Book Review: Atmosphere of Hope: Searching for Solutions to the
Climate Crisis – by Tim Flannery (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2015)
This was a very good read. It was informative, timely, and
sensible. I would recommend it for anyone wanting to read a book about climate
change and the current areas of focus. It was also easy to read. If anyone is
looking for a good overview of climate change, this is among the best. Flannery
is more matter-of-fact and more open and flexible in his approach than the more
radical climate activists. He seems to have a good command of the science, the
politics, and the mitigation technologies currently being developed. The title,
he says, evokes an optimistic approach to the climate issue. He seems ever
mindful of numbers in the effort to reduce emissions: how much is needed, what
each technology can currently do to help, and how much our sources emit.
Through the book he covers the mechanisms of climate change, possible effects,
including biological effects, emissions reduction technologies, and climate
politics. Flannery was Australia’s Climate Commissioner from 2001 to 2013 when
the commission was disbanded by the new administration.
In contemplating the Paris meeting (COP21) Flannery notes
that action is needed before 2030 towards reducing emissions in order to avoid
dangerous impacts, so commitments need to be made and kept. His study of
emissions reductions technologies gives him confidence that a diverse group of
these technologies can each make small but significant contributions. The
technologies he refers to are what he calls “third way technologies.” These are
basically low impact, relatively safe and generally non-invasive and natural
methods of geoengineering as distinguished from the usual large-scale scenarios
of more invasive global-scale geoengineering or of merely adapting to a
changing climate. Costs for these new technologies will be significant as they
would need to be scaled up quite a bit to make impacts. Engineering and
economic logistics are considerable. Carbon pricing might be helpful to some. He
does point out, however, that many of these third way technologies are still
being developed and may not yield significant results for many years – and as
such in terms of funds coming to them, should not be regarded as equivalent to
emissions reductions, but complementary to them. They can be built up over
years and annually drawdown so many gigatonnes of CO2.
He points out that the IPCC and other groups don’t do the
research but examine all the scientific literature and interpret the mass of
data to suggest policy. He also notes that more climate science is available to
the public than in the past. Knowledge has gotten more detailed as more data
has been examine. For example, it is now known that climate of the Northern and
Southern hemispheres has varied, including the so-called medieval warm period
which was largely confined to the Northern hemisphere. He notes that although
global warming cannot be shown to be a direct cause of extreme weather events
it certainly influences them through changing the properties of the atmosphere
and the ocean. He thinks that many people in different parts of the world have
had direct experience of a changing climate through extreme weather events and
biological changes like changing species ranges and ocean acidification.
He explores the recent heatwaves and the increases in record
high temperatures. He notes that polar warming may be weakening the polar
vortex resulting in some cold winters in eastern North America. He talks about
the deadly Bush fires in Australia aided by severe drought, summer heat, and
strong warm winds. Longer and busier fire seasons are becoming more common in
North America. He notes that it is estimated that each year 300,000 people
globally die from inhaling smoke from forest fires. Particulate matter in the
atmosphere is also increased significantly from fires. Pollution and
photochemical smog derived from ground level ozone mixed with pollution also
leads to premature deaths. Hay fever allergy season has increased by 2-4 weeks due
to global warming. Mold growth has increased in some areas as moisture
increases. Insect-borne diseases such as lyme disease and dengue fever are
increasing their ranges. If CO2 increases to 550 ppm there will be decreases in
nutritional value of some food crops as experiments have shown.
A warmer ocean evaporates more readily and a warmer
atmosphere can hold and distribute more moisture. Droughts, floods, wildfires,
and pollution all have financial costs. Warmer ocean surface temperatures
affect weather, making droughts more likely in certain areas. One area where
things have improved is hurricanes. It was first thought that global warming
would cause more frequent and more intense hurricanes. More data through time
suggests that worldwide hurricane frequency has not increased but it has in
some areas (North Atlantic) and more intense ones are still more likely in some
areas. Hurricane and cyclone frequency is expected to decrease according to
some models. Global sea levels are rising and are expected to keep on rising
regardless of CO2 emissions reductions as ice keeps melting, particularly in
the Arctic. Water also expands as it warms so higher ocean temperatures also
raise global sea level. However, it is not easy to predict how much seal level
will rise due to melting ice so a wide range is usually given in predictions.
Paradoxically, Antarctic sea ice increased in 2014. While there is still
uncertainty about ice melt there are several reasons to believe it could lead
to the higher end of the range of sea level rise predictions.
A decade ago ocean acidification was thought to be a distant
future danger from global warming but it is happening faster than originally
predicted and is already having far-reaching effects. As the ocean absorbs CO2
at a higher rate as it has over the last few decades the acidification speeds
up. The chemical process is complex but rates of change can be established due
to effects already measured. Corals are especially susceptible to increased
acidity and in combination with other factors the widespread global bleaching
of coral reefs has been the result. CO2 seeps from volcanic vents in the ocean
also show the life destroying effects of acidification. While research is
ongoing, the effects of acidification look bleak. There is some hope that
certain forms of seaweed can help reduce acid levels in coastal areas as it
takes up CO2 through photosynthesis. Seaweed far exceeds land crops in
productivity and uptake of CO2 and is one of the main CO2 mitigations
strategies (third way technologies) explored.
It is indisputable that the species extinction rate is far
higher than normal and it may be higher than it has been since the last mass
extinction 65 million years ago. There are several reasons for this but climate
change is one of the biggest. Predictions are that global temperature increases
above 1.5 degrees Celsius may doom the coral reefs to extinction. The Great
Barrier Reef off of Australia may already be doomed. Polar bears and penguins
are stressed due to ice melt which affects their available food sources.
Multitudes of other species are also threatened. Conifer forests in western
North America are threatened from infestations of pests (mainly pine beetles)
that were able to move beyond their ranges and extend their breeding season due
to climate change. Other reasons for the speed up of the extinction rate
include habitat loss and invasive species.
In his 2005 book, The
Weather Makers, Flannery noted three possible catastrophic events that
could accelerate global warming: collapse of the Gulf Stream, destruction of
Amazon rainforests, and large-scale methane releases from the Arctic or from
ocean floors. The Gulf Stream is part of a larger oceanic circulation system
called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Although it may
slow down it is quite unlikely that it will collapse. Rainforests are among the
best carbon sinks on Earth. Luckily, Amazon deforestation has been stabilized
over the last decade but the effects of deforestation combined with fires,
nearby droughts, and ecosystem disruption may be worse than previously
predicted. The potential for large-scale methane releases is still debatable.
In the mid-2000’s there was a pause of methane release as measured by global
methane concentrations but newer surveys sent to detect methane have found
good-sized releases occurring in the Arctic ocean and off the coast of Siberia.
There are also craters formed by exploding methane that were recently found on
the Siberian tundra, which is itself disappearing in some places. It has also
been shown that the temperature of the permafrost has been rising. Overall,
there is still much uncertainty, he notes, about these natural methane
emissions. They are just now beginning to be understood.
He gives some examples of climate and pollution skeptics and
industries trying to discredit scientists: the now debunked ClimateGate scandal
that came out suspiciously just before the 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, the
chemical industry giving competing lectures to those of Rachel Carson regarding
the dangers of pesticides, and the organized and mainstream climate skepticism
of media outlets like Fox News. He notes that two important world leaders,
Australia’s Tony Abbot and Canada’s Stephen Harper (both since voted out) are
(were) two of the most skeptical of climate change.
Coal burned in power plants is the single biggest emission
source of both greenhouse gases and air pollution. Coal is still increasing its
market share in China and India but usage is beginning to be addressed in those
countries to prepare for the needed eventual peak and drop in consumption.
Australia is a huge coal exporter to China but the industry throughout the
world has begun to contact under the weight of low prices, cheaper gas, more
renewables, better energy efficiency, and carbon pricing. Most of those trends
will continue and keep taking demand from coal. He notes that if demand from
China and India do not increase then some Australian coal may not need to be
produced, at least from a carbon perspective. He notes that the subsidies for
coal, health costs of coal pollution, and the social cost of the carbon from
coal may well be more than the cost paid for the electricity it produces.
Flannery’s analysis of oil and gas, though generally
correct, is a bit lacking. In discussing oil he mentions the recent price
collapse due to OPEC flooding the market in order to put pressure on
competition from fracked shale plays in the U.S. Such success had the effect of
a re-evaluation of where “peak oil” is or will be. The cost of oil (and
gasoline) will eventually go back up. His notion that biofuels and electric
vehicles will price out oil when it does rise back up are questionable – as
they had no effect through the years the oil price was high. He does make a
case that oil demand may be decreasing not only due to the contraction of the
Chinese economy but also due to innovations in energy efficiency and things
like the U.S. CAFE standard for increasing mpg for vehicles. He notes that
oil’s share of global energy went from 46% in 1973 to 31% in 2012. He also
notes that so-called first-generation biofuels (mostly from algae) have been
disappointing in scale, cost, and technical feasibility. Newer types (2nd
generation) may be better but are still in R & D stage. Without a carbon
price, biofuels are not likely to have much of an impact on oil demand. G20
nations agreed in 2013 to reduce subsidies for fossil fuels. Environmental
problems and deadly accidents involving oil (and sometimes natural gas) have
been prominent in the media. These affect demand and desirability for oil.
The use of natural gas in the decarbonization of the world’s
energy economy has been debatable. He examines Dieter Helm’s book, The Carbon Crunch. Helm argues that gas
is an important bridge fuel. Flannery invokes arguments that shale gas depletes
quickly and may not be up to the task to keep supply up and cost down. This is
certainly not true in the U.S. Since shale gas is a continuous resource it can
be tapped quickly and reliably. The supply is there. The accessibility will
keep the price down as it has now for several years. His mention of Bill
Power’s book, Cold, Hungry, and in the
Dark: Exploding the Natural Gas Supply Myth where he argued that U.S gas is
heading for a deliverability crisis by 2015 – is perplexing. Just the opposite
has occurred. Better wells have made for a glut of gas supply after a year with
half or less of the rigs drilling. He does some comparison of wind and gas but
that is always complicated (and often misleading) and wind cannot really
compete without direct subsidization. However, wind and gas can be
complementary on the power grids and increasingly will be. He mentions the
traditional volatility of gas prices, but with the accessibility of shale gas
that volatility will be much limited. He is correct that China has been slow to
access their own significant shale gas resources but they are doing it and will
get better at it through time. He notes that gas is not going to solve the
climate problem. However, it will help in the short-term. In fact, it is
probably the best strategy for reducing carbon in the short-term, until
renewables get ramped-up enough to have an effect. Gas will still be needed in
the distant future to complement renewables and other sources.
Divestment in fossil fuel investment is the next subject. My
own take is that divestment is mostly symbolic. If fossil fuels are paying out,
people will invest. If they are not, they won’t. He mentions fossil fuel
reserves and that much of them must be left in the ground in order to mitigate
carbon. This can be a complicated subject as reserves can be evaluated as
resource-in-place, technically recoverable reserves, or economically
recoverable reserves. Technically recoverable reserves can change due to
advances in technology. Economically recoverable reserves are always changing
due to price fluctuations. Proved undeveloped reserves are reserves that are
the best evaluated ones. What fossil fuels will come out of the ground depend
mostly on cost these days. The term for carbon stranded fossil fuels (those
that must be left undeveloped to keep carbon low) is the “carbon bubble.” He
says it is 80% but such numbers vary quite a bit and future reserve
possibilities are just that possibilities. The market and carbon regulation will
determine which and how much of those assets are developed. Bill McKibben and
350.org and his anti-fossil fuel activists are credited with developing the
divestment movement which has grown significantly. Colleges, cities, religious
institutions, pension funds, and more recently large investment funds such as
the Rockefeller Brothers have embraced divestment. The current low
profitability of investment in oil, gas, and coal has also contributed to the
attraction of divestment. An argument can be made for divestment from high
carbon emitting coal and tar sands but less so from gas since switching from
gas to coal in power plants has been the single most important factor in the
significant U.S. drop in carbon emissions and will continue to be for some
time. The question of “stranded assets” is another that favors divestment
long-term. At some point when renewables and other sources of carbon reduction
are up to speed the need for fossil fuels will decrease and some will likely be
left stranded with significant sunk costs. Investors are paying much attention
to this, especially regarding long-term major projects by oil and gas majors –
such as Arctic exploration – that may take decades to bring on-line. The
companies may be over-valued due to the risk of stranded assets. Carbon
competence is being demanded of more business executives. Counter-investment
strategies toward clean energy have been around for a while too such as the
“green bonds” that the World Bank began providing in 2008. About $40 billion
was available in 2014, a big jump from previous years. However, fossil fuel
developers may argue that a new project with better economics than an existing
project is still a good investment and if more reserves can be identified and
brought to market cheaper it is better to produce those reserves than others.
Between 2010 and 2013 nuclear energy capacity actually
declined for the first time. Although nuclear is carbon-neutral the big issue
is cost (much of it due to safety and waste management but also due to
de-commissioning). There are still quite a bit of nuclear power plants being
built and planned to be built in the coming years but a boom of them is not on
the horizon. At some point the cost of renewables will be marginally
competitive and even if less so, will not have the safety issues.
Solar and wind power will continue to increase. The recent
five-year extension of the solar and wind tax credits will keep it going in the
U.S. Costs for solar have continued to drop slowly year by year but still have
far to go to be competitive. Wind is quite economic in some places: South
Texas, the U.S. Plains. Renewable energy does not have fuel costs or fluctuating
fuel costs which makes power production more predictable and operating expenses
cheaper. However, there is intermittency, seasonality, availability of wind and
sun. Flannery exaggerates the competitiveness of renewables here though. He
notes that wind and solar are disruptive technologies lending themselves better
to distributed power sources and microgrids which will likely be the trend of
the future to the chagrin of the utility companies. Even so, the most
economical integration of renewables now for homeowners is the grid-tied rooftop
solar systems. Wind farms can work well with natural gas plants as back-up power
(base-load capacity). Recent analysis has noted that utilities can prefer other
renewable energy as baseload capacity (if available) due to no fuel costs which
decreases the capacity factors (% of the plant power utilized) of the natural
gas systems. While this is true and can (on paper) make the natural gas system
seem less economic it should be remembered that the reason for its very use in
this scenario is to back-up renewables so fair analysis needs to be done.
Perhaps smaller gas plants can be utilized – sized better for the overall
energy systems – so they can run closer to maximum capacity, thus better
efficiency. Such is the nature of integrating the disrupting renewables.
Batteries are beginning to have an effect as back-up and frequency response (balancing
supply and demand on very short-time scales) but the key hurdle there is
expense. New paradigms like community solar and the not-so-new public-owned
utility models have some potential to bypass the large utilities but anywhere
there is distance there needs to be transmission of power so the big grids are
still very important. Wind is being linked via transmission upgrades. In
Germany, a leading renewable energy country, there are some calls to make
public the privatized energy transmission system. One might see all this public
ownership of energy as a form of socialism but it should be pointed out that in
the U.S. the protected near monopoly of centralized power production can also
be seen as a form of state-sponsorship. While Elon Musk’s companies, Solar City
and Tesla, have huge plans, Solar City is now in some financial difficulty (as
solar profit margins are typically small). However, with guaranteed
subsidization, cost reductions, cheaper batteries, and other innovations, they
are likely to thrive in the future.
EVs are the next subject. While an EV revolution is
inevitable it has definitely been slowed by the current low price of gasoline. Tesla’s
Gigafactory being built in Nevada will make batteries more available and the
possible use of batteries to feed back into the grid during high demand times
can help stabilize the power grids. Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) and
vehicle-to-building (V2B) technologies are likely in the near future. Such
technologies will require enough available EVs to provide the power. At some
point the price of an EV may be able to compete with a comparable gasoline car
but not yet. For now gas-battery hybrids are still the most competitive
followed by plug-in hybrids. It has been noted by Tesla that “battery energy
density has doubled over the last ten years and the curve is not starting to
plateau.” Cost has fallen from $1000 per KWh in 2008 to $410 per KWh in 2014. Installation
of battery-charging (and distributing) infrastructure is a need of EV
development. France has announced a push to the EV age by committing to seven
million EV charging stations by 2030 and conversion of 50% of fleet vehicles to
electric. They also announced a significant 10K subsidy for trading a diesel
vehicle for an EV. However, EVs are still a miniscule part of the world auto
market. Plug-in hybrids are more economic and practical than EVS now due faster
charging, availability of charging infrastructure, and cost. Utilities hope
that an EV revolution will drive up demand for their product – electric power.
However, most see EVs as a modest at best demand boost and by helping relieve
demand response they would also lower the profitability of utilities during
peak demand times. In conclusion, the EV revolution will likely happen but
certainly not overnight and may be delayed further by low oil, diesel, and
gasoline prices.
Now we come to the part of the book that attracted me most:
the third way technologies of benign geoengineering that are being developed.
He notes that even if we emit less carbon much sooner than modeled, we might
still be faced with having to adapt. Thus mitigation technologies will likely
need to be pursued and eventually deployed. The National Climate Assessment
report notes that when those technologies perform other desirable goals as well
such as “sustainable development, disaster risk reduction, or improvements in
quality of life” they are more likely to be deployed sooner. Low lying areas
are preparing to adapt to flooding, dry areas to drought, fire-prone areas to
fire, etc. He mentions Chewang Norphel, a man from the Indian state of Jammu
and Kashmir, diverted water from melting glaciers into shallow basins where it
re-froze so it would be available as irrigation water rather than not available
or damaging crops. Timing of availability is most important. Flannery sees this
as a small-scale form of geoengineering. The greenhouses of Almeria in southern
Spain are another example, in increasing the local albedo (reflectivity), as
are the trends toward white roofs in cities. An experiment in Peru of covering
a glacier with a layer of sawdust resulted in that part not melting while the
ice around it melted – he got the idea from the Peruvian practice of carrying
ice down from the mountains wrapped in sawdust. Changing cash crops due to climatic
changes is another adaptation.
Global-scale geoengineering through injecting sulfur into
the stratosphere to reflect sunlight has been proposed. Costs were once
calculated at $25-50 billion per year but the latest estimates are $2-$8
billion per year. The mechanism was explored and developed by Paul Crutzen.
Newer proposed methods of deployment with balloons could reduce the costs even
more. One reason we know Crutzen-style aerosol geoengineering would work is
that similar particulates released from volcanoes exhibit the desired effects.
Effects on global weather, rainfall patterns, monsoons, and agriculture are
uncertain and could be significant. There is also a kind of taboo against
geoengineering, against tinkering with the global climate. This is also true of
GMOs, extreme forms of energy extraction (mining, mountain-top removal, tar
sands), and use of chemicals with unknown toxicity. In all of these cases we
come up against the question of whether to give in to the Precautionary
Principle which favors low-risk development regardless of cost disadvantage.
This gets into the more philosophical and subjective area of risk assessment,
pragmatism, and comparison of harms.
Since 1993 there have been 10 experimental releases of iron
and/or fertilizer in the oceans to induce algae growth which captures CO2 via
photosynthesis and dropping of the carbon with the dead algae to the sea floor,
with mixed results. However, much of the carbon does not make it to the sea
floor but ends up back in the atmosphere. More will sink if the species fed is
silica-shelled diatoms. This would require releasing silica as well as iron.
Possible negative effects might include effects on biological diversity. Regulations
for future releases have yet to be worked out. The most recent case in July
2012 involved the Haida nation on an island off the west coast of Canada. As
they rely on salmon fishing they wanted to increase salmon stocks lost to dams,
overfishing, and pollution. They were aided by entrepreneur Russ George in the
$2.5 million test project that resulted in a spectacular algae bloom but
unfortunately no scientific participation. Also it went against a Canadian ban
on such releases and now they face charges and fines. Two years after the
release the salmon harvest was drastically improved so proponents are excited
about the possibilities. The Fraser River salmon catch tripled. The Haida
believe their experiment was a success. Flannery notes the conclusions of a
2014 Nature paper about geoengineering – that all methods
together at currently feasible scales would only sequester less than 10% of
carbon, could have side effects, and could be catastrophic to stop once
started. Other assessors of geoengineering such as the Integrated Assessment of
Geoengineering Proposals (IAGP) by UK scientists have noted that the effects of
geoengineering will be difficult to pinpoint specifically under most
circumstances. There are technical, cost, and geopolitical considerations of
every method except those considered benign. There are other potential
downsides to geoengineering. One is that if we succeed at removing CO2 from the
air the more will enter the air from the ocean as the system balances. This
will result in slow overall drops in atmospheric CO2 since a significant amount
is stored in the ocean.
In chapter 16 he finally goes into the third way
technologies, beginning with Sir Richard Branson’s Gigatonne Challenge, or
Virgin Earth Challenge. Flannery is a judge for the climate prize joining
notaries Jim Hansen, Al Gore, Sir Crispin Tickell, and James Lovelock. The idea
is to present a technology for removing a gigatonne of carbon from the
atmosphere. It would take removing 18 gigatonnes annually to drop CO2 by 1 ppm at current emissions
rates. The entries were pared down into 11 approaches in two categories:
biological and chemical. Biological methods utilize photosynthesis, forests,
and sequestering carbon in buried charcoal. Chemical methods include enhanced
rock weathering and chemical reactions to trap the carbon to be sequestered.
Each category and methods has its challenges and downsides. Some have useful
by-products. Biological methods are limited in scale and efficiency (as
photosynthesis is only 1% efficient). Chemical methods typically require power
to drive them. The simplest method of biological carbon capture is to grow more
trees – trees are 50% carbon captured from the atmosphere, by dry weight. Of
course, it takes time to grow a tree so such afforestation is a more long-term
help. Flannery goes through all the initial estimated costs of these
technologies, including planting trees. Costs are given in US$ per tonne of CO2
removed and/or stored. Livestock cell grazing as occurred in ancient moving
herds of ruminants, tends to sequester significantly more carbon in soils than
current livestock management strategies but more research is required. Carbon
capture from burning biomass for fuel, or Bio-CCS is another possibility,
although many disagree. Such waste-to-energy projects also can produce
dangerous air pollution and other toxins but they reduce landfill usage as well.
As they are small scale compared to the potential of capturing CO2 from coal or
gas power plants the contribution from Bio-CCS would be miniscule. Another
method is chemically extracting carbon products from wood and biomass. Such
wood chemistry produced products like potash, lye, and saltpeter before fossil
fuels replaced them. Methanol with second-generation biofuel technologies
extracting it from cellulose has the potential to become a transport fuel with
more carbon benefit. The production of biochar (ie. charcoal) is the main focus
of wood chemistry. This is done through pyrolysis, or burning at variable
temperature and low oxygen conditions. Biochar can be stored in soils and is
indeed added to soils for its other benefits such as boosting both nutrient and
moisture content of soils. Due to these advantages there are biochar companies
selling the product to farmers and research is expanding. Its overall effect on
CO2 mitigation will be small due to the daunting scale it would need to be
applied and the availability of biomass. Biofuel can be a by-product of biochar
and a product is apparently available that can be safely added to gasoline. The
by-products help make biochar one of the cheapest mitigation technologies but
it is limited by the availability of biomass. Biochar in soil does degrade over
time and the carbon can leak back into the air at variable rates depending on
the soil conditions.
Water-based technologies such as the growing of seaweed
offer other side benefits such as the local reduction of ocean acidity.
Restoration of wetlands is another potential method of carbon storage but there
are significant uncertainties such as how long the carbon can be stored.
Flannery seems most excited with seaweed farming: it can be used to produce
methane (presumably in anaerobic digesters), it can mitigate large amounts of
CO2, and recycling of nutrients in the seaweed. It would require a massive
effort to make these massive “macro-algae forests” though so scale is a big
issue.
Enhancing geochemical weathering of certain kinds of rock, mainly
olivine and to a lesser extent basalt, is another interesting and benign method
of capturing and storing carbon. The process does require some energy but seems
to be do-able. Scale is a big issue. A few experimental projects have claimed
success but cost (although estimates vary considerably), energy input, and
shear amount of processing units needed (scale) probably confine the process to
being far less than a gigatonne per year. No commercial demo plants yet exist.
A similar process involves merely breaking the olivine into smaller pieces with
more surface area to accelerate weathering rates. The process involves crushing
olivine into a green sand and basically making beaches out of it. An
agricultural product/soil additive known as greensand has long been available
(I have used it). One company has developed a roofing product with olivine that
captures and stores carbon. Apparently, there are many proposals for using
olivine to capture and store carbon with varying degrees of plausibility.
There are also processes for creating oil and other
hydrocarbons from CO2 and water, a kind of reverse combustion. Other proposed
processes use electricity to make hydrocarbons from CO2 and water.
Flannery notes that costs of these third way technologies
can be paid for by carbon pricing or by government tax revenue. Annual costs of
each process would be in the billions. He suggests that costs per tonne of CO2
mitigated could provide a guide to a carbon price and that costs should come
down as the technologies mature. Eventually such technologies could be used to
generate feedstock for fuels, plastics, and building materials. He thinks it is
reasonable to predict that all of the processes combined (excluding seaweed
farming due to its difficulty in implementing) could mitigate 15 gigatonnes
annually by 2050, or about one quarter of global emissions. As such he notes
that it has the ability in combination with emissions cuts to hold back warming
to some extent and when cuts are enough to continue to bring the carbon cycle
back into balance.
Geo-sequestration of CO2, or direct injection of CO2 into
deep saline aquifers or for enhanced oil and coalbed methane recovery is now
being done in a few semi-commercial projects around the world. The 12
commercial projects running around the world currently sequester about 0.4% of
a gigatonnes so about 250 times what is now functional (or about 3000
comparable projects) would be needed to sequester a gigatonne. The Global CCS
Institute in Australia predicts that by 2020 there will be 21 CCS projects
active capturing about 30 million tonnes of CO2, or 3% of a gigatonne. One issue
is that with power plants about 20-25% of the plant’s energy would be needed to
run the CCS system. Another is that costs have been higher than initially
anticipated. However, newer ideas and processes for CCS are being developed. Due
to pressure CO2 stored in ocean waters over 3000 meters deep would stay in
liquid form and over time oceanic chemical processes would convert the CO2 to a
stable solid in the form of hydrates in the sediments below the ocean floor.
The CO2 storage capacity of oceans is thus enormous (thousands of years of
current emissions). Another possibility is storage as dry ice in Antarctica,
basically as buried CO2 snow near the South Pole. There are issues with that
proposal as well – getting the CO2 there, if Antarctica would warm it would be
catastrophic, etc.
The biggest potential factor in reducing emissions near-term
is shutting down old inefficient coal plants, mostly from China and other developing
countries. Obama’s Clean Power Plan and his commitment deal with China as well
as the commitments agreed to at the Paris COP 21 summit are cause for hope that
the less than 2 deg Celcius target can be met. China committed to an emissions
peak by 2030. The EU has committed to deep cuts and may be able to do it with
their clean energy programs and their basis for carbon pricing through the EU
Emissions Trading System. China is slated to have a national carbon trading
system in place by mid-2016. South Korea launched theirs at the beginning of
2015. Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam are in the planning stages. Currently
about 10% of carbon is priced with about three quarters of that falling under
the European system. Regional pricing exists in the US (RGGI in the east and
WCI in the west) and is being readied in western Canada. Australia had a system
for a short time before being sacked by Tony Abbot but he is now out. Flannery
notes that transport in China, whether it will be EVs or not, will be a factor
in emissions. India is another unknown. 300 million people lack electricity
there and 59% of the electricity comes from coal. It also has notoriously poor
infrastructure with much wastage. India is among the top 5 wind energy producers
in the world along with China, the U.S., Germany, and Spain. Solar PV is also
growing in India and has the potential to help rural Indians. Solar cookers can
reduce toxic dung-fired cooking. India did double its coal tax and commit to
increasing its solar target fivefold, so the Modi government (with financial help
from the U.S.) is working toward reducing emissions. Enough solar power to run
two light bulbs, a solar cooker, and a television for every Indian is one goal
of the government. Renewables, especially solar, are also quite suitable for
Africa where 600 million people do not have electricity. Increased use of hydro
power is possible there as well. The world’s biggest solar farm has been
proposed for Morocco. Geothermal energy is also taking off where it is
applicable. Indonesia is one place and the world’s largest geothermal plant is
currently being built there. One important observation was the International
Energy Agency’s announcement in spring 2015 that global growth of CO2 emissions
from fossil fuels did not grow in 2014 but remained at 2013 levels. It was
suggested that greenhouse gas emissions were beginning to ‘decouple’ from
economic growth but that is debatable and whether we have hit “peak emissions” remains
to be seen. In discussing more long-term commitments – to 2050 – he points out
that in order to stay below 2 deg Celsius overall reductions in emissions need
to be quite large – up to 90% or more. However, 35 years is a long time for
innovations, clean energy tech build-out, mitigation tech build-out, and global
cooperation framework build-out. Various decarbonization plans exist but there
are uncertainties with politics, logistics, and costs. Flannery, though
cautiously optimistic, seems a bit extreme in his predictions, and maybe a bit
too certain. I think the IPPC method of giving a range is perhaps a better
method.
Flannery tells his personal story of the shutting down of
the Australian Climate Commission, which he headed, by the incoming Abbot
government. Through crowdfunding the Australian Climate Council was formed to
continue the work without government involvement.
He talks about public and community owned utilities and
transmission lines which has been trending in Germany. Apparently, community-owned
wind energy started the wind energy revolution in Denmark in the 1970’s. The
move toward micro-grids will involve distributed local power grids and
generation sources in forms like community solar. He mentions activism in the
form of litigation, like trying to make emissions a sort of criminal offence or
a civil one, suing them for their emissions. It seems another instance of
climate justice taken too far. Environmental Law does seem to be at the heart
of the matter as it does in pollution assessments. Since carbon emissions can
be tied through thorough modeling to possible catastrophic effects of several
kinds then it needs to be determined with some accuracy what are the risks.
Thus, risk assessment is also at the heart of climate change.
Flannery seems cautiously optimistic about our climate
future. He mentions the technological optimism of his generation and that young
people now are more pessimistic. Overall, even in his optimism, Flannery seems
pessimistic to me. He seems to downplay the uncertainty and ranges of
possibility in climate science. Slight changes in modeling assumptions can lead
to drastically different trajectories. I do prefer his focus and approach as a
former government official and scientist to those of both climate activists and
climate skeptic activists. This is one of the best books for understanding many
climate issues with some detail. I would say it is moderately biased toward the
alarmist side but not overly so.