30/04/2018

'Bandaid Measure': Is $500m Enough To Save The Great Barrier Reef?

SBS - Rashida Yosufzai

A $500 million rescue package has been announced by the federal government to help the Great Barrier Reef, but experts and green groups aren't sure if it will be enough to save the World Heritage site.


The federal government has announced a record $500 million investment to save the national icon, but some experts say it’s too late for some areas already severely damaged by the impacts of climate change.
The rescue package comes after parts of the ailing reef were hit by two consecutive years of a major coral bleaching event linked to climate change in 2016 and 2017, coupled with the destruction wrought by a recent outbreak of coral-eating crown of thorns starfish.
The funding includes measures to improve water quality by encouraging better farming practices, scientific research towards reef restoration and building more resilient coral by tackling the coral-eating corn of thorns starfish.
University of Sydney Marine Biology Professor Maria Byrne says the funding measures are welcome, especially for those areas of the reef heavily dependent on the tourism market.
But she said no amount of money could bring back those northern reefs that were impacted by the 2016 and 2017 mass bleaching event."
“For instance, the reefs around Lizard Island, 90 per cent of those reefs are gone," Professor Byrne told SBS News.
“No money put at those reefs is going to reinstate those in the next while.”
An underwater photographer documents an expanse of dead coral at Lizard Island on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. The Ocean Agency/XL Catlin Seaview Survey via AP
Tourist areas likely to be targeted
“Clearly the government isn’t investing in the entire Great Barrier Reef but importantly it will probably be investing in areas where we have targeted commercial interests – those tourists jobs."
And in order to save the reef, the government must tackle the elephant in the room first: climate change, she added.
“You cannot protect the reef from puddles of warm water sitting over the entire northern GBR, together with all of the cyclones that came at the same time which were also climate related.
“So sure this is a bandaid measure to try and keep those tourist reefs in good shape.”
The Wilderness Society criticised the government for supporting the Adani coal mine, accusing it of using the funding package as a “smokescreen to cover up years of inaction on climate change”.
“Prevention is far more effective and cheaper than the cure and in this case the government refuses to curb carbon pollution which is damaging the reef and refusing to curb deforestation which is muddying up the waters of the reef,” Climate Campaign Manager Glenn Walker told SBS News.

Rescue package brings hope
Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg acknowledged the reef was facing a number of challenges.
“But these are important initiatives, we continue to invest heavily recognising that all Australians have an investment, have an interest, have a stake in the future health of the Reef.
Coral bleaching has devastated Australia's Great Barrier Reef. AAP
“That is why the announcement today is such a game-changer. It will secure the reef for future generations."
The Great Barrier Reef Foundation, which is partnering with the government on the rescue package, said it would bring hope to the reef’s future.
While the world worked on a plan to tackle climate change, these were practical measures to build the Reef’s resilience, Chairman John Schubert said.
“Today’s major investment brings real solutions within our grasp,” he said.
These funds represent an unequaled opportunity to create a legacy of hope for future generations.”

Links

A Storm Chaser’s Unforgiving View Of The Sky

The New Yorker* | Photography *

Kansas, May, 2008. Photographs by Camille Seaman / Courtesy Princeton Architectural Press
 A cloud is a shade in motion. Shape-shifting and moody, it arrives with a message that is opaque as often as it is threatening. “Clouds always tell a true story,” the Scottish meteorologist Ralph Abercromby wrote, in 1887, “but one which is difficult to read.”
The appeal of clouds is obvious: no two are the same, and no one is the same for long. And they not only manifest change but inflict it as well. A cloud can be beautiful, terrible, or both—the embodiment of the sublime. Few other things on earth still present us with a power larger than ourselves. To watch a supercell gather force over the plains, as storm chasers take such pleasure in doing, is to watch Zeus take shape on earth. We’ve learned enough over the centuries to know that clouds aren’t supernatural; rather, fiercely condensed and sweeping, they represent all that is natural, and we stand beneath them awed and merely human.
But our relationship to clouds is changing, growing hazy. In 1803, Luke Howard, a British pharmacist, proposed a classification scheme that has mostly stayed with us. It introduced four basic kinds of clouds—cirrus, stratus, cumulus, and nimbus (the Latin words for curl, layer, mass, and rain)—as well as an array of subcategories that recognized the fact that one kind of cloud could turn into another. Recently, meteorologists have added several new cloud types to that known pantheon, and some of them describe clouds that are created by us: Cumulus homogenitus names the cloud formation produced by smokestacks and steam plants; Cirrus homomutatus are the high-elevation condensation trails produced by airplanes.
We are changing the face of the sky. And we are altering its mood; scientists hesitate to link specific storms to global warming, but it’s clear that, on the whole, climate change is making extreme-weather events more powerful and, perhaps, more common. When we look up, increasingly the face we see is ours. In the photographer Camille Seaman’s cloudscapes, it’s difficult to not also see humankind’s self-portrait: potent, defiant, unforgiving. Clouds always tell a true story, Ralph Abercromby said, and more than ever the story they tell is the story of ourselves. Where that story will take us is difficult to read.
Nebraska, June, 2012.

Nebraska, June, 2012.

Kansas, June, 2008.

Kansas, May, 2008.

Kansas, May, 2013.
Texas, June, 2014.

Kansas, May, 2008.

South Dakota, May, 2011.

Texas, May, 2012.

Links

Climate Change: Australia's Position Is Unconscionable For A Wealthy Country

ABC - David Shearman*


French President tells US students they have to make a fair society (ABC News)

"There is no planet B" says President Macron in an electrifying speech to Congress, yet for most of us climate change is of much less concern than the cost of living, taxes, schools and health services.
As a slow creeping threat, "unlikely to affect me much anyway", climate change is easy to dismiss and therefore is never high on the election stakes where it is easy for our leaders to say they are doing everything they should — which they are not.
So as a doctor, why am I distressed by the announcement that gas resources in NT are to be developed and fracked? After all, the NT government indicates it can be managed safely, will occur in sparsely populated regions, will bring jobs and profits for shareholders and restitution for languishing state and federal budgets?
The Adani coal mine has signalled to the world more than any spoken word that the Australian Government does not understand or care about climate change.
Development of Northern Territories huge gas reserves will produce even more emissions than Adani, with a measurable increase in world and domestic emissions.
Australia has no treaty obligation to reduce the export of gas.

Gas mining on hold in many countries
The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported recently that the Earth's greenhouse emissions from fossil fuels had increased by 1.4 per cent in 2017 after three years of flat emissions. The goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change are in jeopardy.
In Australia in 2017, emissions increased by 0.8 per cent, the third yearly consecutive increase.
The IEA report indicates that natural gas demand in the world, which includes unconventional gas, is increasing rapidly and now supplies 22 per cent of total energy. If other gas developments proceed in WA, Australia is likely to be the world's greatest exporter of gas as well as of coal.
Recognising the threats from climate change, many countries have decided on "no new coal mines" or delayed or stopped unconventional gas mining on either local health or emission concerns.
To the World Health Organisation, climate change is the greatest health threat of this century. (Reuters: Liu Chang)
Health and the rising level of greenhouse emissions
To the World Health Organisation, climate change is the greatest health threat of this century, a view recognised by the statements of the Australian Medical Association.
It is responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide from storm, flood, fire, drought and hunger and a range of other causes including infections. Deaths are projected to rise to 250,000 by 2030.

The forgotten islands
The Takuu group of atolls is home to a rich and historic culture, but the resilient people and their idyllic islands face an increasingly dire threat from climate change.


In Australia the existing and expected health impacts are well documented and already affect our health services.
Many doctors find Australia's position unconscionable for a wealthy country.
We are trading more wealth for lives lost, mainly those living in less developed, poorer countries, those least able to care for themselves.
The desperate pleas for emission reduction by our neighbours in the Pacific Island States under threat or existing inundation are ignored.
Australia absolves itself by indicating it will fulfil its fair share of emission reduction under the Paris Agreement, but even that is in doubt and ignores the fact that wealthy technological nations are positioned to offer leadership and have the capacity to carry greater responsibility to do more against climate change.
These attitudes stem from a failure to recognise our collective responsibility to act, for we all share the same atmosphere and finite resource of freshwater, biodiversity and productive land which are currently threatened by increasing climate change.
As we burn carbon we also burn whatever hope our children and grandchildren will have of having a safe climate in the future. Our legacy to them will rather be an increasingly dangerous and unstable climate.
Fracking is likely to resume in the Beetaloo Basin, an area rich in shale gas and bordered by Mataranka to the north and Elliott to the south. (ABC News: Jane Bardon)
NT contribution to Australia's emissions
The gases that leak from gas exploration, mining and sealing of wells are called fugitive emissions; add leaks during transport, loading, distribution and then the burning of gas and you have the full life cycle emissions.

What is fracking?
  • Fracking is used to extract gases, such as coal seam, tight and shale gas by pumping high-pressure water and chemicals into rock, fracturing it to release trapped gasses
  • There are concerns the chemicals could contaminate groundwater supplies and threaten agricultural industries

Recent science indicates that with leakage rates as little as 3 per cent, emissions from gas are no better than coal fired power stations.
Fugitive measurements in Australian gas fields are poorly regulated and are currently unknown.
In the US, emissions from unconventional gas mining range from 2 per cent to 17 per cent.
The NT government report acknowledges the problem and hopes piously "that the NT and Australian governments seek to ensure that there is no net increase in the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions emitted in Australia from any onshore shale gas produced in the NT".
This hope remains unfulfilled in any Australian gas field.
The development of NT gas will inevitably cause an increase in Australia's domestic emissions, as it did in Queensland.
France banned fracking in 2011. President Macron brings "Planet B" to Australia soon.

*Dr David Shearman is the honorary secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia and Emeritus Professor of Medicine at Adelaide University.

Links

29/04/2018

Hiroshima, Kyoto, And The Bombs Of Climate Change

The New Yorker*

The Hiroshima Peace Memorial, which commemorates the first use of a nuclear weapon in war. Photograph by Thomas Hoepker / Magnum Photos
I spent Earth Day in Kyoto, the next day in Hiroshima, and the time since pondering the difference between the two.
Hiroshima has a special grip on the planet’s consciousness. To see the remains of the great explosion is moving, and it’s equally powerful to realize that basically every building you drive by was constructed after 1945. Millions of people come here to tour the museum—its exhibits all the more chastening for their dry and almost clinical precision. Hiroshima has become symbolic shorthand for the nuclear horror that still haunts humanity; when we think about weapons of mass destruction, it’s the mushroom cloud above the Japanese city that we see in our mind’s eye.
Kyoto, in a different way, could have become shorthand for another, equally huge problem—global warming, which is producing changes even more far-reaching than a nuclear standoff. It was in Kyoto, twenty-one years ago, that the world first came together to try to address the climate crisis, reaching a small but useful agreement to begin limiting carbon emissions. Yet the pact accomplished little, and has slipped into history.
I saw no sign in Kyoto that the conference ever took place—no shrine or statue, and, what’s more, no discernible change in the way that the city operates. (Japan met its obligations to the treaty by using offset techniques, such as planting trees and purchasing carbon credits, while emissions rose.) In what is a race against time, time has largely stood still here, as it has in most places.
It’s not as if we have solved the nuclear issue, but at least we understand that it is a crisis. The entire act of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, depends on the collective understanding that these weapons are uniquely, intolerably awful. Even Donald Trump dimly groks that denuclearization is good. The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum is filled with the texts of treaties that have brought the number of warheads slowly, steadily down; we could see that mushroom cloud and understand its danger in our gut. With climate change, it’s different.
The explosion of a billion pistons inside a billion cylinders every minute of every day just doesn’t induce the same tremble. True, Trump is alone among world leaders in dismissing global warming, but most of his peers might as well agree: they’ve done very little of what’s required even to begin addressing this issue. As a result, the explosions go off constantly. Scientists estimate that, each day, our added emissions trap the heat equivalent of four hundred thousand Hiroshima-sized bombs, which is why the Arctic has half as much ice as it did in the nineteen-eighties, why the great ocean currents have begun to slow, why we see floods and storms and fires in such sad proportion. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only atomic bombs we ever dropped; climate bombs rain down daily, and the death toll mounts unstoppably.
I can think of several explanations for this difference in attitude. The most important, probably, lies in the power of the fossil-fuel industry, which has spent billions of dollars defending the precise practices now wrecking the planet. The industry’s disinformation and lobbying campaigns—the details of which have slowly come to light, though the broad outlines have been clear for decades—have been spectacularly effective.
I remember watching the closing moments of the Kyoto conference, in 1997, as delegates congratulated themselves on what President Bill Clinton called “a huge first step.” I was standing next to a lobbyist for the energy industry, who had spent much of the week trying to water down and derail the agreement. He took in my tired pleasure and said, “I’m glad we’re going back to D.C., where we’ve got this under control.” That turned out to be accurate, though even he could not have predicted the ultimate success of his work: an American President who insists that the entire thing is a hoax manufactured by the Chinese.
Still, global warming doesn’t haunt even the uncorrupted imagination in quite the same way as the bomb, perhaps because it unfolds more slowly. On a geologic time scale, a day and a century are roughly the same unit, but for the purposes of a news cycle, the difference is crucial. Every single day, climate change is the most important thing happening on the planet—there’s nothing even remotely close.
But, on any single day, there’s always something more dramatic, more urgent. It feels as if we have time to deal with global warming, whereas deportations or assault rifles or lunatics in white vans mowing down women must be dealt with now. (In fact, climate change is the one problem that the planet has ever faced that comes with an absolute time limit; past a certain point, it won’t be a problem anymore, because it won’t have a solution.)
And the fact that it’s happening everywhere, which should mean that it engages us more deeply, seems in some ways to do just the opposite. Hiroshima was an obvious, hideous breach of the ordinary. (The curators of the museum at ground zero understand this: you enter through a room filled with pictures of normal life in the months leading up to the bombing, and these pictures of smiling schoolchildren are at least as powerful as the images of charred bodies by the exit.) But the sheer repetition of flood and firestorm ratchets down the terror some; we’re in the process now of routinizing global warming and the destruction it wreaks. It’s becoming the baseline. Hurricane Katrina was shocking; Harvey and Irma and Maria, less so.
Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Perhaps the free-falling price of solar and wind power will be enough to spur the necessary transition. But I doubt it. Inertia is such a strong force that, without a decisive push from a motivated human population, we won’t make the change in time to defuse the climate bomb. That was my sense watching normal, unchanged life in Kyoto and reading the editorial in Monday’s Yomiuri Shimbun, which called for balancing economic and environmental interests. Climate change would be helped, the editors said, by the advent of new technologies that turned off lights when people weren’t in the room.
Between the power of an amoral industry willing to lie and the particular tricks of human psychology that make us willing to overlook our greatest threat, it’s possible that as a species we’ll slide straight into a new, hotter, more desperate world without quite recognizing it—without a Hiroshima moment at which, at the very least, we finally acknowledge reality.

*Bill McKibben, a former New Yorker staff writer, is the founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org and the Schumann Distinguished Scholar in environmental studies at Middlebury College.

Links

Not So Fast: Why The Electric Vehicle Revolution Will Bring Problems Of Its Own

The Conversation

Electric cars are taking over – but they really as green as they look? Jack Amick / flickr, CC BY-NC
After years of being derided as a joke by car manufacturers and the public, interest in electric vehicles has increased sharply as governments around the world move to ban petrol and diesel cars.
We have seen a tremendous rise in availability, especially at the premium end of the market, where Tesla is giving established brands a run for their money. Electric cars are likely to penetrate the rest of the market quickly too. Prices should be on par with conventional cars by 2025.
Electric cars are praised as the answer to questions of green and clean mobility. But the overall sustainability of electric vehicles is far from clear. On closer examination, our entire transport paradigm may need to be rethought.
Compared with combustion engines, electric transport has obvious advantages for emissions and human health. Transport is responsible for around 23% of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions globally. This is expected to double by 2050.
Motor vehicles also put a burden on society, especially in urban environments where they are chiefly responsible for noise and air pollution. Avoiding these issues is why electric vehicles are considered a key technology in cleaning up the transport sector. However, electric cars come with problems of their own.

Dirt in the supply chain
For one, electric vehicles have a concerning supply chain. Cobalt, a key component of the lithium-ion batteries in electric cars, is linked to reports of child labour. The nickel used in those same batteries is toxic to extract from the ground. And there are environmental concerns and land use conflicts connected with lithium mining in countries like Tibet and Bolivia.
The elements used in battery production are finite and in limited supply. This makes it impossible to electrify all of the world’s transport with current battery technology. Meanwhile, there is still no environmentally safe way of recycling lithium-ion batteries.
While electric cars produce no exhaust, there is concern about fine particle emissions. Electric cars are often heavier than conventional cars, and heavier vehicles are often accompanied by higher levels of non-exhaust emissions. The large torque of electric vehicles further adds to the fine dust problem, as it causes greater tyre wear and dispersion of dust particles.

Different motor, same problem
Electric vehicles share many other issues with conventional cars too. Both require roads, parking areas and other infrastructure, which is especially a problem in cities. Roads divide communities and make access to essential services difficult for those without cars.
A shift in people’s reliance on combustion cars to electric cars also does little to address sedentary urban lifestyles, as it perpetuates our lack of physical activity.
Other problems relate to congestion. In Australia, the avoidable social cost of traffic congestion in 2015 was estimated at A$16.5 billion. This is expected to increase by 2% every year until 2030. Given trends in population growth and urbanisation globally and in Australia, electric cars – despite obvious advantages over fossil fuels – are unlikely to solve urban mobility and infrastructure-related problems.
Technology or regulation may solve these technical and environmental headaches. Improvements in recycling, innovation, and the greening of battery factories can go a long way towards reducing the impacts of battery production. Certification schemes, such as the one proposed in Sweden, could help deliver low-impact battery value chains and avoid conflict minerals and human rights violations in the industry.

A new transport paradigm
Yet, while climate change concerns alone seem to warrant a speedy transition towards electric mobility, it may prove to be merely a transition technology. Electric cars will do little for urban mobility and liveability in the years to come. Established car makers such as Porsche are working on new modes of transportation, especially for congested and growing markets such as China.
Nevertheless, their vision is still one of personal vehicles – relying on electric cars coupled with smart traffic guidance systems to avoid urban road congestion. Instead of having fewer cars, as called for by transport experts, car makers continue to promote individualised transport, albeit a greener version.
With a growing population, a paradigm shift in transport may be needed – one that looks to urban design to solve transportation problems.
In Copenhagen, for example, bikes now outnumber cars in the city’s centre, which is primed to be car-free within the next ten years. Many other cities, including Oslo in Norway and Chengdu in China, are also on their way to being free of cars.
Experts are already devising new ways to design cities. They combine efficient public transport, as found in Curitiba, Brazil, with principles of walkability, as seen in Vauben, Germany. They feature mixed-use, mixed-income and transit-oriented developments, as seen in places like Fruitvale Village in Oakland, California.
These developments don’t just address transport-related environmental problems. They enhance liveability by reclaiming urban space for green developments. They reduce the cost of living by cutting commuting cost and time. They deliver health benefits, thanks to reduced pollution and more active lifestyles. They improve social cohesion, by fostering human interaction in urban streetscapes, and help to reduce crime. And of course, they improve economic performance by reducing the loss of productivity caused by congestion.
Electric cars are a quick-to-deploy technology fix that helps tackle climate change and improve urban air quality – at least to a point. But the sustainability endgame is to eliminate many of our daily travel needs altogether through smart design, while improving the parts of our lives we lost sight of during our decades-long dependence on cars.

Links

Budget Earmarks $500m To Mitigate Great Barrier Reef Climate Change

The Guardian  - 

Labor and the Coalition are battling for marginal seats in Queensland where voters are concerned about the reef. Photograph: Richard Fitzpatrick 
The Turnbull government will allocate $500m to mitigate the impacts of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef.
The funding, to be unveiled on Sunday and confirmed in the May budget, follows a recent study finding that 30% of the reef’s corals died in a catastrophic nine-month marine heatwave in 2016.


Great Barrier Reef: 30% of coral died in catastrophic 2016 heatwave.

The government will partner with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation in a $444m agreement to tackle crown-of-thorns starfish, reduce pollution and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
The government will increase funding for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Department of the Environment and Energy by $56m to expand environmental management and compliance operations.
Both of the major parties are currently focused on winning hearts and minds in Queensland, with the state’s marginal seats likely to determine the outcome of the next federal election.
The Coalition has been criticised by environment groups for not acting fast enough to protect the reef, and the government’s support for the Adani coalmine has also been controversial both locally and nationally because of its potential impact on the reef.
In January Guardian Australia revealed that millions of dollars of commonwealth money was being handed to tourism-linked groups for reef protection, despite official advice recommending against the projects, or repeatedly finding them to be failing.
Earlier this year, the head of the United Nations environment program warned the battle to save the world’s coral reefs was at “make-or-break point”. Erik Solheim said governments needed to intensify concrete actions including limiting greenhouse gas emissions, plastic pollution and impacts from agriculture.
In a statement issued in advance of Sunday’s announcement, the prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said the new funding was an investment in the health of the reef and the tourism jobs dependent on it.
“Like reefs all over the world, the Great Barrier Reef is under pressure,” Turnbull said. “A big challenge demands a big investment – and this investment gives our reef the best chance.”
Turnbull said the reef restoration science associated with the funding would be shared internationally and with Pacific neighbours.
“As a highly respected philanthropic organisation, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation has a strong fundraising track record, and will seek corporate contributions to further enhance this work,” the prime minister said.
The funding package includes $201m for improving water quality with changed farming practices such as reduced fertiliser use, $100m for reef restoration science, $58m to combat the crown-of-thorns starfish, $45m for community engagement, including drawing on Indigenous traditional knowledge for sea country management, and $40m for monitoring reef health.
The study on coral mass mortality, published in Nature and led by Terry Hughes, the director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies – published in April – examined the link between the level of heat exposure, subsequent coral bleaching and ultimately coral death.
It found that 29% of the 3,863 reefs that make up the Great Barrier Reef lost two-thirds or more of their corals. It said “initially, at the peak of temperature extremes in March 2016, many millions of corals died quickly in the northern third of the Great Barrier Reef over a period of only two to three weeks”.
“These widespread losses were not due to the attrition of corals that slowly starved because they failed to regain their symbionts. Rather, temperature-sensitive species of corals began to die almost immediately in locations that were exposed to heat stress.”

Links

28/04/2018

How Oman’s Rocks Could Help Save The Planet

New York TimesHenry Fountain | Photos Vincent Fournier

The rocks in Oman are special, according to a Columbia University geologist. They remove planet-warming carbon dioxide from the air and turn it to stone. In theory, these rocks could store hundreds of years of human emissions of CO2. Storing even a fraction of that would not be easy. But it’s not impossible.
Columbia University geologist, Peter B. Kelemen, near Muscat, Oman. Large Image
IBRA, Oman — In the arid vastness of this corner of the Arabian Peninsula, out where goats and the occasional camel roam, rocks form the backdrop practically every way you look.
But the stark outcrops and craggy ridges are more than just scenery. Some of these rocks are hard at work, naturally reacting with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turning it into stone.
Veins of white carbonate minerals run through slabs of dark rock like fat marbling a steak. Carbonate surrounds pebbles and cobbles, turning ordinary gravel into natural mosaics.
Carbonate veins form when water containing dissolved carbon dioxide flows through these rocks.
Even pooled spring water that has bubbled up through the rocks reacts with CO2 to produce an ice-like crust of carbonate that, if broken, re-forms within days.
When the water comes back into contact with air, a thin layer of carbonate hardens across its surface.
Scientists say that if this natural process, called carbon mineralization, could be harnessed, accelerated and applied inexpensively on a huge scale — admittedly some very big “ifs” — it could help fight climate change. Rocks could remove some of the billions of tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide that humans have pumped into the air since the beginning of the Industrial Age.
And by turning that CO2 into stone, the rocks in Oman — or in a number of other places around the world that have similar geological formations — would ensure that the gas stayed out of the atmosphere forever.
“Solid carbonate minerals aren’t going anyplace,” said Peter B. Kelemen, a geologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who has been studying the rocks here for more than two decades.
The New York Times | Source: Peter B. Kelemen, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Capturing and storing carbon dioxide is drawing increased interest. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that deploying such technology is essential to efforts to rein in global warming. But the idea has barely caught on: There are fewer than 20 large-scale projects in operation around the world, and they remove CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels at power plants or from other industrial processes and store it as gas underground.
What Dr. Kelemen and others have in mind is removing carbon dioxide that is already in the air, to halt or reverse the gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Direct-air capture, as it is known, is sometimes described as a form of geoengineering — deliberate manipulation of the climate — although that term is more often reserved for the idea of reducing warming by reflecting more sunlight away from the earth.
Although many researchers dismiss direct-air capture as logistically or economically impractical, especially given the billions of tons of gas that would have to be removed to have an impact, some say it may have to be considered if other efforts to counter global warming are ineffective.
A few researchers and companies have built machines that can pull CO2 out of the air, in relatively small quantities, but adapting and enhancing natural capture processes using rocks is less developed.
“This one still feels like the most nascent piece of the conversation,” said Noah Deich, executive director of the Center for Carbon Removal, a research organization in Berkeley, Calif. “You see these sparks, but I don’t see anything catching fire yet.”
Dr. Kelemen is one of a relative handful of researchers around the world who are studying the idea. At a geothermal power plant in Iceland, after several years of experimentation, an energy company is currently injecting modest amounts of carbon dioxide into volcanic rock, where it becomes mineralized. Dutch researchers have suggested spreading a kind of crushed rock along coastlines to capture CO2. And scientists in Canada and South Africa are studying ways to use mine wastes, called tailings, to do the same thing.
“It’s clear that we’re going to have to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,” said Roger Aines, who leads the development of carbon management technologies at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and has worked with Dr. Kelemen and others. “And we’re going to have to do it on a gigaton scale.”
If billions of tons of CO2 are to be turned to stone, there are few places in the world more suitable than Oman, a sultanate with a population of 4 million and an economy based on oil and, increasingly, tourism.
A view of Muscat, the capital. The tower in the distance, in Al Riyam Park, was inspired by an incense burner.
The carbon-capturing formations here, consisting largely of a rock called peridotite, are in a slice of oceanic crust and the mantle layer below it that was thrust up on land by tectonic forces nearly 100 million years ago. Erosion has resulted in a patchy zone about 200 miles long, up to 25 miles wide and several miles thick in the northern part of the country, including here in the outskirts of Ibra, a dusty inland city of 50,000. Even the bustling capital, Muscat, on the Gulf of Oman, has a pocket of peridotite practically overlooking Sultan Qaboos bin Said’s palace.
Peridotite normally is miles below the earth’s surface. When the rocks are exposed to air or water as they are here, Dr. Kelemen said, they are like a giant battery with a lot of chemical potential. “They’re really, really far from equilibrium with the atmosphere and surface water,” he said.
The rocks are so extensive, Dr. Kelemen said, that if it was somehow possible to fully use them they could store hundreds of years of CO2 emissions. More realistically, he said, Oman could store at least a billion tons of CO2 annually. (Current yearly worldwide emissions are close to 40 billion tons.)
While the formations here are special, they are not unique. Similar though smaller ones are found in Northern California, Papua New Guinea and Albania, among other places.
Dr. Kelemen first came to Oman in the 1990s, as the thrust-up rocks were one of the best sites in the world to study what was then his area of research, the formation and structure of the earth’s crust. He’d noticed the carbonate veins but thought they must be millions of years old.
“There was a feeling that carbon mineralization was really slow and not worth thinking about,” he said.
But in 2007, he had some of the carbonate dated. Almost all of it was less than 50,000 years old, suggesting that the mineralization process was actually much faster.
Carbonate veins show how CO2 can be stored as rock.
“So then I said, O.K., this is pretty cool,” Dr. Kelemen said.
Since then, in addition to continuing his crust research, he has spent much time studying the prospects for harnessing the mineralization process — among other things, learning about the water chemistry, which changes as it flows through the rocks, and measuring the actual uptake of CO2 from the air in certain spots.
Solid white carbonate, settled at the bottom of a pool.
For much of this decade he has also led a multinational effort to drill boreholes in the rock, a $4 million project that is only partly related to carbon capture. In March the drilling was nearing completion, with scientists and technicians sending instruments down the holes, which are up to 1,300 feet deep, to better characterize the rock layers.
The rocks here may be capable of capturing a lot of carbon dioxide, but the challenge is doing it much faster than nature, in huge amounts and at low enough cost to make it more than a pipe dream. Dr. Kelemen and his colleagues, including Juerg Matter, a researcher from the University of Southampton in England who was involved in the Icelandic project, have some ideas.
A crew drilling a borehole outside Ibra, part of a project to better understand the geology of Oman.
One possibility, Dr. Kelemen said, would be to drill pairs of wells and pump water with dissolved CO2 into one of them. As the water traveled through the rock formation carbonate would form; when it reached the other well the water, now depleted of CO2, would be pumped out. The process could be repeated over and over.
There is a lot that is unknown about such an approach, however. For one thing, while pumping water deep into the earth, where temperatures and pressures are higher, could make the process of mineralization go tens of thousands of times faster, so much carbonate might form that the water flow would stop. “You might clog everything up, and it would all come to a screeching halt,” Dr. Kelemen said.
Drillers sample the cuttings from the borehole every meter of depth so geologists can analyze the rock.
Experiments and eventually pilot projects are needed to better understand and optimize this process and others, Dr. Kelemen said, but so far Omani officials have been reluctant to grant the necessary permits. The researchers may need to go elsewhere, like California, where the rocks are less accessible but the state government has set ambitious targets for reducing emissions and is open to new ways to meet them.
Dr. Kelemen and Dr. Aines have had preliminary discussions with California officials about the possibility of experimenting there. “We would certainly be a willing and eager partner to help them with it,” said David Bunn, director of the State Department of Conservation.
Perhaps the simplest way to use rocks to capture carbon dioxide would be to quarry large amounts of them, grind them into fine particles and spread them out to expose them to the air. The material could be turned over from time to time to expose fresh surfaces, or perhaps air with a higher CO2 concentration could be pumped into it to speed up the process.
But a quarrying and grinding operation of the scale required would be hugely expensive, scar the landscape and produce enormous CO2 emissions of its own. So a few researchers are asking, Why not use rocks that have already been quarried and ground up for other purposes?
A small mountain of carbonate-rich rocks outside Lizugh, a town southwest of Muscat. Iron in the rocks has oxidized, turning them red.
Such rocks are found in large amounts at mines around the world, as waste tailings. Platinum, nickel and diamonds, in particular, are mined from rock that has a lot of carbon-mineralization potential.
Gregory Dipple, a researcher at the University of British Columbia who has been studying mine tailings for more than a decade, said early on he found evidence that waste rock was forming carbonate without any human intervention. “It was clear it was taking CO2 from the air,” he said.
Dr. Dipple is now working with several mining companies and studying ways to improve upon the natural process. The goal would be to capture at least enough CO2 to fully offset a mine’s carbon emissions, which typically come from trucks and on-site power generation.
Evelyn Mervine, who has worked with Dr. Dipple and Dr. Kelemen and now works for De Beers, the world’s largest diamond company, is studying a similar approach and hopes by next year to conduct trials at one or more of the company’s mines.
“We don’t think from a scientific perspective it would be that difficult or expensive — we can be carbon-neutral,” she said. “And in the mining industry that is extraordinary.”
“Relative to the global problem, it’s really just a drop in the bucket,” Dr. Mervine said. “But it sets a really good precedent.”
Dr. Kelemen has spent more than 20 years researching these rocks in Oman.


Links

Indigenous Women Show The Way For Banks To Divest From Fossil Fuels

Deutsche Welle - Katharina Wecker

First Nations women have met with European banks to push for fossil fuel divestment as the United Nations releases a model for banks to account for climate change. Grassroots action is helping the movement gain momentum.
The Indigenous Women's Divestment Delegation take action for fossil fuel divestment in front of the Credit Suisse and UBS headquarters in the Zurich financial district.
"We face the Kinder Morgan pipeline not in our backyard, but in our kitchen. We were once able to harvest more than 90 percent of our diet from our land and waters — but we haven't been able to harvest any food since 1972."
Charlene Aleck from the indigenous Tsleil-Waututh Nation in Canada has traveled to Germany and Switzerland to tell bank managers how a big oil project they are financing is destroying her home.
Since 1953, the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline has traced over 1,150 km (710 miles) of Canadian land, from Alberta to the west coast of British Columbia, carrying 300,000 barrels of crude oil per day straight through the homeland of the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation.
Kinder Morgan is proposing to build a new pipeline alongside this existing one, in order to triple the amount of crude oil being transported. The project was initially approved by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2016, but ongoing protests and lawsuits have temporarily put a hold on the construction.
Aleck and four other indigenous women from North America who are all affected by big oil projects were in Frankfurt, Germany, and Zurich, Switzerland, to meet face-to-face with managers from Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and UBS.
"I came here to let [the banks] know that the risk is too great for our nation — we want to let them know that the company they are investing in does not have our consent, and we oppose them in any legal way possible," Aleck told DW.
The planned second Trans Mountain pipeline would further damage the already degraded land of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Aleck says.
The meetings were organized by the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) with the goal to hold banks accountable for their investments.
"Women are standing up for their own territories but also for the climate, for the water, for the forest, for the land. It’s important to understand that women who protect their land also protect the climate," Osprey Orielle Lake, executive director of WECAN, told DW.
In light of climate change, fossil fuels must be kept in the ground, she says. "And this is why we are asking banks to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy."

Growing movement
The indigenous women are part of a growing fossil fuel divestment movement. Over the last years, more than 700 public institutions worldwide have already committed to divest, including educational institutions, philanthropic foundations and governments.
A year ago, the German city of Göttingen has become the fourth German city that withdrew investment in coal, oil and gas companies. Earlier this year, New York City's pension fund announced it would pull round $5 billion (€4 billion) of its investments in fossil fuel companies.
Norway's trillion-dollar sovereign wealth fund — the world's biggest — also proposed to drop oil and gas companies from its holdings, saying it already has enough exposure to the industry and wants to protect against fluctuating oil prices. The Norwegian government is set to decide in fall of 2018 about the divestment.
The divestment movement has spread around the world.
Also a number of Catholic institutions have been the latest addition to the trend. The humanitarian aid organization Caritas Internationalis, owned by the Catholic church, and three German Catholic banks announced in mid-April they would withdraw investments worth $7.5 billion out of big oil.
The Catholic banks are following the example of the Church of England, which divested from fossil fuel companies with the highest concentration of carbon companies after Pope Francis voiced in 2015 his concerns about climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

Big money, big responsibility
Banks and other financial institutions play a major role in limiting global warming by shifting investments from fossil fuels toward renewable energies and other low-carbon endeavors.
However, the fast-paced nature of the financial sector, with its quick and high turnarounds, is not exactly an environment that encourages divestment from fossil fuels.
To this end, the United Nations Environment Program has developed, together with several climate scientists and financial experts, a methodology to help banks understand how climate change and climate action could impact their business.


Will funding for coal soon run out?

UNEP Director Erik Solheim believes that the new methodology will help the finance industry change their perspective. He traces the environmental challenges of today back to "short-termism." "Financial markets can become a catalyst for action on sustainability, but for that they need to become more long-term oriented," he said in a statement presenting the methodology.
The framework "encourages organizations to consider and disclose long-term impacts," he added.
The methodology allows banks and financial institutions to "see" into the future, predicting how the Paris Agreement, if implemented as planned, will change our economies. For example, investment in coal companies today won't make much sense when coal power plants are eventually shut down.


If, on the other hand, governments push the renewable energy market to meet emissions-reduction goals, investments in wind and solar parks promise a higher return.
Elmar Kriegler, senior scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research who was part of the team that developed the methodology, says that after computing for investment risks and opportunities in a 2-degree world, it's up to the banks to make use of this.
"Big money also means big responsibilities," Kriegler said in a statement.
Sixteen banks from four continents — including Barclays, National Australia Bank and the Royal Bank of Canada — are currently testing and fine-tuning the methodology.
The indigenous women are hopeful that guidelines like these along with their continued pressure will get banks to eventually divest from big oil.
2017 Devastating effects of climate change: Oceans at risk
The high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere represent a major threat for our oceans, already in danger due to plastic pollution, overfishing and warming waters. Ocean acidification could make these waters — covering more than two-thirds of our planet's surface — a hostile environment for sea creatures. And without marine animals, entire ocean ecosystems are at risk.


Links