One Degree of Desperation (Or, What if NASA's James Hansen is Right Again?)

NASA scientist James Hansen's 1988 warnings about climate change have proved to be largely correct (realclimate.org). The IPCC has recently estimated relatively slow sea level rise this century (18–59 cm, with a midrange of 20–43 cm). But Hansen suggests in a scientific paper that 5 meters per century would be a more realistic estimate. He add in the same paper that

"The threat of a large sea level change is a principal element in our argument (Hansen et al 2006a, 2006b, 2007) that the global community must aim to keep additional global warming less than 1 °C above the 2000 temperature, and even 1 °C may be too great. In turn, this implies a CO₂ limit of about 450 ppm, or less" [emphasis added]. [1]

Or else, it's "Goodbye Miami", as New Scientist says on a recent cover. Their map of Florida in 2007 and 2107 would come as a shock to the many Canadians who are familiar with South Florida's sunny shores. It gets worse: as Michael Le Page points out,

"Without mega-engineering projects to protect them, a 5-metre rise would inundate large parts of many cities - including New York, London, Sydney, Vancouver, Mumbai and Tokyo - and leave surrounding areas vulnerable to storm surges. In Florida, Louisiana, the Netherlands, Bangladesh and elsewhere, whole regions and cities may vanish. China's economic powerhouse, Shanghai, has an average elevation of just 4 metres" (New Scientist, "If sea level rises by 5 metres..." [near bottom of page; emphasis added]).

For the devastating effects on Canada's Maritime Provinces, see my previous blog post.

Hansen and his co-authors write in another recent scientific paper [2]:

"With GHGs continuing to increase, the planetary energy imbalance provides ample energy to melt ice corresponding to several metres of sea level per century

[...]

"The gravest threat we foresee starts with surface melt on West Antarctica and interaction among positive feedbacks leading to catastrophic ice loss.

[...]

Our concern that BAU [Business As Usual] GHG scenarios would cause large sea-level rise this century (Hansen 2005) differs from estimates of IPCC (2001, 2007), which foresees little or no contribution to twenty-first century sea-level rise from Greenland and Antarctica. However, the IPCC analyses and projections do not well account for the nonlinear physics of wet ice sheet disintegration, ice streams and eroding ice shelves, nor are they consistent with the palaeoclimate evidence we have presented for the absence of discernable lag between ice sheet forcing and sea-level rise.

"The best chance for averting ice sheet disintegration seems to be intense simultaneous efforts to reduce both CO2 emissions and non-CO2 climate forcings. As mentioned above, there are multiple benefits from such actions. However, even with such actions, it is probable that the dangerous level of atmospheric GHGs will be passed, at least temporarily. We have presented evidence (Hansen
et al. 2006b) that the dangerous level of CO2 can be no more than approximately 450 ppm. Our present discussion, including the conclusion that slow feedbacks (ice, vegetation and GHG) can come into play on century time-scales or sooner, makes it probable that the dangerous level is even lower.

"Present knowledge does not permit accurate specification of the dangerous level of human-made GHGs. However, it is much lower than has commonly been assumed. If we have not already passed the dangerous level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures that we will pass it within several decades" [bolding added; italics in original].

Among other things, Hansen and his co-authors have a plan to save the Earth:

"...a feasible strategy for planetary rescue almost surely requires a means of extracting GHGs from the air. Development of CO2 capture at power plants, with below-ground CO2 sequestration, may be a critical element. Injection of the CO2 well beneath the ocean floor assures its stability (House et al. 2006). If the power plant fuel is derived from biomass, such as cellulosic fibres... grown without excessive fertilization that produces N2O or other offsetting GHG emissions, it will provide continuing drawdown of atmospheric CO2" [2] [bolding added].

In other words:

• Take more CO2 out of the air than we are putting in.
• Use biomass fuels to remove CO2 from the air.
  
• Don't let the CO2 from the biomass go back into the air, for a new crop of plants to absorb (the conventional biofuels cycle). We don't want the CO2 to be released at all, as that would provide no net reduction.
• Instead, sequester the CO2 at source, right from the power plant.
• Put it below the ocean floor, where it would be safe forever.

Sadly, world leaders had been giving up even on the IPCC's milder recommended target of holding the warming at 2 degrees C. How would they react to Hansen's target of 1 degree C or less? George Monbiot thinks that if people understood the implications, there would be a massive movement to demand immediate action, but he notes that most people go about their business as if there is no prominent scientist predicting a major planetary disaster.

On the other hand, some environmentalists are sceptical about CO2 sequestration and storage, and an international convention may regulate any materials stored in or under the ocean.

But what if there's even a 10% chance that Hansen is right about the potential damage if we do not follow his proposals? Multiply that 10% chance by the forecast amount of damage, and you still get an awesome risk!

Is it time for both politicians and environmentalists to start taking his latest research very seriously?


______________

[1] James Hansen, 2007. Scientific reticence and sea level rise, Environ. Res. Lett. 2 (April-June 2007) 024002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002 (via newscientist.com)

[2] James Hansen et al, 2007. Climate Change and Trace Gases. Philiosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - A. Vol 365, pp 1925-1954. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2007.2052. [PDF] screen pages 25-26 of 30 (via monbiot.com)

[Important Notice]

Discuss this on your own Blogger blog! Click on the title of this post to ensure that you have a permalink in the Address Bar, highlight any text that you wish to quote, then click here: BlogThis!

Monbiot: Giving Up On Two Degrees

Are we abandoning our target of preventing "dangerous climate change"? George Monbiot's take on carbon stabilization targets of the IPCC, Britain, and the EU:

The rich nations seeking to cut climate change have this in common: they lie. You won’t find this statement in the draft of the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was leaked to the Guardian last week. But as soon as you understand the numbers, the words form before your eyes. The governments making genuine efforts to tackle global warming are using figures they know to be false.

The British government, the European Union and the United Nations all claim to be trying to prevent “dangerous” climate change. Any level of climate change is dangerous for someone, but there is a broad consensus about what this word means: two degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels. It is dangerous because of its direct impacts on people and places (it could, for example, trigger the irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet(1)and the collapse of the Amazon rainforest(2)) and because it is likely to stimulate further warming, as it encourages the world’s natural systems to start releasing greenhouse gases.

The aim of preventing more than 2°C of warming has been adopted overtly by the UN(3) and the European Union(4) and implicitly by the British, German and Swedish governments. All of them say they are hoping to confine the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to a level which would prevent 2°C from being reached. And all of them know that they have set the wrong targets, based on outdated science. Fearful of the political implications, they have failed to adjust to the levels the new research demands.

Clean Air and Climate Change Act - Good, but is it enough?

The amended Bill C-30 (the "Clean Air Act", now renamed the "Clean Air and Climate Change Act") has achieved widespread approval from environmentalists and opposition politicians. It has been panned by the Conservatives and the Globe & Mail - which, in itself, makes me think that it's probably a good idea. However, will the targets laid out in the amended Bill be tough enough to save us from disastrous climate change? Or are they only a good first step?

While Minister Baird seems to think that the new Bill is "weaker", environmental groups are giving the revised Bill a big "thumbs up":

“This is a moment of truth for government. We now have a bill that puts us on the right path to honouring our Kyoto obligations, with stronger targets for heavy industry, energy efficiency and long-term greenhouse gas reductions for Canada,” said John Bennett, Executive Director of the Climate Action Network/Réseau action climat Canada.

The Globe and Mail has dumped on the new act, labeling it the Clean Red Tape Act, and calling it "a revenue grab, pure and simple". Since the revenue from the emissions penalties will go back into emission-reducing projects, I can't see where they are coming from. They end by saying "To tackle the real problem of emissions, we need new ideas, not more bureaucracies." Well, if you don't like these ideas, let's hear some others... please!

The Toronto Star says, that "overall it is a much better bill", hints that Harper will re-introduce his own amended version when parliament re-opens in two weeks, and suggests their own list of ways to reduce GHG emissions, including:

• financial rewards for creating clean power and fuels and for cleaner extraction techniques, while imposing fines or so-called "carbon taxes" on all dirty energy production
• fuel efficiencies must be increased, more people must stop using their cars to get to work and more goods must be hauled by trains instead of trucks
• breaks for commuters using public transit and more fuel-efficient vehicles [presumably, they mean better ones than what Harper has already introduced]
  
• higher fuel taxes and penalties on gas guzzlers or parking lots

The amended version seems to include most of the changes proposed by the Climate Action Network, many of which were introduced by the NDP, plus changes suggested by Stephane Dion's Liberals. The Green Party of Canada also supports the amended legislation.

Highlights of the new Bill include:

• implementing the Kyoto targets (6% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012)
• a carbon budget of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, 35% by 2035, and 60-80% by 2050
  
• a price on carbon emissions for Large Industrial Emitters (starting at $20/ton in 2008 and increasing to $30/ton by 2011, and higher after that)
  
• removal of the sections which were widely agreed to have weakened the Canadian Environmental Protection Act
  
• creation of "an independent agency to be known as the Green Investment Bank of Canada, which is to be responsible for monitoring and regulating the greenhouse gas emissions of large industrial emitters"
• provision for a greenhouse gas emissions trading system (cap and trade)
• a requirement for the government to produce a yearly Climate Change Plan
• setting ambient air quality standards, with emissions managed on a "zone by zone" basis to achieve the standards
  
• energy efficiency standards for all energy-using products the use of which has a significant or an increasing impact on energy consumption in Canada
• a fuel consumption standard that meets or exceeds international best practices for any prescribed class of motor vehicle for any year
• a fuel efficiency labeling scheme for motor vehicles

While the goal of 60-80% reduction by 2050 sounds ambitious (and it is!), it's possible that even the targets listed in the new Bill do not go far enough. For example, the target of 35% by 2035 would be seen as far too little, too late by people who agree with George Monbiot:

If we’re to have a high chance of preventing global temperatures from rising by 2C above pre-industrial levels, we need, in the rich nations, a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The greater part of the cut has to be made at the beginning of this period.

See also Monbiot's book Heat.

If Monbiot is right, then we're in deep trouble even with the new targets. But, we've got to start somewhere. Every journey starts with a single step, etcetera...

Perhaps the yearly Climate Change Plan required in the Bill should be vetted regularly by a panel of independent scientists, to ensure that our plans and targets are still in line with the latest science. That way, we would have some feedback on whether our planned targets still make sense, and would help to ensure that we are not lulled into false complacency. And, of course, we may end up changing our emissions targets anyway if a new post-Kyoto international agreement is made.

The Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC Working Group III (Mitigation), to be approved in early May 2007, will likely have some useful things to say about emission targets. It will be interesting to compare that report with this new Bill.

Also, we'll need to have some sort of plan for adapting to the climate change that is already in progress, and will not be stopped by the reductions targeted in this Bill.

So overall, I think that it is wonderful to see so much political consensus on this topic. These amendments are miles ahead of where we were before. If we had proportional representation, we may already have this plan in place and be well on our way to serious GHG reductions. Harper could show true leadership (and potentially neutralize this issue for the next election) by accepting the amended Bill and making it unanimous. I think that many Canadians would cheer this result.

Some people are speculating that Harper may use the amended Bill as an excuse to call an election. If, as the Star suggests, Baird introduces another version when parliament resumes, it may indeed play out that way. I can't see the opposition voting for something that doesn't include their own amendments. However, given Harper's record on the environment, I can't believe that the Tories really want an election over Kyoto and climate change. What they'll do next, is anyone's guess.

For anyone interested in reading the actual amendments, legislation, and proposals involved (a LARGE cup of Organic, Fair Trade and Shade Grown coffee might help :-) -- here are the relevant links:

• Original Bill C-30
• Opposition amendments to C-30
• Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA)
• Energy Efficiency Act (EEA)
• Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (MVFCSA)
• NDP proposed amendments
• Climate Action Network proposed amendments
• Liberal carbon budget/green investment plan
• the Green Party position on C-30