Thom's bells

Climate change is depressing.

Last week in Lit club we discussed a paper that pointed out that if we stopped using CO2 this instant, we would still experience 2 degrees C warming. If we can manage to just stop increasing the amount of CO2 we emit (so, keep our emissions to 2006 levels--oops! we're already past that, but close enough) we'll see something like 8 degrees of warming by 2500. That's another PETM, but probably even faster! I know, that's so far out in the future for us measly humans with our short-term attentions, and we may not even have enough fossil fuels available to sustain that level of emissions, but even so, that's depressing.

Today we talked about Geoengineering as an alternative strategy to dealing with global warming. The paper we discussed dealt specifically with the possibility of using sulfate aerosols to cool the planet in much the same way that volcanoes cool the planet naturally. So here's the idea--we take mass of sulfate equivalent to a volkswagon and shoot it up into the stratosphere 20,000 times every day! If we stop, all the warming we prevent with this particular brand of geoengineering comes into play almost immediately. According to their calculations, it would work, as long as we could shoot the sulfate into the stratosphere in a carbon neutral way, and as long as we never stopped. What a great plan, right?

Anyway, I think everyone left the room a bit down, wondering how exactly we can fix global warming, especially in such a way that people will actually be willing to do it. As Matt Huber so eloquently put it, we humans are like voracious locusts, whose every activity puts more CO2 into the atmosphere. We need a giant, non-emitting CO2 sucker and a huge pit in which to dump all the CO2. Any ideas out there?

The Day After Tomorrow

According to this article on BBC news, scaring people into doing something about global warming won't work. There were suggestions from some reviewers that The Day After Tomorrow, (a movie replete with bad science) were more skeptical about global warming after seeing the film. Guessing BBC shouldn't be surprised!

long time, no write

The semester's over, leaving me with much more time to read and blog about the things I'm reading. Today I read US CO2 emissions increased last year. While this isn't a surprise, it is a little dissapointing.

A new(ish) invention is previewed in this video that might help people monitor their energy use. Wouldn't take much, I'm sure to convert this to a CO2 emissions monitor, which would be awsome! There's no mention of price, but having an inexpensive way to monitor your energy use (and consequence CO2 emissions) would almost certainly have an impact on energy use.

Finally, if California is serious about increasing solar energy use in state, it might consider making solar less expensive than regular electricity. I'm not crazy about solar because there are significant cost issues, and the amount of CO2 emissions associated with making them with current technology is roughly equivalent to the emissions they save, but there are also plenty of people working to make them more efficiently, with less materials, or with less energy-intensive materials. Having a market in place for the finished products would probably ease the minds of those investing in the technology.

Carbon Neutrality at Purdue

At Purdue University, six academic departments spanning the natural and social sciences and linked through the Purdue Climate Change Research Center (PCCRC) are taking steps to address and reduce the university’s emissions of carbon dioxide through a new course: Carbon Neutrality at Purdue (CN@P). The objective of the course is to calculate and then develop a management plan to reduce Purdue’s “carbon footprint”. This footprint represents the annual amount of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide emitted both directly and indirectly to meet the energy and material demands of Purdue University.

The motivation for creating this course was simple: The most recent IPCC report acknowledges what the vast majority of climate scientists have known for decades: that there is a “very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming”. This “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level” (IPCC FAR Summary for Policymakers).

While the conclusions of the IPCC report are not new to most scientists working in the field of climate change, a widespread and growing interest in developing practical strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (the acknowledged driver of anthropogenic climate change) has only recently emerged.

As a research institution with significant strengths in key areas of climate, environmental, and the social sciences, Purdue is well-prepared and uniquely able to take advantage of this emerging interest and to take the lead in addressing practical solutions to reducing its own net carbon emissions. Since any viable and robust solutions must necessarily account for both the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of implementation, the faculty of the PCCRC decided to create a course which pools the interdisciplinary talent and resources of students (graduate and undergraduate) and faculty from fields which span the required areas of expertise. Thus was born Carbon Neutrality at Purdue.

The first step in the process of developing practical solutions for emissions reduction was to determine just how much carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) Purdue annually emits. As a one semester course, both the faculty and students of CN@P acknowledged that certain approximations would have to be made for the sake of expediency if our objectives of calculating, analyzing, and making suggestions to reduce Purdue’s carbon footprint were to be met within the duration of the course. We therefore divided the footprint into six “sectors” – areas of activity which we believed would capture the majority of Purdue’s direct and indirect carbon emissions. These sectors were: energy generated at Purdue’s on-campus power plant, additional energy purchased by Purdue, building construction and renovation, consumable materials, university-associated travel and transportation, and sequestration provided by Purdue’s Tippecanoe County land holdings.

When the emissions of the individual sectors were combined, we discovered that Purdue is annually responsible for the emission of approximately 191,000 metric tons (~420 million pounds) of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. (For comparison, burning a gallon of gasoline emits a little more than five pounds of carbon.) CO2 has been increasing in concentration since the Industrial Revolution due to the ubiquitous use of fossil fuels to power a progressively more industrialized global economy, and is primarily responsible for the anthropogenic climate change observed over the past 150 years.

Although Purdue’s footprint is admittedly large, it is a drop in the bucket compared to global annual carbon emissions. The goal of this class is therefore not to significantly affect the amount of climate warming through our individual actions but rather to set a precedent for other major organizations. As a preeminent engineering, science, and technology research institution, Purdue is uniquely positioned to provide and implement robust and practical solutions to the problem of rising CO2 emissions.

We are focusing our efforts to suggest means to reduce Purdue’s carbon footprint that are not only environmentally sound, but economically feasible as well. To be truly “carbon neutral,” Purdue would have to emit no net carbon, either by utilizing only carbon-free energy sources such as wind or solar power or by offsetting our own emissions by reducing emissions elsewhere. However, our primary focus in this first semester of CN@P is reducing our carbon emissions locally through a reduction in energy consumption.

Ideas for carbon emissions reduction have included optimizing existing buildings for better energy efficiency, enacting University policies to encourage energy conservation by individuals and departments, and exploring the use of less carbon-intense energy generation technologies. In a time of volatile and increasing energy prices, a reduction in the university’s energy consumption through the adoption of conservation measures will increase both the financial security and well-being of Purdue.

The majority of the effort during this first incarnation of CN@P was spent to accurately calculate Purdue’s carbon footprint. While we have also addressed potential conservation measures, these suggestions are preliminary, and it is our sincere hope that this course will be offered again in coming semesters to explore in more depth strategies to make Purdue truly carbon neutral.

Megan W. and Katie S.
10 April 2007

To "Save the Planet" or to save ourselves?

“What is threatened are higher life forms in general, and us in particular. What climate change will do is put under water places where people live, destroy the crops and water supplies they live on. It is because it would trigger unacceptable mass migration and deaths that it is a danger, not because we have some mystical union with the biosphere.

"Let's face it, we want to save polar bears because they are furry and impressive and the Brazilian earwig doesn't get the same consideration. I'm sure if we had been around at the time we would have wanted to save Triceratops, too.”
--Mark Mardell

(Full article available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6339985.stm)

What Mark Mardell says is true. While some human beings undoubtedly feel a “mystical union with the biosphere,” the vast majority feel instead a “habitual union.” We like it the way it is now because we know it, because we saw polar bears at the zoo as a kid and not Brazilian earwigs, because we like to play in the snow in the wintertime, because we like the sea level right where it is, thank you, as it’s a gorgeous 20 yards from our beach-front property. We like it because we understand it, because we know how to cope with it. People in semi-arid agricultural regions in Africa know how to cope with 2 year droughts and still produce enough food to live. They don’t know how to do the same through 10 year droughts. People in the Mississippi River delta know how to deal with “50-year floods”. They don’t know how to deal with 50-year-floods every 5 years. People in the northern United States and Europe can endure 95 degree temperatures for a day. Many, especially the elderly, cannot endure them for a week.

We know how our crops grow in the world as it is today. We know how our water flows and where to get it. We know how the ocean behaves as it rises and falls with the tides. We know how weather systems relate to a location’s climatology. When that changes – when we change that – the consequences are a necessary reworking of our basic and comfortable assumptions about how the world behaves. It requires a restructuring of our cultures and our civilizations. And why is it any less noble to want to save ourselves and preserve our ways of life than it is to save the polar bears? The polar bears are trying to save themselves right now, even as we argue over whether they’re really in that much danger drifting around the Artic on ever-shrinking ice floes. If they had the mental capacity to discuss their predicament and develop complex, creative solutions, they would. Why should we feel any less entitled to do the same?

And to be clear, I don’t want polar bears to go extinct as a result of global warming. I want them to exist because I believe they have a right to exist in a natural climate system which is not dramatically altered by human behavior and activities. But that's my personal opinion. The fact of the matter is that everything dies eventually – every species goes extinct. That’s evolution – that’s how the biosphere grows and changes and adapts. The polar bears and the Brazilian earwigs would die some day anyway, but I don’t want to be the cause of their death today, or tomorrow, or in 30 years.

And I don’t think that any of us want to be in any way culpable for the deaths of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of displaced, starving, and dehydrated fellow human beings whose lives and livelihoods are disrupted or destroyed as a result of rapid, anthropogenic climate change. Why would we do that to ourselves? Is it really out of habit? Are we endangering the survival not only of each other but of our cultures and entire civilization simply out of habit? Because we in the developed world like big cars and big homes and lots of lights to make them brighter? Because we’re relentlessly exporting that very same cultural desire to developing nations like China and India who are now beginning to emulate our high demand for cheap, dirty energy? Because we like big agribusinesses and produce transported thousands of miles so we can enjoy a fresh pineapple in January? Are those things really worth the cost? Are they worth our health, potentially even our survival?

Our habits will have to change anyway in a globally warmed world. Old assumptions and old ways of interacting with our environment will be no longer advantageous or even viable. Let us choose to do it now, while we still have the choice, while we still have options to minimize the damage. Maybe we can’t save the polar bears and their Artic sea ice, but if we’re dedicated, if we apply ourselves and our proven ingenuity to what is not only a challenge, but an opportunity to advance our science, our technology, and our interactions across cultural and political boundaries, perhaps we can save ourselves.

first post

It's the inaugural post of the Breakfast Club! This week we're reading "Abrupt tropical climate change: Past and present" from Thompson et. al. Watch for comments after our discussion.