Saturday, March 16, 2019

Stopping CO2 emissions is not enough, they must be sucked out of the atmosphere also.



                                      Comments due  March 30, 2019

Three years ago the world pledged to keep global warming “well below” 2°C hotter than pre-industrial times. Climate scientists and campaigners purred. Politicians patted themselves on the back. Despite the Paris agreement’s ambiguities and some setbacks, including President Donald Trump’s decision to yank America out of the deal, the air of self-congratulation was still on show among those who gathered in Bonn for a follow-up summit.
Yet the most damaging thing about America’s renewed spasm of climate-change rejection may not be the effect on its own emissions, which could turn out to be negligible. It is the cover America has given other countries to avoid acknowledging the problems of the agreement America is abandoning.
The Paris agreement assumes, in effect, that the world will find ways to suck CO2 out of the air. That is because, in any realistic scenario, emissions cannot be cut fast enough to keep the total stock of greenhouse gases sufficiently small to limit the rise in temperature successfully. But there is barely any public discussion of how to bring about the extra “negative emissions” needed to reduce the stock of CO2 (and even less about the more radical idea of lowering the temperature by blocking out sunlight). Unless that changes, the promise of limiting the harm of climate change is almost certain to be broken.
Don’t be so positive
Fully 101 of the 116 models the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses to chart what lies ahead assume that carbon will be taken out of the air in order for the world to have a good chance of meeting the 2°C target. The total amount of CO2 to be soaked up by 2100 could be a staggering 810bn tonnes, as much as the world’s economy produces in 20 years at today’s rate . Putting in place carbon-removal schemes of this magnitude would be an epic endeavour even if tried-and-tested techniques existed.
They do not. A few power stations and industrial facilities capture CO2 that would otherwise end up in the air and store it away underground, a practice known as carbon capture and storage. But this long-touted approach to cutting emissions still operates on only a very small scale, dealing with just a few tens of millions of tonnes of CO2 a year. And such schemes merely lower emissions; they do not reverse them.
What might? One option is to plant more forests (which act as a carbon sink) or to replace the deep-ploughing of fields with shallow tillage (which helps soils absorb and retain more CO2). Another is to apply carbon capture and storage to biomass-burning power plants, stashing the carbon sucked up by crops or trees burnt as fuel. Fancier ideas exist. Carbon could be seized directly from the air, using chemical filters, and stored. Or minerals could be ground up and sowed over land or sea, accelerating from aeons to years the natural weathering process that binds them to CO2 to form carbonate rocks.
Whether any of these technologies can do the job in time is unknown. All of them are very expensive and none is proven at scale. Persuading Earth’s swelling population to plant an India’s worth of new trees or crops to produce energy, as the climate simulations require, looks highly improbable. Changing agricultural practices would be cheaper, but scientists doubt that this would suck up enough CO2 even to offset the greenhouse gases released by farming. Direct air capture and enhanced weathering use less land, but both are costlier. Though renewable energy could profitably generate a fair share of the world’s electricity, nobody knows how to get rich simply by removing greenhouse gases.
When the need is great, the science is nascent and commercial incentives are missing, the task falls to government and private foundations. But they are falling short.
More science would serve as a collective insurance policy against a grave threat. However, this year Britain became just the first country to devote cash to such projects; America is eyeing grants, too, despite Mr Trump. Britain’s one-off £8.6m ($11.3m) is footling. Roughly $15bn a year goes to research into all low-carbon technologies; that pot needs to increase, and more of it should be channelled to extracting carbon.

Another form of climate denial
A big market for CO2 would provide an extra incentive to mine it from the atmosphere. But its uses are still limited. If regulators forced industries that cannot convert to electricity, such as aviation, to use synthetic fuels rather than fossil ones, demand for the CO2that is the raw material for those fuels could increase greatly. The industries, though, would resist.
If the market will not provide an incentive, governments could. The case for a proper price on carbon (this paper has favoured a tax) is strong. Its absence is one of the reasons carbon capture and storage has not taken off as a way of reducing emissions from fossil-fuel plants; the kit needed can double the price of electricity. Yet, setting a price high enough to encourage negative emissions would asphyxiate the economy.
Subsidies are another option. Without them, renewables would have taken longer to compete with fossil fuels. But they are wasteful. Germany has lavished $1trn on low-carbon electricity, and even then still depends on fossil fuels for over half its power. Still, governments could offer a reward for every tonne of CO2 that is extracted and stored. In theory such a bounty should be paid from a fund bankrolled by countries according to their cumulative historical emissions (top comes America followed by Europe, with China rapidly closing the gap). In practice no mechanism exists to get them to cough up.
Indeed, facing the shortcomings of Paris is beyond most governments. Under Mr Trump, America is not prepared to reduce the flow of emissions, let alone the stock. But the problem would not magically be solved even if America returned to the fold. Many rich countries say they are already doing their bit by cutting emissions more steeply than developing countries. In fact, taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is not an alternative to belching out less greenhouse gas. It is necessary in its own right. Unless policymakers take negative emissions seriously, the promises of Paris will ring ever more hollow.
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "What they don’t tell you"

12 comments:


  1. This article brings up a very serious issue, and one that can often be overlooked. Even if countries all over the world decide to cut emissions, global temperature reduction goals won’t be met unless these countries also find a way to take CO2 out of the air. As the article states, “taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is not an alternative to belching out less greenhouse gas. It is necessary in its own right.”
    While I have often heard about the Paris Agreement, and its success (or lack there of) in decreasing global temperature, I have never thought of the idea of taking existing CO2 out of the atmosphere. It makes a lot of sense that this is a necessary tactic to reverse some of the damage that has already been done over the years. As the article says, cutting emissions alone won’t be enough for the world to meet its 2 degree C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. If you think about it, it seems humans have gone past the point of no return. The climate change we have caused has been vast in the past few decades, and some of the damage is irreversible. It reminds me of a somewhat silly analogy from my own life of an overstuffed backpack. Recently my backpack began to tear at the seams. I had been overstuffing it with books and clothes when I traveled into the city from Brooklyn. Once I realized this, I should’ve taken some of the items out to keep the bag from breaking. The bag would still have been worn and torn but once I lightened the load, it would still continue to function as a backpack for my stuff. However, I recognized the problem, and instead of taking things out, tried to tape the straps. I even continued to add smaller items to the bag since they could technically fit. Soon the bag broke open and everything poured out. I had overused my backpack. I tried to fix the problem by compensating for it when I should have reversed some of the damage.
    In order to try and reverse the damage we have done to our atmosphere, we must take some items out of the bag; we must suck some carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The article mentions a lot of techniques to do this, including creating carbon sinks by planting forests or carbon storage through “biomass-burning power plants.” These techniques should ALL be implemented, and the government should intervene to make sure these methods are widely practiced (perhaps through incentives??). I found it most interesting that the article mentions “fancier methods” of taking carbon directly from the air. The piece didn’t elaborate much on these techniques, and it is something I would love to learn more about. The more direct the solution the better, right?
    The fact that this article is the first I’ve heard of carbon capture tactics only proves another of it’s points: more carbon research is necessary. The more we know about how much damage we are causing, the easier it will be to fight against it. We really don’t have any more time to wait. We have to make a real change before it is too late. If it’s not too late already.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As per the Paris agreement, cutting emissions is not enough to meet the 2°C target temperature. “Emissions cannot be cut fast enough to keep the total stock of greenhouse gases sufficiently small to limit the rise in temperature successfully.” So, it is important that the world finds an effective way to suck CO2 out of the air. However, there are no certain ideas on how to achieve this. Before reading this article, I had not considered the need to extract CO2 out of the air. This need proves even further the terrible condition that our environment is in. There were many possible solutions given, like planting forests to act as carbon sinks or to use shallow tillage on fields which will help the soil to absorb and retain CO2. I think it is vital that our government step in to make these things happen. The world cannot afford to not take these things seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not fully aware of all of the technical or scientific ways that CO2 can be reduced but what I have come to realize is that all of the options are relatively costly. After reading this article I have little hope that there is any chance of turning around the damage that we have caused as a society. The reluctance that America as a country has had towards accepting the issues at hand has caused us to go well beyond the point where change and progress can be made. Something that really stood out to me in this article was the fact that the scale of scientific research provided towards these negative emission efforts cannot necessarily be proven on a large enough scale to give people a realistic projection of the benefits these efforts could have. Not only that but the efforts already put into effect are so small-scale that their action has become ineffective. "But this long-touted approach to cutting emissions still operates on only a very small scale, dealing with just a few tens of millions of tonnes of CO2 a year. And such schemes merely lower emissions; they do not reverse them." The fact that these operations are so small, yet so much money is needed for their launch does not make a lot of people, especially the ones in charge, want to change their standard of living for the environment. This would mean spending money that would come out of their pocket, including the pockets of Americans as a population, to aid in a movement that may not even benefit them in their lifetime. What kind of investment is that right? The failure of the safety nets put in place to benefit the environment now is proof of this. There is little to no urgency put forward but the fact is, we as humans have put ourselves in the situation where urgency might not even be enough.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think it’s a quite upseting fact that the United States pulled out of the Paris Agreement. Without reducing the current CO2 in the air we will not be able to continue living for more than a few decades. There is much urgency now for us to save our planet yet we aren’t doing enough. We need a huge change in our way of life if we want our world to continue. Simple adjustments can make huge differences and dedicating money to reducing and eliminating our CO2 waste in the world is imperative and the fact that it’s not imperative enough for it to be a top priority is devastating. We need a long term plan of action to save the environment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is not surprising that the amount of carbon emissions is far exceeding what we as humans are able to counteract in out atmosphere given our current ways of handling the issue. As is mentioned, the Paris Agreement sounds great on paper, and it is, however it does have fundamental shortcomings about what exactly to do to balance how much carbon is put into the atmosphere. The idea of capturing carbon is interesting, however it’s difficult to believe that this strategy would ever become widespread. The idea of planting forests sounds promising. Though one must speculate that as the world’s population continues to grow and develop lands that keeping forests intact let alone expanding them is also a difficult concept to carry out. However the concept of trying to convert captured CO2 emissions into fuel has promise, if it can be managed and successfully pushed on major industries such as auto and the mentioned aviation industry. Governments offering rewards for captured carbon emissions is most likely the most promising option in my opinion, though world leaders need to start seriously committing the necessary funds for this to work.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We live in a time where any major decisions made consider profit as a top priority. Therefore to gain backing and support from politicians to fund such project would be desperate at best. People do not deny the importance of environmental protection however once people and/or nations feel limited of being able to provide shelter food and excursions, everything else becomes secondary. Due to the fact that trapping co2 is non profitable this project is not likely to occur. I for one fully support funding for the project as clean air and clean water should not be distributed by a monetary system. However if technology is able to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere agriculture practices will be less likely to change and industrial process will operate with out any considerations to co2 emissions. This will cause major land destruction and decrease the amount of fertile soil in our ecosystems. Although this project is really interesting I do not believe this is the best immediate action to fight against global warming.

    - Brennan Boudreaux

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Paris Agreement is a major event where decisions in regards to the preservation of our planet are made. The world's leading countries all come together to discuss how they can create more sustainable ways of living. The United States is one of the countries that funds things the highest and the fact that they pulled out of this is very alarming. In the past our country has made significant contributions towards sustainability and preserving our planet but this news is heartbreaking. As one of the major superpowers we have the tools to influence how society functions but instead of moving forward this is backtracking all the efforts that were put in place before Trump's Administration. If we reduce CO2 emissions and switch to reusable or decomposable items we should be on track to a better future. I hope we get to that point and our country works towards a healthier future

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was never aware of the carbon capture and storage approach, which consists of taking carbon emissions out of the air. However, with all the excessive amount of carbon produced in the world, that would be extremely challenging. It’d be nearly impossible to capture all without putting an extremely high price tag on it. I think planting more forests is a more reasonable and affordable option, but land might be a problem. With the population growing rapidly, available land diminishes and the time it takes to plant forests are lengthy. It unquestionably should be done, but we shouldn’t put all our focus in on building forests because it won’t solve the issue entirely. Although, it is a more guaranteed approach of diminishing carbon emissions. It is shocking to learn about the amount of C02 we have produced that it is challenging to find one solution that is reliable to stick to. Like mentioned in the blog post, “ In any realistic scenario, emissions cannot be cut fast enough to keep the total stock of greenhouse gases sufficiently small to limit the rise in temperature successfully.” This means that even if we do reduce the number of emissions that are being produced, that still wouldn’t be enough to diminish the amount in the air. The only option we have is to capture the CO2 from the air. It is sad to read how far we have come in destructing our planet where we are not even able to think of a proper solution to fix it.

    -Vianna Konoplin

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was really shocked when I read that the world’s economy produces 810bn tonnes in 20 years. We all know that climate change is real, but I feel like we’ve become ignorant to how bad it really is. But every company, every country, every person needs to do something about the climate crisis we are experiencing. The best way to prevent more pollution is by using renewable energy, planting more forests, and sucking out CO2 from the air. I had never heard about the carbon capture and storing method, where the CO2 sucked out of the air is stored underground, and don’t think it’s the most effective method. In order to really cut down on emissions, the rate at which CO2 is removed has to be faster, and there needs to be more cooperation and less “climate rejection.” As stated in the article, when the market has no incentive for companies to suck out the CO2, the government can step in and impose a tax. I believe companies that produce a high level of CO2 should definitely be taxed-the more you produce, the more you pay. Maybe this can be an incentive to lower emissions and suck out CO2 in order to keep the company running. If mass production and mass consumption are the real reasons behind climate change, then people need to be held accountable for what they’ve done/continue to do. After reading this article, it seems that even if every country were to take serious action by cutting the amount of emissions, it still wouldn’t be enough to reverse the effects of climate change.

    -Lilliana Fenner

    ReplyDelete
  10. A 2C rise in global temperatures would mean a much greater chance of extreme and devastating weather. These include floods, droughts, storms and heat waves. According to calculations by biophysicist Dr Michiel Schaeffer, a 2C rise in global temperatures will cause a 2.7m rise in sea levels by 2030, at that time, some island counties will be gone. Some reports show that U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rose 3.4% in 2018, the first increase in the past four years and the biggest increase since the economic recovery began in 2010. Transportation has been the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States for three years, with significant increases in emissions from trucking and aviation. In addition, increased demand for heating due to cold weather in early 2018 is also a significant contributor to the significant increase in us energy carbon emissions in 2018. Overall, us energy carbon emissions peaked in 2007 and have since fallen by an average of 1.6 per cent a year to 2015. Since 2016, the average annual decline of us energy carbon emissions has slowed down significantly. However, in 2018, it rose rather than fall, which is further and further away from the goal of achieving the Paris agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Call me crazy but I believe that chemtrails need to be sucked from the sky as well. I got reminded about this when the blog post said “Stopping CO2 emissions is not enough, they must be sucked out of the atmosphere also”. I believe that the chemtrails do affect global warming with the chemicals that are being put out into the sky. I believe it affects the weather patterns as well. I think cleaning up the air would be expensive and dipping into taxpayer’s wallets. I feel like we should focus on eliminating the emission we are currently doing. Perhaps like the blog says to plant more forests so they can soak in the carbon and release oxygen. Perhaps this is a good thing so the air can feel fresher. I feel as though we also need to come up with a backup plan in case of failure in sustainability. Here is what I feel about doubling the price when reducing emissions from fossil fuels. You see cigarettes and alcohol, it’s bad for people and the government puts taxes on them, but that doesn’t stop people from buying those products. Therefore, the government should come up with a better plan. I do not think people will react any different to those types of prices. Also, renewable energy, in my opinion is not as fast as these fossil fuels. For example, wind energy, you need enough wind. Fossil fuels are being dug up and produced rapidly. The government would need to figure out a better reacting and efficient energy source that everyone would want to use. I do agree ‘Under Mr. Trump, America is not prepared to reduce the flow of emissions”. I feel as though his focus is on issues that are not priorities. Perhaps once a more efficient way of attracted CO2 emissions from the air becomes clear, Mr. Trump could possibly adopt it…. Well we can only hope…..or protest and make it happen. Too much damage to the environment has happened already.

    ReplyDelete