A Message from the President
John Topping, President and CEO, Climate Institute
A decade ago moviegoers flocked to see two films, Deep Impact and Armageddon, about killer asteroids on a collision course with Earth. In the films humanity groped to use its technology to avoid a fate similar to the demise of the dinosaurs. Recent news reports are eerily reminiscent of the Hollywood thrillers, though the time scenarios may be in decades or centuries rather than days. The IPCC has made clear that large-scale global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are needed if we are to avoid irreversible and quite disruptive climate change. Yet global carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector have been rising at an annual rate of about 3%, an increase from the trend a decade ago. There already are signs that we may be experiencing the beginning of a kind of metastatic climate change where the warming feeds on itself, with methane emissions from a thawing Arctic tundra and melting sea ice and glaciers changing albedo and enhancing warming above that due to emissions from human agricultural and industrial activity. In addition, reports of a rapid acceleration in the rate of ocean acidification – a likely byproduct of the same factors threatening climatic disruption - suggest that the marine food chain may be at risk of a rapid unraveling.
In these circumstances some climate scientists are resembling the actors in asteroid films and are looking at improvised geo-engineering solutions to avert metastatic climate change. Already seeing evidence of reinforcing climate feedbacks and despairing of rapid changes in global energy systems, some highly regarded scientists are advocating a serious look at a variety of measures - sulfate clouds over polar regions to arrest glacial melt, satellite discs to deflect radiation back to space, or fertilization of the oceans with iron filings that might stimulate algal growth and possibly carbon dioxide absorption. Each of these may have unforeseen and unintended side effects, they concede, but we may soon be past a tipping point of glacial melt in polar regions that could in two or three centuries swamp all Earth’s coastal cities. We may ultimately be forced to such drastic measures as a last resort, and research into geo-engineering remains essential.
Still, the primary focus should be on two priorities. First is the identification of a workable approach to resolve the Alphonse - Gaston quandary, where industrial and developing countries each hesitate to act for fear that their actions alone won’t make much difference. Michael MacCracken, the Climate Institute’s Chief Scientist, has put forward a remarkably insightful proposal for reciprocal North-South action on emissions. The developments of the past few weeks in Mexico and the Philippines provide some hope that banking on such action is no longer utopian. A second imperative is the identification of and stimulation of large-scale near term emission reductions to reverse the upward spiral that could soon move us past crucial tipping points. All of these must be viewed through a lens of a global economy in distress with few countries or regions immune from economic hardships that threaten livelihoods. Dependence on several hundred billion dollar annual carbon transfers may amount to a white flag of surrender, ensuring that we will pass irreversible tipping points.
Fortunately there are several measures that might produce large-scale reductions in global emissions, and some even with immediate benefits to the global economy. In my view the most obvious of these involves the removal of barriers to energy recycling - the subject of much of this newsletter. Credible estimates indicate that US carbon dioxide emissions might drop as much as 20% with savings annually of tens of billions of dollars for consumers and industry by removing anti-competitive restrictions on the resale of electricity and by adopting transmission pricing that no longer discriminates against local generation. Four countries in Northern Europe - Denmark, The Netherlands, Latvia and Finland - have each benefited from extensive energy recycling. The Calderon Government in Mexico seems to see increased use of natural gas cogeneration as an integral part of its ambitious green energy agenda. A particularly appealing aspect of this is the potential to make a huge dent in emissions both in the US and in such developing countries as China and India by harnessing waste heat that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere.
There are two other approaches that I believe merit extensive research. The first is changing agricultural soils management to greatly increase sequestration of carbon dioxide in soils. We know that soils store even more carbon than trees and also that farmers are extraordinarily quick in adjusting to changed circumstances. If we can grasp how new soil management practices will increase carbon sequestration and develop economic incentives for farmers with minimal transaction costs, this might greatly offset energy sector emissions. The second option is the development of bio-fuels from carbon dioxide and bacteria or algae. While this may seem far fetched, the involvement of Craig Venter who brilliantly mapped the human genome suggests that this may be achievable quickly enough to make a difference. If successful this has two huge advantages: the fuels could be used in existing engines with no need for retrofitting, and it is possible that these bio-fuels might be produced onsite at major fossil power plants and prove much more economical than carbon capture and storage. Unlike energy recycling where there is a wealth of experience, these options will require significant research and analysis. However, the potential benefits are so great that serious exploration of both makes sense