1. Identify potential risks associated with climate intervention experiments
2. Propose a system to assess experiment design for potential categorical risks and suggest precautions to assure their safe conduct
3. Propose voluntary standards for climate intervention research for the international scientific community

For what it’s worth, (and unlike Romm), I think geoengineering may be a marginally less awful option than the others we are leaving ourselves, and have argued for carefully controlled scientific trials of geoengineering technologies. So, in that sense I believe a conference like this is a great idea.

But what makes it particularly interesting is that the sole strategic partner of this conference is none other than the “State of Victoria, Australia”:

Victoria has provided financial support for the conference. Like the Climate Response Fund, neither the government nor their representatives have been involved in the scientific organization of the conference, its agenda, or selection of speakers. Victoria will work with the Climate Response Fund after the conference to urge that interested nations and organizations consider the recommendations of the conference in their deliberations about climate intervention/geoengineering.

While it’s great that the Victorian government is thinking ahead, the fact remains that geoengineering is likely to be more expensive and/or have much more severe side effects than mitigation. So, by all means, sponsor the conference. But how about biting the bullet and actively assisting in getting Victoria off the world’s most greenhouse intensive fuel, brown coal, rather than looking to export the bloody stuff.

Note: As far as I can tell, there’s no mention of this sponsorship on any Victorian government website. I called Environment Minister Gavin Jennings’s office this morning to confirm the sponsorship and ask if there’d been any press releases on it. As of posting, they haven’t got back to me. If they do, I’ll update with any further information.

My chemistry didn’t go very far at school so forgive and correct if I get this wrong. The problem is that no-one seems to bother to work out the relativities when this information is handed out.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 3,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide which converts to 817 gigatonnes of carbon. That’s equivalent to 54% of the 1,500gt of carbon in the permafrost methane. So in permafrost we are looking at is roughly double the carbon presently in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

The mass of the methane in permafrost if we add the mass of the four hydrogen atoms in CH4 is 2,000gt. The greenhouse potency of this methane over 100 years (multiply by 23) is equivalent to about 46,000gt of CO2. That’s over 15 times the CO2 currently in the atmosphere.

I do hope I got that wrong!

To the 1,500gt of carbon in permafrost we can add 200 to 450gt of carbon in the methane in bogs that aren’t frozen and another 10,000gt of carbon in marine clathrates.

At any given time there is not much methane in the atmosphere. It is usually quoted in parts per billion as against parts per million for CO2. So the 1745 parts per billion, up from 700 ppb in 1750 translates to 1.75ppm compared with 389 for CO2.

So the big questions are how much of it is coming out of the permafrost now and how much is likely to come out in the near future.

The short answers are not very much (probably) to the first and I have no idea as to the second, but possibly a helluva lot.

Some 60% of methane emissions are said to be from human causes and the rest natural. Stern and Kaufmann found in 1994 that “anthropogenic methane emissions have increased from about 80 million tonnes per annum in 1860 to close to 380 million tonnes today. (There’s more on their sectoral finding here.) Wiki says (link soon) that it’s about 500 million tonnes now.

The USA EPA gives an account of natural sources. They make the total 190 million tonnes divided as follows:

Figure 1: Methane from natural sources

Mercifully the “hydrates” or “clathrates” only account for 10 million tonnes. I’m assuming that the 145mt from wetlands are actually from wet lands and not from permafrost.

But this is what Wiki says:

Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Mt per year.[7] Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 Gt of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that “release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time”. That would increase the methane content of the planet’s atmosphere by a factor of twelve.[8]. (Emphasis added)

That equates over a 20 year time frame (which is how a significant methane burp should be calculated) to 3600gt of CO2 or about 70 years worth anthropogenic GHGs at the current rate of emissions.

Hope I’ve got that wrong too!

Now the second bit of news is that capitalists and some governments are lusting after methane as an energy source. The stuff is everywhere:

Figure 2: Global reserves of methane clathrates

The countries actively pursuing the stuff include the US, Canada, Germany, India, Japan, China and South Korea. First cab off the rank may well be South Korea who plan production by 2015. The Japanese hope to be in business by 2016.

The favoured method is:

to drill a hole into the clathrate deposit to release the pressure, allowing the methane to separate out from the clathrate and flow up the wellhead.

But here’s the rub:

Clathrates exist in a delicate balance, and the worry is that as gas is extracted its pressure will break up neighbouring clathrate crystals. The result could be an uncontrollable chain reaction – a “methane burp” that could cascade through undersea reserves, triggering landslips and even tsunamis. (Emphasis added)

According to the New Scientist such a slide and tsunami occurred about 8000 years ago, the Storregga slide off Norway. Not a nice prospect!

The favoured way of stabilising the clathrates is to replace the methane with another gas and it seems that CO2 would be ideal, making the clathrates even more stable than before. Indeed I’m told that when you burn methane for every methane molecule you get a CO2 molecule plus two of water. So burn it on the spot, or nearby and bung the CO2 straight back down the hole.

I don’t know about you, but I’m still nervous. And I’m not at all keen on embarking on a new fossil fuel with reserves equivalent to 100 years worth of all current fossil fuels. Some of the countries keen on this new resource don’t have much in the way of conventional fossil fuels and/or want to diversify sources. The Chinese and the Indians are particularly insistent that no-one should prevent them from doing it.

Kirk Smith appeals for the world to control methane before embarking on risky geoengineering. Certainly we need to pay more attention to methane but mitigating against the release of methane from permafrost really requires world cooling in a hurry, not ridiculous talk about 2C guardrails. Smith says:

Global methane emissions are divided roughly equally between the energy sector (coal mine emissions and leaks from oil and gas wells), waste management (landfill, waste water and animal manure) and agriculture (mainly rice paddies and emissions from livestock).

This is illustrated as follows (from Wiki):

Figure 3: Annual greenhouse gas emissions by sector

In Australia the agricultural sector predominates.

Figure 4: Methane emissions in Australia

Enteric fermentation means ruminants btw.

Conceptually the task is easy. Just stop mining coal, plus capture methane from waste dumps and use as fuel. Research on ruminants is well underway.

In practice not so easy. Better dust off the geoengineering plans and try to nut out what works.

Earlier posts:

The worst news you’ve heard all week

How good is the good news on methane?

Update: In the discussion thread there has been discussion on methane emissions from enteric fermentation (ruminants). I’ve uploaded some images to show trends.

First the trends from 1860-1994 from Stern and Kaufmann:

Anthropogenic methane emissions 1860-1994

Remember that human caused emissions are now 60% of the total. I don’t have a trend for natural emissions.

The next image is the trend in agricultural emissions from 1970-2005. As you can see they are almost flat, with ruminants increasing a bit and rice decreasing.

Agricultural methane emissions 1970-2005

The next graph incorporates the agricultural into the total anthropogenic for 1970-2005. There is a significant increase in fugitive emissions from mining in the last few years.

Anthropogenic methane emissions 1970-2005

Finally here is the total methane concentration in ppb for 1997-2008, showing the up-tick from 2007. This is assumed to be mainly from permafrost and/or clathrates. The image comes from an article in Nature I’ve lost the link, but you can find it in Will Steffen’s report, Figure 34.

Methane emissions

A new study published in Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences conducts a little thought experiment. What happens if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gas emissions stop tomorrow? You’d hope that it might be a bit warm for a few decades, and gradually settle down. No such luck, according to this NOAA press release

A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.

The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped. The findings appear during the week of January 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The press release goes on to state that “If CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s North American Dust Bowl in zones including southern Europe, northern Africa, southwestern North America, southern Africa and western Australia”, and “increases in CO2 that occur in this century “lock in” sea level rise that would slowly follow in the next 1,000 years. Considering just the expansion of warming ocean waters—without melting glaciers and polar ice sheets—the authors find that the irreversible global average sea level rise by the year 3000 would be at least 1.3–3.2 feet (0.4–1.0 meter) if CO2 peaks at 600 parts per million, and double that amount if CO2 peaks at 1,000 parts per million.”

Unfortunately, the paper hasn’t yet appeared on the PNAS website, but it will presumably be put up soon.

If the paper’s conclusions are correct (and one paper isn’t a definitive statement on this kind of thing) there are two clear consequences. In the short term, it further reinforces the point that we are currently in the process of permanently screwing up the climate on which we depend, and we need to stop making things worse right away. The second is that, whatever regulation of greenhouse gas emissions we ultimately achieve, geoengineering – most likely, of the kind that actually takes CO2 out of the biosphere – will almost certainly be necessary on top of it. On that point, this might be an opportune time to mention Barry Brook’s post on the topic.

Perhaps the most accessible read might be the introductory overview, which notes some interesting historical precedents for the idea – and, incidentally, sheds light on the Russian perspective on the prospects of a warmer globe:

In ca 1960, for example, authors N. Rusin and L. Flit from the former Soviet Union published a long essay entitled Man versus climate. In this essay the authors, displaying a traditional Russian geographical perspective, claim that ‘ …the Arctic ice is a great disadvantage, as are the permanently frozen soil (permafrost), dust storms, dry winds, water shortages in the deserts, etc’. And, they go on, ‘ … if we want to improve our planet and make it more suitable for life, we must alter its climate’. But this must not be for hostile purposes, they caution, as ‘ almost all the huge programmes for changing nature, e.g. the reversal of the flow of northern rivers and the irrigation of Central Asian deserts, envisage improvements in the climate’ (Rusin & Flit 1960, p. 17). They recount earlier proposals for dazzling projects such as injecting tiny white particles suspended in space in the path of the solar radiation, to light up the night sky. M. Gorodsky and later V. Cherenkov put forward ‘ … proposals to surround the Earth with a ring of such particles, similar to the ring around Saturn’ (in Rusin and Flit). The plan was to create a 12 per cent increase in solar radiation, such that high latitudes would ‘ … become considerably warmer and the seasons would scarcely differ from one another’. And so it goes in this essay, detailing plans to divert rivers from the Arctic to the Russian wheat fields, or from the Mediterranean to irrigate areas in Asian USSR. One ambitious project is to create a ‘ Siberian Sea’ with water taken from the Caspian Sea and Aral Sea areas. Of course, flowery rhetoric with images of blooming now-arid zones stands in stark contrast to the ecological disaster that surrounds the Aral Sea today; environmental degradation is associated with much less ambitious engineering projects (Glazovsky 1990). But the upbeat little pamphlet, written at the height of human technological hubris in the mid-twentieth century, certainly is filled with, if nothing else, entertaining geoengineering schemes.

However, author Stephen Schneider still thinks that R&D into geoengineering is justified, stating that

Finally, my last policy category in the sequence is to consider deploying geoengineering schemes. However, as has been said by all in this issue, and as I fully agree, R&D is needed and should be an early part of the climate policy investment sequencing, even if deployment is the last resort.

Couldn’t agree more.

Some of the papers are available for free download, including a review of the prospects for “ocean fertilization”, and a discussion of a plan to use seawater to make oceanic clouds more reflective. The full paper list is here

Furthermore, no-one counts the increase that comes from imported goods. So moving manufacturing offshore is one way of reducing your GHG emissions score. And any increase in the consumption of material goods doesn’t count when they are imported.

This article indicates that the UK reduced its GHG emissions from 775.2 million tonnes in 1990 to 658.1 million tonnes in 2006. That’s a healthy reduction of 15%. But two new reports spoil the party somewhat. It seems that in 2004 when the emissions were 657 million tonnes the real score was 979 if aviation, shipping and imported goods are taken into account.

On one count with all emissions included that’s an increase of 18% from 1992 to 2004.

Walden Bello, who along with the rest of what they call civil society thinks the Doha trade negotiations should be junked, says that derailing Doha is essential to saving the climate:

A derailment of Doha will not be a sufficient condition to formulate a strategy to contain climate change, but given the likely negative ecological consequences of a successful deal, it is a necessary condition.

The increase in shipping is bad enough, but he quotes the IPCC as saying that fuel consumption by civil aviation “could rise by nearly 350 per cent from 1992 levels by 2050.” He quotes Mander and Retallack as saying:

“Each ton of freight moved by plane uses forty nine times as much energy per kilometer as when it’s moved by ship….A two minute takeoff by a 747 is equal to 2.4 million lawn mowers running for twenty minutes.”

Many goods and even food are being transported by air.

George Monbiot in his book Heat (2006) calculates that in order to achieve a 90% reduction in emissions the British will have to reduce the number of flights they make by 87%. That is after allowing for a 20% increase in fuel efficiency. He compares the carbon efficiency of various modes of transport from London to Manchester (298km):

Plane (70% full) 63.9kg CO2 per passenger

Car (1.56 passengers) 36.9kg

Train (70 % full) 5.2kg

Coach (40 passengers) 4.3kg

Monbiot believed the UK Government was not serious about limiting air travel. He quotes the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee as calculating that the extra capacity the government was proposing meant “the equivalent of another Heathrow every 5 years”.

What the higher price of fuel will do to demand remains to be seen. Monbiot was questioning whether carbon pricing alone would be enough to achieve the deep cuts necessary. There may be some areas where demand would have to be limited by regulation or rationing rather than price. We might have to distinguish between necessary vs discretionary travel.

A 90 per cent cut in carbon emissions means the end of distant foreign holidays, unless you are prepared to take a long time getting there. It means that business meetings must take place over the internet or by means of video conferences. It means that trans-continental journeys must be made by train – or coach. It means that journeys around the world must be reserved for visiting the people you love, and they will require both slow travel and saving of carbon rations. It means the end of shopping trips in New York, parties in Ibeza, second homes in Tuscany and, most painfully to me, political meetings in Porto Alegre – unless you believe that these activities are worth the sacrifice of the biosphere and lives of the poor. (p187)

He says that the people affected most are a small but powerful group. But I think our cultural expectations in the last 40 years have gone way beyond that. People move around the world for all sorts of reasons, and many of those reasons add up to personal growth. Also can you imagine a world where cultural groups and sporting teams travel only by boat if at all?

There is a further issue that needs to be rounded up before we can have satisfactory carbon accounting – the role of soils. I recall a news item saying that a study had found that all the gains made in Britain since Kyoto in reducing emissions had been nixed by increased carbon loss from soils. The implication seemed to be that climate warming caused a net loss of carbon stored in soils to the extent of 13% from memory.

When I googled I found this 2005 study behind the pay wall so I can’t read it. Nevertheless it’s clear that there is a problem and the authors suggested a link with climate change. In 2006 they were still fingering climate change but in 2008 they seemed to think the main driver was land use change.

Obviously this factor needs to be nailed and included in the accounts along with the other three. And we are going to have to decide whether we count carbon emissions at the point of production or consumption. The latter seems logical to me if we are going to go for equity across national boundaries.

A broader question is how are we going to live on the planet? Certainly we could get by with less stuff. But are we going to forgo new fashions every year while last year’s are still perfectly serviceable?

Are we going to take the planetary carbon implications into account when we negotiate on trade matters? Should industries be located where they can be most carbon efficient? Should minerals be processed in Australia where we potentially have abundant renewable energy? Should we host a renaissance of manufacturing for the same reason?

And the consumption of services, as illustrated by the issue of air travel, is not carbon-free. Sure we can buy offsets for air travel, but should offsets be used for such ‘trivial’ purposes?

In general terms the problem is this. In the long run the whole biosphere would be best served if we returned the atmosphere roughly to its preindustrial state. I think that’s the way to go on ethical grounds as well as in terms of rational self-interest.

At present according to the Blair report (pdf) we are emitting globally about 55gt of CO2e each year. In 1990 it was 40gt and in 2050 if we take no action it will be 85gt (probably more if truth be known). 55gt of CO2e is about 15gt of carbon. By sector we do it this way, according to IPPC AR4:

If you want to decrease that by even 90% it’s pretty obvious that you have to turn the forestry number into a zero, probably a negative, and get the whole remaining diagram back to close to zero apart from agriculture, which is going to be difficult to reduce at all.

This is roughly how the carbon sits in the various parts of the planetary system (image from here):

This is how we found it (image from here):

I suspect some of the figures are a bit out of date. I think the atmospheric carbon is presently about 810gt and the pre-industrial figure 590. The super-informed amongst you will correct me. In any case we’d need to remove about 200gt of carbon from the atmosphere. But it exists as gas, mostly CO2, so you should multiply by 3.667 to get the true mass. You’d need an almighty great hole to bury 733 billion tonnes of the stuff.

The problem doesn’t finish there. As I understand it if we removed all that carbon the ocean would give up some of it’s carbon (quite a lot) as the PH returns to what it was pre-industrially. That would be would terrific for the coral reefs and the sea life.

So where will we put it? The best bet seems to me the trees and the soil, mostly the soil.

Will our life-style survive? We might get somewhere near it if we indulge in the odd bit of nuclear power and perhaps a bit of odd geoengineering.

We do have to choose, because if we do nothing that is also a choice. We can leave all the existing carbon in the atmosphere, but if we do in the long run we risk 25 meters or more of sea level rise, 3C or more temperature increase and the possibility of triggering the release of methane deposits and other nasty tipping points.

If we translate the air travel issue into the Australian situation, Ben Rose calculated that when international travel is included the sector comprises 5.2% (and no doubt increasing) of our emissions, compared with the 0.8% domestic travel reported in the national accounts. This is how our national accounts looked in 2005:

If we need to reduce that lot by 90% we will have to stay at home more, short of a miracle, unless we do a bit of geo-engineering. The choice is ours.