Carbon Major: Major Problem

Taken from Heede, 2013

Here is a graph. Like many carbon emission graphs, it shows the almost exponential increase in anthropogenic emissions since the industrial revolution, but here we will focus on the big red line. This shows the emissions of just 90 entities, known as the carbon majors. That is 90 companies that have emitted two thirds of all carbon emissions since 1850 – a whopping 914 billion tonnes of CO₂-equivalent.

In a paper by Richard Heede published last month, he analyses who should be responsible for our historic carbon emissions. Logically those who have thrived from the destruction of our planet should be the first to step up and save it.

In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was initiated, placing the responsibility of our historic emissions in the hands of a group of nations known collectively as Annex 1. These consist of the wealthiest countries around the world, who have become so from the energy provided from fossil fuels. Richard puts forward a new approach in his analysis. By tracking down the emissions to their primary source it would appear that not all of the carbon majors are within the Annex 1 nations.

An updated framework targeting oil, natural gas and coal companies is in order; all that money they have earned from destroying the Earth should now be used to help mitigate the damage they have caused. These entities have the technology and funding to make the step to a more sustainable future.

I recently attended a careers evening with an oil company, whose name I will not mention. Sadly they appeared to have no intention of making any change, claiming that oil was needed now more than ever.

I will leave you on a lighter note; here is a company really making a difference to how they are running things!

  

Those Bloomin' Phytoplankton - Ocean Iron Fertilisation

In my first post I spoke about global CO₂ levels reaching 400ppm, an all time high since before the evolution of Homosapiens. One comment asked if ocean iron fertilisation (OIF) could be an answer to reducing the global CO₂ levels, so I decided to look into it. This post aims to assess the suitability of OIF as a combat against anthropogenic carbon emissions.

Taken from: www.wikipedia.com

The biological pump (BP) is an important part of the global carbon cycle; the ocean's phytoplankton reduce carbon dioxide levels via photosynthesis. However, on a global scale, net carbon dioxide flux between the ocean and the atmosphere is zero. Sometimes the BP acts as a sink, removing CO₂ in the form of biogenic carbon that is buried in the sediment, but often the sequestered carbon never makes it to the ocean floor and is instead recycled back into the ocean-air system.

Locally there is variation in the net flux of CO₂ by the BP. In a 2008 paper by Jin et al. they define an area that removes CO₂ from the atmosphere as efficient while an area that that loses CO₂ to the atmosphere is inefficient. The experiments they carried out (along with many other experiments) prove that the addition of iron to these inefficient sites would increase the downward flux of CO₂, effectively reducing the impact of anthropogenic emissions. That said, is this alteration of an earth system such a good idea?

What is yet to be understood is what effect increased phytoplankton will have on food web dynamics – it is likely that an increase in phytoplankton population will put strain on other microorganisms. It could also link to nutrient deficiency and increased ocean acidification, however more research does need to be carried out.

Do we want this to be a common sight in our oceans? Taken from: http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com

The fact that iron is often the limiting factor of BP's CO₂ sequestering properties is widely accepted in the scientific community, but to what extent fertilisation can increase its potential sink is still uncertain. Jin et al. suggest that the effect of iron fertilisation is in fact small, which may make it unsuitable when taking into account the negative implications of OIF.

In a Kiel policy brief by Christine Bertram, she concludes that it is unlikely that iron fertilisation will be used due to the costs and amount of surveillance involved. However there is some concern that big carbon emitting companies will use iron fertilisation in an unregulated fashion to produce a carbon offset. Bertram believes a policy should be set in place to avoid this, as it could have drastic results if left unresolved.

I believe that a better insight into the negative impact of iron fertilisation should be achieved before this is made available as a mode of carbon offset, if made available at all. As one might say, prevention is better than cure and this only sets out to cure.

A Simple Model for The Problem Ahead

Wonderingmind42 is a video blogger on youtube. In this video he sets out the four main futures for humanity and concludes that we must take action, regardless of the situation.

Hey, how heavy is anthropogenic impact on the Earth system? Enough to break the ice.

We have all heard about how the ice is melting and polar bears are losing their habitats, but there is a lot more to take into consideration. This post aims to look at the effects of anthropogenic emissions on permafrost and in turn how this will alter the global system indelibly.

Last year the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) produced a report on potential policies to reduce permafrost warming, an important report when the impact of permafrost is taken into account. Currently 24% of land in the Northern Hemisphere is perennially covered by permafrost, with an estimated ~1700 gigatonnes of carbon locked up in the organic matter within the ice; if this were to thaw the organic matter would decay and expel anywhere between 43 and 135 gigatonnes of CO₂ by 2100.

As one might expect, the release of this amount of greenhouse gas would cause irreversible effects to our global system. We have already committed ourselves to a global temperature rise of 3ºC by 2100 and due to the insulating ability of snow, permafrost temperatures are expected to be double this. If this is the amount of CO₂ that will be emitted from what we have already done, imagine what the future holds for us. Permafrost is an important tipping element which we are very close to reaching.

Greenhouse gas emission is not the only negative impact caused by melting permafrost. Increased erosion rates, landslides, flooding, ecosystems destruction, infrastructure collapse and economic strain are all going to occur as well. In Alaska alone $3.6-£6.1 billion will be absorbed by damages caused by permafrost melt. 

We are living on the edge - Taken from UNEP report.

The release of permafrost emissions is likely to begin in our lifetimes and continue for centuries, placing an uncertainty on human survival and that of many more species. What is worse is that there is no real solution to prevent this disaster. The UNEP report recommends a rather disheartening plan for adaptation. I think that the highest priority should be a worldwide awareness project – perhaps it will scare people into becoming part of the sustainable revolution.