|
Please find below the latest news direct from Copenhagen
Bert Bolin ? the scientific statesman
Most know Rajendra Pachauri, the current Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Prof. Bert Bolin, less well known, is the Swedish man who led the process which gave birth to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and was the first Chairman of the IPCC from 1988 to 1997.
In May 1959, as an authoritative meteorologist, he actually warned the US National Academy of Sciences that a 25% increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 2000 could have serious consequences for the temperature of the planet. That was 52 years ago; humankind was ten years away from landing on the moon, but global warming had been studied for decades and its impact was being assessed.
Bolin always maintained a CO2 concentration over 450 ppm would risk dangerous temperature rises – and this view prevailed over more optimistic ones. Nowadays, scientists are even more cautious (see the 350 campaign started by Bill McKibben and supported by many academics). The politically challenging match of academics with activists may yet produce results on emissions’ reduction. (see Jason Box’s story).
In 1998, Bolin presented to the OECD on how to make the IPCC credible and powerful in its remit to advise governments on climate change and defend its assessments from the inevitable attacks by lobbyists and stakeholders1. Michael Oppenheimer, Professor of Geosciences at Princeton University, called him a “scientific statesman” for his diplomatic skills and many believe the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize should have been given to Bert Bolin, rather than to the IPCC itself.
If it wasn’t for Prof. Bolin, this scientific panel might not be as influential or in place at all. Back in 1991, he said, “What we know now is sufficient for action now. There is no excuse for politicians if they wait until all the scientific debate is over before acting. It is better to be roughly right now, rather than precisely right later.“2
Much is happening in the climate science around the numerous and interconnected physical, chemical, geological and biological processes related to greenhouse gases, carbon sinks and sources, aerosols and cloud formation among others. A new study at CERN’s laboratories, for instance, suggests the presence of organic gases in the formation of clouds, casting doubt on existing climate models3.
Bert Bolin fostered these continuous investigations to clear old doubts, generate new ones and involve even sceptics in the IPCC work. Encouraging open debate on the empiric data and models is key to defeating false beliefs and establishing scientific milestones along history.
We should never forget Bert Bolin’s role in the climate negotiations. Born on 15 May in 1925, he died on 30 December 2007, three weeks after the IPCC and Al Gore were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (see the acceptance speech). Before dying he published his last book, “A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”4.
From this and other precious sources, the lessons from 20 years of negotiations are crucial to going forward.
Luca Marazzi
1. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/24/1881357.pdf
2. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/bert-bolin-meteorologist-and-first-chair-of-the-ipcc-who-cajoled-the-world-into-action-on-climate-change-768355.html
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/24/cloud-formation-study-climate-models
4. http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item2425554/?site_locale=en_GB
Source: Climate Change Blog | 1 Sep 2011 | 9:13 am
Climate change is extremely selfish
“Extending far beyond the norm” or “Of the greatest severity; drastic”, that’s the dictionary definition of “extreme”. In the climate change context, reports of extreme events – hurricanes and storms, floods, droughts and heat waves – are now very frequent, with hundreds or thousands of deaths in the worst cases (see a map). But some consumption patterns are also extreme in the US, EU and the like. According to World Bank figures, in 2005 the wealthiest 20% of the world accounted for 77% of total private consumption while the poorest 20% consumed only 1.5%1.
Hence a world of extreme weather is somehow created by a world of extreme greed. Our overheated atmosphere is so thick a blanket that we might end up “suffocating” underneath it because we have been “smoking” fossil fuels for 150 years. If greenhouse gases weren’t up there the oceans would be frozen solid; all we need to live here is just 270 ppm of CO2, not the 450 or 550ppm that the Earth might see in a few decades. Antarctica experienced a 3◦C increase in just 50 years and the reality is that catastrophic scenarios loom in authoritative scientific reports2; this super-warming might in the end offset the benefits of the planet’s CO2 jumper. The extreme hypothesis here would be runaway climate change, a situation where the climate deviates catastrophically and permanently from the original state, as happened on Venus; Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan explain why they do not rule this out on Earth.
Going back to the root causes of excessive emissions, unfortunately they are inherent to human nature. Unlike many insects (see social evolution) we are a selfish species and many of us do not care much even about our children or grandchildren, for example in not respecting the environment. In 1998, the bill to give access to health & nutrition, water & sanitation, reproductive health for women and basic education in all developing countries was estimated to be 40 billion US$. Guess how much money people spent in alcoholic drinks in Europe that year? 105 billion $!1 A not strictly necessary habit (and a vice for many) is potentially depriving poor people of water management or climate change adaptation programmes… Perhaps this is comparing apples and pears, but is it untrue that our lifestyles show extreme self absorption? Human beings have altruism in themselves, but not so much towards far people to solve their problems which are not in our backyard (see UNICEF Youth Ambassador, Axam Maunmoon).
While many initiatives are taking us towards a low-carbon society made of small cities, ecodriving and car sharing (see the Japanese government’s plans), other lobbying activities are pulling us backwards (see manoeuvres to keep oil tax breaks), but we can rely on the extreme power of human mind (see the latest Green Inventions) not to let the climate runaway.
Luca Marazzi
1. http://www.globalissues.org/issue/235/consumption-and-consumerism
2. http://www.news.com.au/world/catastrophic-climate-change-inevitable-scientists-warn/story-e6frfkyi-1225799961894
Source: Climate Change Blog | 14 Aug 2011 | 6:59 pm
Music is the food of thought
Language developed to help us communicate, but pictures and music have a powerful dimension which people are tapping into the environmental battle we are facing.
Simply watching footage taken in the eye of a hurricane helps you realise its fascinating and scary strength. Experienced or recorded sounds in a forest make you wonder how many creatures live there, but too often we are mere outsiders in the natural world taking it for granted in our hyper-technological existences.
Mankind invented its own music, contemplating and worshipping nature (Earth’s Prayer by Snatam Kaur) or launching a rock & roll cry against the destruction of the planet like Michael Jackson’s Earth Song and What I’ve done by Linkin Park. David Todd, not as famous, in Where we going to go talks about the ruthlessness of progress, pollution and uncertainty about the future.
Children’s paintings are emotive and potentially drive subconscious changes in our behaviour, more than long discussions or scientific reports can rationally do. Pictures make us face realities such as sea-level rise in Pacific islands without filters; calendars keep you company for an entire year (I cannot forget this boy’s eyes – In tears July 2010).
Initiatives like Project Genie unite fantasy and reality to educate children on the global warming story; other videos reflect science and climate history as it happens and how it is perceived by the layman – people might end up with somebody else’s weather.
We should keep listening to the emotions they generate. Action is the next step; let’s listen to the Earth’s heart beat and learn from indigenous tribes (see Kimaren Riamit on Masai’s solutions) that the fight for survival is never over.
Luca Marazzi
Source: Climate Change Blog | 7 Aug 2011 | 10:45 am
Is solving the climate puzzle a luxury?
Everything is expensive: a meal, an apartment, a holiday. Cutting greenhouse and toxic emissions (let’s not forget nitrous and sulphur oxides) is not cheap either. Ask Niger or Namibia’s governments about the expected costs of mitigation and adaptation, billions of dollars as reported by The Guardian citing a UNDP report1. Who and how can pay these bills in the current economic crisis? Isn’t climate policy a luxury in a world where war and hunger are all over the place? Yes and no…
COP17 is only five months away now. But rather nasty games to stop serious action took place at the climate talks in Bonn: Saudi Arabia slowed down the process on agenda issues and proposing compensations because climate action is likely to reduce their oil revenues2…No, it’s not a joke, I guess the Saudis are telling the rest of the world: “If you don’t need us that much anymore, you should pay us”. We are all in business with OPEC countries at the end of the day so an alternative for their future economy is a global plus. Commendable green progress is being built in Masdar City in Abu Dhabi where 100% government fund solar energy powered district cooling and sustainable designed houses and offices are being built for 90,000 people including commuters. Ideas can be the new oil we import from this part of the world then.
Governments have to make difficult choices on which priorities to spend money and expanding the renewable energy production can be indeed an unaffordable extra if children don’t have food or water like in many of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). So maybe tackling climate change is the language of the rich, while the poor have just to limit their impacts? Not if we take into account global governance with public funds managed by the United Nations as a common resource base to drive sustainability. Maybe a pretentious goal and at high bureaucracy risk, but the process is still on. So far, only Norway and Sweden have said they will sign up to a second round of Kyoto while New Zealand and Australia are prepared to do that. We know what Russia, Canada and Japan disagree and the EU seems to be weighing their negotiating options not to sell themselves too cheaply. The games are still open.
But how can the United Nations umbrella protect us from the heavy rains of inaction? The Mexican proposal to substitute unanimity with a 75% majority vote3 is fresh water in a stagnant pool, a compromise between decisions and democracy. Urgency need the former more than the latter, it wouldn’t be wise to sink just for the sake of unanimity, would it?
Moreover, after COP15’s failure, a building blocks approach is suggested as an effective strategy and indeed Cancun produced new instruments. In Bonn, progress on the governance of the adaptation committee (to be operationalised in South Africa) has been made. The Green Climate Fund will hold its next meeting next month in Tokyo and the Climate Technology Centre and Network is involving stakeholders from the business world4. Have lessons been learnt from the past and is the private sector ready to even direct governments’ slower efforts? For the International Energy Agency (IEA) “over 80% of the estimated US$1 trillion required annually to halve global emissions by 2050 will come from the private sector”5. So corporations and companies must deliver on all fronts of mitigation.
On the various nations’ role, Robert Falkner (London School of Economics) deems the U.S. “structurally unable to ever sign up to a global climate treaty with binding targets” because of the need for a two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify any international treaty6. China and India are still busy developing a healthy middle class and want to preserve the “common but differentiated responsibilities” principle on emission cuts, the same that USA and other key countries want to basically water down in a new deal; or substitute with a more balanced concept of “emerging responsibilities” for the Asian giants and others.
In all this mess, “Keep it simple and let everyone contribute” is the new motto in the climate circus, with a question mark on the risk of letting every architecture fall apart.
In Bonn, delegates didn’t agree on the need of a new meeting before Durban and actually how many steps could be made through virtual participation, less expenses, flights and emissions (see Microsoft). Are we sure that vis-a’-vis discussions are so essential? They can be a unique tool, but so often and between so many people? “I’m a little sad participating in these negotiations because the atmosphere is so confrontational” said Akira Yamada, head of the Japanese delegation2. Personable talks are useful, but might there be a risk of arguments getting personal there? past coloniser-colony relationships are also a persistent hinder to openly trustful attitudes.
With deadlocked negotiations maybe businesses can change the world by themselves as Richard Branson suggested last year7, it remains to be seen if their 17 Gt CO2 cut would be achievable and most of all sufficient.
I think that solving the climate change rebus or puzzle is a luxury only if we consider it in isolation with respect to the food, energy, water and world trade challenges. But if policy makers pursue its resolution getting all the co-benefits of sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, water saving and fair trade it won’t be but the only sane way forward. The South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ms Maite Nkoana‐Mashabane8, will be the President of COP17/CMP7. A new alliance for Christiana Figueres that everybody hopes will bring even more success than the one obtained with Patricia Espinosa in Cancun.
On the extension of the Kyoto Protocol the head of the UNFCCC expects Parties to provide options acceptable to all the others in Durban…good luck and hurry up, governments!
Luca Marazzi
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/15/climate-change-cost-poor-countries-billions
2. http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/ANALYSIS-Climate-talks-floundering-without-ministers-2011-06-09T145628Z#{“widget_height”:{“widget”:”registration”,”height”:144}}
3. http://ph.news.yahoo.com/mexicans-try-break-climate-talk-deadlock-104830094.html
4. http://unfccc.int/files/press/press_releases_advisories/application/pdf/pr20111706sb_close_eng.pdf
5. http://www.rtcc.org/2011/html/overview-icc.html
6. http://www.trust.org/alertnet/blogs/climate-conversations/with-a-binding-climate-treaty-dead-what-next
7. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/06/cancun-climate-change-richard-branson
8. http://www.dirco.gov.za/department/profile_mashabane.html
Source: Climate Change Blog | 4 Jul 2011 | 9:01 am
Location, location, location
And breathe. Bonn is over – so what else has happened in the last two weeks while negotiators have been squabbling in the Maritim? Well, there was ICLEI’s Resilent Cities Congress. Worldwide, sustainable initiatives across cities and environmental education programmes engender confidence that negotiators aren’t shouting into a vaccuum.
In the Mercer 2010 Quality of Living survey, Vienna came first for the overall quality of living, while Calgari (Canada) was the number one in the Eco-city ranking. The first European city was Helsinki (3rd). Helsinki has 40% of its surface allocated to parks and green areas; 160 small projects have been put in place in the last 30 years involving thousands of citizens1. Over 30% of the mobility in the city centre is pedestrian and CO2 emissions have been reduced by about 15% since 1990. It is a true example of wise planning and tangible results in green Scandinavia (see also Stockholm); Copenhagen is well placed too (8th), even though during COP15 many large taxis offset their carbon emission – not the best of solutions really…
Honolulu, Wellington (NZ), Singapore, Cape Town and Helsinki itself are the “green champions” in the five continents. Overall in the top 50 ecocities, Germany and the US have seven, Australia six, Canada five and Japan four cities2. Apart from Victoria in the Seychelles, no developing country has a city represented. By the same token, in the ICLEI’s EcoMobility SHIFT project, key roles are played by European partners. In this framework the Korean city of Changwon will host the World Congress on Mobility soon, hopefully inspiring new actions across South East Asia. It is crucial that large megacities in India, China and Brazil take the challenge together with their richer counterparts, say London, New York, Tokyo that can still deliver more and faster progress and lead as credible examples.
Moreover, the overwhelming majority of ICLEI’s members are cities in developed (just a few in Britain) or emerging economies with a few national associations of local authorities from African countries like Botswana and Ghana. The role of education in poor countries is vital to raise the children that one day can make their cities and villages sustainable.
UNESCO says governmental programmes are successfully bringing more children to school in 45 African countries3 and Living Earth is conducting projects in Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana and Cameroon. Much more work on the lines of their “Turning Waste to Wealth” initiative is needed to give a chance to deprived areas, while taking care of the environment4.
A big philosophical change can indeed lead to a more harmonic coexistence with Nature; look at these inspiring ecovillages where large communities substitute isolated small family nuclei with concrete and spiritual benefits for the inhabitants5.
Creative change, whether at city or village level, is happening – let us at least celebrate that.
Luca Marazzi
- http://www.hel.fi/wps/wcm/connect/7d593d004298169a9779bf4b956b8a55/Environmental+Sustainability+-esite_nettiin.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod=-918449852&CACHEID=7d593d004298169a9779bf4b956b8a55
- http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2010#Ranking_Eco_Cities
- http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=48436&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
- http://www.livingearth.org.uk/africa_programmes/africa_programmes.html
- http://www.transformingcultures.org/
Source: Climate Change Blog | 20 Jun 2011 | 7:29 am
Acting with a degree of risk
So, in Australia scientists receive death threats because of their work on climate change. Much is at stake – nerves are tense in all quarters, including the United Nations meetings, where stubbornness prevails over the renewal of Kyoto Protocol1. If this is a game, leaders are dangerously playing with the hot air over our heads, as shown by a long series of dramatic meteorological events (at least partially related to increasing CO2 levels)2.
Since Monday, negotiators have been gathering in Bonn to pave the way to COP17 in Durban. Arguably the delegates are very much in their comfort zone in these familiar oft-visited halls, out of tune with the scale of the issue we, as humanity, are facing. Regarding the UNFCCC venues, Andrew Simms’s suggestion is brilliant: “Move the negotiations to a small, low-lying nation, like Tuvalu. Time the meetings to occur when seasonal tides are highest and when water covers much of the island.”3 Everybody should take some time, read the newspapers, reflect on how thin is the ice we are walking on and act consequently with urgency (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv9v9ALV3yk).
When Christiana Figueres reminds us that, “Governments agreed to a maximum temperature increase of 2◦C”, we could feel very proud of our leaders. In fact, we cannot regulate the global temperature like our domestic boilers.
After a record 30.6 Gt CO2 emissions last year, even the 2◦C goal is likely to be just “a nice Utopia”, says Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency. And the IPCC conclude that, at this pace, there will be a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4◦C by 2100.4 That would be 2.5◦C over the ideal 1.5◦C temperature rise.
Higher targets on emission reductions rather than lower temperature increases are what we should focus on, following a cause-effect logical sequence. Even with the numerous competent, dedicated negotiators and policymakers, what about the natural phenomena that shaped the climate on Earth for billions of years? Who knows what can happen on this small planet and its climate in the future?
We could do our best and see how the biosphere and the atmosphere react, and shift attention from the conveniently philosophical discussions of how many degrees are desirable risks. As negotiators talk, coral reefs are being lost to the detriment of millions of many more people relying on them for their livelihoods5 and the growing conservation initiatives might be slower than the Mauna Loa CO2 record, at 393.2 ppm last April.
But school textbooks do have to be amended. When they say carbon dioxide is 0.03%, it is now much closer to 0.04%. In that “small” difference, there are all the billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases that we produced. We are likely to reach 400 ppm in 3-4 years or less (http://co2now.org/). I guess it’s a little unnecessary to once again bleat about the urgency – there are many valiantly still reminding us.
Luca Marazzi
1. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Kyoto-may-be-empty-shell-by-2012-as-nations-opt-out/articleshow/8795943.cms
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_weather_events
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/01/ten-steps-to-tackle-climate-change
4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/weekinreview/05reefs.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Source: Climate Change Blog | 12 Jun 2011 | 11:25 am
A basic alliance for the planet
Emerging economies both compete and cooperate on climate change policies. The BASIC countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – formed a bloc on November 2009 to commit to joint action at COP15. They then brokered the Copenhagen Accord with the United States and have since worked to define common positions.
Their environment ministers met in India last February and in South Africa in the last few days. Observers from the Africa Group and Small Island States attended the former meeting; critiques arose over the lack of clear decisions on intellectual property rights, trade and equity in the Cancun Agreements1. The issue of fast-track finance could be the deal-breaker as much as the deal-maker in Durban where the credibility of rich nations will once more be at stake2.
In Brazil the congress has just passed a bill conceding amnesties to landowners who have illegally destroyed tracts of rainforest; it is justified as an effort to help smaller farms compete with under-regulated rivals in other countries3. In this nation, with wonderful forests, the Amazon, the Cerrado and the Atlantic forest, avoiding dealing with the emissions caused by cutting trees is dangerous, given all the legal and illegal interests involved. Deforestation is estimated to account for about 12% of emissions globally4; sustainable harvesting of plants providing important drugs (see Marcos Savini on Climate Change TV) cannot but clash with ignoring unlawful logging. The counterargument is that small businesses in the global recession have to be sustained, but this is a loop in which we are all stuck, unless we envisage more creative ways forward.
For example, in India, the energy-intensity based Perform, Achieve and Trade (PAT) scheme will be applied to 700 facilities across the cement, fertiliser, iron & steel, paper & pulp, railways and thermal power plant sectors to reduce CO2 emissions5. Also local technologies can challenge packages based on Foreign Direct Investment giving more control to communities. Since the old economy and market strategies created the problem, a new phase is essential – hopefully past losers will become future winners in the global game. We should never get tired of giving voice to genuine solutions at all levels (see Soumya Dutta’s interview).
So we mentioned a contentious policy in Brazil and signposted a promising scheme in India; China has been a focus of the blog, not only for its arguments with the USA, but for their fast growing green investments. South Africa will host the potentially deal-making COP in about seven months and Durban is ready to improve the environmental record of UNFCCC’s annual top event.
A final interesting development is last year’s launch of a joint programme to develop satellites by South Africa, Brazil and India. As we know, the US, China, Japan, Russia and the EU have their own programmes; it sounds good to have new “doctors” observe the Earth to cure its numerous problems. For more on satellites, see Climate Change TV’s coverage of the World Meteorological Organization’s Congress last week.
We’ll see what inspiration all these actions bring to delegates gathering in Bonn for the umpteenth time (6-17 June). Durban and Rio 2012 are not far, time flies and slashing emissions is a priority that needs to become a fact; younger generations are already judging their parents on this matter.
Luca Marazzi
1. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/info.service/2011/climate20110301.htm
2. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/basic-wants-fast-finance-by-developed-countries/articleshow/8671567.cms
3. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/slash-and-burn-brazil-shreds-laws-protecting-its-rainforests-2289107.html
4. http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/11/04/20-of-co2-emissions-from-deforestation-make-that-12/
5. http://www.iges.or.jp/en/news/topic/asianfocus201104.html
Source: Climate Change Blog | 2 Jun 2011 | 6:04 pm
The energy cake ? exactly how are we going to have it?
The WWF Energy Report1 details exactly how, in 40 years time, only 5% of the energy could derive from fossil fuels, via aggressive end-use energy savings and electrification on one hand and substituting oil, coal and gas with renewable sources on the other (approximately 50-50). While acknowledging the challenges, the authors stress the technical feasibility of solutions proposed.
Alongside inspiring statements such as: “If we could harness 0.1% of the energy of the ocean, we could support the energy needs of 15 billion people”, there are harsh reminders like “1.4 billion people don’t have access to reliable electricity”.
So what’s left on the table once we’ve dined out on fossil fuels? We have four and five types of biomass and solar solutions respectively, two types of geothermal and wind plus hydropower and wave/tidal energy. Bur there is not much progress foreseen in the current 3% renewables portion and continued high reliance on the worst of fuels, coal.
The International Energy Agency works with a more realistic view on future policies and decisions by governments and business, while WWF strongly advocates a radical change, believing the pieces required to complete the 95% or 100% renewable puzzle are there.
Is that enough? Are there key people holding enough power to pick the pieces up and put them in the right place? Or will it be a battle of old and new vested interests to determine the future of energy sources and the economy at large?
Legislation and politics aside, behaviour still needs to change. I’d like to see computers being switched off in schools and offices by an employee responsible for making the organisation save money and energy thus emissions. A job to be proud of!
But the selfish gene and human greed has ensured our survival to date; the problem is that it feels this has been surpassed by a force of numerous individual egos that has unbalanced the planet to ultimately enrich relatively few of us.
While IEA’s scenario of stabilising at 450 ppm CO2 concentration requires an energy demand increase of 0.7%, the WWF report forecast has a few percent decrease. Once again, we have all what we need to reduce energy demand and fulfil it with cleaner sources (see the International Chamber of Commerce Chair, Laurent Corbier, speak on low emission technologies). These choices have to be convenient however, not just cheaper. Social norms are slowly evolving for the better, but our perception of the risks is lagging behind big time!
It’s the mysterious psychology underpinning all engrained habits which has not been given enough attention in the environmental discourse. “Anxiety and helplessness rather than ambivalence or apathy are the biggest barriers to individuals taking action,” concludes the American Psychological Association2. We are just tiny creatures on a minuscule planet, we have created an energy-obese economy, but if we scale down our appetites, emissions will follow – a true recipe for success.
Luca Marazzi
1. http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/2011_02_02_the_energy_report_full.pdf
2. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/301036/the_psychology_of_climate_change_why_we_do_nothing.html
Source: Climate Change Blog | 25 May 2011 | 12:14 pm
Walking Nature?s CO2 tightrope
Have you ever heard about CO2 fertilisation? Plants and algae convert CO2 into organic matter (food, leaves etc.) via photosynthesis as the more carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere the better it is for primary productivity, it makes sense. But it’s not that simple…
There are types of plants that prefer higher concentrations of CO2: because of a different metabolism. C3 plants (rice and barley) respond better to atmospheric CO2 enrichment than C4 plants (maize and sorghum) do. They reach higher rates of photosynthesis and biomass production1. Soil nutrients and moisture also have a role in the biochemical processes so a higher carbon dioxide content can have positive impacts in some regions and on certain crops, but negative impacts elsewhere. It depends on what effects prevail. In fact, CO2 fertilisation might be offset by water scarcity in semi-dry regions or too high concentrations, e.g. 500ppm, might saturate the photosynthetic structure of plants.
The potential for this productivity increase to enhance carbon absorption reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration, as seen in the FACE experiments (“Free Air CO2 Enrichment”), showed that “any elevation of productivity is likely to be short-lived”2. Hence this positive side seems pretty weak especially if we consider the global problem of aerosol emissions in developed and emerging countries. The benefit for air quality and human health contrasts with the decrease in the cooling effect these compounds have on the atmosphere. We’re never far away from a Catch-22!
Back to our CO2, its small but very persistent molecules (1,000 years) are warming and thickening the protective layer above us with cascading effects on biological and human phenomena. In particular food production, already problematic in poor countries and dry regions (the two often coincide), can be further put at risk from disruptive droughts, floods and related erosion. In a 2007 article, Schmidhuber and Tubiello3 concluded that climate change is likely to increase the number of undernourished in 2080 by 5-26%, compared to scenarios with no climate change. This equates to up to 170 million more people.
Other projected impacts are higher food insecurity (see Meine van Noordwijk on Climate Change TV) in sub-Saharan Africa and a general higher dependency of developing countries on imports.
A lot depends on the future socio-economic conditions and choices; we should be careful in targeting climate change, or fossil fuels, as the worst of all evils. It is how discoveries and technologies are used and for what purpose (basic need or extra greed?) that will determine the scale of the consequences. Indeed nature has a lot of surprises and balancing mechanisms.
Luca Marazzi
1. http://www.co2science.org/subject/b/summaries/biodivc3vsc4.php
2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/co_2-fertilization/
3. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19703.full.pdf
Source: Climate Change Blog | 9 May 2011 | 11:09 am
Film to drive change
Never like in the past decade has climate change been at the forefront of the international political agenda and at the centre of media attention. Films like “An inconvenient truth” and “The day after tomorrow”, despite the errors of the former and exaggeration and sensationalism of the latter, drove home the threat of abnormal greenhouse gas emissions, and consequent impacts.
Then came “The age of stupid”* , a powerful film centring on the human behaviours causing this mess (if I may). Citizens are more aware and responsible than before; there is hope; grassroots actions constantly shake governments and international bodies with the power of their naivety and simplicity.
It makes me angry to see a village in Ghana without electricity for its hospital, but then solar light comes and give a chance to its inhabitants. There are thousands of projects like this that need to see the light of day. Climate Change TV wants to build a bridge between the United Nations negotiations and civil society, NGOs, charities, businesses and communities. We can voice concerns and highlight successes.
Distress has been expressed in the last few years in interviews with concerned celebrities and environmentalists like Thom Yorke and Tony Juniper at COP15, or Daryl Hannah at COP17. We then showed reactions and partial successes in Cancun built by expert negotiators (Brice Lalonde) in a much calmer atmosphere than the tense Copenhagen Bella Center (see Yvo de Boer in Cancun).
Images, videos and sounds can revive people’s emotions; reading a book can be an experience full of imagination and more active than observing a painting or watching a movie, but characters’ expressions and words, colours and noises hit the audience with much more immediacy. Various books have been published on climate change, from “Six degrees” by Mark Lynas, depicting future scenarios – the scarier the higher the global temperature increase, to “Storms of My Grandchildren” by James Hansen, a personal journey of a top scientist committed to future generations’ wellbeing.
Not everybody has time and background knowledge to appreciate long books though; short videos in the era of the internet can be very effective in reaching a wider audience. The Green ambassadors of “Kids vs global warming” tell us with their heart what they are doing in the USA and elsewhere to make a change. The impact that human beings are having on the atmosphere is also deleterious to water, energy and food supplies. In many regions food security is further compromised by more frequent and/or more intense floods and droughts; sea-level rise and glaciers melting threaten communities from Polynesia to Himalayas. The planet can heal itself if we don’t stretch the biosphere’s limits irreversibly; the urgent battle is rather for the survival of future generations, as we can see in this other brilliant National Geographic video.
A bridge between science and the media is very important as well. Initiatives like the BBC Climate Change Experiment involved the public actively to run models to envisage what can happen in 2020, 2050 and 2080 to the UK’s weather, to its coastal and agricultural areas and to the planet at large.
In order to use the power of videos at best to raise awareness and launch actions internationally, Climate Change TV opened applications for a Video award, deadline 30 June 2011. From hundreds of interviews with top climate negotiators and stakeholders to videos on CDM projects and other initiatives, we are doing our part. Do yours spreading the message.
Communication drives action so, wherever you are, help us to help the planet!
Luca Marazzi
* http://www.rtcc.org/2010/html/an-inconvenient-truth.html
Source: Climate Change Blog | 28 Apr 2011 | 6:57 pm
|
