14/12/2016

Methane From Food Production Might Be The Next Wildcard In Climate Change

The Conversation |  |  |  |  | 

Rice paddies are one of the major sources of methane in agriculture. Amir Jina/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND
Methane concentrations in the atmosphere are growing faster than any time in the past 20 years. The increase is largely driven by the growth in food production, according to the Global Methane Budget released today. Methane is contributing less to global warming than carbon dioxide (CO₂), but it is a very powerful greenhouse gas.
Since 2014, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have begun to track the most carbon-intensive pathways developed for the 21st century by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The growth of methane emissions from human activities comes at a time when CO₂ emissions from burning fossil fuels have stalled over the past three years.
If these trends continue, methane growth could become a dangerous climate wildcard, overwhelming efforts to reduce CO₂ in the short term.
Methane concentration pathways from IPCC and observations from the NOAA measuring network (Saunois et al 2016, Environmental Research Letters). The projected global warming range by the year 2100, relative to 1850-1900, is shown for each pathway.
In  two papers published today (see here and here), we bring together the most comprehensive ensemble of data and models to build a complete picture of methane and where it is going – the global methane budget. This includes all major natural and human sources of methane, and the places where it ends up in methane “sinks” such as the atmosphere and the land.
This work is a companion effort to the global CO₂ budget published annually, both by international scientists under the Global Carbon Project.

Where does all the methane go?
Methane is emitted from multiple sources, mostly from land, and accumulates in the atmosphere. In our greenhouse gas budgets, we look at two important numbers.
First, we look at emissions (which activities are producing greenhouse gases).
Second, we look at where this gas ends up. The important quantity here is the accumulation (concentration) of methane in the atmosphere, which leads to global warming. The accumulation results from the difference between total emissions and the destruction of methane in the atmosphere and uptake by soil bacteria.
CO₂ emissions take centre stage in most discussions to limit climate change. The focus is well justified, given that CO₂ is responsible for more than 80% of global warming due to greenhouse gases. The concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere (now around 400 parts per million) has risen by 44% since the Industrial Revolution (around the year 1750).
While CO₂ in the atmosphere has increased steadily, methane concentrations grew relatively slowly throughout the 2000s, but since 2007 have grown ten times faster. Methane increased faster still in 2014 and 2015.
Remarkably, this growth is occurring on top of methane concentrations that are already 150% higher than at the start of the Industrial Revolution (now around 1,834 parts per billion).
The global methane budget is important for other reasons too: it is less well understood than the CO₂ budget and is influenced to a much greater extent by a wide variety of human activities. About 60% of all methane emissions come from human actions.
These include living sources – such as livestock, rice paddies and landfills – and fossil fuel sources, such as emissions during the extraction and use of coal, oil and natural gas.
We know less about natural sources of methane, such as those from wetlands, permafrost, termites and geological seeps.
Biomass and biofuel burning originates from both human and natural fires.
Global methane budget 2003-2012 based on Saunois et al. 2016, Earth System Science Data. See the Global Carbon Atlas at http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org. LARGE IMAGE

Given the rapid increase in methane concentrations in the atmosphere, what factors are responsible for its increase?

Uncovering the causes
Scientists are still uncovering the reasons for the rise. Possibilities include: increased emissions from agriculture, particularly from rice and cattle production; emissions from tropical and northern wetlands; and greater losses during the extraction and use of fossil fuels, such as from fracking in the United States. Changes in how much methane is destroyed in the atmosphere might also be a contributor.
Our approach shows an emerging and consistent picture, with a suggested dominant source along with other contributing secondary sources.
First, carbon isotopes suggest a stronger contribution from living sources than from fossil fuels. These isotopes reflect the weights of carbon atoms in methane from different sources. Methane from fossil fuel use also increased, but evidently not by as much as from living sources.
Second, our analysis suggests that the tropics were a dominant contributor to the atmospheric growth. This is consistent with the vast agricultural development and wetland areas found there (and consistent with increased emissions from living sources).
This also excludes a dominant role for fossil fuels, which we would expect to be concentrated in temperate regions such as the US and China. Those emissions have increased, but not by as much as from tropical and living sources.
Third, state-of-the-art global wetland models show little evidence for any significant increase in wetland emissions over the study period.
The overall chain of evidence suggests that agriculture, including livestock, is likely to be a dominant cause of the rapid increase in methane concentrations. This is consistent with increased emissions reported by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and does not exclude the role of other sources.
Remarkably, there is still a gap between what we know about methane emissions and methane concentrations in the atmosphere. If we add all the methane emissions estimated with data inventories and models, we get a number bigger than the one consistent with the growth in methane concentrations. This highlights the need for better accounting and reporting of methane emissions.
We also don’t know enough about emissions from wetlands, thawing permafrost and the destruction of methane in the atmosphere.

The way forward
At a time when global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and industry have stalled for three consecutive years, the upward methane trend we highlight in our new papers is unwelcome news. Food production will continue to grow strongly to meet the demands of a growing global population and to feed a growing global middle class keen on diets richer in meat.
However, unlike CO₂, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries, a molecule of methane lasts only about 10 years.
This, combined with methane’s super global warming potency, means we have a massive opportunity. If we cut methane emissions now, this will have a rapid impact on methane concentrations in the atmosphere, and therefore on global warming.
There are large global and domestic efforts to support more climate-friendly food production with many successes, ample opportunities for improvement, and potential game-changers.
However, current efforts are insufficient if we are to follow pathways consistent with keeping global warming to below 2℃. Reducing methane emissions needs to become a prevalent feature in the global pursuit of the sustainable future outlined in the Paris Agreement.

Links

Bill Gates Leads New Fund as Fears of U.S. Retreat on Climate Grow

New York TimesHiroko Tabuchi | Henry Fountain

Bill Gates has teamed up with the University of California system, led by Janet Napolitano, left, for his new investment fund. Credit Christophe Ena/Associated Press 
President-elect Donald J. Trump has bred fears that the United States will take a back seat in global efforts to tackle climate change.
Could a billion-dollar investment fund led by Bill Gates and his fellow technology titans fill the void?
Mr. Gates, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft, announced on Monday the start of a fund to invest in transformative energy research and development to reduce the emissions that cause climate change. The work would supplement and build on basic research already underway at government labs that may be threatened by the incoming administration.
Despite Mr. Trump’s expressed skepticism about climate change and his appointment of fossil fuel advocates to his cabinet, Mr. Gates said he expected the president-elect to recognize that government funding of basic research would eventually be good for business, jobs, infrastructure and other economic elements that Mr. Trump campaigned on.
“It’s a good deal,” Mr. Gates said.
Mr. Gates’s new investment fund, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, is intended to capitalize on the government-backed research through partnerships with the University of California system and other institutions.
Mr. Trump has not talked extensively about his views on energy research to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But he has named people who reject established climate science to some crucial administration positions, including the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Those being considered to head the Department of Energy, which coordinates and funds a lot of advanced energy research, have backgrounds in the fossil fuel industry. And a recent questionnaire circulated at the department by Mr. Trump’s transition team included requests for the names of employees shaping United States climate policy — raising concerns that the administration is looking to cut back on efforts to control planet-warming emissions.
“We don’t have any inside knowledge of what the energy policies of this administration will look like,” said Mr. Gates, who said he had a brief telephone call with Mr. Trump several weeks ago but declined to describe it further. “It’s possible they will reduce energy research. But it’s also significantly possible they would increase energy research.”
Mr. Gates’s remarks came during a telephone interview in which he described details of the investment fund. The backers include Mr. Gates and 19 other investors, including Jack Ma, founder of the Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba, and the venture capitalists John Doerr and Vinod Khosla. The fund will have a life span of 15 to 20 years.
The fund will consider investing in electricity generation and storage, transportation, agriculture and energy-system efficiency. Seed money for start-ups and projects ready for commercialization, among other efforts, will be considered, fund officials said.
Solar panels in the Palm Springs area of California. Bill Gates backs a string of clean-energy projects, including a nuclear reactor start-up and a company developing batteries made from nontoxic materials. Credit Lucy Nicholson/Reuters, via Reuters
Mr. Gates’s plans to establish a fund were first announced at the United Nations climate talks in Paris in November 2015. At the same meeting, the United States and about 20 other nations pledged to double their spending on clean-energy research and development under a plan called Mission Innovation.
Mr. Gates said that in the year since Paris, a number of countries had followed through on the plan. “I do hope the U.S. and other countries continue along the Mission Innovation path,” he said.
Mr. Gates backs a string of clean-energy projects, including the nuclear reactor start-up TerraPower, and Aquion Energy, a company developing batteries made from nontoxic materials like saltwater. Mr. Gates also provided seed money for Carbon Engineering, a start-up led by the Harvard University physicist David Keith that is testing a process to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
But those projects have yet to yield real-world results. Eight years after it was founded, TerraPower has not built a working prototype. Last year, it said that it was shifting some of its focus away from what had appeared to be a promising “traveling-wave reactor” design that burns fuel made from depleted uranium. The start-up is now exploring a different nuclear concept based on molten chloride reactor technology, which uses a molten salt mixture, instead of water, as the primary reactor coolant.
And while scientists see carbon-capture methods as a potential game changer in efforts to stabilize the global climate, they fear the technology would remain prohibitively expensive.
The elusiveness of concrete breakthroughs — and the long time frames and significant capital required for energy start-ups to develop materials, hardware and technology — have underscored the difficulty venture capitalists have faced so far in funding breakthroughs, as well as in generating returns for investors.
One oft-cited study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found venture capital investors lost over half of the $25 billion they plowed into the clean-technology sector from 2006 to 2011; it declared the venture capital model for the sector “broken.”
Mr. Gates said that his new fund would tap into scientific expertise “way more than any venture fund would have.” He said the fund would announce a management team within three months.
“We’re going to have a very deep scientific team both at the companies itself and as our advisers,” he said.
A powerful ally, he said, is the University of California system, which is a partner in the fund.
Janet Napolitano, president of the system, said the schools had “hundreds of scientists working on the issue of how do you create an affordable, reliable energy supply that doesn’t contribute to the greenhouse gas problem.”
Another major difference, Mr. Gates said, was that the fund’s investors were in it for the long haul. They saw the value of waiting decades for a big reward.
“And once you can make cheap electricity reliably,” he said, “there’s a huge market for it.”

Links

Trump's Transition: Sceptics Guide Every Agency Dealing With Climate Change

The Guardian

With at least nine senior members of transition team denying basic scientific understanding, president-elect’s choices demonstrate pro-fossil fuels agenda
Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, Trump’s nominee for head of the Environmental Protection Agency, has claimed scientists disagree about the causes of global warming. Photograph: Nick Oxford/Reuters
The heads of Donald Trump’s transition teams for NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy, as well as his nominees to lead the EPA and the Department of the Interior, all question the science of human-caused climate change, in a signal of the president-elect’s determination to embark upon an aggressively pro-fossil fuels agenda.
Trump has assembled a transition team in which at least nine senior members deny basic scientific understanding that the planet is warming due to the burning of carbon and other human activity. These include the transition heads of all the key agencies responsible for either monitoring or dealing with climate change. None of these transition heads have any background in climate science.
Trump has also nominated Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA and is expected to pick congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers to head the interior department. Pruitt has claimed that scientists “continue to disagree” about the causes and extent of global warming while McMorris Rodgers has said that former vice-president Al Gore, who has championed climate action, “deserves an ‘F’ in science.”
The president-elect has vowed to pursue an “America first” energy policy that will open up a new frontier in domestic coal, oil and gas extraction while eviscerating the effort to combat climate change, which Trump has previously called a “hoax”.
Trump is personally invested in this agenda. According to his latest financial disclosure records, Trump held investments in the fossil fuel companies Shell, Halliburton, Total and Chevron. His largest energy investment was in BHP Billiton, with the documents showing a stake worth up to $1.015m.
Trump also had interests in Energy Transfer Partners and Phillips 66, which are behind the controversial Dakota Access pipeline that Trump wants to see completed. Jason Miller, a Trump spokesman, has said that Trump sold all of his shares in June but has produced no evidence to prove this.
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said of Trump’s choices: “These are people that had slipped out of the conversation, we haven’t been even debating them in years because they were so out of step with where the American public and business is going on climate change.
“Now they’ve leapfrogged into the White House. The world has been turned upside down and it feels like basic science is up for debate. Will we now have to debate whether gravity exists too?”

EPA
Myron Ebell, head of the EPA transition team, is director of energy and environment at the libertarian thinktank the Competitive Enterprise Institute and chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group that opposes “global warming alarmism”.Ebell has said that the scientific consensus on climate change is “phoney” and that scientists are part of an effort to spread falsehoods that will result in millions of people being “further impoverished by the higher energy prices resulting from the alarmists’ policy agenda”.
He has suggested that “alarmists could also be prosecuted for denying or grossly underestimating the deleterious effects of their energy-rationing policies on human flourishing”.
Other members of the EPA transition team have been plucked from rightwing thinktanks with fossil fuel funding. Amy Oliver Cooke, of the Independence Institute, has said she is an “energy feminist because I’m pro-choice in energy sources”. She has lashed out at “global warming alarmism” on Twitter and claimed falsely in 2014 that there had been 16 years without any global warming.
David Kruetzer, of the conservative Heritage Foundation, has erroneously claimed there has been “global cooling” in recent years while David Schnare, a former EPA lawyer, said last year that “for the last 18 years, the global temperature has been level”. Schnare’s statement is incorrect.

Department of the Interior
Doug Domenech, head of the interior department transition team, has said carbon dioxide is a “trace greenhouse gas” and has railed against “climate alarmists”.
Domenech is a former Virginia secretary of resources and is now part of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which states the “forgotten moral case for fossil fuels” as its mission. Trump’s plan to open up more land for drilling will “reinvigorate communities across the nation, especially those most seriously impacted by the current restrictive energy policies”, Domenech wrote in November.

NASA
Chris Shank, deputy chief of staff to the Republican congressman Lamar Smith, is leading Trump’s landing team at NASA. Last year, Shank said: “The rhetoric that’s coming out, the hottest year in history, actually is not backed up by the science – or that the droughts, the fires, the hurricanes, etc, are caused by climate change, but it’s just weather.”
NASA has an internationally venerated climate research operation that may be winnowed away under a Trump administration. Bob Walker, a Trump adviser and climate sceptic, has suggested completely removing NASA’s $1.9bn Earth sciences budget and focusing instead on deep space exploration.

Department of Energy
Thomas Pyle, who is leading the Department of Energy transition team, is president of the American Energy Alliance, a group that advocates for fossil fuel development. Pyle, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries, has opposed the deployment of electric vehicles and said that human influence on the climate has “yet to be determined”.
Trump’s shortlist for cabinet positions also contains climate change deniers and pro-drilling advocates.
Rick Perry, the former Texas governor and climate sceptic, is being considered for secretary of energy, reports say. He would lead a department he was unable to name in a 2011 presidential debate when listing government bodies he would scrap.
Kevin Cramer, a congressman and potential energy secretary, said in 2012 that “we know the global climate is cooling. Number one, we know that. So the idea that CO2 is somehow causing global warming is on its face fraudulent.”

Other positions
Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson is reportedly a top contender for secretary of state. Photograph: Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters
Rex Tillerson, chief executive of Exxon Mobil, is reportedly a top contender for secretary of state, a year after it emerged that Exxon spent years covering up and denying climate science despite being well aware of the science of global warming.
Steve Bannon, who will be one of Trump’s closest advisers in the White House, has given a platform, via his rightwing website Breitbart, to climate change conspiracy theorists such as the British writer James Delingpole, who has called climate activists “scum” guilty of trying to “advance the cause of global governance”.
Bannon also has a little-known link to environmental work via his involvement in Biosphere 2, a $200m research facility in the mountains outside Tucson, Arizona. As chief executive of the project in the early 1990s, Bannon oversaw experiments that attempted to simulate how the world, represented by thousands of plants and animals housed within a giant glass dome, would cope with air pollution and climate change.
Two disgruntled colleagues, Abigail Alling and Mark Van Thillo, were fired in 1994 after breaking into Biosphere 2 to warn other members of Bannon’s management style. During court proceedings against the duo, Bannon admitted to calling Alling a “bimbo” and threatening to kick her “ass”. He managed the project until it was transferred to Columbia University in 1996.
Trump has threatened to withdraw the US from international climate agreements, cut clean energy spending and loosen regulations for fossil fuel companies. He received $700,000 from oil and gas interests during his election campaign – a sizable amount but still $100,000 less than Hillary Clinton and nowhere near the $10.4m raised by Trump’s Republican primary opponent Jeb Bush.
Robert and Rebekah Mercer, two prominent Republican donors, supported Trump and their financing of climate science denial will likely reverberate at the White House.
The Mercers have backed the Heartland Institute and Heritage Foundation, conservative groups that have tried to discredit climate scientists, and via their foundation bankrolled initiatives such as the Berkeley Earth and Oregon Petition projects. Both endeavors attempted to reveal flaws in mainstream climate science, only to validate scientists’ findings and mislead the public, respectively.
The Koch brothers, who have previously bankrolled candidates who promised to water down environmental protections, largely sat out of the 2016 presidential election but their influence on Trump is now coming to bear through the many groups they fund.
Koch-backed groups supply a number of advisers and transition staff that Trump now relies upon and the conservative network is now sounding upbeat about the new president. Green groups, which were briefly cheered when they saw Al Gore march into Trump Tower for a meeting on Monday, now bitterly complain that this was a smokescreen for Trump’s nakedly anti-environment agenda.
“We are seeing the wholesale move of people associated with climate misinformation campaigns into Trump’s administration in a big way,” said Robert Brulle, a sociology and environmental scientist at Drexel University. “Myron Ebell, for example, is the leader of the climate counter-movement that opposes any restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
“Trump is getting two pushes – one from the conservative movement and another from fossil fuel interests. If it was one or the other, it wouldn’t be so strong, but they are combined. It’s pretty clear that his administration will be sympathetic to fossil fuel interests. Whether they achieve that is another matter because there will be stiff resistance from the environmental movement and also there will be international concern. We’ll soon see how influential that concern is.”
While Trump can certainly hamper the effort to avoid dangerous climate change, there will be limits to his reach. The plummeting cost of solar and wind energy and the woes of the coal industry can’t be reversed by a president. Cities and certain states, most notably New York and California, have vowed to forge ahead with emission cuts, vehicle electrification and energy efficiency measures.
Federal agencies do have undeniable clout. The EPA oversees clean air and water standards, the Department of the Interior is responsible for millions of acres of public land, including prized sites such as Yellowstone national park and the Everglades. Fossil fuel interests may have deep roots in the Trump administration but it’s unlikely that the American public will tolerate the dissolution of popular protections that have been in place for the past 40 years.
“I think it’s likely there will be a quick failure followed by a correction,” said Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman for South Carolina. “You get found out at the EPA pretty quickly. It’s not like Fema, where there is a hurricane only once in a while. There will be plenty of opportunities to display incompetence and there won’t be the scapegoat of Barack Obama to blame anymore.
“Donald Trump has made promises to coal and also to natural gas. The problem is that these promises are inconsistent with each other and that will be revealed. The question is how quickly coal miners, and others, will realize that they have been had.”

Links