, which are based on standard industrial methods of meat production in Japan, did not include the impact of managing farm infrastructure and transporting the meat, so the total environmental load is higher than the study suggests.
Most of the greenhouse gas emissions are in the form of methane released from the animals' digestive systems, while the acid and fertilising substances come primarily from their waste. Over two-thirds of the energy goes towards producing and transporting the animals' feed.
Possible interventions, the authors suggest, include better waste management and shortening the interval between calving by one month. This latter measure could reduce the total environmental load by nearly 6 per cent. A Swedish study in 2003 suggested that organic beef, raised on grass rather than concentrated feed, emits 40 per cent less greenhouse gases and consumes 85 per cent less energy.
"Methane emissions from beef cattle are declining, thanks to innovations in feeding practices," says Karen Batra of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association in Centennial, Colorado. "Everybody is trying to come up with different ways to reduce carbon footprints," says Su Taylor of the Vegetarian Society in the UK: "But one of the easiest things you can do is to stop eating meat.
full article
This is among the conclusions of a study by Akifumi Ogino of the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, and colleagues, which has assessed the effects of beef production on global warming, water acidification and eutrophication, and energy consumption. The team looked at calf production, focusing on animal management and the effects of producing and transporting feed. By combining this information with data from their earlier studies on the impact of beef fattening systems, the researchers were able to calculate the total environmental load of a portion of beef.
Their analysis showed that producing a kilogram of beef leads to the emission of greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide. It also releases fertilising compounds equivalent to 340 grams of sulphur dioxide and 59 grams of phosphate, and consumes 169 megajoules of energy (Animal Science Journal, DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x). In other words, a kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
The calculations, which are based on standard industrial methods of meat production in Japan, did not include the impact of managing farm infrastructure and transporting the meat, so the total environmental load is higher than the study suggests.
Most of the greenhouse gas emissions are in the form of methane released from the animals' digestive systems, while the acid and fertilising substances come primarily from their waste. Over two-thirds of the energy goes towards producing and transporting the animals' feed.
Possible interventions, the authors suggest, include better waste management and shortening the interval between calving by one month. This latter measure could reduce the total environmental load by nearly 6 per cent. A Swedish study in 2003 suggested that organic beef, raised on grass rather than concentrated feed, emits 40 per cent less greenhouse gases and consumes 85 per cent less energy.
"Methane emissions from beef cattle are declining, thanks to innovations in feeding practices," says Karen Batra of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association in Centennial, Colorado. "Everybody is trying to come up with different ways to reduce carbon footprints," says Su Taylor of the Vegetarian Society in the UK: "But one of the easiest things you can do is to stop eating meat.
full article
Crucial six months to stop the lights going out
Britain's energy policy is entering a crucial phase with decisions over the next few months shaping the country's ability to meet demand over the next two decades, according to energy minister Malcolm Wicks.
Climate change and the geopolitics of energy supply and demand will be among the big issues of the 21st century and the ability to meet the challenge will be as important to national security as the armed forces, he said yesterday.
"No one wants the lights to be going out in 20 years time. I'm not saying they will. They won't. But they won't because of the decisions we will be taking over the rest of the year."
Among the pressing issues are whether Britain will build a new generation of nuclear power stations. After a judicial review, the government is conducting a five-month consultation on the issue with Mr Wicks insisting it will be a genuine consultation not a cosmetic exercise to satisfy the high court ruling in February.
"The government made a decision in principle that nuclear should - could, depending on commercial people coming forward - be part of the energy mix we require. That was a decision in principle. We were taken to judicial review and we lost, therefore we are engaging in a new consultation and we take that consultation very seriously."
Mr Wicks acknowledged "we can't suddenly be empty-minded about this". But he said: "I am receptive to new arguments and new evidence; otherwise why do it? It's not a cosmetic exercise. I'm a social scientist. I have respect for evidence."
The forthcoming energy bill will be part of a series of significant legislative measures related to the energy industry, including the climate change bill which will enshrine emission targets. A planning bill aims to streamline the planning process in relation to big energy infrastructure projects among others.
Mr Wicks, who is just starting his second spell as energy minister, is aware of the large-scale investment which is needed in energy. The white paper published in May calculated that Britain needed up to 35 gigawatts of new electricity generating capacity over the next 20 years while gas import capacity could rise by up to 30%.
Mr Wicks is keen to see Britain capitalise on new energy technologies, not only as part of its drive towards a lower carbon economy, but as a basis for an industry which will be able to exploit domestic skill and technology on world markets, especially growing economies such as China.
An area Mr Wicks finds particularly exciting is carbon capture and storage. "The dark reality is that the world is going to be burning fossil fuels for another 100 years." As a result there was a long-term need for carbon abatement technology.
"I think carbon capture and storage technology is one of those happy areas where the ethical and the environmental, the commercial and the profitable, come together."
The government announced in the budget that it would hold a competition to demonstrate carbon capture and storage on a commercial scale. Some within the industry are concerned about how many schemes the government would be prepared to back and just how much money it will commit to the programme.
Yesterday Mr Wicks refused to be drawn on details of the competition, due to be launched in November, or how much support the government would offer. "I don't think that has been agreed." He acknowledged that the commercial development of carbon capture and storage would be costly. "You can't do it on the cheap."
full article
Climate change and the geopolitics of energy supply and demand will be among the big issues of the 21st century and the ability to meet the challenge will be as important to national security as the armed forces, he said yesterday.
"No one wants the lights to be going out in 20 years time. I'm not saying they will. They won't. But they won't because of the decisions we will be taking over the rest of the year."
Among the pressing issues are whether Britain will build a new generation of nuclear power stations. After a judicial review, the government is conducting a five-month consultation on the issue with Mr Wicks insisting it will be a genuine consultation not a cosmetic exercise to satisfy the high court ruling in February.
"The government made a decision in principle that nuclear should - could, depending on commercial people coming forward - be part of the energy mix we require. That was a decision in principle. We were taken to judicial review and we lost, therefore we are engaging in a new consultation and we take that consultation very seriously."
Mr Wicks acknowledged "we can't suddenly be empty-minded about this". But he said: "I am receptive to new arguments and new evidence; otherwise why do it? It's not a cosmetic exercise. I'm a social scientist. I have respect for evidence."
The forthcoming energy bill will be part of a series of significant legislative measures related to the energy industry, including the climate change bill which will enshrine emission targets. A planning bill aims to streamline the planning process in relation to big energy infrastructure projects among others.
Mr Wicks, who is just starting his second spell as energy minister, is aware of the large-scale investment which is needed in energy. The white paper published in May calculated that Britain needed up to 35 gigawatts of new electricity generating capacity over the next 20 years while gas import capacity could rise by up to 30%.
Mr Wicks is keen to see Britain capitalise on new energy technologies, not only as part of its drive towards a lower carbon economy, but as a basis for an industry which will be able to exploit domestic skill and technology on world markets, especially growing economies such as China.
An area Mr Wicks finds particularly exciting is carbon capture and storage. "The dark reality is that the world is going to be burning fossil fuels for another 100 years." As a result there was a long-term need for carbon abatement technology.
"I think carbon capture and storage technology is one of those happy areas where the ethical and the environmental, the commercial and the profitable, come together."
The government announced in the budget that it would hold a competition to demonstrate carbon capture and storage on a commercial scale. Some within the industry are concerned about how many schemes the government would be prepared to back and just how much money it will commit to the programme.
Yesterday Mr Wicks refused to be drawn on details of the competition, due to be launched in November, or how much support the government would offer. "I don't think that has been agreed." He acknowledged that the commercial development of carbon capture and storage would be costly. "You can't do it on the cheap."
full article
Sea levels may rise by 9 inches this century
he melting of mountain glaciers and ice caps as a result of global warming over the next century is likely to cause bigger than expected increases in sea levels.
An assessment of the volume of water running into the oceans from melting ice caps suggests that sea levels could rise by two to three times the amount previously expected from this source. The study used satellite monitoring to assess the contribution to sea levels made by all land-based ice, except for the two continental-sized ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.
t found that the volume of water melting into the sea each year from glaciers and ice caps was 100 cubic miles (417 cubic km), which is almost equal in size to the amount of water in Lake Erie. However, this volume of meltwater is increasing by a further three cubic miles each year because of an acceleration in the rate at which ice caps and glaciers are melting, said Professor Mark Meier, of the University of Colorado. "One reason for doing this study is the widely held view that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will be the principal cause of sea-level rise," Professor Meier said. "But we show that it is the glaciers and ice caps, not the two large ice sheets, that will be the big players in the sea rise for at least the next few generations."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that melting ice caps and glaciers will add about three inches (7.6cm) to sea levels this century. But the latest assessment, published in the journal Science, suggests they are more likely to add between four inches and 9.5 inches to global sea levels.
This does not include the rise in sea levels caused by the thermal expansion of water, which could potentially double this figure. A 12-inch rise in sea level can typically cause a shoreline to retreat by 100ft (30m) or more. About 100 million people now live in areas within three feet of sea level.
full article
An assessment of the volume of water running into the oceans from melting ice caps suggests that sea levels could rise by two to three times the amount previously expected from this source. The study used satellite monitoring to assess the contribution to sea levels made by all land-based ice, except for the two continental-sized ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.
t found that the volume of water melting into the sea each year from glaciers and ice caps was 100 cubic miles (417 cubic km), which is almost equal in size to the amount of water in Lake Erie. However, this volume of meltwater is increasing by a further three cubic miles each year because of an acceleration in the rate at which ice caps and glaciers are melting, said Professor Mark Meier, of the University of Colorado. "One reason for doing this study is the widely held view that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will be the principal cause of sea-level rise," Professor Meier said. "But we show that it is the glaciers and ice caps, not the two large ice sheets, that will be the big players in the sea rise for at least the next few generations."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that melting ice caps and glaciers will add about three inches (7.6cm) to sea levels this century. But the latest assessment, published in the journal Science, suggests they are more likely to add between four inches and 9.5 inches to global sea levels.
This does not include the rise in sea levels caused by the thermal expansion of water, which could potentially double this figure. A 12-inch rise in sea level can typically cause a shoreline to retreat by 100ft (30m) or more. About 100 million people now live in areas within three feet of sea level.
full article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
