10/02/2018

Mangroves Protect Coastlines, Store Carbon – And Are Expanding With Climate Change

The Conversation

Mangroves in the Florida Everglades. Alan Sandercock, CC BY
With the help of technology, humans can traverse virtually every part of our planet’s surface. But animals and plants are less mobile. Most species can only live in zones where temperature and rain fall within specific ranges.
As regions become warmer due to climate change, plants and animals in those areas will either move to more appropriate climates or be replaced by newcomers who are well-suited to the new conditions. These changes are already occurring. For example, many plants, animals and birds in the Northern Hemisphere have shifted their ranges northward.
My research team studies mangroves – salt-tolerant trees with branches that intertwine like dense jungle gyms. Mangroves line the world’s coastlines and prefer warm temperatures, so they have traditionally been restricted to subtropical and tropical environments. But they have many features that have enabled them to survive major climate shifts in the past. Now, in a harbinger of climate change, mangroves are expanding from tropical zones into temperate areas. Scientists are finding them at higher and higher latitudes in North America, South America, Asia, Africa, Australia and Latin America.
Working with other ecologists in the shadow of the huge launch complex at Florida’s Kennedy Space Center, we have found that mangroves have increased in abundance by 70 percent in just seven years over an area of 220 square miles (567 square kilometers). This is a dramatic change in the plant community along this stretch of the Atlantic coast. Unlike many other impacts of climate change, we expect these shifting ranges to produce some benefits, including increased carbon storage and storm surge protection.
The world’s mangrove forests in 2000. Giri et al., Journal of Biogeography (2008)., CC BY-SA
LARGE IMAGE
Traveling by water
Plants have less ability to move than animals, but some – particularly mangroves – can disperse via water over thousands of miles. Mangroves release reproductive structures called propagules, similar to seeds, which can produce new plants. They float and are distributed by ocean currents and, sometimes, big storms. As mangrove propagules drift north along the Atlantic coast, they are reaching areas where winter freeze events that could kill them are becoming less common due to climate change. Similar movements are occurring in other locations around the world.
In the Gulf of Mexico and Florida, mangroves are increasingly found in areas recently dominated by salt marshes, which typically occur in cooler zones. Using satellite images and land-based field studies in our ongoing study of mangroves, we can see this spread of mangroves occurring faster than we could have expected based on climate data alone.
Though these shifts also likely happened in the past due to hurricanes and freeze events, the recent changes in mangrove range are still dramatic. One study from Florida shows that mangroves from northern populations may be reproducing earlier than normal and producing bigger propagules, which could help them take over salt marshes.
Mangrove propagules drifting near Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Brian Gratwicke, CC BY
Stabilizing coastlines
In a recent modeling effort, we examined how mangroves protect NASA facilities at the Kennedy Space Center. We found that a 2-meter-wide strip of mangroves along the shore can reduce wave height by 90 percent. In contrast, it takes 20 meters of salt marsh habitat to reduce waves by the same amount. Other studies have found that mangrove forests helped reduce shoreline damage during the catastrophic 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and Tropical Storm Wilma in Belize in 2005.
Mangroves around the world have been severely reduced by human activities, particularly clearance for aquaculture. Scientists estimate that at least 35 percent of global mangrove habitat was lost between 1980 and 2000. One recent estimate suggests that mangrove deforestation rates in recent decades have been three to five times faster than other forests around the globe.
All types of coastal wetlands help to prevent millions of dollars in damage from flooding and save hundreds of hours of labor to repair storm damage. Mangrove restoration efforts are ongoing in many parts of the world, including the Tampa Bay estuary and southern China, but some projects have been major failures. To succeed, these initiatives need to consider mangrove habitat needs, particularly hydrology.
Though mangroves may protect coastlines even more effectively than salt marshes, it is important to note that marsh plants provide important habitats for numerous species of birds and fish. We don’t yet know how these animals will fare as mangroves replace marshes, nor do we yet understand other downsides of plant range shifts due to climate change.

Mangroves provide essential habitat and coastline protection but are under threat.

Storing carbon in flooded soils
Continued mangrove expansion could increase carbon storage along coastlines. Mangroves have an enormous capacity for sucking up carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and trapping them in flooded soils for millennia. They are among the most carbon-rich tropical forests and can store twice as much carbon on a per-area basis as salt marshes. During normal growth, mangroves rapidly convert carbon dioxide into biomass. The saturated soils in which they grow contain low levels of oxygen, which bacteria and fungi need as fuel to break down dead plant matter. Instead, this dead material is stored in the soil.
We estimated in one study that mangrove carbon storage at the Kennedy Space Center increased by 25 percent in only seven years as mangrove forests spread. We concluded that if mangrove expansion continued unchecked by freezes into other southeastern U.S. wetlands, wetland carbon storage could result in the uptake of 26 million metric tons of carbon by 2080. This is equivalent to just over 95 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is about 28 percent of Florida’s total greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in 2010.
Preserving coastal mangroves improves climate resilience in several ways. First, if the carbon stored in these soils were released as carbon dioxide and methane, this would likely cause an increase in climatic warming. Second, the same processes that store carbon in wetland soils also allow these wetlands to accrete sediment and keep pace with rising sea levels.

Can mangroves keep delivering these services?
Plants and animals perform many ecosystem services for humans, from pollinating crops to filtering drinking water supplies. As species are shifted around the globe, it is critical to understand whether these services will lessen or increase, and how we can maximize them in a less stable future.
Mangroves are providing extremely valuable services and may become even more important as they expand toward the poles. But according to one recent study, many mangrove ecosystems are not building enough new elevation to keep pace with sea level rise. In a new project, my research group is analyzing how variable climate and mangrove invasion will alter the coastal protection capacity of Florida wetland ecosystems. With a better understanding of this process, we can develop strategies for protecting and restoring these valuable resources.

Links

'We Might Be Entering The Age Of The Unfailing Sunburn': Ozone Layer Getting Worse In Populated Areas

FairfaxLiam Mannix

The ozone layer is not healing as scientists had hoped. In fact, depressing research released on Tuesday finds our UV-blocking ozone layer is still thinning in more populated parts of the world.
A global effort to cut certain airborne pollutants over the last three decades has been credited with allowing our damaged ozone layer to recover. But the shock new findings – which scientists cannot explain – suggest we may have been celebrating too early.


This image, from NASA and centred on Antarctica, shows the damage we have done to the ozone layer. The gradient indicates the amount of ozone at that region. As you can see, a large area of the atmosphere above Antarctica has been depleted of ozone, as shown by the dark-blue area. Photo: NASA's Earth Observatory
"This study is scary,” said Professor Bill Laurance, a climate change scientist at James Cook University.
“Until we understand what’s really happening you’d be silly to sun yourself, except in polar regions. The era of suntanning could be over; we might be entering the age of the unfailing sunburn."
The ozone layer is crucial to life on Earth. It blocks the sun’s most damaging rays, preventing them from damaging our DNA.
In the ‘70s, we discovered that chlorofluorocarbons – a type of gas used in fridges and aerosol sprays – were destroying the ozone layer, leading to a large hole forming over the Antarctic.
Humanity responded to the crisis, signing the Montreal Protocol in 1987 and phasing out chlorofluorocarbons.
It was the world’s first universal agreement to cooperate on human health, according to University of Melbourne sustainability expert Dr Paul Read, and heralded huge optimism about how we would respond to other worldwide challenges, such as global warming.
It also seemed to work – the hole over the Antarctic has been gradually closing. Scientists hailed it as the only environmental indicator we had managed to significantly improve since 1992.
A study published on Tuesday by a team of researchers from the UK and Switzerland, published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, challenges that.
The researchers found the parts of the ozone layer that stretch over large swathes of the far north and south of the globe – including the southern ocean below Australia – are not recovering at all. There, the ozone layer is continuing to thin.
“The potential for harm in lower latitudes may actually be worse than at the poles. The decreases in ozone are less than we saw at the poles before the Montreal Protocol was enacted, but UV radiation is more intense in these regions and more people live there,” said study co-author Joanna Haigh, Co-Director of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London.
What this new paper is saying,” said Dr Read, “is that the hole in the ozone layer, predicted to be completely repaired by around 2060, has a whole section that's not repairing itself.”
The finding comes from a huge project to combine data from multiple atmosphere-monitoring satellite missions since 1985. Adding the data together produced a clear finding the layer was continuing to thin.
It is not clear why these parts of the layer are thinning. The study’s authors suggest climate change may be changing patterns of atmospheric circulation, leading to ozone being distributed differently.
There are also a range of other substances that are used in paint strippers and similar chemicals that could be destroying the ozone. It was previously not believed these substances lasted long enough in the atmosphere to damage the layer.

Links

‘$40bn At Risk’ As Climate Change Threatens Tourism

The Australian

Tourist destination Twin Falls, seen from the air, in Kakadu National Park. Picture: Sam Earp/Tourism NT
Australia’s $40 billion tourism ­industry is in danger, with visitors likely to face more bad weather, deadly jellyfish and damaged beaches due to climate change, the Climate Council has warned.
Some of the nation’s most prized natural assets, such as Uluru, Kakadu and Ningaloo Reef, are most at risk from rising temperatures, while more than half of the continent could see conditions deemed “unfavourable” for visitors by 2080, the council says.
In a 70-page report out today, it warns nature-based tourism dominates the Australian market and cites a survey of Chinese visitors, more than half of whom said they would be inclined to go elsewhere if bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef continued.
Climate Councillor and ecologist Lesley Hughes said beaches, wilderness areas, national parks and reefs were most vulnerable, but wildlife could also be affected if climate change accelerated.
“Tourists travel across the globe to see Australia’s remarkable natural wonders. But these icons are in the climate firing line as extreme weather events worsen and sea levels continue to rise,” Professor Hughes said.
“Some of our country’s most popular natural destinations, including our beaches could become ‘no-go zones’ during peak holiday periods and seasons, with the ­potential for extreme temperatures to reach up to 50C in Sydney and Melbourne.
“Climate change is placing one of Australia’s most valuable and fastest growing sectors under threat. In 2016 alone, more than eight million international visitors arrived on our shores to see our natural icons, bringing in more than $40bn.
“In fact, tourism employs more than 15 times more people in Australia than coalmining.”
The council’s study highlighted Austrade research predicting a $150bn annual tourist spend by 2026-27 in the absence of limiting factors, saying tourism was Australia’s second-biggest export earner, just behind iron ore. It also warned of a 100-fold increase in major flooding in most cities if sea levels rose by 0.5m.
The red centre could experience more than 100 days above 35C annually by 2030, and more than 160 days by 2090, the study said, while the top end could see its number of hot days rise from a long-term average of 11 to 43 days annually by 2030 and 265 days by 2090. The council’s acting chief executive Martin Rice criticised Canberra’s Tourism 2020 plan for failing to address climate change.

Links

A Beginner’s Guide To The Debate Over 100% Renewable Energy

VoxDavid Roberts

Enough? Shutterstock
Imagine powering civilization entirely with energy from renewable sources: wind, sun, water (hydroelectricity), naturally occurring heat (geothermal), and plants.
No coal mines, oil wells, pipelines, or coal trains. No greenhouse gas emissions, car exhaust, or polluted streams. No wars over oil, dependence on foreign suppliers, or resource shortages.
Sounds nice, right?
A growing number of activists say it is within reach. The idea has inspired ambitious commitments from an increasing number of cities, including Madison, Wisconsin, San Diego, and Salt Lake City. Advocates are pushing states to support the goal.
Clean-energy enthusiasts frequently claim that we can go bigger, that it’s possible for the whole world to run on renewables — we merely lack the “political will.”
So, is it true? Do we know how get to an all-renewables system?
Not yet. Not really. Current modeling strongly suggests that we will need a broader portfolio of low-carbon options, including nuclear and possibly coal or natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), to get deep cuts in carbon.
However, that’s only current modeling. There are many reasons to question what models tell us about the future three, four, five decades out. They have typically underestimated renewables and likely still are. There is much debate, not only about what models show, but what lessons we should take from them and how we should approach the task of decarbonization.
But all that is a bit in the weeds. Before we get into the nerdy back and forth — as I will in a subsequent post — let’s take a step back.
In this post, I simply want to introduce the debate over 100 percent renewable energy to those who aren’t familiar with it. Consider this a basic lay of the land, to get you oriented.

It’s not about whether to go to zero carbon, but how to get there
The most important political division in the world of climate change is between those who accept the urgency of the problem and those who don’t. Those who don’t are in charge of the federal government these days. Their energy plans are a celebration of fossil fuels.
The debate over 100 percent renewable energy isn’t about that division. This is about a dispute among people who accept the imperative to rapidly reduce carbon emissions, sufficient to hold the rise in global average temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels. To hit that globally agreed upon target requires “deep decarbonization” — reducing total carbon emissions 80 to 100 percent — across the globe, by mid-century or shortly thereafter.
Looks tough. PriceWaterhouseCoopers

Both sides in this dispute agree that any deep decarbonization scenario is going to crucially involve electrifying everything. Specifically, it will involve doing two things at once: a) eliminating carbon emissions from the electricity sector and b) moving as many other energy services as possible (transportation, heating, and industry) over to electricity.
(Yes, I’m aware “everything” is an exaggeration — there will likely always be tasks that require liquid fuel combustion — but it is, as my grandfather used to say, close enough for government work.)
Doing that — using electricity to get around, heat our buildings, and run our factories — will increase demand for power. Different models predict different things, but at the high end we’re talking about power demand growing by 150 percent or more through mid-century.
That means the electricity grid will have to get bigger, more sophisticated, more efficient, and more reliable — while it is decarbonizing. That is the central challenge of deep decarbonization.
So what’s the best way to get there?
That’s where the dispute comes in. On one side are those who say we should transition to an electricity system powered entirely by renewables, most notably the Solutions Project, based on the work of Stanford’s Mark Jacobson, backed by a board of high-profile greens including Van Jones, Mark Ruffalo, and Jacobson himself.
On the other side are those who say that the primary goal should be zero carbon, not 100 percent renewables. They say that, in addition to wind, solar, and the rest of the technologies beloved by climate hawks, we’re also going to need a substantial amount of nuclear power and fossil fuel power with CCS.
That’s the dispute. Some climate hawks oppose nuclear and CCS. Others — with attitudes varying from enthusiasm to weary resignation — believe that they will be necessary for deep decarbonization.
(If you shrug and say, “it’s too early to know,” you’re correct, but you’re no fun to dispute with.)

The heart of the renewables challenge: compensating for variability
The entire dispute revolves around a simple fact: The most abundant sources of carbon-free power, wind and sun, are variable. The sun is not always shining; the wind is not always blowing.
The fact that they are variable means that they are not dispatchable — the folks operating the power grid cannot turn them on and off as needed. The power comes when it comes and doesn’t when it doesn’t. Grid operators adjust to them, not the other way around.
As more and more of a grid’s power comes from variable renewable energy (VRE), two sorts of problems start to arise.
One set of problems is technical (explained in more detail here). As VRE capacity increases, grid operators increasingly have to deal with large spikes in power (say, on a sunny, windy day), sometimes well above 100 percent of demand. If there’s no way to absorb that surplus energy, it is “curtailed,” i.e., wasted.
They also have to deal with large dips in VRE. It happens every day when the sun sets, but variations in VRE supply can also take place over weekly, monthly, seasonal, and even decadal time frames.
And finally, grid operators have to deal with rapid ramps, i.e., VRE going from producing almost no energy to producing a ton, or vice versa, over a short period of time. That requires rapid, flexible short-term resources that can ramp up or down in response.

The much-discussed (among electricity nerds) “duck curve” — demand for utility power over one day in CA as VRE increases. CAISO
 That’s the technical challenge. There’s also an economic problem (explained in more detail here).
As each new megawatt (MW) of VRE comes online, it incrementally reduces the value to the grid of the next MW of VRE. A new MW of wind capacity is only going to generate energy when the other wind capacity is generating energy. Same with solar.
As more and more wind and solar come on the grid, the value of resources that can provide energy when VRE isn’t generating will rise; correspondingly, the marginal value of the next unit of VRE will decline. That means solar, especially, has to clear a higher and higher economic bar.
Now, to be clear: There are tools to address these technical and economic problems. Lots of tools, more every day. There’s a whole blooming, buzzing swarm of research and innovation happening in this area. (More on that here.)
The dispute comes down to whether these problems can be solved without nuclear and CCS.

The last 10 to 20 percent of decarbonization is the hardest
It is possible to get substantial decarbonization using well-understood technologies and policies.
A great deal can be accomplished just by substituting natural gas combined cycle power plants for coal plants. While that’s going on, you grow renewables and maintain your existing nuclear and hydroelectric fleet. That is, practically speaking, how the US has reduced carbon emissions in recent years.
The strategy works great for a while. Natural gas plants are much more flexible than coal plants, so they work as a nice complement to VRE, balancing out variability.
But in terms of deep decarbonization, the strategy eventually leads to a cul de sac. Natural gas is cleaner than coal (by roughly half, depending on how you measure methane leakage), but it’s still a fossil fuel. At least without CCS, it is incompatible with decarbonization beyond 60 percent or so.
If you build out a bunch of natural gas plants to get to 60 percent, then you’re stuck shutting them down to get past 60 percent.
It would be very difficult to strand all those assets. There would be a lot of resistance. It’s just one example of path dependence in energy — choices, once made, tend to perpetuate themselves through inertia. Leaning too heavily into natural gas in the next 20 years will make it more difficult to pull away in the subsequent 20.
Natural gas, you sweet, sweet siren. Shutterstock
Avoiding that cul de sac means thinking, beginning now, about how to replace all that natural gas with other balancing resources that don’t emit carbon.

The balancing act to achieve carbon-free electricity
Think of a carbon-free grid as a balance of two kinds of electricity resources, dispatchable and non-dispatchable.
As we noted earlier, non-dispatchable means VRE — on and offshore wind, solar PV, solar thermal, run-of-river hydro, anything based on weather — that can’t be turned on and off.
VRE can be made somewhat less variable by linking up resources over a wide geographical area with more transmission lines. Over a large enough area, it’s usually sunny or windy somewhere. But in a constrained grid, non-dispatchable resources generally need balancing out with dispatchable resources.
Dispatchable is a broad (and getting broader) category — it means anything that grid operators can use to actively manage the balance of electricity supply and demand.
There are three basic varieties:
  • Dispatchable supply, i.e., power plants — in the low-to-no carbon family, this includes nuclear (by far the most common, generating 11 percent of the world’s electricity as of 2012), fossil fuels with CCS, reservoir hydro, biomass (though it is controversial), and geothermal.
  • Dispatchable demand — increasingly, demand for power can be managed, either reduced or shifted to different parts of the day/week.
  • Energy storage — storage is interesting because, from a grid operator’s perspective, it can serve either as dispatchable demand (absorbing surplus VRE) or dispatchable supply (releasing energy during times of low VRE). And there are a growing number of ways to store energy. The oldest and highest capacity is pumped hydro, whereby water is pumped uphill to store energy and then run down through turbines to release it. (A company in the American West is attempting a dry-land variation of this, pushing giant blocks uphill on train tracks.) There are also batteries, which are getting cheaper. And beyond that power can be stored as heat (in, e.g., molten salt), as cold (in ice), or as hydrogen (long story). This is also an area of furious research.
Among these three categories, resources range from high capacity (enough power to cover demand for weeks or months) to low (hours or minutes) and from fast (able to respond instantly or in seconds) to slow (hours or days).

Train-and-giant-concrete-block-based energy storage. ARES
Each dispatchable resource will have slightly different value to grid operators, depending on conditions and time of day.
Big dispatchable supply sources can cover for VRE that’s unexpectedly low for weeks or even years.
Dispatchable demand is still in a nascent, rapidly developing phase, and at least for now it’s relatively slow and low capacity, but that will change; it will get fast, though how big is still an open question.
The biggest energy storage currently running (pumped hydro) can typically only cover a few hours of demand, but smaller storage can cover for hourly or minute-by-minute swings in VRE.
Here’s where we come up against the dispute. Will we need nuclear and CCS to provide balancing, or can we do it without them?

To nuke or not to nuke?
The folks at the Solutions Project claim that we can — and, on the basis of a full cost-benefit analysis that takes all environmental impacts into effect, should — balance out VRE without recourse to nuclear power or CCS. (Jacobson also excludes biomass, though several other 100 percenters disagree with him on that.)
Doing that will involve three things. One, VRE will have to be massively overbuilt. Because its “capacity factor” (the amount of time it’s running) is relatively low, to fully meet demand, total capacity will have to far exceed total demand, by multiples.
Two, transmission lines will have to be extended everywhere across the globe, to link VRE sources with demand and smooth out supply. And distribution grids will need to be upgraded. Quickly.
And three, remaining dispatchable resources — demand management, storage, hydro, maybe biomass — will have to be radically, radically scaled up. In particular, storage is going to have to grow exponentially.
On the other side of the dispute are people, many of whom are energy researchers, who simply don’t believe that the above scenario is feasible, or if it is, that it’s the most economic or effective way to get to zero carbon. They say nuclear and CCS should stay on the table.
The Kemper CCS project in Mississippi, now wildly overbudgetWikipedia

This is a heated and complex debate. I won’t presume to settle it, but in my next post I’ll get into some of the literature and the back and forth and try to draw some tentative conclusions.
For now, though, it’s enough to understand the shape of the problem, which is, after all, one of the core challenges facing humanity in the 21st century.

Links