Who sends out press releases on a Sunday? UCLA does when the content is expected to match Obama’s draconian climate announcement planned for Monday.
Reducing emissions will be the primary way to fight climate change, UCLA-led study finds
A new report by professors from UCLA and five other universities concludes that there’s no way around it: We have to cut down the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere. The interdisciplinary team looked at a range of possible approaches to dissipating greenhouse gases and reducing warming.
Forget about positioning giant mirrors in space to reduce the amount of sunlight being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere or seeding clouds to reduce the amount of light entering earth’s atmosphere. Those approaches to climate engineering aren’t likely to be effective or practical in slowing global warming.
“We found that climate engineering doesn’t offer a perfect option,” said Daniela Cusack, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of geography in UCLA’s College of Letters and Science. “The perfect option is reducing emissions. We have to cut down the amount of emissions we’re putting into the atmosphere if, in the future, we want to have anything like the Earth we have now.”
Still, the study concluded, some approaches to climate engineering are more promising than others, and they should be used to augment efforts to reduce the 9 gigatons of carbon dioxide being released each year by human activity. (A gigaton is 1 billion tons.)
The first scholarly attempt to rank a wide range of approaches to minimizing climate change in terms of their feasibility, cost-effectiveness, risk, public acceptance, governability and ethics, the study appears in the latest issue of the peer-reviewed scholarly journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
The authors hope the information will help the public and decision-makers invest in the approaches with the largest payoffs and the fewest disadvantages. At stake, the study emphasizes, are the futures of food production, our climate and water security.
Cusack, an authority on forest and soil ecology, teamed up with experts in oceanography, political science, sociology, economics and ethics. Working under the auspices of the National Science Foundation, the team spent two years evaluating more than 100 studies that addressed the various implications of climate engineering and their anticipated effects on greenhouse gases.
Ultimately, the group focused its investigation on the five strategies that appear to hold the most promise: reducing emissions, sequestering carbon through biological means on land and in the ocean, storing carbon dioxide in a liquefied form in underground geological formations and wells, increasing the Earth’s cloud cover and solar reflection.
Of those approaches, none came close to reducing emissions as much as conservation, increased energy efficiency and low-carbon fuels would. Technology that is already available could reduce the amount of carbon being added to the atmosphere by some 7 gigatons per year, the team found.
“We have the technology, and we know how to do it,” Cusack said. “It’s just that there doesn’t seem to be political support for reducing emissions.”
Of the five options the group evaluated, sequestering carbon through biological means — or converting atmospheric carbon into solid sources of carbon like plants — holds the most promise. One source, curbing the destruction of forests and promoting growth of new forests, could tie up as much as 1.3 gigatons of carbon in plant material annually, the team calculated. Deforestation now is responsible for adding 1 gigaton of carbon each year to the atmosphere.
Improving soil management is another biological means of carbon sequestration that holds considerable promise because soils can trap plant materials that have already converted atmospheric carbon dioxide into a solid form as well as any carbon dioxide that the solids give off as they decompose. Since the dawn of agriculture, tilling land has led to the loss of about half (55 to 78 gigatons) of the carbon ever sequestered in soil, the team reports. But such simple steps as leaving slash — the plant waste left over after crop production — on fields after harvests, so it could be incorporated into the soil, could reintroduce between 0.4 and 1.1 gigatons of carbon annually to soil, the study says. The approach would also improve soil’s ability to retain nutrients and water, making it beneficial for additional reasons.
“Improved soil management is not very controversial,” Cusack said. “It’s just a matter of supporting farmers to do it.”
The study also advocates a less familiar form of biological sequestration: the burial of biochar. The process, which uses high temperatures and high pressure to turn plants into charcoal, releases little carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Under normal conditions, decaying plant life inevitably decomposes, a process that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But charred plant material takes significantly longer — sometimes centuries — to decompose. So the approach can work to keep carbon that has become bound up in plant life from decaying and respiring as carbon dioxide. And like working slash into the soil, adding biochar to soil can improve its fertility and water retention.
“Charcoal has been used as an agricultural amendment for centuries, but scientists are only now starting to appreciate its potential for tying up greenhouse gases,” Cusack said.
But not all biological sequestration would be so beneficial. The researchers evaluated the idea of adding iron to oceans in order to stimulate the growth of algae, which sequesters carbon. The approach ranked as the study’s least viable strategy, in part because less than a quarter of the algae could be expected to eventually sink to the bottom of the ocean, which would be the only way that carbon would be sequestered for a long period of time. The study predicted that the rest would be expected to be consumed by other sea life that respire carbon dioxide, which would end up back in the atmosphere. Additionally, increasing the algae blooms would likely wreak havoc by decreasing the oxygen available for other marine life.
The study’s second most promising climate engineering strategy, after carbon sequestration, was carbon capture and storage, particularly when the technique is used near where fuels are being refined. CCS turns carbon dioxide into a liquid form of carbon, which oil and coal extraction companies then pump into underground geological formations and wells and cap; millions of tons of carbon are already being stored this way each year. And the approach has the potential to store more than 1 gigaton permanently each year — and up to 546 gigatons of carbon over time — the study says.
However, a liquid carbon leak could be fatal to humans and other animals, and the risk – while minimal – may stand in the way of public acceptance.
“With CCS we’re taking advantage of an approach that already exists, and big companies pay for the work out of their own pockets,” Cusack said. “The hurdle is public perception. No one wants to live next to a huge underground pool of carbon dioxide that might suffocate them and their children – no matter how small the risk.”
Reducing the amount of sunlight that is heating up the atmosphere through measures such as artificially increasing the earth’s cloud cover or putting reflectors in outer space ranked as the study’s second least viable approach. While cloud seeding is cheap and potentially as effective as improving forestry practices, the approach and its potential impacts are not well enough understood for widespread use, the team concluded.
“Cloud seeding sounds simple,” Cusack said. “But we really don’t understand what would happen to the climate if we started making more clouds.”
Cusack’s collaborators were Jonn Axsen, assistant professor of resource and environmental management at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada; Lauren Hartzell-Nichols, acting assistant professor in the program on values in society and the program on environment at the University of Washington; Katherine Mackey, a postdoctoral researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass.; Rachael Shwom, assistant professor in human ecology at Rutgers University; and Sam White, assistant professor of environmental history at Ohio State University.
“The authors hope the information will help the public and decision-makers invest in the approaches with the largest payoffs and the fewest disadvantages. At stake, the study emphasizes, are the futures of food production, our climate and water security.”
The banning of fungicides, which control thousands of diseases on thousands of crops – from basil to potatoes to fruit trees – is what would destroy food production. The banning of fungicides has already moved forward in NZ and Australia and Europe for organic farming; simultaneously, efforts to force all of agriculture into organic farming has already begun through federal bureaucracies and treaties with foreign countries, especially China. (Yes, that China, which still does not admit or permit discussion of the mass starvation during the Great Leap.)
What do you call people who fulfill their own scientific predictions through black sabotage of crops, power production and transportation, always with the use “science” to transmit wild and unfounded fears?
ref: treach·ery
noun \-rē\
: harmful things that are done usually secretly to a friend, your own country, etc.
: an act of harming someone who trusts you
Ahhh, yes. A patented process. Once you have one of those you need a legislative hammer to force people to use your patented product. Of course, when the patent expires, you need another one, and it will be found that the original had flaws of some sort.
Thorbama and his Hammer — I can hardly wait!
Will there be Thunder and Levity?
Carbon capture and storage
If only we could find a biological system that efficiently absorbed CO2 and trapped it in some type of stable form. But what are the odds of something like that existing.
It is said to be wise is to have the ability to make good decisions. Good decisions rely on the identification of all available options prior to evaluation of those options, for example, in the movie “Lone Survivor” [spoiler alert] the team is faced with a dilemma in which they believe their options are to either let the goat herders go or kill them. They failed to recognize other options such as holding the goat herders until radio contact had been reestablished. The failure to recognize other options results in disaster for the team, however, did lead to a movie worthy story. Similarly, this ITT (Ivory Tower Team) does not perceive the “do nothing” option. They are blind to an adaption strategy being orders of magnitude more cost effective than their staunch insistence on a futile attempt to stagnate the climate. The outcome was indeed predetermined by the selection of options evaluated. Being the best option among a set of bad options is hardly a glowing endorsement for the emission reduction strategy which depends upon an unprecedented level of global cooperation for any hope of having any actual effect on atmospheric GHG concentrations; atmospheric GHG concentrations being the key to stagnating the climate; and climate stagnation being good. Confucius says: “By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest. I fear this ITT would have us learn a bitter lesson indeed; condemning millions if not billions to abject poverty, suffering, and premature death in a vain effort that even if successful would ultimately be wiped out by the next glacial period a mere few thousand years from now anyway. Scientists and learned experts they may be, but wise they are not. JMHO.
I saw above, “9 gigatons of carbon dioxide being released each year by human activity”. This is incorrect. The correct figure is annual release of CO2 having 9 gigatons of carbon, which is 33 gigatons of CO2.
The Earth’s way too cold in some areas and way too hot in others. That’s the only real problem. Why can’t these wonderful “scientists” come up with an idea to solve that?
I think McArdle -almost- has this right: this is an attempt to target the older smaller coal burning plants that were slated to close anyway, in an attempt to build up the DNC treasury with green billionaire money. The net actual effect will be almost nothing.
“Scientists and physicians increasingly link a rise in allergies, asthma and other respiratory diseases to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by climate change.”
This correlation is complete and utter nonsense.
Of the methods that are unlikely to make a difference, reducing CO2 is the least likely to fail completely — or so they say.
Fertilizing the sea with iron, by contrast, has a proven record for increasing the botanical and zoological productivity of the seas. It is the most dramatic growth-enhancing discovery since the manufacture of fertilizer for soils.
The IPCC says annual human addition to the global carbon cycle is about 3 percent. This is entirely beneficial to global life. CO2 added to current levels will have zero temperature effect. The effect is the same as adding 3 percent water to the flow of a river. 3 percent of 400 ppm is 12 ppm.
The very premise that CO2 is “pollution” is insane on a global ecological scale. CO2 is the basic material for all life via photosynthesis.
The real tragic aspect of the AGW issue is the waste of human effort to demonize CO2 for political gain.
This is getting absurd. We are getting back to the reason we dumped tea in a harbor. Somehow, it doesn’t seem that long ago anymore, and seems like a good idea to repeat it.
REPLY: Except if we dumped tea this time, we’d get fined by the EPA for polluting the Boston Harbor – Anthony
Now this is how you plan and execute the Goebbels effect. The list of those who collaborated are known nuts and have very little credibility as their work is shoddy and easily refuted. They dont even cite any which proves CO2 is the cause of anything.
What baffles me is that the University’s knowing that the gig is up are allowing their names to be dragged through the mud. But then again, every one of the institutions named have major grants in the millions of dollars pending.
Obama has orchestrated what appears to be a professional release of information from these universities (which if you look in history seldom happens) and just before he is scheduled to go around congress and the resounding NO to further destroy the US and its economy.
These people are yelling and screaming with out any basis in fact. They show no research to prove their assertions yet they want mandated change. The change they seek is magically what Obama wants… Useful idiots all.
I agree with most of the criticisms presented. But let’s give some credit.
I am as skeptical as anyone of CAGW. But I think we should admit that we are changing the planet at a dizzying pace. The emissions of CO2 are changing the relative atmospheric concentration of CO2 very quickly, by geological standards. Is it causing a problem? Not that we can tell. Is it actually bringing net benefits? Yes, it looks like it is. Could it cause a problem in the future? Maybe (although there is no convincing evidence at this point that it will).
Studies like this can yield worthwhile information, and we should give them credit for these sensible conclusions:
1) Fooling around with cloud formation should be considered a dangerous thing to do. (As someone pointed out above, they are admitting that they [we] do not understand clouds. You would think a light bulb would go off when they consider that clouds are simply parameterized in the climate models, and therefore the models — even if they were otherwise rigorous, which they are not — are useless for telling us how this will play out.)
2) If Carbon dioxide levels become a problem, they can be significantly affected by growing more forests and preventing deforestation. (Interestingly, they do not consider that forcing a switch to renewable energy brings about a level of poverty that makes good forest management much more difficult or impossible).
3) Burying carbon dioxide in the ground in huge quantities is dangerous, since if it suddenly escaped it could suffocate people. (They downplay this, saying the risk would be remote, but correctly state that people will not want to take this risk — and indeed, it is a foolish risk to take. Egads, if such sequestration ever becomes necessary, just grow huge forests in Australia or somewhere, use as much as the wood as possible making structures designed to be permanent, and warehouse extra logs if necessary. Better than huge potentially deadly bubbles of CO2 under the ground.)
4) Sequestering carbon in the oceans by creating algae blooms could cause more problems than it solves, if we someday decide we need to sequester carbon. I think such an approach would be nuts, considering the unintended and not fully predictable side-effects, so IMHO they are correct to cast doubt on such a practice.
I think it is worthwhile to consider remedies that could be taken in the future if they become necessary.
Again, there is much to criticize about the article, but since others are doing that effectively, I will not pile on myself. I just wanted to give some credit for a few sensible things in the article.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 1, 2014 at 9:55 am
Of the methods that are unlikely to make a difference, reducing CO2 is the least likely to fail completely — or so they say.
Fertilizing the sea with iron, by contrast, has a proven record for increasing the botanical and zoological productivity of the seas. It is the most dramatic growth-enhancing discovery since the manufacture of fertilizer for soils.
________________________
That idea was promoted as a means to increase CO2 uptake in the oceans and after being successfully demonstrated, was completely ridiculed, vilified and banned. The idea is too simple and cheap and promises benefits to mankind, when what’s really needed is something which concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few and reduces human populations, not feeds them.
@ur momisugly Richard Sharpe on June 1, 2014 at 9:13 am
“Ahhh, yes. A patented process. Once you have one of those you need a legislative hammer to force people to use your patented product. Of course, when the patent expires, you need another one, and it will be found that the original had flaws of some sort.”
Actually, Skyonic’s patent attracted and still attracts great interest, world-wide. I happen to know the VP of sales, and he’s logging many many miles by air. The system pays for itself in three years. Private investors are signing up and putting in millions of their own dollars, in exchange for equity in the company.
If you have not read and understood Joe Jones’ patent, perhaps you should refrain from making idiotic comments.
“Who’s WE, white man?”
(Say China and India.)
And why is such an advanced country like Australia doing the exact OPPOSITE(abolishing carbon taxes).US will have to vote democrats out (from an ex democrat) next election or they will enter the world of second class countries. LOL
Duh. So try it out on a small scale and see what happens.
Come on Roger. It only pays for itself in three years if you are changed by governments for CO2 emissions, surely.
I found this on their website:
Pollution is everyone’s problem. See what’s drifting towards the US.
CO2 is pollution in quantities approaching 5,000ppm, as far as I am aware, and we already have a great system of CO2 capture. It’s called plants.
Roger Sowell;
The system pays for itself in three years. Private investors are signing up and putting in millions of their own dollars, in exchange for equity in the company.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh poppycock. The only way it can pay for itself is if there are customers to buy it, and the only way there are customer’s to buy it is if there is a value to THEM to do so. The only way there is a value to THEM is if it is artificially created by law or regulation. Since no natural economic driver exists, any three year ROI (which is more than likely market spin just like the rest of your crap) exists only as long as the laws and regulations that created it exist. No more carbon credits and feed in tariffs and boon toggles like this get exposed for the rank hypocrisy that they are. A fictitious market created for the sole purpose of sweeping tax payer dollars from the many into the pockets of the privileged few. It is just another Solyndra, a different “product” but an identical business model.
Iron seeding could disrupt the oscillation that has developed in algae bloom events. Other species in the food chain have adapted to this oscillation, which has taken hundreds of years to develop. These oscillations also slowly change on their own in response to our slowly changing planet. To disrupt this process by artificially injected an instantaneous speeding up, if you will, of this oscillation, would have severe consequences in my opinion. The small change in CO2 does not justify the risk we take on related to these unknown consequences.
Adaptation and consequence mitigation are the proper courses to follow, not CO2 reduction. Why? Because those steps help us better prepare for all weather and climate events from mild to extreme and from short term to long term, regardless of why or how weather and climate change, and without initiating unpredictable deleterious consequences.
Now we know 6 universities to which we SHOULD NOT SEND kids to learn science or physics. If they cannot understand the basic laws of thermodynamics, we cannot trust them with any tools, as they will hurt themselves and us.
25% is better than 0%. And more of “other sea life” = less stress on fisheries.
That’s not what happened in the Gulf of Alaska, which is already a “desert”, marine-life-wise. Instead, the salmon population exploded.
More from the Skyonic website:
The Summary Report for the IPCC 5th Assessment is out: Committee finds with 95% certainty that climate change is manmade.
They seem heavily invested in the AGW meme. I smell a rat.