14/04/2018

Avoid Gulf Stream Disruption At All Costs, Scientists Warn

The Guardian - 

How close the world is to a catastrophic collapse of giant ocean currents is unknown, making halting global warming more critical than ever, scientists say
Other research this week showed that Greenland’s massive ice cap is melting at the fastest rate for at least 450 years. Photograph: Nick Cobbing/Greenpeace
Serious disruption to the Gulf Stream ocean currents that are crucial in controlling global climate must be avoided “at all costs”, senior scientists have warned. The alert follows the revelation this week that the system is at its weakest ever recorded.
Past collapses of the giant network have seen some of the most extreme impacts in climate history, with western Europe particularly vulnerable to a descent into freezing winters. A significantly weakened system is also likely to cause more severe storms in Europe, faster sea level rise on the east coast of the US and increasing drought in the Sahel in Africa.
The new research worries scientists because of the huge impact global warming has already had on the currents and the unpredictability of a future “tipping point”.
The currents that bring warm Atlantic water northwards towards the pole, where they cool, sink and return southwards, is the most significant control on northern hemisphere climate outside the atmosphere. But the system, formally called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc), has weakened by 15% since 1950, thanks to melting Greenland ice and ocean warming making sea water less dense and more buoyant.
This represents a massive slowdown – equivalent to halting all the world’s rivers three times over, or stopping the greatest river, the Amazon, 15 times. Such weakening has not been seen in at least the last 1,600 years, which is as far back as researchers have analysed so far. Furthermore, the new analyses show the weakening is accelerating.
Ocean circulation in the Atlantic is driven by
warm surface currents and cold deep-water return flows
Guardian graphic. Source: Nature
“From the study of past climate, we know changes in the Amoc have been some of the most abrupt and impactful events in the history of climate,” said Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and one of the world’s leading oceanographers, who led some of the new research. During the last Ice Age, winter temperatures changed by up to 10C within three years in some places.
“We are dealing with a system that in some aspects is highly non-linear, so fiddling with it is very dangerous, because you may well trigger some surprises,” he said. “I wish I knew where this critical tipping point is, but that is unfortunately just what we don’t know. We should avoid disrupting the Amoc at all costs. It is one more reason why we should stop global warming as soon as possible.”
Oceanographer Peter Spooner, at University College London, shares the concern: “The extent of the changes we have discovered comes as a surprise to many, including myself, and points to significant changes in the future.”
A collapse in the Amoc would mean far less heat reaching western Europe and plunge the region into very severe winters, the kind of scenario depicted in an extreme fashion in the movie The Day After Tomorrow. A widespread collapse of deep-sea ecosystems has also been seen in the past.
But as the Amoc weakens, it might actually increase summer heatwaves. That is because it takes time for the cooling of the northern waters to also cause cooling over the adjacent lands. However, the cooler waters affect the atmosphere in a way that helps warm air to flood into Europe from the south, a situation already seen in 2015.
Other new research this week showed that Greenland’s massive ice cap is melting at the fastest rate for at least 450 years. This influx will continue to weaken the Amoc into the future until human-caused climate change is halted, but scientists do not not know how fast the weakening will be or when it reaches the point of collapse.
“Many people have tried to check that with computer models,” said Rahmstorf. “But they differ a lot because it depends on a very subtle balance of density – that is temperature and salinity distribution in the ocean. We are not able to model this with any confidence right now.”
“We are hoping to somehow make some headway, but I have been in this area for more than 20 years now and we still don’t understand why the models differ so much in the sensitivity of the Amoc,” he said.
However, Rahmstorf said the international climate deal agreed in 2015 offers some hope if its ambition is increased and achieved: “If we can keep the temperature rise to well below 2C as agreed in the Paris agreement, I think we run a small risk of crossing this collapse tipping point.”

Links
at No comments:

The Shipping Industry Is Finally Going To Cut Its Climate Change Emissions. That’s A Big Deal.

Washington Post - Chris Mooney

Shipping containers and cranes April 6 at the Port of Newark, one of the largest ports in the United States, in Elizabeth, N.J. (Justin Lane/EPA-EFE)
Member nations of the United Nations body charged with regulating shipping on the high seas adopted a first-ever strategy Friday to blunt the sector’s large contribution to climate change — bringing another major constituency on board in the international quest to cap the planet’s warming well below an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
The strategy embraced by a committee of the International Maritime Organization would lower emissions from container ships, oil tankers, bulk carriers and other vessels by at least 50 percent by the year 2050 vs. where they stood in 2008. The group also said that emissions from shipping should reach a peak, and begin to decline, as soon as possible.
“IMO remains committed to reducing GHG emissions from international shipping and, as a matter of urgency, aims to phase them out as soon as possible in this century,” the group said.
But the United States “reserve[d]” its position on the strategy, with Coast Guard official Jeffrey Lantz, who headed the delegation to the London deliberations, saying that the country views “the establishment of an absolute reduction target as premature.”
The United States also objected to how responsibilities would be divided between developed and developing countries, and expressed “serious concern about how this document was developed and finalized.”
Shipping in recent years has been responsible for about 800 million tons annually of carbon dioxide emissions, according to Dan Rutherford, the marine and aviation program director of the International Council on Clean Transportation, who was in attendance for the deliberations in London this week. That means shipping’s emissions are 2.3 percent of the global total.
“If you counted it as a country, it would be the sixth-largest source of CO2 emissions,” said Rutherford, noting that 800 million tons of annual emissions is comparable to emissions from Germany.
And ships, by burning heavy fuel oil, create not only carbon dioxide emissions but also significant emissions of black carbon, or soot. Black carbon is a short-lived but powerful climate-change driver.
Moreover, if nothing is done to halt emissions growth in the industry, emissions are projected to continue to grow, and shipping would burn up a significant share of the remaining global carbon emissions allowable under the Paris climate agreement — releasing as much as 101 billion tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions between now and 2075, according to an analysis by Rutherford’s organization.
(International Council on Clean Transportation)
“The world’s shipping industry has now, for the first time, defined its commitment to tackle climate change, bringing it closer in-line with the Paris Agreement,” Tristan Smith, an expert on shipping and energy at the University College London energy institute, said in a statement.
Shipping and aviation are two major greenhouse-gas-producing sectors that have sat rather uncomfortably in the context of the global push to cut emissions under the Paris climate agreement.
Both sectors are very difficult to decarbonize, since they rely on energy-dense fuels to allow ships or planes to travel great distances without stopping.
Meanwhile, since the sectors have major international components, they are not the responsibility of any single country to regulate as part of a domestic climate-change strategy. Instead, addressing their role in climate change has fallen to United Nations bodies such as the IMO and the International Civil Aviation Organization.
Yet despite the ambition of the current strategy for shipping, Rutherford’s group’s analysis shows that it may not be strong enough. The group says that to be consistent with the Paris agreement, shipping should emit no more than 17 billion tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions from 2015 onward but that the current agreement implies emissions between 28 billion and 43 billion tons. (No action at all, meanwhile, could have meant 101 billion tons.)
Groups that were pushing for something stronger included small island nations, which have the most to lose if warming exceeds 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, since sea-level rise for these countries could be devastating.
The Baltic and International Maritime Council, the world’s biggest shipping consortium, celebrated the agreement.
“IMO has done something no one has done before: set an absolute target for emission reductions for an entire industry. It is a landmark achievement in the effort to reduce emissions, and something that every other industry should look to for inspiration,” Lars Robert Pedersen, the group’s deputy secretary general, said in a statement.
For shipping to decarbonize, current fuel oils would have to be replaced by biofuels or, perhaps  ultimately, hydrogen or batteries. But such innovations so far are being tested only in smaller ships, rather than the largest vessels, Rutherford said.
“The largest container ships use a tremendous amount of energy. They’re going to be harder to electrify or put hydrogen in,” he said.
A large emphasis will also certainly be placed on more energy-efficient designs to maximize the work performed by current fuels.
The current document is referred to as an “initial strategy.” But from here, IMO is expected to move ahead with regulations for global shipping that will gradually require these carbon-saving changes to the industry. Those could include mandatory energy-efficiency requirements, speed limits or other measures.

Links
at No comments:

New Zealand Cites Climate Change In Banning New Offshore Drilling

New York Times - Charlotte Graham-McLay

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand said that she hoped the country’s electricity system would rely completely on renewable energy sources by 2035. Pool photo by Dean Lewins
WELLINGTON, New Zealand — New Zealand will stop issuing permits for offshore oil and gas exploration as it moves to combat climate change, the government announced Thursday, but it stopped short of halting exploration already underway.
The move provoked bitter responses from the petroleum industry, which said that New Zealand would be forced to rely on more expensive imports.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the move was part of the country’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to global warming.
“When it comes to climate change, our plan is clear,” said Ms. Ardern, a member of the center-left Labor Party. “We are committed to the goal of becoming a net zero emissions economy by 2050.”
Ms. Ardern said she hoped New Zealand’s electricity system would rely completely on renewable energy sources by 2035.
The government said it would allow the existing 22 active offshore permits, covering more than 38,000 square miles, to run until their expiration, which is “as far out as 2030.”
Companies that find more oil and gas reserves where they already have permits could drill for decades, and new onshore permits could be issued.
The Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand criticized the government for not consulting the industry, saying that alternative energy sources were not yet ready to meet demand and that oil would have to be imported from other countries at a higher cost.
“The decision is a lose-lose for New Zealand’s economy and environment, likely to threaten jobs and mean higher prices for consumers,” said Cameron Madgwick, the association’s chairman.
The mayor of New Plymouth, the largest city in Taranaki, the area where the country’s oil and gas exploration is concentrated, called the decision “a kick in the guts” for the regional economy.
“This announcement sends a message to some of Taranaki’s major investors and employers that they do not have a long-term future in New Zealand,” Mayor Neil Holdom said.
Simon Bridges, the leader of the center-right National Party, New Zealand’s main opposition party, said on Twitter that the decision to end oil and gas exploration was “a wrecking ball” that could only hurt the country.
IMAGE
The government said that “no current jobs” would be lost, as it was “honoring all agreements with current permit holders.”
Government figures show that in New Zealand’s crude oil production declined in 2016 to the lowest level in a decade, and spending on production had fallen in line with a global drop in prices stemming from the shale revolution in the United States.
New Zealand imports more oil than it exports, and it is a small player on the world stage, with industry figures putting the value of exports at $1.1 billion a year.
A page on the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise website — a government agency that promotes international trade and economic development — says the government’s aim is “to increase the value of New Zealand petroleum exports tenfold” by 2025.
In Australia, plans to drill for natural gas offshore in the Great Australian Bight, known as Australia’s Galápagos, have drawn criticism from the fishing and tourism industries, which the potential of a spill is too great a risk.

Links
at No comments:

Coal Industry Grapples With Change And The Challenges Of Transition

ABC News - Ben Deacon

More coal is exported from Newcastle than any other port. (AAP: Dean Lewins, file photo)
When AGL CEO Andy Vesey announced a new project to convert brown coal to liquid hydrogen in Victoria's Latrobe Valley this week, transition was on his lips.
"As we transition to cleaner technologies," Mr Vesey said, "this project may spark a reinvigoration of Latrobe Valley's energy industry by generating a competitive edge in a new market."
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull launched the hydrogen trial at Loy Yang in Victoria's east. (ABC Gippsland: Emma Field)
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was also talking transition.
"It is critically important that we invest in energy sources of the future and that we affect the transition from older forms of [energy] generation to new forms of generation and we do so seamlessly.
"Getting the transition right is critically important," he said.
The Federal and Victorian Governments are providing $100 million towards the cost of the trial.
Mr Vesey has been staring down the Federal Government in recent weeks over AGL's plans to decommission the Liddell power station in 2022.
AGL is Australia's largest owner of coal fired power stations and Australia's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. It is also the most vocal of the big coal industry companies about transitioning out of coal.
"As Australia transitions to a carbon constrained future, creating new sources of prosperity and growth in communities which host conventional coal power stations is a critical priority," Mr Vesey said this week.
The day before, Minister for the Environment and Energy Josh Frydenberg touched on the issue of transition as he talked about the challenge of integrating climate and energy policy.
"The question is this," Mr Frydenberg said.
"How do we establish a policy framework that manages the transition; achieves the objectives of lower prices, higher reliability and lower emissions; and provides constancy and consistency through political cycles?"

New coal tax proposal
At a conference on coal transition in Canberra this week, a new tax on coal was proposed to help communities adjust to a downturn in coal production.
One of the co-authors of the proposal is Professor Frank Jotzo, the director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at the Australian National University.
He said there was every possibility of rapidly declining coal demand in the coming decades.
"It's important to help the industry overall and the regions where the industries play a large role to adjust to that," Professor Jotzo said in the leadup to Coal transitions: a symposium on current research, run by the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific.
"We're looking at the economic and social aspects of the problem," he said.
Frank Jotzo is a Professor at the Australian National University's Crawford School of Public Policy. (Supplied)
"We're not framing this as a moral or ethical challenge. In our investigation of a possible coal tax, we've put those things aside and simply looked at the economic self-interest of Australia and other coal exporters."
The proposal examined the effects of taxing Australian coal exports by about $US18 ($23) a tonne, predicting the tax could raise up to $US16 billion ($20.5 billion) by 2035.
The proposal also looked at what would happen if the world's four biggest coal exporters — Australia, Indonesia, South Africa and Columbia, all applied an export tax.
In this case, global carbon dioxide emissions could drop and a collective $US125 billion ($160.2 billion) could be raised over the next 20 years.
Finally, the study looked at what would happen if the big four coal exporters put a tax on production, estimating that could raise a collective $US266 billion ($340.9 billion).
But in the wake of Australia's last short-lived carbon tax, the authors of the proposal admit that questions remained over whether coal taxes by major suppliers would be politically feasible, even if they could yield economic benefits.

Politicians at odds over a coal transition
Two weeks ago, Resources Minister Matt Canavan said he found it highly objectionable to talk about people's loss of jobs and livelihood as a transition.
"Let's be frank, that's a euphemistic term," Mr Canavan said.
"That's a term to try to hide what will be the real impacts of that happening.
"For many thousands of businesses and people in central Queensland and north Queensland and in the Hunter Valley, it won't be a transition, it'll be utter heartache for them and their families."
Resources Minister Matt Canavan says Australia's mining boom is far from over. (ABC News: Adam Kennedy)
Labor's climate change spokesman Mark Butler said unions and non-government organisations lobbied very hard at the Paris Climate Conference in 2015 to include the term "just transition" in the agreement.
"Malcolm Turnbull and other governments lobbied to try to exclude that commitment but thankfully they were unsuccessful," he said.
Mr Butler agreed with Professor Jotzo that Australian workers needed a just and orderly transition to a clean energy economy.
"What hurts workers and communities most are unplanned, ad-hoc closures that don't come with well thought out government support," Mr Butler said.

Australian coal exports could actually rise by 2040
A coal loader at the Port of Newcastle. (Supplied)
Policy decisions made at this week's COAG Energy Council meeting could affect the future of Australia's domestic coal demand.
But the majority of Australia's coal production is exported.
So the need for a coal transition depends in part on whether Australia's international coal customers keep buying.
To put domestic and export coal volumes in perspective, AGL's Liddell power station burned about 4 million tonnes of coal last year, judging by emissions figures.
A view of Lake Liddell with the Liddell power station reflected in the background. (Wikimedia Commons)
Australia exports that much coal about every four days. Australia exports nearly 400 million tonnes of coal a year.
All of Australia's coal export customers have signed the Paris Agreement, which requires them to take action to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
According to Adam Walters, the principal researcher of consultancy Energy Resource Insights, Australia exports more than a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year in coal, gas and oil exports, making Australia the world's third biggest exporter of carbon pollution.
He said only Russia and Saudi Arabia exported more carbon dioxide in fossil fuel exports. For Australia, the vast majority of that carbon is from coal.

Despite the Paris Agreement and the carbon risk to Australia's coal exports, the benchmark International Energy Agency (IEA) World Energy Outlook last year predicted Australian coal exports could actually increase from 360 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) to 425 Mtce by 2040.
The outlook predicted that Australia could expand its exports by 19 per cent over the coming 25 years.
Quoting IEA figures, Resources Minister Matt Canavan said Australia had no need to prepare for a coal transition because the export business to Asia would stay strong for decades.
"Far from a market in structural decline, demand for thermal coal has been accelerating, at a pace never seen before," he said.
However, a recent report from consultants McKinsey and Company questions that view. The report found that the acceleration of cost declines in renewables over the next 30 years could halve coal demand for power in China and India. The fall in demand could lead to lower thermal coal exports from Australia.
There is no consensus on the outlook for Australia's coal export industry. Mr Canavan summed up the fraught business of coal forecasting when he said "the only accurate forecast is probably that every forecast will be wrong".

World's biggest coal port plans a transition beyond coal
Stockpiles of coal from the Hunter Valley's mines are organised near the shores of the port. (ABC Newcastle: Robert Virtue)
Newcastle, the world's biggest coal port, exports an average 160 million tonnes a year, but the new boss is already thinking of diversifying out.
The Port of Newcastle's new chairman Roy Green said that there would be an inevitable transition to renewable energy sources around the world.
"So we have to be prepared for that," he said.
Chairman of the Port of Newcastle, Roy Green. (Supplied: Port of Newcastle)
"We're not going to change the port's business model overnight. We're committed to our coal customers and we will continue to export our very high quality thermal coal while customers internationally want to buy it.
"While committed to coal export, while the prospects exist maybe for another decade, two decades, we can't be sure. We also have to pursue in parallel a diversification strategy."
The Port of Newcastle wants to move into container shipments, which are currently dominated in New South Wales by Sydney's Port Botany.
"That will contribute to the growth of the Hunter region, which in the past was very dependent on primary commodities, but is increasingly taking up the challenge to a more knowledge based economy," Mr Green said.

Links
at No comments: