OSLO--Promises of greenhouse gas curbs by China and the United States brighten prospects for next month's U.N. climate summit but leave big tangles over cash, rich nations' emissions cuts, and how to tie down a legal treaty.
"This is clearly some progress on the Copenhagen road," Frank Jotzo, deputy director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, said of pledges by the world's top two emitters to tackle global warming.
But he noted China's goal of slowing its rising emissions by 2020 was voluntary and President Barack Obama's plan to cut U.S. emissions by 3 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 faced obstacles in the Senate.
Indeed, China's goal of reducing carbon intensity--the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per yuan of economic activity--by 40 percent to 45 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels still means its emissions will rise, but less than economic growth.
However, analysts welcomed Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Obama's decisions to go to the December 7-18 talks in Copenhagen as a sign of personal commitment to a deal. Obama will visit on December 9, before the main U.N. summit on the last two days.
But Obama's proposed emissions cuts are probably too small to encourage other rich nations to make deeper offers in Denmark. Industrialized nations as a group are offering cuts in emissions averaging between 14 percent and 18 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
"It's not enough in itself to unlock new offers," said Knut Alfsen, research director of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo.
But he said that Washington could sweeten its offer, perhaps with money for research and development or aid to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of climate change such as droughts, more powerful cyclones, or rising sea levels.
Silent on funds
"The White House...was noticeably silent about finance" in announcing Obama's plans for Copenhagen, said Kim Carstensen, head of the WWF environmental group's global climate initiative.
The United Nations wants at least $10 billion a year to help developing nations cope with climate change and convince them that the rich are committed to fighting global warming. And it wants mechanisms to raise far more in the long term.
Carstensen said Obama was likely to argue that his greenhouse goal is a 17 percent cut from 2005 levels after sharp rises since 1990 and sets the United States on a path for deeper cuts than many of its industrial allies by 2030.
Cuts by rich nations are far below demands by developing nations such as China and India that they need to cut by between 25 percent and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avert the worst of global warming.
Analysts also say there are uncertainties about the final form of a Copenhagen deal since most nations say time is too short for Copenhagen to agree to a full legal treaty. Denmark wants a "politically binding" pact and a legally binding text in 2010.
"A politically binding promise by a politician...is a meaningless term," said Tom Burke, of the E3G think-tank in London. "There is a serious intent but what it means is fuzzy."
Group of Eight nations, for instance, often make political promises without following up.
"At the end of the day, the atmosphere doesn't care if it's a binding agreement or not, it cares about whether countries are doing action," said Jake Schmidt, of the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington.
Additional reporting by David Fogarty in Singapore, Jeff Mason in Washington, and Emma Graham-Harrison in Beijing.
Story Copyright (c) 2009 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Additional stories from Reuters
(Credit:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory )
Carbon nanotech has been applied to everything from boat construction to windshields and now, with a licensing agreement from Livermore Lab, a Hayward, Calif., company will apply it to water desalination and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The National Nuclear Security Administration's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has licensed a new carbon nanotube technology to its spinoff company Porifera. The company will develop permeable membranes for CO2 sequestration, water desalination, and other liquid-based separations based on discoveries made at Livermore.
The technology integrates carbon nanotubes into polymer membranes, increasing the flux of carbon dioxide capture by two orders of magnitude thanks to the material's unique "nanofluidic" properties. This technique could enable a less expensive method of capturing carbon from coal plants, according to the Livermore. Sequestering CO2, a greenhouse gas emission, is one strategy for curbing global warming, although this particular process has yet to prove out on a industrial scale.
"The technology is very exciting," said Olgica Bakajin, former Livermore scientist and now chief technology officer at Porifera. "The reason it makes sense to do it is because of the unique nanofluidic properties of carbon nanotube pores. It's at the right place to take it to the marketplace."
Nanotubes are graphitic layers wrapped into cylinders a few nanometers in diameter, (approximately 1/50,000th the width of a human hair) and up to several millimeters long. Their extraordinary strength and unique electrical and thermal conductive properties make them attractive for many applications.
Porifera is funding the carbon capture project with a $1 million-plus grant from the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency. It's pursuing the water purification angle with a $3.3 million DARPA grant to develop small, portable self-cleaning desalination systems.
(Credit:
Royal Society)
Geoengineering is not a last resort, but the next necessary step to recalibrate the Earth's climate unless carbon emissions are significantly reduced in the near future, the Royal Society, the U.K.'s national academy of sciences, announced Tuesday.
"It is an unpalatable truth that unless we can succeed in greatly reducing CO2 emissions we are headed for a very uncomfortable and challenging climate future, and geoengineering will be the only option left to limit further temperature increases," John Shepherd, chair of the Royal Society's geoengineering study and a professor of Earth system science at the University of Southampton, said on behalf of the group.
The report "Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty" (PDF) urged carbon emissions reduction as the primary means of halting climate change. But it looked at geoengineering--engineering the environment on a large scale to purposely manipulate the world's climate--very seriously.
In past years, geoengineering has been thought of an as option of last resort, but the Royal Society asserted that some of the safer geoengineering techniques, like aggressively planting forests, could be implemented currently in conjunction with carbon reduction efforts.
Since geoengineering has the potential to affect people on a global scale, the group further recommended that an international organization like the U.N. Commission for Sustainable Development begin developing policies and a means for resolving anticipated geoengineering political conflicts.
"Assuming that acceptable standards for effectiveness, safety, public acceptance and cost were established, why should appropriate geoengineering options not be added to the portfolio of options that society will need and may wish to use to combat the challenges posed by climate change?" said the report.
With that in mind the group evaluated the safety, expense, effectiveness, and quickness of deployment for projects falling under two main classes of geoengineering: carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar-radiation management (SRM).
CDR, efforts to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, included things like afforestation, encouraging plankton growth, and carbon capture and storage in the form of burying carbon-rich biomass or using biochar for fuel.
The SRM suggestions for manipulating the Earth so that it absorbs less solar radiation included more seemingly far-out options like painting all roofs white to reflect sunlight, placing thousands of space mirrors in near-Earth orbits to reflect sunlight, and spraying aerosols into the stratosphere.
The group said it generally favored CDR projects over SRM because they involved processes closer to natural occurrences, while the side effects of SRM projects are unknown and therefore more dangerous.
It always happens when you try to do some good, doesn't it?
You try to help an old lady cross the road, and she looks at you harshly and says, "So I look old to you?" You tell that special someone that you love her, and she tells you that she's actually enjoying the company of your best friend.
Such is the painful, ironic circumstance at the United Kingdom's Met Office. ("Met" is short for "meteorological.")
You see, according to the Daily Mail, the agency's large weather brains decided to invest in an even larger IBM brain in order to accurately predict gaseous happenings of climate change.
I have no reason to believe these miserable wet people are from the Department of Communities and Local Government.
(Credit: CC Stevie-B/Flickr)This metal mastermind can make a quadrillion calculations in the time in takes you to utter a consonant. In the technical world, this is "petaflop" performance. But it might as well have been a Fosbury Flop to some buzz killers.
For along came some bureaucrats from the Department of Communities and Local Government, declaring that the incredibly intelligent hulk is one of the worst polluters in the United Kingdom. For some reason, they were looking at the emissions in all of the nation's public edifices.
All right, so the climate-calculating colossus produces about 75 percent of its own carbon footprint. I fancy that there are several members of Parliament who may do the same. And the supercomputer really can see into the future, whereas some members may not be able to see much beyond lunch.
The beautifully named Barry Grommett from the Met Office told the Mail: "We would be throwing ourselves back into the Dark Ages of weather forecasting, if we withdrew our reliance on supercomputing. It's as simple as that."
Quite. The U.K. bureaucrats have done so much in their attempt to return to the Dark Ages (before climate change?) that the weather men must make a stand.
The thought of an artificial tree usually excites memories of building and ornamenting a Christmas centerpiece. But here's an innovation that will put those plastic branches to shame: scientists at Columbia University are developing a structure that can capture carbon 1,000 times faster than a real tree.
The carbon-capturing structure looks more like a cylinder than a soaring Redwood.
(Credit: Global Research Technologies)Klaus Lackner, a professor of geophysics at the university, has been working on the project since 1998, according to a CNN report, and is optimistic about a near-future application.
Modern improvements in coal-fired power plants have reduced carbon emissions, but Lackner is seeking a different function. The "tree" would be used to trap carbon that has already been emitted into the air by car gasoline or airplane fuel, CNN reports.
Unlike the real thing, the synthetic "tree" doesn't need direct sunlight, water, a trunk, or branches to function, as it looks more like a cylinder than a soaring Redwood. The concept, which Lackner says is flexible in size and can be placed nearly anywhere, works by collecting carbon dioxide on a sorbent, cleaning and pressurizing the gas, and releasing it. Similar to the way a sponge collects water, the sorbent would collect carbon dioxide.
... Read more
Swedish-Japanese phone maker Sony Ericsson on Thursday announced targets for reducing CO2 emissions.
The initiative, part of its pre-existing GreenHeart program launched in September 2008, is intended to reduce emissions by 20 percent across internal operations and by 15 percent over the full life cycle of its products by 2015.
Sony Ericsson plans to roll its green strategy into its entire portfolio over time, which is different from focusing on individual green products, such as Nokia's Green 3110 or Motorola's Renew W233.
"We would rather have mainstream models that we sell in large quantities than one particular green model," Jon Mulder, who heads the company's product marketing in North America, told CNET News. "Our customers should first and foremost be able to buy a great phone, and--by the way--find that it's a green phone, too".
One of three new products launching under Sony Ericsson's GreenHeart program is the C901, shown here.
(Credit: Kent German/CNET)Methods for cutting emissions include providing e-manuals for products to reduce paper usage, and using smaller packaging to decrease the transport-related CO2 footprint, recycled plastics, low-power chargers, and water-based paint that uses local water in the manufacturing process.
Sony Ericsson is launching three products initially: the C901 GreenHeart, a new version of the Cybershot phone C901; Naite, a basic GSM and 3G phone; and the MH300 GreenHeart headset.
Sony Ericsson's approach is pragmatic and low profile, Mulder said. There will be no GreenHeart logo on the hardware, only indications in some of the software.
Sony Ericsson was ranked No. 3 out of 17 manufacturers of electronics in Greenpeace's latest version of its Guide to Greener Electronics from March 2009, earning 5.7 out of 10 maximum points.
The company slipped from its No. 1 position with 5.1 points in June 2008.
In March the same year, Greenpeace awarded Sony Ericsson's T650 the greenest rating among 37 products at the Cebit international electronics fair in Hannover, Germany.
The worst of the global-warming effects can still be reversed, if proper steps are taken fairly quickly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to an analysis by the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
A team led by Warren Washington, a senior scientist at NCAR's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, ran various climate-predicting scenarios with a Community Climate System Model run through a global supercomputer. Most notable is the simulation of what would happen in a world continuing on a path of unchecked human-made emissions of greenhouse gases versus one in which emissions are cut globally by 70 percent.
Supercomputer simulates how average Earth surface air temperatures could warm by the years 2080 through 2099, compared to the years 1980 through 1999, depending on whether greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb (top) or are reduced by 70 percent (bottom). Unchecked emissions could lead to an increase of 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit or more for parts of North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.
(Credit: Geophysical Research Letters/modified by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.)The results by the year 2100 are a difference between the global temperature rising an average of 1 degree versus 4 degrees Fahrenheit; the sea level rising 5.5 inches versus 8.7 inches; and Arctic ice stabilizing versus having its thin seasonal layer melt away completely.
"The threat of global warming can still be greatly diminished, if nations cut emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 70 percent this century, according to a new analysis," according to an NCAR statement. "While global temperatures would rise, the most dangerous potential aspects of climate change, including massive losses of Arctic sea ice and permafrost and significant sea level rise, could be partially avoided."
The levels of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere have already risen from 284 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial revolution to more than 380 ppm this year, according to NCAR.
The computer simulation showed that if greenhouse gas emissions can be held at 450ppm--the target labeled as reasonably achievable by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, if the world reduces emissions by 70 percent--the global temperature would rise by about .6 degrees Celsius (about 1 degree Fahrenheit) by the year 2100. If human-made emissions are left unchecked, the model predicted that greenhouse gas levels would rise to 750ppm by 2100, causing a global temperature increase of 2.2 Celsius (about 4 degrees Fahrenheit).
In the unchecked world, the model found that increasingly warm water temperatures would lead to a greater rise in sea levels, which, in turn, would lead to a negative impact on fisheries, sea bird populations, and mammals living in areas such as the northern Bering Sea. The simulation showed Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America as the areas that would see the greatest increase in average temperature.
It also simulated the U.S. climate specifically. In the world with 70 percent reduced emissions, for example, the U.S. Southwest would see double the amount of annual precipitation by the year 2100.
NCAR, which is funded by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, will publish a full report on its findings next week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. NCAR's report comes just as the U.S. Congress is about to debate the proposed American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, an energy and climate bill that would (among other things) impose a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions permits and mandate increased use of renewable-energy resources for utilities.
"Our goal is to provide policymakers with appropriate research so they can make informed decisions," NCAR's Washington said in a statement. "This study provides some hope that we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change--if society can cut emissions substantially over the next several decades and continue major cuts through the century."
Biofuels are on the way up, while carbon emissions are on the way down, a global airline industry spokesman said Tuesday at the annual Aviation and Environment Summit in Geneva.
After a successful run of pilot programs from Continental, Virgin, Air New Zealand, and JAL, sustainable biofuels are on track to be approved by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) for wide commercial use in planes by 2010 or 2011, Giovanni Bisignani, director general of the IATA, said in a speech given at the summit.
IATA Director General Giovanni Bisignani
(Credit: IATA)The IATA includes more than 230 airlines that make up about 93 percent of the world's airline traffic.
"Biofuels may even hold the promise of improved fuel efficiency on top of the potential to reduce emissions by up to 80 percent over the lifecycle of the fuel," said Bisignani.
He also had a positive spin to share on the fact that airlines have had to reduce flights due to a decrease in cargo and passenger demand throughout this economic downturn. The IATA expects to see a 7.8 percent drop in aviation carbon emissions for 2009.
Six percent will be due to a decrease in the number of cargo and passenger flights, while 1.8 is related to technology, operations, and infrastructure improvements, according to IATA figures.
Bisignani said governments of the world should focus on "replacing the growing patchwork of green taxes, charges, and emissions trading proposals" aimed at airlines with a more comprehensive system that takes into account that aviation carbon emissions contribute about two percent of the world's annual manmade carbon emissions.
The funds sponsoring environmental projects, as well as the degree to which airlines are held responsible for carbon emissions, should both proportionately reflect the two percent figure, according to Bisignani.
"We have a responsibility to secure the future of the 32 million jobs and $3.5 trillion in economic activity dependent on aviation. We need global leadership that unites industry and governments with the common purpose of reducing emissions," he said.
A new campaign to improve automotive fuel efficiency worldwide by 50 percent by the year 2050 was announced at the Geneva Motor Show on Wednesday.
The Global Fuel Economy Initiative and its "50 by 50" campaign has the backing of leaders of four major international organizations: David Ward, director general of the FIA Foundation; Nobuo Tanaka, the executive director of the International Energy Agency; Jack Short, the secretary general of the International Transportation Forum; and Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
Car companies, the "50 by 50" report (PDF) says, must develop car fleets that collectively on average get double the gas mileage they get today, and people must buy them, in order to effectively reduce automotive CO2 emissions and oil consumption.
While the group praised all-electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles it noted that such advanced technology is not immediately necessary, nor a guarantee of carbon dioxide reductions until countries have cleaner electricity production.
"We have to find ways to reconcile legitimate aspirations for mobility, an ambitious reduction in CO2 from cars worldwide, and global economic recovery. There are opportunities to combine support for the industry with measures to achieve governments' environmental and energy policy goals," said a joint statement signed by the leaders of the four organizations.
The Global Fuel Economy Initiative report said a combination of simple steps when collectively applied could have a large impact.
On the technology side it recommended two main things:
- Develop more hybrids overall, offer more car models in a hybrid version, and when possible offer a plug-in hybrid version.
- Implement and improve less glamorous but achievable incremental technology for gas and diesel engine cars like weight reduction, better aerodynamics, and improved efficiency in the internal combustion engine.
But technology alone will not get the world to the goal unless it's propelled by political action, according to the report. On the political side, the initiative recommended the following:
- Present clear data on fuel economy statistics for cars as well as their effect on the global climate, and require automakers to be more transparent on a car model's real-life fuel efficiency.
- Lobby shareholders with significant stakes in automotive companies on the benefits of selling cars with fuel economy improvements.
- Convince governments to offer better incentives for companies to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles.
- Launch campaigns in different countries throughout the world to arm individuals with information on fuel efficiency and their options for car buying.
Taking those steps will save over 6 billion barrels of oil per year by 2050, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars by about 50 percent, according to the report.
"Cutting global average automotive fuel consumption (L/100 km) by 50 percent (i.e. doubling MPG) would reduce emissions of CO2 by over 1 gigatonne (Gt) a year by 2025 and over 2 gigatonnes (Gt) by 2050, and result in savings in annual oil import bills alone worth over USD 300 billion in 2025 and 600 billion in 2050 (based on an oil price of USD 100/bbl)," said the report.
The initiative acknowledges that its goal is ambitious. The report points out that the amount of cars in the world is expected to triple by 2050. It attributes this expected growth to the surge of car ownership in developing nations.
In signing two executive orders on Monday, President Barack Obama made the first moves in a bold multi-pronged strategy to reshape energy policy and spur technology innovation.
At a press conference, the president ordered the Department of Transportation to establish rules by 2011 to raise fuel efficiency to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
He also ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review the denial of a waiver that would allow California and other states to set limits on tailpipe emissions.
In Washington, D.C., the moves signal a sharp change in direction from the Bush administration which was the first to block a waiver request from California and did not implement existing legislation that mandated a 40 percent increase in car and light truck fuel economy.
Technology entrepreneurs and investors got the signal, too. If firmer regulations around fuel efficiency take hold, the business for energy-efficient technologies in transportation technology starts to look more attractive.
"Right now, the investment community is thinking that by 2015, if we're lucky, electric vehicles may be one percent of the marketplace--that's not very many," said Bilal Zuberi, an investor at venture-capital firm General Catalyst Partners. "But if that becomes larger and becomes nearer, then that's pretty interesting."
If California adopts stricter greenhouse gas emissions levels, at least 13 other states and the District of Columbia are expected to adopt those mandates. That effectively creates a larger market for fuel-efficient technologies like electric vehicles, efficient transmissions, or lighter vehicle materials.
Zuberi said technology investors typically have a seven- or eight-year window for making a financial return. Knowing that there is demand for fuel-efficient technologies allows investors to invest with more confidence and a better-understood timescale.
The auto technology companies themselves can also develop and validate products faster, he added. Established car companies could also seek to acquire auto start-ups.
Not so fast
Through its industry association, automakers quickly voiced their opposition to granting California its waiver, underscoring the difficulty of establishing tougher environmental standards in an ailing industry.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers issued a statement on Monday calling for a set of national regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It noted that, at the moment, there are effectively three "voices" influencing fuel economy and carbon dioxide emission regulations: the EPA, California, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
It also urged the administration to have the higher fuel efficiency standards to go into effect for model year 2011 cars "because automakers are working on their product plans now and need the certainty of final standards," according to the statement.
General Catalysts' Zuberi noted that large automakers typically make less money on small, fuel-efficient cars. Changing the mix of their sales to include more fuel-efficient vehicles will force them to innovate on technology or manufacturing, he argued.
Environmental groups, meanwhile, praised the move.
"The cleaner cars he will help put on the road will show us the way to reduce our dangerous dependence on oil and will push automakers to make the cars that the world will want and need in the 21st Century," wrote Dave Hawkins, head of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Other shoes to drop
During Obama's press conference--his first official event in the East Room of the White House--he indicated that the proposed changes in transportation policy are part of broader set of measures his administration is rapidly lining up on energy and environment.
A proposed $825 billion stimulus package includes billions of dollars in tax incentives and direct government spending on clean-energy programs.
In addition to repeating the administration's pledge to doubling the amount of renewable energy in the country in three years, Obama on Monday said that the stimulus plan calls for laying 3,000 miles of new transmission lines--considered crucial for moving wind and solar power to different corners of the country.
The plan also has billions for dedicated to weatherizing two million homes and saving $2 billion a year by making 75 percent of federal buildings more energy efficient.
"Embedded in America's soil, wind, and sun, we have the capacity to change," Obama said. "It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence of foreign oil while creating a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs."
In transportation, plug-in electric or all-electric vehicles do promise to bring a jump in fuel efficiency. All major automakers are preparing some form of electric sedans to be first released in the next two years.
But the policies outlined by Obama on Monday only address a portion of the policies needed to get electric car on the roads en masse, said Brian Wynne, the president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association.
Auto suppliers are not yet prepared to meet a huge spike in demand for electric cars, in particularly the lithium-ion batteries planned for these vehicles.
"There's little doubt this will impact the demand for greener vehicles across the board," said Wynne. "But trying to transition to deployment and a new manufacturing infrastructure for advanced electric vehicles as the auto industry is shedding capacity is a big challenge."
