10/03/2016

Global Food Production Threatens To Overwhelm Efforts To Combat Climate Change

The Conversation | 

Rice cultivation is one of the ways food production pumps methane into the atmosphere. sandeepachetan.com travel photography/FlickrCC BY-NC-ND

Each year our terrestrial biosphere absorbs about a quarter of all the carbon dioxide emissions that humans produce. This a very good thing; it helps to moderate the warming produced by human activities such as burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests.
But in a paper published in Nature today, we show that emissions from other human activities, particularly food production, are overwhelming this cooling effect. This is a worrying trend, at a time when CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels are slowing down, and is clearly not consistent with efforts to stabilise global warming well below 2℃ as agreed at the Paris climate conference.
To explain why, we need to look at two other greenhouse gases: methane and nitrous oxide.

The other greenhouse gases
Each year, people produce about 40 billion tones of CO₂ emissions, largely from burning fossil fuels and deforestation. This has produced about 82% of the growth in warming due to greenhouses gases over the past decade.
The planet, through plant growth, removes about a quarter of this each year (another quarter goes into the oceans and the rest stays in the atmosphere and heats the planet). If it didn't, the world would warm much faster. If we had to remove this CO₂ ourselves, it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year, so we should be very grateful that the Earth does it for free.
Apart from CO₂, there are two other main greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O). In fact, they are both more potent greenhouse gases than CO₂. The global warming potential of methane and nitrous oxide is 28 and 265 times greater than that of CO₂, respectively.
The human emissions of these gases are largely associated with food production. Methane is produced by ruminants (livestock), rice cultivation, landfills and manure, among others.
Other human-induced emissions of methane come from changes to land use and the effects of climate change on wetlands, which are major producers of global methane.
Nitrous oxide emissions are associated with excessive use of fertilisers and burning plant and animal waste. To understand how much excess nitrogen we are adding to our crops, consider that only 17 of 100 units of nitrogen applied to the crop system ends up in the food we eat.

Sinks and sources
Just as humans pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the land also produces and absorbs them. If the land absorbs more of a gas than it produces, we think of it as a "sink". If it produces more than it absorbs, we call it a "source". The ability of the land to absorb and produce greenhouse gases is affected by human activity.
We wanted to know how human activities on the land are affecting these sinks and sources. Globally, the land currently absorbs more CO₂ than it produces (we don't include fossil fuels in this), so it is considered a carbon sink. But we found that this is overwhelmed by production of methane and nitrous oxide, so overall the land is a source of greenhouse gases.
This study highlights the importance of including all three major greenhouse gases in global and regional climate impact assessments, mitigation options and climate policy development.
Another recent study calculated that the size of this combined greenhouse gas source is about equivalent to the total fossil fuel emissions of CO₂ in the 2000s. Looking at the chart below, if you add up the carbon emissions from the "LUC gross source" (emissions from deforestation) and the emissions from methane and nitrous oxide (in blue and green), then you can see they are roughly equivalent to those from the combustion of fossil fuels.


So it's a huge part of our contribution to climate change.
Importantly, CO₂ emissions from deforestation together with methane and nitrous oxide emissions are mainly associated with the process of making land available for food production and the growing of food in croplands and rangelands.
Unfortunately, there has been limited discussion about major commitments to decarbonise the food production system, as there has been about decarbonising the energy system.
Countries, particularly emerging and developing economies, have shown little interest in placing the food system at the forefront of climate negotiations. One reason is what's at stake: feeding their people.
A continuation of the current growth trends in methane and nitrous oxide emissions, at a time when growth of CO₂ fossil fuel emissions is slowing, constitutes a worrying trend. The greenhouse gas footprint of food is growing while the role of the food system in climate mitigation is not receiving the attention that it urgently needs.
Opportunities for mitigation in this sector are plentiful, but they can only be realised with a concerted focus.

Links
The ground exhales: reducing agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions
Paris climate summit primer: what are greenhouse gases?
How is atmospheric CO2 measured in the Southern Hemisphere?
Meet N2O, the greenhouse gas 300 times worse than CO2

Dangerous Global Warming Will Happen Sooner Than Thought – Study

The Guardian

Australian researchers say a global tracker monitoring energy use per person points to 2C warming by 2030
Energy use per person was on track to rise sixfold by 2050 across the world, according to researchers from Queensland and Griffith universities Photograph: Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

The world is on track to reach dangerous levels of global warming much sooner than expected, according to new Australian research that highlights the alarming implications of rising energy demand.
University of Queensland and Griffith University researchers have developed a "global energy tracker" which predicts average world temperatures could climb 1.5C above pre-industrial levels by 2020.
That forecast, based on new modelling using long-term average projections on economic growth, population growth and energy use per person, points to a 2C rise by 2030.
The UN conference on climate change in Paris last year agreed to a 1.5C rise as the preferred limit to protect vulnerable island states, and a 2C rise as the absolute limit.
The new modelling is the brainchild of Ben Hankamer from UQ's institute for molecular bioscience and Liam Wagner from Griffith University's department of accounting, finance and economics, whose work was published in the journal Plos One on Thursday.
It is the first model to include energy use per person – which has more than doubled since 1950 – alongside economic and population growth as a way of predicting carbon emissions and corresponding temperature increases.
The researchers said the earlier than expected advance of global warming revealed by their modelling added a newfound urgency to the switch from fossil fuels to renewables.
Hankamer said: "The more the economy grows, the more energy you use ... the conclusion really is that economists and environmentalists are on the same side and have both come to the same conclusion: we've got to act now and we don't have much time."
Wagner said the model suggested the surge in energy consumption was not offset by improvements in energy efficiency.
He said energy use per person was on track to rise sixfold by 2050, which had dire implications for temperatures when combined with economic growth of 3.9% a year (the six-decade average) and a world population of 9 billion.
"Massive increases in energy consumption would be necessary to alleviate poverty for the nearly 50% of the world's population who live on less than $2.50 a day," Wagner said.
"We have a choice: leave people in poverty and speed towards dangerous global warming through the increased use of fossil fuels, or transition rapidly to renewables."
Hankamer said: "When you think about statements like 'coal is good for humanity' because we're pulling people out of poverty, it's just not true".
"You would have to burn so much coal in order to get the energy to provide people with a living to get them off $2.50 a day that [temperature rises] would just go through the roof very quickly."
The researchers suggested switching $500bn in subsidies for fossil fuels worldwide to renewables as a "cost neutral" way to fast-track the energy transition.
Wagner said pulling the rug from out under the fossil fuels industry was a move of "creative destruction" and "more a political issue rather than an economic issue".
"If we swapped those subsidies globally, of course we could have rapid improvement and deployment of renewables to cover our shift from fossil fuels," he said.
"You're pushing a huge amount of capital into a different sector that requires an enormous amount of growth, so you would actually see a great deal more growth from putting it into renewables than providing it for fossil fuels."
Hankamer said the fact that about 80% of the world's energy was for fuel, and only 20% for electricity, meant "we don't have any easy solutions".
"If we want to do this, we need to do things like solar fuels, or think about how we do battery technologies and fully transition to electric," he said.
"The things that are going to be hard to replace are aviation fuels and things for heavy machinery and probably shipping.
"We can do electric cars for short runs but those things are going to be really hard to switch."

Links

Young People Are Suing Governments Over Climate Change

news.com.au - Charis Chang

Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, 15, is assembling a ‘teen army’. Picture: AAP/NEWZULU/PATRICE PIERROT



WHEN a group of teenagers first started taking governments to court over the lack of climate change action, people laughed at them. They are not laughing now.
This week a US court will consider whether 21 young people have a right to sue the US Government, President Barack Obama and other federal agencies, for their failure to tackle climate change.
The young people say they have a constitutional right to life, liberty and property, and this is being violated because of the Federal Government’s support of fossil fuels.
For those that think this is ridiculous, you may yet be proved right. But a similar groundbreaking action in the Netherlands last year was successful, with the government ordered to cut emissions more quickly.
In a separate lawsuit against the state of Washington, the government was ordered to look at its response in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, eventually resulting in Governor Jay Inslee directing regulators to cap emissions and curb them by 50 per cent by 2050.
“Congress and the President have not acted effectively to solve the climate crisis,” lawyer for the plaintiffs Philip Gregory told news.com.au. “As with civil rights cases, the courts must act.”

Companies lining up against teens
Some of the biggest polluters in the country are also taking the latest lawsuit seriously. Almost every fossil fuel-related company in America has asked to join the government as defendants in the case. They argue that the case was a “direct, substantial threat to [their] businesses”.
They include some of the most powerful companies in the country such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Koch Industries as well as 625 oil and natural gas companies. They are putting their substantial resources into making sure the legal action fails.
“The fossil fuel industry would not want to be in court unless it understood the significance of our case,” Mr Gregory said. “This litigation is a momentous threat to fossil fuel companies.”
Renowned former NASA scientist Dr James Hansen has lodged the lawsuit along with the 21 young people, aged between 8 and 20, who are being supported financially by the not-for-profit organisation Our Children’s Trust.
Some of the young people who are suing the US government over climate change. Source: Our Children's Trust. Source: Supplied



The case is due to come before the US District Court in Oregon on Wednesday.
If successful the lawsuit would force the government to implement a national plan to decrease carbon dioxide in the air to 350 parts per million by the end of the century.
It would be a stunning acknowledgment of the rights of young people to a clean environment in the future.
One of the teens involved, 15-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, is also youth director of a group called Earth Guardians, which boasts of leading an “army of teens in over 50 countries to demand sustainable policy from our world leaders”.
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez. Picture: Michael Bezjian/WireImage Source:Getty Images

Martinez was raised in Colorado in the Aztec tradition and has appeared before the United Nations General Assembly to speak about climate change. He has been part of the environmental movement since he was six.
In a YouTube video, Martinez said people had relied on governments and political leaders to make changes but “it hasn’t happened”.
“Our generation is going to be the most impacted by climate change therefore our generation has the most at stake and we have the most power in this matter,” he said.
Tagging themselves #GenerationRYSE, which stands for Rising Youth Sustainable Earth, the group aims to empower thousands of young people to demand action on climate change.

More lawsuits likely
The Oregon case is part of a growing movement towards using litigation to force governments to act on climate change.
Professor Timothy Stephens of Sydney Law School, University of Sydney, said he believed the lawsuit was just the beginning.
“I think we will see lots of innovative legal actions right around the world to force governments to act,” Prof Stephens told news.com.au.
“We will see more litigation, especially because governments are not taking meaningful steps to cut emissions.”
A number of legal challenges have already been lodged in Australia over government decisions. While these have so far been unsuccessful, including a challenge to the Adani coal mine, Prof Stephens said people would always try to push legal boundaries.
The fact that Australia did not have a price on carbon also left it open to legal challenge, Prof Stephens said.
While Australia is different to the US and the Netherlands in that it does not have a constitution that enshrines people’s rights, Prof Stephens said legal action could still focus on other areas.
“They might point to the bills of humans rights in Victoria and the ACT — (those states) have a limited charter of human rights,” he said.
There was also the possibility of international action.
Prof Stephens said young people could potentially bring a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Council about Australia’s failure to act.
While these actions may not be fully successful, over time they may establish certain rights and principles if people kept pushing the legal boundaries.
“If there are enough cases over time the law can change quite rapidly,” Prof Stephens said.
Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes, who appeared at the Sydney Opera House for the panel discussion For Thought: Hope for the Planet last night, said that Our Children’s Trust had been successful in smaller court cases, arguing that state governments had a duty to protect air and water for future generations.
The lawsuits were a “very bold move” at the time, she said. “When they started this ... people laughed at them,” she said. But these cases have achieved some wins and many were still ongoing.
Environmental activist David Suzuki also spoke about his movement to amend Canada’s constitution to include people’s right to a healthy environment. This would see people’s rights to breath clean air, drink clean water and eat safe food legally recognised at all levels of government.
If the Blue Dot movement managed to change Canada’s constitution, this would put the onus on companies to prove they would not compromise the country’s healthy environment as part of any future development. “It reverses responsibility completely,” Dr Suzuki said.
While many young people may not be old enough to vote or even to bring legal action in Australia, Dr Suzuki said there was still one important thing they could do to address climate change.
“You’ve got to convince two people — that’s your mum and dad to become eco-warriors on your behalf,” he said.
“If you can't convince your father — who cares about you and thinks ahead — then how the hell are you going to convince the whole world?”

Links