CO2 disposal in the ocean is a dangerous distraction

Bill Hare, Greenpeace adviser and visiting scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, responds to Wallace Broecker’s call for carbon storage experiments in the depths of the Pacific Ocean

• guardian.co.uk,
• Wednesday June 18 2008 16:32 BST
• Article history

The urgency of reducing emissions of CO2 has never been greater. The science of climate change has revealed that the risks are much higher and more imminent than we had estimated only a few years ago. But just as with a deadly emergency in a heavy passenger jet: the crew should never, ever rush into hasty actions that will ultimately make a very bad situation a lot worse. Ocean disposal of CO2 is one such option.

A careful, rational and scientific analysis of the option of CO2 disposal in the ocean leads to the conclusion that it is not viable. In 2006 the German government’s scientific Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) came down against this option: “introducing CO2 into seawater should be prohibited, because the risk of ecological damage cannot be assessed and the retention period in the oceans is too short.” The main arguments were “the largely incalculable ecological risk” and the fact that over longer timeframes a significant fraction of the stored CO2 would get back to the atmosphere.

In the long run (hundreds to thousands of years) which, given the very long lifetime of CO2 we must always keep in mind when devising climate policies to limit warming, this option would not help reduce CO2 below levels that would have otherwise occurred.

As the IPCC Fourth Assessment Mitigation report, in which I was a lead author, has shown, conventional options to rapidly reduce emissions in the next few decades are available now. What is lacking to deploy these at scale and quickly are the appropriate policy settings. The absence of these is most acute in Dr Broecker’s own country, the USA.

It is not just Greenpeace and other environmental groups that think that ocean disposal is a bad option. The decision by OSPAR, for example, to explicitly rule out the disposal of CO2 into the ocean and on to the sea bed, is by no means irrational, nor the result of “strong-arm tactics”. Neither is it a decision in which Greenpeace played any major role.

Turning to some of the details in Dr Broecker’s arguments.

Deep water injection CO2 would cause inevitable and potentially irrevocable damage to those deep-water ecosystems directly impacted (smothering, asphyxiation, acidification), and at scale would result in far more widespread effects in the abyssal zone over time as the clathrates dissolve. Over far longer timescales it would result in changes to abyssal ecosystems which in turn feed back to the global carbon cycle.

To suggest that there is “no indication that the projected rise in upper ocean CO2 content will have adverse impacts on fish” and, on this basis, to argue that spread of CO2 through the deep sea would therefore also be benign, is misleading in the extreme. This statement ignores the growing evidence that projected rises in upper ocean CO2 and consequent acidification is likely to have profound impacts on calcification rates and calcifying organisms. It is predicted that upper ocean pH levels will drop to levels lower than those recorded at any time over tens of millions of years, and at a rate orders of magnitude greater than any previous change. There is also evidence that deep water crustacean species, sediment dwelling organisms and associated ecosystem processes could also be adversely affected, including changes to nutrient cycling thought to occur through impacts on sediment microflora.

The fact that deep water CO2 concentrations are currently lower than those of surface waters should not be taken as an indication of a vast unexploited capacity for CO2 disposal. Our knowledge of the biogeochemical processes which have contributed to the current distribution of CO2 in the deep oceans remains limited, as does our capacity therefore to predict the consequences of multi-billion tonne injections of CO2 at depth. To assume that uniformity of concentration is somehow an acceptable target, or one which will have minimal impact on marine ecosystems and the carbon cycle, is oversimplistic.

Dr Broecker argues that a series of experiments involving the release of one tonne quantities of CO2 at depths greater than 3,500m are the next logical step. One tonne release experiments to observe behaviour and determine impacts is one thing. However, one tonne experiments intended as proof of the concept for multi-gigatonne injections in the future is quite another.

An obvious critical aspect is the potential for cumulative impacts resulting from continuous injections over long periods, or a large number of injections, such as would be a necessary characteristic of any deep injection strategy for climate change mitigation. The nature and likelihood of these cumulative impacts simply could not be assessed from the results of the experiments he suggests.

Existing ocean dumping laws are designed to protect the marine environment from irresponsible and unsustainable waste disposal operations. The London Convention and its 1996 Protocol, which are currently in force in parallel, preclude the disposal at sea of industrial waste, including CO2, with the specific exception to enable carbon capture and storage in sub-sea bed geological formations under strict conditions of operation, verification, monitoring and control.

By definition, injection of CO2 at the sea bed deliberately and immediately relinquishes any control over the waste. Such disposal operations are effectively irreversible, and any adverse consequences, on whatever geographical and time scales they may occur, cannot be prevented or mitigated. If the models Broecker suggests we should rely on prove to be inadequate or inaccurate, or both, what do we do?

In short, ocean disposal of CO2, in common with other proposals for geoengineering our way out of climate change, is simply a dangerous distraction and draws attention away from the real solutions. There is no alternative but to drastically reduce emissions and this is best done at source using renewable energy, energy efficiency, reducing deforestation and improving the efficiency of industry and agriculture.

Many in the scientific community and in environmental groups such as Greenpeace share Dr Broecker’s deep sense of frustration at the lack of action to date and his great sense of foreboding over the fate of the planet if we do not succeed in getting emissions reduced quickly.

Dr Broecker’s work and writings since at least the mid-1970s warning of the dangers of rising CO2 helped to inspire a generation of scientists such as myself to work on this subject, and moreover to work hard and long to develop a global agreement to reduce emissions and limit the risk of rapid human-induced and dangerous climate change. As such his views are to be taken seriously and considered carefully. But in this case we must agree to disagree.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/18/carboncapturestorage.carbonemissions1

World CO2 levels at record high

• David Adam
• guardian.co.uk,
• Monday May 12 2008 16:15 BST
• Article history

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached a record high, according to new figures that renew fears that climate change could begin to slide out of control.

Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up almost 40% since the industrial revolution and the highest for at least the last 650,000 years.

The figures, published by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on its website, also confirm that carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than expected. The annual mean growth rate for 2007 was 2.14ppm – the fourth year in the past six to see an annual rise greater than 2ppm. From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm.

Scientists say the shift could indicate that the Earth is losing its natural ability to soak up billions of tons of carbon each year. Climate models assume that about half our future emissions will be re-absorbed by forests and oceans, but the new figures confirm this may be too optimistic. If more of our carbon pollution stays in the atmosphere, it means emissions will have to be cut by more than currently projected to prevent dangerous levels of global warming.

Martin Parry, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s working group on impacts, said: “Despite all the talk, the situation is getting worse. Levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise in the atmosphere and the rate of that rise is accelerating. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change and the scale of those impacts will also accelerate, until we decide to do something about it.”

· Martin Parry will be speaking at the Guardian Planning for Climate Adaptation conference on May 19

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/12/climatechange.carbonemissions

Top 10 Things You Can Do At Home

Courtesy of Conservation International

Do your part to ensure a healthy planet by incorporating these ten simple actions into your everyday life.

1.  Switch to compact fluorescent bulbs
2.  Set thermostat to 13°C when sleeping
3.  Maintain properly inflated car tires
4.  Set water heater temperature to 54°C
5.  Choose seafood wisely
6.  Buy EnergyStar appliances and electronics
7.  Wash and rinse in cold water
8.  Buy locally produced food and produce
9.  Drink from reusable glassware
10. Walk, bike and carpool

1) Replace your incandescent light bulbs with compact florescent lights (CFLs). Look closely at labels when buying light bulbs. Those marked as CFLs last 10 times longer and use 66 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs while delivering the same light levels. As a result, CFLs accrue net savings between $30 and $45 over their lifetimes, depending on your cost of electricity, the wattage size of the CFL, and the lamp’s lifespan (manufacturers make CFLs that last 6,000, 8,000, or 10,000 hours). The return on investment is 15 times higher than leaving your money in a bank account or the average return on Dows-Jones stock investments. CFLs also reduce the release of greenhouse gas emissions and are safer because they burn at a lower temperature (71°C or less) than incandescent and halogen lights, which can burn at temperatures up to 260°C.

2) Turn down the thermostat just two degrees in the winter and up two degrees in the summer. You can prevent the emission of nearly 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.

3) Inflate your car tires. When walking or biking isn’t feasible, you can do something to better protect the Earth while driving. Take a step in the right direction by inflating your car tires. Pumping them up can improve your gas mileage by about 3.3 percent – a savings of about 7 cents per gallon. It‘s the right thing to do for your wallet and the right thing to do for the Earth.

4) Turn down the hot water heater. Set your water heater to 54° C. While you’re at it, turn down your house thermostat during the winter to 13° C when you go to bed or leave home. These simple actions can have enormous positive consequences, preventing the emission of more than 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide over the course of the year, while cutting your energy bill by more than 10 percent. And that’s just from you! Get your friends on board, and the benefits will multiply.

5) Choose your seafood wisely. We can’t afford to wait until 2008. The world’s seafood will be entirely depleted by 2048, according to an early November report in the journal Science. That means the moment to shape up is now. By buying and eating certain types of seafood, you can discourage harmful fishing practices and avoid the more depleted or threatened species. Take a look at Seafood Choices Alliance or Seafood Watch to make smart choices.

6) Purchase EnergyStar-labeled appliances. EnergyStar products are among the top 25 percent most efficient and can provide a 30 percent return or better through lower utility bills.

7) Wash and rinse in cold water. If everyone in the United States alone switched to cold water with their washing machines, we could save about 30 million tons of carbon dioxide each year – and more than $3 billion in energy costs, collectively. And what’s more? Cold water cleans your laundry just as well as hot water.

Buy locally produced meats and produce. Sounds like a good idea, but you don’t know where to start? Just type in your zip code on Local Harvest’s website to see a list of farms and farmers’ markets close to home, as well as nearby restaurants committed to supporting their neighbours. Buying locally produced food cuts out the middlemen and the vast amounts of energy required to get your products onto store shelves. Most produce in Canada supermarkets travels an average 2,000 kilometres before it is sold!

9) Drink more water from reusable glassware. It’s great for your bank account, your health, and your planet. The average American consumed more than 400 beverage bottles and cans in 2006, leaving behind wasted glass, plastic, steel, and aluminum. That adds up to excessive amounts of fossil fuels and hydropower for mining, processing, refining, shaping, shipping, storing, refrigerating, and disposing of those materials. Of course, changing your drinking habits both at home and at work is applicable to just about every other habit, as well. You’ve heard it before and you’ll hear it again: Reduce, reuse, and recycle.

10) Walk, bike, and carpool. In Canada, the car represents one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. However, you don’t have to give up your car for a healthier planet, just expand your transportation options. You can significantly reduce your emissions by commuting to work. Try combining trips to minimize emissions, which are greatest at the beginning of a journey before the engine has reached optimum temperature and efficiency. When purchasing your next car, make it a fuel-efficient one. Hybrid cars can get twice the fuel efficiency of the average new car, cut greenhouse gas emissions by half or more, and reduce urban air pollutants. Carpooling saves energy, cuts on additional pollution, and allows you to take a turn as a passenger instead of driving everyday.  Car-sharing (not pooling) is available in numerous cities. Car-sharing enables you to rent a car just when you need it. Each car-share vehicle displaces four to eight privately held cars, requiring less parking area and creating less road congestion. If you live within an hour’s bicycle ride to the office (~13 kilometres), consider biking to work one or more days a week.

Source: http://green.sympatico.msn.ca/article.aspx?cp-documentid=472762

Brown houses are the new green

By Cody Larocque, Alternative Channel

Humans have three basic needs: food, shelter and clothing. Once these needs are met a person begins to flourish. Sadly, nowadays, shelter, our second greatest need, is becoming a valuable commodity. Housing is expensive both financially and environmentally as lumber and metal are de rigor in modern housing projects. We all know that these resources won’t last forever, but not many of us seek out alternatives to those classic building materials. Today, with a larger global population along with dwindling forests and mines, a 5000-year-old approach to home construction is taking off again. Exit cheap and fast modern housing materials, rammed earth buildings may be the solution to the world’s housing dilemma, as it has been reincarnated in a new and modern way.

Dating back to China’s Longshan culture, which resided along the yellow river five thousand years ago, rammed earth buildings are made up of the Earth’s most sustainable resource … earth. Mixed with sand, clay, gravel and, nowadays, concrete for extra strength, rammed earth buildings are constructed by erecting a wooden frame into which the mix is placed, and then compressed to at least half its height by a hand or pneumatic tamper. The walls being compressed from the above force and the side pressure from the frames becomes as solid as rock and are able to bear heavy loads. Rains a lot in your neighbourhood? That’s not a problem; in wetter climates a sealant is applied to protect the walls from water damage and the elements.

So, how “green” are those brown houses, anyway? Earth is always readily available, so transportation fees or waste generated from construction are minimal, while wooden or metal frames used in the construction process can be reused or recycled, dropping dramatically the impact on these resources as well. And don’t worry about agriculture. These buildings use subsoil in their construction, which leaves behind the nutrient-rich topsoil for agricultural use.

All good reasons to love those eco-friendly houses. Right?

Here’s one more asset that is as good for Mother Earth as it is for your wallet: their extremely high thermal mass. What this means is that due to both the density and thickness of the compressed earth buildings – average wall thickness is 12 to 14 inches – it takes a half day for either the heat or cold to penetrate the building, which keeps heating and cooling costs down. The thickness also greatly helps humidity and noise control and allows the air to be purified through the earthen walls.

The United States Department of Agriculture has observed that rammed earth buildings can last indefinitely and cost no more than two thirds of a house of equivalent size. That is also good for your wallet.

Now, would rammed earth buildings be the answer to so many problems that plague the modern world? Maybe not. But they would offset deforestation in what is left of our precious forests and save us from using up our metal resources as they encourage recycling of older metal buildings. The only thing stopping us is the lack of awareness of this construction method and the personal apprehensions of homeowners wondering if their earthen building will fit in with the white picket fences.

Source: http://green.sympatico.msn.ca/article.aspx?cp-documentid=601561

How the 1970s planted the seeds for green

When you think about the roots of being green, you probably don’t look to the 1970s. Things like leaded gasoline, leaded paint, groundwater contamination, polybromated biphenyls and DDT are more apt to come to mind. Recycling was basically an unknown word.

But upon further reflection, the seventies don’t look totally eco-unfriendly. Only today can we appreciate some of the products and mentalities from that era that are being rediscovered in the 21st century.

Here are 10 things from the 1970s that are influencing us to be green today:

1. Milk in glass bottles: In the 1970s we had milk in glass bottles. Plastic jugs and later plastic bags and cardboard cartons soon replaced glass as the containers of choice for milk. Today, albeit very slowly, glass is making a comeback as an environmentally-friendly and recyclable milk container. As more consumers request glass bottled milk, more milk companies will begin to offer it again.

2. Push mowers and electric mowers: Yes, back in the 1970s many homeowners used human-powered lawn cutters or electric lawnmowers. As the years wore on, the available choice of electric lawnmowers dwindled and push-reel mowers became abandoned at the back of the garage, as gas mowers gained popularity. Today, open any home improvement catalogue and the change is dramatic: electric and electric rechargeable lawnmowers and push-reel mowers are abundant again as environmentally-friendly choices.

3. Tupperware is cool: Tupperware parties were all the rage in the 1970s. Many people couldn’t seem to get enough of these handy plastic storage containers. Little did we know these people were on to a sensible green solution that fits our desire to produce less waste in landfills. Today, using reusable Tupperware-like containers is a green solution many people are choosing, rather than using plastic wrap.

4. Baking soda and vinegar: In the 1970s (and even farther back) moms everywhere had recipes for cleaning everything from sinks, carpets, windows and countertops. Chemical cleaners have existed for decades, but they seem to have grown in quantity and brands since the 1970s. Today, mom’s handy cleaning solutions from years ago are far more earth friendly and are being rediscovered.

5. Packing groceries the greener way: A typical trip to the grocery store in the 1970s meant you probably packed your groceries in cardboard boxes for the trip home. Unfortunately, back then those cardboard boxes ended up in landfills. Today, some discount food stores have recyclable cardboard boxes (the same boxes used to ship food to the stores) available for customers to reuse. Many customers are also choosing reusable tote bags, rather than using plastic bags which began to overwhelm the grocery checkout scene in the 1980s.

6. Clotheslines: They were fixtures in backyards everywhere in the 1970s. Then, they began to disappear as drying machines became more popular, and clotheslines became ostracized as an eyesore on the urban landscape. Now, clotheslines are cool, they save on energy costs by not using a dryer, and previous bans are being rescinded.

7. Fans are back: Remember those tabletop fans in the 1970s? Well, maybe not if you weren’t around in that era. But take our word for it, for many people, they were the only cooling machines. Well, tabletop fans, column fans and ceiling fans are back in a big way and they use much less electricity than central air conditioning and can reduce the need to use energy-sucking central air conditioning.

8. Air conditioning-less vehicles: There was always something uncomfortable about a sticky hot day, no air conditioning, and vinyl car seats. In the 1970s that was the norm for many drivers. Air conditioning, after all, wasn’t a luxury most drivers enjoyed. Today, many drivers have air conditioning, but like drivers in the seventies they’re learning to live without it, or use it sparingly to conserve energy and money as fuel prices skyrocket.

9. Don’t throw away clothing: It’s 2008 and the 1970s look is hip again. Who would’ve thought that? That old saying everything old is new again applies here. It’s a lesson that clothes can be recycled and handed down . . . eventually, it just may take 30 years. Bell-bottoms, anyone?

10. Plant a tree: Thirty years ago planting a tree was more likely to be part of a child’s school classroom project to watch a seed germinate and then eventually be taken home to be planted in the family’s backyard. It’s a concept that planted a much bigger seed for future generations. Today, planting trees has become a movement. It’s no longer about one tree, one child and one classroom. School groups, scouts, girl guides, organizations and companies are taking on tree planting projects involving hundreds and thousands of trees. No doubt, many people involved in these projects remember planting one seed and watching it grow in a classroom many years ago.

WorkCabin.ca is Canada’s premiere eco-friendly job site

Source: http://green.sympatico.msn.ca/article.aspx?cp-documentid=591541