Sinks Or Swim

320 ppm - 350 ppm - 385 ppm - 450 ppm

In case you haven't noticed, there are really two premises to this blog: one is that "historical" emissions of greenhouse gases -- those that have already happened -- have already taken us past a critical breakpoint in warming of the atmosphere (and acidification of the oceans); and two, that until we came along (and swelled our population) one of the major feedback -- and therefore control / mitigation -- loops of global temperature was carbon sequestration by plants. [More on this...]

Well, I nonetheless feel compelled to keep linking out to new studies and statements by credible scientists and policy wonks to back up the idea that simply cutting future emissions and making future energy supplies more efficient is not sufficient -- we need to take back some of the GHGs that have already been flung skyward or 10-20-30 years from now unpleasant surprises await.

So here you have it, today's dose: a Reuters report pulled from Yahoo wherein a number of ocean specialists lay it all for us again.  We should shoot for 320 ppm, are already at more than 385 ppm and are headed -- in the most optimistic scenario for at least 450 ppm.

Knocking Down The Box

There was an excellent Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post this morning by Kristen Sheeran and Mindy Lubber that puts the reverse spin on economist Robert Samuelson's piece there on April 27th was itself a take-down of a number of models proposed for re-engineering the economy.

His argument -- as they note -- behind the pundirty is basically head in the sand:  don't know, don't do; until we know how to proceed, we shouldn't change anything. As I noted at the time, that is not how the most effective bureaucracy we have (the military) works.

As one general was quoted as saying about climate change: if we waited for total certainty before we acted, we'd be dead. There is never "enough" information.

One of the odd things is that what Sheeran and Lubber point out is standard market lore -- that given distortion free signals, markets adapt, and so do the consumers that drive them. That Samuelson would not agree with that is astounding to me.

This piece is simple and to the point, and the core concept of it is indeed the core of our problem: carbon (and other ecosystem resources and services) have been priced at zero, and that distorts the market that so the cost of doing nothing about CO2 emissions is too cheap (in market terms) while fixing the problem is by definition more expensive.

As a rule, I always check my spreadsheets for common sense before I rely on them to make important decisions becauuse the assumptions you make, and the formulae that calculate the results often contain hidden errors. (Oddly, that is the structure of Samuleson's piece: don't trust models.) I'm sorry, but common sense -- and my own 35 years working outdoors -- tell me we need to do something, and forward looking economists have known what it is for a long time: knock down the economic transaction box that creates externalities by excluding some classes of sources and sinks (ecosystemic, mostly) and separates micro from macro-economics (and both from the still more inclusive ecological economics.

We need to, as Sheeran and Lubber say in The Cost of Climate Inaction, start down a greener road, and the first step is setting a price on carbon. Once the market swallows that we need to move on to others kinds of emissions, like nitrogen, and then further still to price all ecosystem services. Only then will we have the Great Economy of Berry, that truly reflects the cost of our lifestyle.

Carbon Tradex DC Overview

I spent the past couple of days in DC, covering the Carbon Tradex Meeting. It was so jam packed with good sessions that all I had time to do was take notes. So over the next week or two I'll be posting from those notes. But a few things that I notice overall bear citing here.

There was a lot of brainpower running around the place as this is a new commodity field that is estimated to be worth somewhere in the trillions. At least a lot of them care about the environment more than other "master of the universe" types. But I was surprised to find almost as much institutional blindness in this group as there is in any other (a lot of re-inventing the wheel because they don't know the history of similar, or analogical fields -- see my session notes about the broadcast spectrum and the organic bill). What it shows is that there is a difference between knowledge and creativity, and long training seems to select for the first (in much the same that science education selects for reductionism).

There did seem to be some meta thinkers there, but I have a feeling that is more about age and broad experience (and at least an open mind) than it is specifically what I am talking about above. Branko Terzic (on the plenary panel) is one of those. That man seems to know something bigger than the facts, and the policy. Another person who seemed that way to me was Debbie Reed, on the farm offset panel, and former governor Bruce Babbit in the third plenary.

The group definitely bifurcates once or twice. There are what I would call infrastructure investment people, and there are offset people; among the offset people there are "hard" offset people and "soft" offset people. Among the infrastructure investment people, I would guess the distinction would be between "new, greener capacity creation" people and "efficiency upgrade and retrofitting" people. Again I am reminded of how the organic people jockeyed and took pot-shots at one another during the crafting of the National Organic Program, without a meta-view of how their actions were mutally dependent and synergistic. One person who seemed to understand this was Frank Tugwell, head of Winrock, who was discreet and demure in his criticism of others.

It seemed that most everybody at Carbon Tradex was okay with the Waxman-Markey draft introduced last week. I would guess that is because they think (rightly) that this is the most progressive take on their pet projects / professions and so they can work with that "clay" the best to mold what they want in a bill. Even the keynote by CEQ chair Sutley was positive on the W-M bill draft.

Another take-home is that even with the diversity of approaches suppored the different groups, any legislation in the US is likely to have an offset component because of cultural and political realities. That is 1) we have a lot of land, and a large portion of offset schemes are land based; and 2) any climate legislation that is going to make it through Congress is going to have to have the support of farm state legislators (especially Senators) and that means benefits for farmers, which means recognition of soil carbon sequestration (SCS). The urban high tech infrastructure types (above) think this is a little flaky, but guess what: they will be forced into supporting it out of necessity.

The sacrificial lamb (currently in W-M) may be international offsets (largely for tropical reforestation and avoided deforestation -- both of which are critical) because they have no real powerful domestic constituency. And the infrastructure types believe that any money for third world energy conservation programs is a diversion because we use the most energy and so we are the low hanging fruit...not a wacked argument, but if they also opposethird world forestry offset they fail to appreciate the contribution of biological sinks, especially in terms of what I like to call "historical carbon." We may end up with a lot of the same kind of craziness that is in the current farm subsidies, but we do need to move from production subsidy to husbandry subsidy if we are not going to value ag and ag land formally within our overt economic system, and this may be the only politically feasible way. The recognition of this is what attracted me to the arguments of Debbie Reed.

Most speakers seemed to think that it was important to "put a stake in the ground" as, it appears, they think the Europeans have done...even though they recognize that the Euros got it wrong. There is a lot of sympathy for the Euros for "going for it" even though there is some remorse for the way that the Euro-Carbon market tanked briefly, because that gives ammo to the nay sayers here [link to the post about the Boehner "cap and tax" bogosity]. The stake in the ground is "monetizing carbon," which will be the first step in commodifying environmental services to convert them from externalities to tradable goods. I consider there to be an ethical cost to this reification, but the trade off would seem to be worth it for the social benefits it brings in a society already so idolatrous that this is really a small incremental change.

Two or three different panelists (on different panels) mentioned that (big) business is getting behind the idea of climate change legislation (especially monetizing carbon) and there is also pressure to resolve from the technology suppliers like Siemens who want to sell the technology of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and renewables to those large businesses and utilities. Their interest in removing the roadblocks to sector growth is fairly obvious.

What the business community wants (variably according their own capital investment horizon or the capital investment horizon of their customers and clients) is "long term price signals" that allow them to do the planning they need to in order to manage their businesses prudently. From what I heard (mostly from private sector consultants) most large businesses are already figuring carbon costs into their planning, but they are anxious about pricing, which greatly affects the output of their models, and thus the quality of their decision making process. So both quantitification and universality (the business meme for "level playing field") are important dimensions for them.

But there is a core disagreement is between people who think that regulation and taxes are the way to go, and those who think that commodifying carbon and market mechanisms are the way to go (this split crosses party and ideo-political lines). Both have valid arguments (which is probably why in a nascent market such as this -- again I think of organic -- people are conflicted) in that there is no question that too specific regulations -- including, as pointed out by some, regulations already on the books -- constrain innovation, but the action of markets is slow and indirect and our problems are quickly approaching the point where we need fast and comprehensive solutions.

Pandemics and Long Frozen Bacteria

Is the slippery slope some sort of smooth progression, or a series of dips and drops on the descent to eco-hell? If you've follwed this blog you've read about ocean currents, ice shelfs and more. But this is right out of The Andromeda Strain.

I don't remember why I ended up on this blog entry, but it caught my attention for a few reasons. Its premise, or assertion, is that as Greenland glaciers melt due to global warming, bacteria held in their ice will be released and may well cause global pandemics on the scale of the Black Death or the Spanish Flu.

I have written elsewhere about the "organism out of place" syndrome that is both the rationale for being wary of exotics in the landscape (if we care about invasive species), and a great argument for caution in terms of genetically engineered plants and animals. The realization that glacial melt could release long-dormant bacterial (or fungal) species makes me very concerned, too.

One of the "new" bacteria discovered, named Chryseobacterium Greenlandensis is a gram negative bacteria, and other members of its genus have been implicated in such wonderful diseases as hepatitis, sepsis, osteomyelitis, cholera and meningitis in newborns. But we have not been exposed to this bacteria since we were hobbling around practically on all fours.

As I have said (often to small minded derision) there is no such thing as evolution; there is only co-evolution. All species evolve within the context of their ecosystem. And our bodies (and immediate environment) are an ecosystem. What this means is that we have evolved at the same time as the bacteria that inhabit our bodies and our homes and the world outside in which we eat, drink and breathe.

There may be -- will likely be -- many more microbial species long dormant, held within glacial ice that, given the conditions of a warmer world -- and given the opportunity for spread by global, nearly instantaneous travel -- that will infect whomever does not have a genetic immunity. And who will, given that those bacteria have not been around in the environment for what, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 years? A large portion of the aboriginal American population was thought to be wiped out by diseases brought to America by Europeans, diseases they had never been exposed to and had no resistance to. Take that and put it on steriods.

A Rhode Island Size Ice Loss

A new USGS report released on April 3rd "documents for the first time that one ice shelf has completely disappeared and another has lost a chunk three times the size of Rhode Island."  This research is part of a larger ongoing project that is for the first time studying the entire Antarctic coastline.

The research in Antarctica is a collaborative effort of the USGS and the British Antarctic Survey, with the assistance of the Scott Polar Research Institute and Germany's Bundesamt fűr Kartographie und Geodäsie.  

Here is a link to the report, "Coastal-Change and Glaciological Map of the Larsen Ice Shelf Area, Antarctica: 1940-2005" and its accompanying map. 

The other completed reports in the Coastal Change and Glaciological Maps of Antarctica series are also available online.

Antarctic Ice Shelf Breaking Loose

The Wilkins Ice Shelf, one of the northernmost points in Antarctica and one of the place on Earth that is experiencing the greatest temperature rise (over 5F in the past fifty years -- far above the global rise, which is only on the order of a degree or two).

This shelf has been stable since the 1930's and is thought to have been so much longer than that (some cores indicate 10,000 years or more, but has been melting rapidly since the 90's and according to researchers is about to break free. While its melting will not affect sea levels directly (since it is already floating) if its melts, landed and glacial ice will move more quickly to the sea, and it will cause a sea level rise, though exactly how much is not really known at this point -- in fact so little was understood at the time that the 2007 IPCC report did not make a specific projection. Things are looking warm at the other pole, too.

Current meetings in Bonn, Germany, which are scheduled to end Wednesday, have drawn representatives from 175 nations, hoping to agree on a new UN treaty.

You can see a video and some satellite imagery on the BBC and ESA sites.

Money For Quantifying Eco Services

We've noted elsewhere the essential need for quanitfication of the carbon balance effects of ag systems, and we've noted that now -- finally -- the nu-clear winter of the past eight years is past, research money is starting to flow to the areas where we need solid data to make some rational decisions about where our climate change abatement dollars are best spent. A good example is this relatively small grant program involving both USDA and EPA (two natural partners in my experience).

This Request For Applications (RFA) "will support research on the ecosystem services in agricultural settings, including both agroecosystems and ecosystems that are impacted by agriculture, with the goal of quantifying these services, identifying risks due to different stressors, and developing strategies to reduce negative environmental impacts while enhancing ecosystem services provided by working lands."

This is not the only RFA out there (we will try to publicize them whenever possible) and I think we can expect a broader range to emerge as both the stimulus bills and the broad environmental outlines of the current administration are unrolled (Hurrah!). I'll do my best to keep you aware of opportunities to use your talents to benefit the world the way I sense you want to (or why would you be reading this blog in the first place?).

Kathleen Merrigan Confirmed at USDA

Late last week before recessing for a two week break, the Senate Agriculture Committee cofirmed Kathleen Merrigan as Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, the number two job! Her understanding of the link between the food system, plant systems, and climate change means we may well see some meaningful research on this important link.

A member of the sustainable ag "dream team," Merrigan brings decades of policy and administrative experience to the job.  From 1987 to 1992, she was an ag committee staffer, and helped craft the legislation that created the National Organic Program (NOP), and then, and from 1999 to 2001 was Administrator of the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of which the NOP is a part.

Her most recent position was as an Assistant Professor and Director of the Agriculture, Food and Environment Program at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. All the while she has remained engaged in the ongoing development of a greener food system.

As she noted in her testimony, if confirmed "one of my priorities will be to communicate the important contributions made by farmers and ranchers in protecting and enhancing our natural resources, such as mitigating climate change." 

It is hard to imagine a more forward-looking,  progressive choice for this position! If you would like to see a webcast of the hearing, it is available on the Senate Ag Committee website.

Euro Carbon Trading System Working?

Or is it just the recession? An article in the business section of the NY Times this morning notes that there are the first glimmers of evidence that the carbon trading scheme in the EEC is starting to help reduce emissions, even if that improvement is being masked by even larger decreases in emissions caused by the shrinking industrial economy.

As the US Congress starts to consider a number of different cap and trade or carbon tax alternatives (even the House Agriculture Committee is getting into the game) a lot of human hot air (itself laden with CO2) has been unleashed criticizing the Europeans for not properly setting prices, and for giving away too many allowances, etc., etc.  But at least they did something, which is more than we here in the US can say about the last eight years.

Mistakes will be made, and then so will adjustments. Personally, I'm confident that markets will eventually stabilize and have the intended effect. Some, Like Emmanuel Fages, who is quoted in the article, and will be at next week's Carbon Tradex America to discuss the European experience, and the plans for Phase 3 of the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) believe the market already is working. He pegs the decline in emissions -- because of carbon trading, apart from the recession -- at 4.3%. I'll take that, for starters.

Carbon Salary Survey

A first survery of employment in the Climate Change field, and salary levels worldwide is underway by the British firm Acre Resources, consultancy Acona CMG and Thompson Reuters. According to their website:

The Climate Change sector is now an established and recognised element of business around the world, bringing within it new organisations, new jobs and an emerging group of specialist professionals.

As the sector evolves, it is becoming increasingly important for organisations and professionals to understand where they sit within a sector in the early stages of growth.

The Carbon Salary Survey 2009 is a global survey and aims to provide insight into the people working in the Climate Change sector, from the types of organisations they are working for to their job function, salaries and backgrounds.

To take the survey, visit  The Carbon Salary Survey 2009.