Going through the ceiling!

Sometime in the next month, the analyser at Hawai is expected to record a daily concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of more than 400 parts per million (p.p.m.)At 400 p.p.m., nations will have a difficult time keeping global warming in check, says Corinne Le Quéré, a climate researcher at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, who says that the impact “is getting very dangerously close to reaching the 2 °C target that governments around the world have pledged not to exceed”.

Emissions of other greenhouse gases are also increasing, pushing the total equivalent concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere to around 478 p.p.m. in April, according to Ronald Prinn, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

Data compiled by Le Quéré and other members of the Global Carbon Project suggest that humans contributed around 10.4 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere in 2011. About half of that is taken up each year by carbon ‘sinks’ such as the ocean and vegetation on land; the rest remains in the atmosphere and raises the global concentration of CO₂.

The sinks have grown substantially but climate models suggest that the land and ocean will not keep pace for long. Some researchers have suggested that the sinks have already started to clog up, reducing their ability to take up more CO₂ (J. G. Canadell et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 18866–18870; 2007). Others disagree.

Home or hotel?

That average global temperatures on the rise won’t suddenly stop despite any measures taken is pretty well known to those following the climate change issue. Now, Australian and US scientists in a study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reaffirm that up to half of the planet would become uninhabitable by the 2300s with an average global temperature rise of 21.6 degrees Fahrenheit. No need to mention that most species on the planet will not survive with most regions turning into deserts. (Global average temperatures comprise the sum of increases and decreases in different regions.)

That’s another 8-10 generations down the line, so why should we bother? That could well be the unsaid comment by anyone reading this. True. It is only if we care about what we leave behind that we will do anything about it. Pretty much like the way many of us use a hotel service – on the day we leave, we are not really bothered about the mess we leave behind. This is not the attitude we observe at home.

So, do we treat the planet as our home or a hotel?

India has meanwhile announced plans to set up a climate adaptation fund to assist South Asian countries to adapt to the challenges of the changing climate. At the 16th South Asian Association on Regional Cooperation (SAARC) held recently at Thimphu, Bhutan with its theme ‘Towards a Green and Happy South Asia’, the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh spoke of the ‘India Endowment for Climate Change in South Asia’ fund as a ‘gift’ to the member nations. He also proposed to set up regional climate innovation centres in South Asia in order to stimulate research and development in clean and sustainable energy technologies.

That is the way ahead. The wealthy nations will have to lead the way and share the spoils for global good. Or else, nobody will be willing to change their polluting lifestyles.

Do not ignore what science says

Do we believe in science anymore? There seems to be a general air of disbelief in what the scientists say, all thanks to one goof-up, or call it an oversight.

But 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, have just published a stunning “Lead Letter” in the journal Science (May 2010). The letter, titled, “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” starts off: “We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular…

“All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet…

“Scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong.

Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.”

They go on to identify fundamental conclusions about climate change – warming from increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases; warming largely anthropogenic in nature; the consequences such as sea level rise, alterations of hydrological cycle which in turn will affect food and water supplies, etc.

“We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.

“Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively.”

Gasp!

The carbon lungs of the world stands to be cut by half by 2050! A study led by Brazil's National Institute of Special Research found that the size of the Amazon could be reduced 50 percent by 2050, the 'tipping point' for when it will slowly wither away entirely. The research found if the regions of the Amazon most crucial to maintaining the biome's climate are lost, large sections of the once lush rainforest may be reduced to a virtual desert.

According to a report from Globo Amazônia, the study conducted by Gilvan Sampaio of National Institute of Special Research (INPE) found that the vegetation of the Amazon will be particularly impacted by rising global temperatures in the years to come, in addition to the continued threats posed by deforestation and fires. But because the Amazon rainforest itself plays a crucial role in regulating the climate worldwide, the rate of vegetation loss will gradually accelerate as there's less forest to maintain it.

The study found that the cycle of forest loss will be most pronounced if the forests in eastern Amazon continue to be lost.

Once fires caused by these droughts and continued deforestation have reduced the Amazon's size by half, says Sampaio, desertification will slowly transform the terrain into a 'tropical savanna'. The report projects that this 'tipping point' level of forest loss could occur as shortly as 2050.

Although Brazil has made great strides in reducing deforestation in recent years, development and logging in restricted areas remains a problem throughout parts of the Amazon. It is in the interest of the world to keep the Amazon forests intact, but who will compensate for Brazilians seeking ‘progress’?

As to the state of climate and carbon emissions, in which large rainforests play a big role, the continuing argument on per capita versus total emissions threatens to overlook the runaway emissions rate. Energy Collective does some simple calculations to show the grim truth!

Worldwide CO2 emissions in 1990, the baseline year used for most guidelines that seek “80% reduction by 2050″ were 21.5 billion tons, and current emissions are about 30 billion tons. The 2025 target, using a linear reduction from 2010 to 2050 requires us to be at or below roughly 20 billion tons.

The per capita emissions, now: China: 4.6 tons/person, India 1.2, the US: 20, (and from a separate source) the EU: 9.0. Considering population projections for 2025: China: 1.47 billion, India: 1.35 billion, the US: 0.35 billion China’s total emissions in 2025 will be 13.2 billion tons (1.47 billion people * 9 tons/person), India’s will be 2.7 billion tons (1.35 billion * 2), and the US’ will be 3.15 billion tons (0.35 billion * 9), totalling 19.05 billion tons. Adding the rest from the EU, Japan, Africa, Canada, Mexico, Russia, et al. at more than a billion, we will have crossed the 20 bn tons target. If we lose half the Amazons in such a scenario, god forbid the extra carbon that goes up.

The high emitters have to reduce their emissions very quickly, and the developing nations have to avoid higher emissions levels. Seems inevitable if we are to ever take studies seriously as also the effects we are beginning to witness. Per capita is something which scientists are questioning, given that in a country like India, more than half do not have access to electricity!

Sounding the methane alarm

A team of scientists confirms that sea-bottom and surface waters of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are “super-saturated” with Methane (CH4) gas and “out-gassing” this potent GHG to the Atmosphere.

Large quantities of carbon (C) and methane (CH4)– typically in the form of methyl hydrate (or methyl clathrate)– are trapped in ocean sediments the world over. Through natural erosion of sediments, shifting of the ocean floor covering, and/or from pressure cracking, bubbles of the gas often escape and rise up through the water column.

In the deeper seas and oceans, this natural gas venting to the atmosphere (“out-gassing”) is largely constrained due to the fact that, as the rises through the water column, much of it combines with oxygen and forms other, less potent molecules. Also, in colder seas, sub-sea permafrost acts as a “lid” to contain much of the buried carbon.

The ESAS is the largest shallow sea in the world. Despite this, the ESAS generates a methane flux ten times that of the deeper ocean.Something amiss. Yet anoter pointer to how little we know about the planet, and hence, how wrong our predictions could be!

Many climatologist are concerned that Arctic warming–which is greater than predicted by several degrees C so far this century–will accelerate the thawing of sub-sea permafrost and thus also the release of CH4. Methane, though shorter-lived in the atmosphere than CO2, is a far more potent GHG than CO2, in terms of its heat-trapping capability.

Tug of war

Can we only be followers? Never leaders? That is the kind of despair many Indians are sure to feel reading the newspapers. The latest being the government’s official stand on emissions presented before Parliament, coming after China’s announcement.
India will cut its carbon intensity (tons of CO2 per unit GDP) by 20-25 percent from the 2005 levels by 2020. China has offered 40-45 percent of 2005 levels by 2020.

Sounds bigger but again, experts calculate it comes to the same as in a business as usual scenario. If China can sustain a rate of decarbonization of 3.7% per year or more that would be a very impressive achievement. However, if China is going to continue to grow its economy at 9% per year, more needs to be done, analysts feel.

Coming to the nature of the two declarations, no legal binding, but a voluntary act that will not allow international scrutiny unless linked to foreign finds. Quoting Planning Commission documents the environment minister Jairam Ramesh talks of how India has cut its carbon intensity by 17.6 percent between 1990 and 2005. That will raise many eyebrows given that there were no energy auditors in the country then. How did the government arrive at this number?

That is another matter. But does its offer mean anything at the global level? Will fuel efficiency standards that stop at labeling of vehicles serve any purpose? Or the ‘modification’ of the EC Act to allow BEE to issue certificates help? How relevant are certificates in the Indian context? Are rewards the solution or will it take applying the stick too?

Leaders of Brazil, South Africa, India and China, a group collectively dubbed the "BASIC" countries along with Sudan as the head of the G77, a larger bloc of developing nations participating in the climate talks, agreed on a new draft negotiating position that argues that the Copenhagen framework should largely consist of an extension of the current Kyoto Protocol framework for a second commitment period running from 2012-2020.

Furthermore, the BASIC nations' "non-negotiable" planks include a pledge to stand opposed to any global deal in Copenhagen that does not explicitly reject the use of carbon border tariffs or other measures to restrict trade in the context. This is exactly what the US senators are favouring!

They are insisting that any international climate framework U.S. negotiators sign in Copenhagen must include comparable action from all major economies and allow tariffs to adjust prices on imports from any nation that does not agree to bindings agreements to reduce emissions "in specific trade- and energy-intensive economic sectors."

The U.S. should seek to negotiate a new international climate agreement under which, "All major economies should adopt ambitious, quantifiable, measurable, reportable and verifiable national actions" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

New or old, a treaty for sure looks doomed.

Tax individuals, not nations

As the climate change curve continues its ascent, it is time for all who are convinced on the science behind to get going on some action. Even in the developing world, like we have written about, renewable energy and energy efficiency drives are accelerating. Individual organizations and groups are at the forefront even where governments remain mulish.

How about reduction limits imposed on individuals rather than nations, as proposed by a team at Princeton University? Under this framework, the international community would draw a single, global line for carbon emissions. Countries would then be responsible for reducing the carbon footprint of individuals living above that line.

Overall, the researchers found that the United States and China would have the largest carbon dioxide reduction targets, while Russia, India, the Middle East, South Africa and north Africa would all have sizable targets, due to their energy industries.

Is this simply a way of transferring the onus? Is there really a comparison at all of the number of people living carbon-heavy lifestyles in the developed and developing world? For instance how many people in the US can boast of per capita emissions at 2 tonnes per person?

However, it would be a different thing to go by nations overall and in the developing world to assess emissions by individuals. After all when considering per capita, the total emissions is being divided by the population figure. Some sections in developing nations are emitting well above this figure.

The proposal also sets a floor for the 3 billion people predicted by 2030 to be emitting less than one ton of carbon dioxide a year. Those people - the poorest of the poor - should focus solely on bettering their lifestyles, and they should do so via any economical means, the authors say.

Should we actually go by the numbers then? Is that a better way of ensuring upliftment of the really poor without drastically altering the carbon bank?

Is your lifestyle carbon-heavy?

The average temperatures have increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. By 2100, the average global temperature will rise a staggering 3.2-7.1 degrees F from what it is today.

As temperatures rise and ice melts around the world, oceans will rise about 3 feet by 2100. This would be drastic as a 3 foot rise in sea levels would displace about 600 million people, or about 10% of today's worldwide population. Highly populated areas like China, Bangladesh, India, and major cities along the east coast of the U.S. would be greatly affected.

But still, people are reluctant to change behaviour whether it be in developed or developing nations. With climate change implications acknowledged, very few are willing to take personal action or ‘sacrifice’. Why? Why is it so difficult to opt for public transport or at the very least, a hybrid, instead of a SUV? Why has it not yet become a habit to shut down the computer when not in use?

An interesting article examines the reasons behind this apathy. One reason is that while our logical reasoning accepts the enormity of the problem, the experiential side is reluctant as it does not sense the effect. As in any other clear and present danger.

Even as 33 percent of a survey of Americans showed they were concerned, they did nothing about it. Not because there is no information available about the problem but because specific solutions are often missing. An energy extension service on the lines of agricultural extensions that provide solutions could help.

That apart, what is required is to mobilize the consensus which is greater than generally believed to be. This can be done through rules and norms as these influence most people. A bigger role can be played by media in its depiction of climate change and change in personal behaviour required.

How planet-friendly is your personal behaviour? Sure, this is important when you consider the energy predictions.

World energy consumption is forecast to increase by 44 percent from 2006 to 2030, with almost two-thirds of that coming from developing countries and fossil fuels that continue to dominate energy supply, according to the Energy Information Administration's 2009 outlook report just released. That increase would mean global emissions would hit 40.4 billion tonnes by 2030, compared to 29 billion tonnes in 2006.

Developing countries are projected to increase demand by 73 percent by 2030 in the outlook's base reference case whereas developed countries will grow by 15 percent, the report says. Oil prices will return to $110 per barrel in 2015 and go up to $130 per barrel in 2030 in the base reference case, although in the high-price reference case they could reach $200 per barrel, depending on supply, EIA said.

What does it take to reverse the present trend? A hefty tax on petrol? Do away with fossil fuel based power subsidies? Save energy? Let us know your thoughts.

Tree power

Do forests bring rain? Or does rain bring up forests?

A paper in BioScience Magazine called How Forests Attract Rain discusses a mostly overlooked hypothesis that explains how big rainforests actually drive the entire global water cycle. Forests pull in large amounts of water vapor from surrounding regions and from nearby bodies of water. As the vapor condenses into rain, the local atmospheric pressure drops. This sucks in more water vapor from outside the forest. It rains and the process goes on.

The whole rainforest-water vapor system is called a biotic pump because the living forest matter is what’s moving the water.

Forests also extract water and minerals from the soil, much of the water is transpired as a bi-product of photosynthesis. This makes the forest a moist damp area and keeps it cool during the day. During the night the moist air that is not generally blown away, starts condensing the moisture as dew, returning the water to the soil and keeping the night temperature warmer than it otherwise would have been. It takes time for the soil to develop its water cycle.

Planting of trees should help in bringing rains to an area, but caution is needed not to opt for monoculture.

The study explains why we see heavy downpours in the tropics as compared to the temperate or arid zones.

Anyway, Indonesia has hit upon a novel idea to reforestation – get every couple tying the knot to plant 10 saplings. And every pair that divorces has to plant 50 more saplings!

Two years ago, Indonesia was noted in the Guinness Book of Records for a dubious distinction--achieving the world's fastest rate of deforestation, cutting down an area the size of 300 soccer fields every hour, for a total of 4.4 million acres a year. The result was disastrous.

Well, it is clear that we need trees more than they need us. They give us the oxygen we need. They absorb carbon dioxide. They keep the soil intact. They bring rains. Any doubts why we must save them?

The Planet flu

The UK must pursue energy efficiency more aggressively to meet its target of an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, according to a new report from the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC). It is possible to halve the energy used in the country’s homes through a mixture of energy efficiency improvements and modest lifestyle changes, the centre says.

Decarbonising would require measures like nuclear and CCS technology in addition to renewables, which alone cannot meet the demand in time.

For India, an investment of $10 billion in energy efficiency improvements could result in gigantic energy savings, a new World Resource Institute (WRI) report states. According to Powering Up: The Investment Potential of Energy Service Companies in India, the energy service company sector (ESCO) could help the country save from than 183.5 billion kilowatt hours, while turning a profit.

The large and energy-intensive Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai hired Sudnya Industrial Services, an ESCO, to undertake an analysis. The results showed that the air-conditioning system comprised 60 percent of the hospital’s energy usage and that an upgrade was necessary. The entire investment of the hospital to do this upgrade was US$12,000, the annual savings are US$17,000, and the payback time was nine months.

Meanwhile the Indian envoy to a two-day meeting in Washington of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, Shyam Saran ruled out a cap on development , preferring a rapid deployment of technology to make the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. What exactly does the 'cap on development' being talked about? Anyone know?

India had been able to achieve 8-9 percent growth with energy use growing by only 3-3.5 percent, he said.

Meanwhile, on the issue of fossil fuels, it looks like we better let the fuels remain fossils, at least most of what is left!

Two new studies published in Nature note that there is very little space left for wiggling out of a 2 deg rise. The two studies, one from the U.K. and one from Germany, measure total emissions into the atmosphere, rather than atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Humanity can only emit 1 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide between 2000 and 2050 to have a 75% chance of limiting temperature increases to 2 degrees celsisus. Since we already pumped out about 234 billion tons through 2006, that leaves only about 760 billion tons in the piggy bank, as it were. We need to stop using fossil fuels long before we run out of them. This may be a 'pandemic' we are refusing to acknowledge.

Winding up the weekend, some good news for clean energy followers. The new search engine for renewable energy, reegle aggregates energy news, has a map detailing renewable energy projects around the world and provides links for energy industry players in government, business, media and academia.

Money to go clean

Developed countries should pay at least 0.5 percent of their economic output to help less wealthy nations build wind turbines, solar plants and use other clean technologies, China, India and South Africa said. The three countries proposed this to the United Nations, which is leading negotiations for a new climate- protection treaty.

The US stand has been that the developing nations too must accept emission targets. The EU has in principle agreed to fund clean energy in the third world but not specified any amount.

The contention of developing nations is that 0.5 percent of the GDP is what the rich nations are already giving as aid to poor nations and it hardly constitutes a pinch. The demand for a specific fund may not be as tough to wrest out as a bigger demand on emission reductions.

Industrialized nations should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2020—which is more than twice most countries' targeted reductions. This will make room for the aspiring countries to "modernize their economies."

India and China have indicated willingness to consider differentiated reduction targets. But expecting the rich world to agree to double the reductions could be tantamount to asking for the moon!

As is well known, Kyoto Protocol notwithstanding, emissions have not shown any reductions but have been continuing the climb.Protocols can be made and re-made. What difference will it make unless these have teeth? Who will monitor for the planet?

China takes a lead

It is not yet official but according to a high-ranking official, the Chinese government is planning to impose a carbon tax to tackle emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur oxide and wastewater. Aimed at slowing global warming, it is directed at coal and petrochemical products.

An environment tax and an energy tax are also on the anvil. The energy tax would mainly target the coal industry because the petroleum industry already pays consumption tax. When the energy tax is put into practice, companies will pay at least 40 yuan ($5.85) per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted.

Not so bad after all, for the biggest polluter in the world today! Seventy percent of China's energy comes from coal, the largest contributor to carbon emissions. China plans to build 500 coal-fired power plants in the next decade, at the rate of almost one a week

Going by its announcements, China is doing a good job of the tight-rope walk between development plans and growing emissions. A February analysis by HSBC Global Research in Hong Kong projects that nearly 40 percent of China’s proposed $586 billion stimulus plan is going toward public investment in renewable energy, low-carbon vehicles, high-speed rail, an advanced electric grid, efficiency improvements, and other water-treatment and pollution controls.

This makes China, according to a recent analysis, “the largest alternative energy producer in the world in terms of installed generating capacity.”

This massive stimulus plan will spend over 3 percent of China’s 2008 gross domestic product annually in 2009 and 2010 on green investments. China has adjusted its stimulus spending slightly since the HSBC analysis and trimmed spending on water treatment and environmental cleanup, but maintained huge investments in upgrading its power infrastructure, and more than doubled investment in technical upgrading and research and development.

Clear indications of how serious China is in ‘using this economic crisis to position itself to be the world leader in efficiency, green transportation, and clean and renewable energy’. China is a leading manufacturer of photovoltaic (solar) cells, second only to Japan, and is set to be the world’s leading manufacturer of wind turbines by the end of 2009.

Lessons there for all aspiring powers?

Shed a pound for the planet

Obesity is bad for you, and for the planet. The more mass you have, the more you need to eat to keep it going, and the more you tend to rely on transport. The connection is quite obvious but if you need proof, a recent study has concluded the same. Conducted in the UK, it found that more obese people meant more greenhouse gas emissions a year, almost 60 mega tones!

Greenhouse gas emissions from food production and car travel in the fatter population would be between 0.4 to 1 giga-tonnes higher per 1bn people, they estimated.

As noted, this is a global issue, not restricted to the UK. The fat population is growing everywhere. As the study notes, it would be good for all stakeholders, earth included, if we shifted to our 1970s eating habits. More veggies, less meat.

On Earth Day, some more alarming news: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says that the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane, the two most important greenhouse gases released through human activities, rose in 2008.

Collected from 60 monitoring stations from around the world, it shows that the concentration of carbon dioxide has reached 386 parts per million in the air. The pre-industrial peak in concentrations was 280 parts per million and the ideal level to avert disaster is 350 ppm. But given the trend, chances are it will exceed 450 parts per million this century.

Methane levels rose in 2008 for the second consecutive year after a 10-year plateau. Methane persists only a few years in the air, but is about 25 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat.

What can we do? Not to keep pressing the panic button, but just to start some action. Is there one activity you can choose to adopt from today that will ease the carbon load on the planet? It could be as simple as losing weight! Write in to us, share your thoughts, so others may be inspired and follow.

A long story, cut short

Almost 15 billion years ago, someone pressed a button and from what was a point of singularity, everything erupted and the universe was born. So the story goes. Of how there was only hydrogen around, which took a few knocks to form helium and from thereon raced to cook all the many elements we now read on the Periodic table!

In the process, matter condensed and exploded, alternately giving rise to the birth and death of stars and galaxies. In one such explosion some 5 billion years ago, the heavy elements formed were pulled into a nearby cloud of hydrogen gas and interstellar dust. There gravity got to work and created what is now our Sun. Around it swirled a disk of the same material, which eventually froze into small dust-size grains that formed clumps. These continued to collide and exchange material and finally with one more ignition of the sun was forced to settle into fixed orbits around the sun. That was 4600 million years ago.

The third such rock from the sun alone stood at the right place to nurture life. Planet Earth. But even that took its time. The right atmosphere and that essential ingredient, water, kept life waiting.

It was between 3800 and 2500 million years that life in the form of the bacteria first appeared. Some algae later, around 2000 million years ago saw the Cambrian explosion of a myriad of life, possibly due to abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere. From fish in the water to life on land took another few million years, then came reptiles and amphibians and the huge dinosaurs, and the flowering plants that came 130 m years ago. Finally about 65 million years ago a wayward asteroid hit saw the exit of the dino and the entrance of the burrowing mammals. The primate came 5 million years later. It was just yesterday, around 5 million years ago, the first hominid appeared.

Now, we have the ‘wise’ homo sapien who is so wise he has been doctoring and engineering anything he laid hands upon. Some marvelous inventions made life on earth a cool ride, while some spelled danger. Increasingly, he realized that he was changing the face of earth in ways that could affect his existence. Global warming. Water scarcity. Floods and droughts stare us in the face today.

What do we do? Is all hope lost? No. We can still limit the damage by cutting down our consumption, conserving and recycling resources, and managing them better. We better do it fast. Or else, the mercury will rise, freshwater will be gone, soils become unproductive, and life a survival of the fittest.

The third rock from the sun will still continue its jog around the sun, but there will be no homo sapiens or the many species we will have managed to extinguish.

Let us preserve the Earth and learn to live off it judiciously, not greedily. Our lives are tethered to its welfare.

Rising seas will claim 10 percent population

Amidst all the squabbles about climate change, the scientists meeting at Copenhagen this week have indicated that even at the lowest levels of projected sea level rise in the 21st century, could mean that 10% of the world's current population will be hit by rising seas.

At the Copenhagen Climate Congress scientists clarified some of the predictions made in the 2007 IPCC report regarding rising seas: Research presented shows that by 2100 sea level rise could be one meter or more at the upper end of the spectrum. At the lower end of the spectrum it looks unlikely that sea level rise will be less than half a meter. In the 2007 IPCC report sea level rise was projected to be in the range of 18-59cm.

More news will pour in this week. Meanwhile, this should set us all thinking, how do we minimise the damage?

Meanwhile, if you are an advocate of geo-engineering, chew on this latest news: The 1987 Montreal Protocol, that salvaged the ozone layer by banning ozone depleting gases, saw sulfuryl fluoride replacing methyl bromide as a fumigant.

But sulfuryl fluoride, believed to be a saviour of the environment, is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, say researchers at MIT. Fortunately, the amounts in the atmosphere are still tiny. The researchers will publish their findings in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

The whole imbroglio does underscore how tough it is to foresee the consequences of regulations and alternatives. The IPCC finding that some ozone depleting gases like methyl bromide could actually cause global cooling adds to the confusion!

Does it not smack of arrogance to believe we have the prescriptions in hand for all the problems, when the side-effects of our ‘engineering’ are not understood well?

Staying power

Another question on climate change: How long, after we are done with fossil fuels, will the CO2 hang around?

Popular notion has been that the lifetime of CO2 typically say it lasts “a century or more” or “more than a hundred years”. Bad enough. But now, scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California are saying it will last much longer!

In an upcoming paper in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences they say the gas and hence the warming will linger far into the future. University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study, says in his new book The Long Thaw, “The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this”.

Perhaps this calls for another revision for what is the safe level of the gas if the planet is to have another chance, or rather, the race is to survive! We brought down the number from 550ppm to 450ppm to 350ppm to realize recently the way we are going, we just cannot prevent a 2-3 degree rise!

Now there are serious thoughts being given to how we tackle the problem, whose consequences can be seen very soon, within our lifetimes. Do we resort to geo-engineering, where we put in place sunshades and aerosols up there in the atmosphere?? Interfering with nature. Bad as it is, some see it as inevitable. Though no one knows for sure what damage we will add in the process!

Is it that difficult for us to cut down emissions? Yes, at least some think so.

Going by the choice of words used by Todd Stern, Obama’s top climate change negotiator, the US, whom the rest of the world was looking up to, may take its time. ‘We need to be very mindful of what the dictates of science are, and of the art of the possible,” he said. About the Bali targets – a 25% to 40% cut by industrialized nations by 2020 – he said that it is not possible to get that kind of number. ‘It’s not going to happen.’

So?? Are we going to sit around and be cooked up? A nice allegory in a recent article likened what we are doing to the planet, to a man who finds the cold too unbearable and sets his home on fire, for warmth!

Mercury rising

If you happen to be a prolific Net surfer, you probably will have sensed the heat picking up once again over climate change – whether it exists! Both sides claim the other is backed by a lobby that stands to gain from the argument, be it oil, biofuel, coal or solar.

But for anyone curious to know, the facts are out there. Provided visually by organizations like Nasa and others. Tales of shrinking Arctic ice are facts.

Take for instance the image produced by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. The pink outline shows the earlier ice cover, a mere couple of years ago.

The NSIDC has just released a new report finding: "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for the month of February was 14.84 million square kilometers (5.73 million square miles). February extent was 800,000 square kilometers (309,000 square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average, and 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) less than for February 2008."

Already emissions are outside the envelope of possibilities considered by IPCC in its 2007 report. That is how fast and how determined the human race seems to be to consume itself out of existence.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change is the latest whose study shows temperatures are likely to step up by 5 deg by the end of the century.

In their recent global model simulatations, they have proof that ocean heat-uptake is slower than previously estimated, the ocean uptake of carbon is weaker, feedbacks from the land system as temperature rises are stronger, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century are higher, and offsetting cooling from aerosol emissions is lower.

And, rather than interacting additively, these different affects appear to interact multiplicatively, say the group.

Still have doubts? Why not do a simple experiment yourself? Check out agri yields, from your nearest farm land. Or the water availability. Not in the cities, which we know is simply decreasing due to multifold increase in numbers of people. But out there in the suburbs.

Chances are you will find a dip in both. What do you think are the reasons? Mismanagement? Perhaps. But what about the yields of grains? The Swaminathan Research Foundation has shown a fall. This is despite all modern inputs. Clearly a sign of rising temperatures.

What should we do? Let us hear from you.

Here and Now

In its report Pathway to a Low Carbon Economy, McKinsey&Company has emphasized the urgency to act now and to act collectively. While there is immense potential to avert the 2 deg rise in temperature, it also cautions that ‘not only will all regions and sectors have to realise the full potential for abatement, it will not do to have deep emission cuts in a few alone.’

Total worldwide cost annually will be 200-350 billion euros. High, but ‘within long term capacity of financial banks’ and made good by energy savings down the years.

The analysis finds that ‘there is potential to reduce GHG emissions in 2030 by 35 percent compared with 1990 levels, or by 70 percent compared with the levels we would see in 2030 if the world collectively made little attempt to curb current and future emissions. This would be sufficient to have a good chance of holding global warming below the 2 degrees Celsius threshold, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.’

While the report also mentions a high cost technical path as well as one borne out of a behavioural change, the focus is on technical abatement costing a lesser 60 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide. These will not cause a material effect on lifestyles (which it acknowledges as tough to expect. Another topic for the blog another day!)

By capturing all the abatements across all sectors starting 2010, the emissions in 2030 will be 35-40 percent lower than in the reference year 1990. These will be the emissions one can expect if peaking happens around 480 ppm. Good enough.

But as the study notes, this will call for change on a huge scale. Like avoiding till 2030 deforestation of around 170 m hectares as also new forests on 330 m hectares! Like ensuring low carbon power generation should rise to 70 percent of global electricity. Tough, but feasible with ‘concerted global action’.

Action must be timely. A 10 year period will not equip against the 2 deg rise warned by IPCC. By delaying action even by a year, an abatement of 1.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent is lost.

Four categories for abatement opportunities are highlighted: efficiency, low carbon energy supply, terrestrial carbon and behavioural change. But the last is only qualitatively analysed and not quantitatively.

Regarding forestation, as more than 90 percent of the potential is in developing nations with insatiable thirst for industrialization, it becomes a challenge. This is why it advocates linking the abatement to the development agenda. Similarly, to push efficiency it calls for technical norms and standards; long term incentives to push renewable energy; and support for emerging technologies.

Do you believe global collective action will be forthcoming? Will the change happen? If so, when? Most of us resist change, and when it brings along tough choices, the tendency is to put it off that much more. How do we get our governments to change their ways of thinking?

Come on, let us have your thoughts.

Dire Straits

Going with the present trend, greenhouse gas levels around the mid-century will produce devastating long-term droughts and a sea-level rise that will persist for 1,000 years. This is regardless of how well the world curbs future emissions of carbon dioxide. Just in case you decided that we might as well continue with business as usual, from here on things are set to get worse.

Climate researchers from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Switzerland and France said their analysis shows that carbon dioxide will remain near peak levels in the atmosphere much longer than other greenhouse gases.

At the moment, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere stand at 385 parts per million. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has set a goal of stabilizing atmospheric carbon at 450 ppm, the way we are putting out emissions place projections at 550 ppm by 2035, and then rising after that point by 4.5 percent a year.

If carbon dioxide concentrations peak at 600 ppm, several regions of the world like southwestern North America, the Mediterranean and southern Africa will face major droughts as bad or worse than the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Global sea levels will rise by about three feet by the year 3000. This does not factor in melting glaciers and polar ice sheets, which would add more to the sea level rise.

For the sub-tropics, a drop in precipitation by 10 percent could result even with carbon levels at 450 ppm. Big droughts will follow.

In the last five years, emissions have continued to grow despite warnings. Notably the west continues in its path while new entrant China has just beaten the US.

So what do we do? Blame each other? Ask the 'original perpetrators' to pay up? Does the planet care where the emissions come from?

California shows the way, again

The California Air Resources Board has unanimously approved a sweeping plan for reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels — an average cut of four tons of annual emissions per person — by 2020.

With rules for nearly every sector of California’s economy, the scheme will encourage investment in energy efficiency and renewables while creating hundreds of thousands of green jobs in California.

It includes strategies to enhance and expand proven cost-saving energy efficiency programs; implementation of California’s clean cars standards; increases in the amount of clean and renewable energy used to power the state; and, implementation of a low-carbon fuel standard that will make the fuels used in the state cleaner. More fuel-efficient cars and plug-in hybrids on showroom floors; better public transportation; housing nearer to schools and businesses; and utility rebates to make homes more energy-efficient are what the average Californian can expect.

San Jose is working hard on its Green Vision, part of which is recycling 100% of its used water by 2022. Well underway is expansion of the South Bay Water Recycling, a program that ensures water is cleaned and reused for industrial purposes to help take the load off the water table so drinking water is always available.

One way to prevent water shortages is to reduce use, and the city is providing big monetary incentives for businesses willing to cut back on water consumption. By 2020, serious water shortages in the South Bay are expected unless things change. The goal for water included in San Jose's Green Vision sets a target for 100% water recycling and reuse by 2022.

News reports talk of plunging water table levels in Bangalore. What else can one expect with the number of industries and high-rise apartments that have mushroomed in the last decade. With no action taken yet on the draft bill on mining groundwater, it’s merry-making time for racketeers who dig borewells and sell water to the residents.

Our question is: what prevents our governments from taking proactive action like the state of California? Why not link incentives to cut-backs in consumption, both of water and power? And make it real big. Why not? Why can't a Karnataka take the lead?

Isn't that a better, and cleaner way of managing demand than announcing new coal-based thermal plants? Agreed, we cannot dump coal for now but why isn't there a push for energy conservation where it is possible?