tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18431930205509227922024-03-13T12:50:53.764-07:00Geoengineering PoliticsJosh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.comBlogger231125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-46678825049288557912014-10-30T15:37:00.000-07:002014-10-30T15:37:45.168-07:00CCS in the New EU 2030 Climate FrameworkThe EU's new 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policies, which among other things <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/world/eu-greenhouse-gas-deal-falls-short-of-expectations.html">commits Europe to cut carbon emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030</a>, includes a <a href="http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/news/institute-updates/financing-ccs-included-eu%E2%80%99s-2030-climate-framework">renewal of the NER300 facility</a>. A new, expanded version will see its endowment increased to 400 million ETS allowances, and funding will now be available to industry applicants. The UK White Rose CCS Project won 300 million euros in financial support under a previous round of NER300 funding.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-8335732159184433052014-09-09T13:25:00.000-07:002014-09-09T13:25:34.828-07:00Twitter FeedFor those interested, please note that I have begun maintaining a companion Twitter feed <a href="https://twitter.com/joshuahorton533">@joshuahorton533</a>. I will continue to post longer blog entries here on occasion, but will use Twitter for shorter updates.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-64608826916782139542014-08-21T07:19:00.000-07:002014-08-21T07:19:43.035-07:00German Government News from CEC14There's plenty of politics going on here at CEC14 in Berlin. The only newsworthy bit, however, comes from Georg Schutte, State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. In welcoming remarks on Monday, Schutte stated that it was necessary to consider a "Plan B" in case mitigation and adaptation efforts prove insufficient. This makes <i>ethical</i> research on climate engineering essential. International regulation is also essential, but the UNFCCC is not the appropriate forum at present. The German government, according to Schutte, does not believe that geoengineering should be placed on the international political agenda right now, but is open to helping construct international "guardrails" for geoengineering research. Scientific research should focus on comprehensive risk assessments, feasible technologies, and demonstrable benefits. Overall, he said, the German government wants to encourage a serious discussion of climate engineering, but not "pave the way" for eventual deployment.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-17529578947656281742014-08-08T13:35:00.001-07:002014-08-08T13:35:56.441-07:00Stringent Conditions for Treating SRM as a Climate Emergency Response?<div>
Under what conditions is it appropriate to treat SRM as a possible response option in the event of a climate emergency? Given the risks involved, an abundance of caution is warranted. Here is my sketch of one potential decision tree. Thoughts?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkgI-G71CgCude-yS_HuBuLcPol1OE0bfpXAfS6wbnLkKq4uhIeIlJs9-csdqb0aO1s_5d0TE20qXVeO9TqibaSFDGYOfxy7Zb2ftyPAzclLSyvnnDwDZvkHGdNBBwEMQyv_fU5-qsdajk/s1600/Decision+Tree.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkgI-G71CgCude-yS_HuBuLcPol1OE0bfpXAfS6wbnLkKq4uhIeIlJs9-csdqb0aO1s_5d0TE20qXVeO9TqibaSFDGYOfxy7Zb2ftyPAzclLSyvnnDwDZvkHGdNBBwEMQyv_fU5-qsdajk/s1600/Decision+Tree.png" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-81010179033262982482014-06-03T09:24:00.000-07:002014-06-03T09:27:47.160-07:00Alternating Fortunes for CCSAt long last the EPA has released its <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/20140602proposal-cleanpowerplan.pdf">proposed rule</a> for existing fossil-fuel power plants, following up on its proposed rule for new fossil-fuel plants released last year (see <a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/09/epa-releases-revised-performance.html"><i>EPA Releases Revised Performance Standard Requiring CCS</i></a>, 9/23/13). Unlike the previous rule, yesterday's proposal does not call for mandatory CCS for coal-fired plants. Instead, EPA would allow states maximum flexibility in devising plans to meet new carbon pollution limits. EPA has prescribed state-specific CO2 goals which, if met collectively, would achieve a 30 percent reduction in power sector carbon emissions (relative to 2005 levels) by 2030.<br />
<br />
Some had hoped that EPA would require CCS retrofits for existing coal plants, but cost and other concerns led the agency to pursue a more flexible approach. Three new legislative proposals, however, would deliver some additional support to CCS. The <a href="http://www.heitkamp.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/de7bf292-1fcb-4639-b592-6670b57d824b/one-pager.pdf">Advanced Clean Coal Technology Investment in Our Nation (ACCTION) bill</a>, introduced by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), would provide an additional $2 billion in loan guarantees to CCS projects, increase the existing "45Q" tax credit for carbon sequestration to 30 percent, and create price supports for CO2 used in EOR.<br />
<br />
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has introduced his own <a href="http://www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=9692ddcd-adbd-46a6-ad1c-808f31988c4d">twin CCS bills</a>. The Carbon Capture and Sequestration Deployment Act would stabilize the 45Q sequestration tax credit, establish a new investment tax credit covering up to 30 percent of incremental CCS costs, and authorize an additional $20 billion in loan guarantees. The Expanding Carbon Capture through Enhanced Oil Recovery Act would expand and reform the 45Q tax credit to increase oil production and carbon sequestration via EOR, along lines recommended by the National EOR Initiative (NEORI) two years ago (see <a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/04/dac-and-eor.html"><i>DAC and EOR</i></a>, 4/22/12).Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-2924798238620965712014-04-22T10:59:00.000-07:002014-04-22T10:59:24.727-07:00IPCC Gives Major Boost to CDR, BECCSIPCC Working Group III released its AR5 report on mitigation last week, and one effect was to give a considerable boost to the visibility and credibility of CDR, in particular BECCS. It has been less than five years since the Royal Society report was released, and until recently CDR and BECCS were generally unknown acronyms. Yet now CDR methods have been incorporated into IPCC mitigation scenarios so deeply that, in the view of WGIII, achieving the 2C target (let alone 1.5C) is very difficult without reliance on negative emissions technologies (similar assumptions are now built into UK government scenarios.) It is worth quoting the <a href="http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf">Summary for Policymakers</a> discussion of CDR at some length:<br />
<br />
<i>Mitigation scenarios reaching about 450 ppm CO2eq in 2100 </i>[i.e., 2C]<i> typically involve temporary overshoot of atmospheric concentrations, as do many scenarios reaching about 500 ppm to 550 ppm CO2eq in 2100. Depending on the level of the overshoot, overshoot scenarios typically rely on the availability and widespread deployment of BECCS and afforestation in the second half of the century. The availability and scale of these and other Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies and methods are, to varying degrees, associated with challenges and risks … CDR is also prevalent in many scenarios without overshoot to compensate for residual emissions from sectors where mitigation is more expensive </i>(p. 15)<i>.</i><br />
<br />
As the summary notes, there are real risks associated with BECCS and other NETs, such as potential land-use and food security issues related to biomass cultivation. But there are serious risks associated with surpassing 450 ppm, arguably bigger risks than those connected to most CDR techniques. In the end, climate policy involves risk trade-offs, whether those trade-offs apply to mitigation, adaptation, geoengineering, or all three. The IPCC has done policy-makers a great service by emphasizing the significant risks entailed in <i>not</i> taking BECCS and other forms of CDR seriously.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-13732147799915466242014-02-13T06:30:00.000-08:002014-02-13T07:04:31.631-08:00Who Should Pay for Solar Geoengineering Liability?I have been conducting research on the problem of liability and compensation in the context of solar geoengineering, that is, how would the international community address damages resulting from large-scale testing or deployment of SRM? This is a multifaceted problem, and one of its most difficult aspects would be determining who should pay for such damages. One solution that has suggested itself is to set up an international compensation fund financed by the fossil fuel industry. Since any damages caused by SRM would essentially be the negative side effects of a response measure intended to remediate harms caused by excessive fossil fuel use, and fossil fuel companies have been the primary direct beneficiaries of this activity, it stands to reason that they should be the ones to pay for its cleanup. This is precisely how the international oil spill liability regime works--the International Oil Pollution Compensation (IOPC) Funds, financed exclusively by oil companies, have paid out more than $700 million in compensation since 1978, while the frequency and severity of oil spills have fallen dramatically.<br />
<br />
A recent report by Richard Heede titled <a href="http://carbonmajors.org/download-the-study/">Carbon Majors</a> identifies precisely who these fossil fuel companies are and how much climate damage they have contributed. Here is a table from the report listing the top twenty worst offenders:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEir7rcMwVVjpVouwAXUD0_NbYFpRwLP-DUjceyxjM92BfKtWDsCSTU5PF63gBYaBJ2GLiOUbCOMZwvy3sojYu1EqbF-jctzIUQJe7pe_BXq7rXS4eTSwo1Jz4jdSS8wvgZzd-cDe19GJ_h-/s1600/Untitled.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEir7rcMwVVjpVouwAXUD0_NbYFpRwLP-DUjceyxjM92BfKtWDsCSTU5PF63gBYaBJ2GLiOUbCOMZwvy3sojYu1EqbF-jctzIUQJe7pe_BXq7rXS4eTSwo1Jz4jdSS8wvgZzd-cDe19GJ_h-/s1600/Untitled.jpg" height="306" width="400" /></a></div>
This is hardly a definitive assessment of the carbon legacy of coal, oil, and gas producers, but it is a good start, and provides a valuable quantitative estimate of contributions to cumulative carbon and methane emissions. Such estimates could conceivably form the basis of formulas to determine "carbon major" contributions to a solar geoengineering liability compensation fund.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-8378447493340621422014-01-17T12:51:00.000-08:002014-01-17T12:51:17.342-08:00IPCC Acknowledges Likely Need for CDR, Al Gore UnloadsReuters and the New York Times have both obtained a draft version of the IPCC's third and final AR5 summary report on mitigation. According to news accounts, the draft summary recognizes the possible necessity of CDR in the future, noting that if the world breaches the 2C threshold, governments will probably need to "<a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/15/uk-climate-solutions-idUKBREA0E0ZK20140115">deploy CDR technologies to an extent that net global carbon dioxide emissions become negative</a>" this century.<br />
<br />
In a conference call with reports, Al Gore responded to the news by unleashing a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/15/geo-al-gore-engineering-climate-disaster-instant-solutio">torrent of invective</a> at geoengineering and those who support research into it. Here are some notable quotes:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Geoengineering would be "insane, utterly mad and delusional in the extreme."</li>
<li>"The fact that some scientists who should know better are actually engaged in serious discussion of those alternatives is a mark of how desperate some of them are feeling due to the paralysis in the global political system."</li>
<li>"The most discussed so-called geoengineering proposals - like putting sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere to reflect incoming sunlight - that's just insane. Let's just describe that clearly - it is utterly mad."</li>
<li>"We are already engaged in a planet-wide experiment with consequences we can already tell are unpleasant for the future of humanity. So the hubris involved in thinking we can come up with a second planet-wide experiment that would exactly counteract the first experiment is delusional in the extreme."</li>
</ul>
<div>
This is disappointing. In the first place, Gore has the basic facts wrong--SRM would not "exactly counteract" global warming. No researchers argue this, in fact they emphasize that this is not possible and trade-offs would be inevitable. His statement that researchers "should know better" comes across as patronizing and insulting to the many excellent scientists working in this field. And using words like "insane," "mad," and "delusional" drags the debate into the gutter. Those searching for solutions to the climate crisis deserve better than this.</div>
<br />
<br />Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-4158222053069130472013-11-29T12:18:00.000-08:002013-11-29T12:20:15.736-08:00Quick Recap of COP19 from a Geoengineering PerspectiveCOP19 in Warsaw has come to its merciful conclusion, with little of significance to report from a geoengineering perspective. CCS was entirely absent from the agenda. While there was some progress on finalizing financial and institutional aspects of REDD, nothing substantial regarding afforestation or reforestation was achieved. The most meaningful outcome of the COP was an agreement among parties to "initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined contributions" prior to COP21 in Paris in 2015, where a legal accord governing mitigation for the post-2020 period is scheduled to be adopted. These "contributions" (weaker than the "commitments" previously agreed at COP17 in Durban) will be determined solely on a national basis, freeing developed and developing countries alike from any binding emissions reduction targets negotiated at the international level. The general weakening of ambition represented by COP19 unfortunately makes an eventual turn to SRM more likely.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-34345312440758202332013-11-10T05:59:00.000-08:002013-11-10T05:59:04.607-08:00Carbon Credits Awarded to Moldova Afforestation ProjectTwo weeks ago, the <a href="https://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=Projport&ProjID=35579">Moldova Community Forestry Development Project</a>, an afforestation project supported by the World Bank's BioCarbon Fund, was awarded 328,809 temporary Certified Emission Credits (tCERs). (tCERs are carbon credits issued by the CDM for afforestation and reforestation projects.) This Moldova A/R project, implemented by the National Forest Agency of Moldova (Moldsilva), has planted trees on 10,000 hectares of previously degraded land. In addition to carbon storage, project benefits include landscape restoration, soil conservation, and economic opportunities through sustainable forestry.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-1904887050693273502013-10-26T05:58:00.000-07:002013-10-26T06:02:39.222-07:00Cool Planet Launches Biochar Product for Commercial TrialsCool Planet Energy Systems, the pioneering biofuel/biochar startup, has <a href="http://www.coolplanet.com/sites/default/files/docs/Cool_Planet_Announces_Launch_of_Cool_Terra_Biochar_Soil_Amendment.pdf">officially launched</a> its patented Cool Terra biochar product for use in commercial agricultural trials. Field trials have already been conducted in California, and the company now intends to undertake a wider set of commercial trials in anticipation of a full market release sometime next year. Cool Planet envisions a nationwide network of local pyrolysis stations utilizing cellulosic biomass to produce carbon-negative gasoline and biochar soil amendments. The Cool Terra rollout was announced at the 2013 North American Biochar Symposium held earlier this month in Amherst, Massachusetts.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-65638255958126095642013-10-20T07:43:00.000-07:002013-10-20T07:43:38.167-07:00London Protocol Adopts Amendments to Regulate All Marine GeoengineeringLast Friday, parties to the London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP) on ocean dumping <a href="http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/45-marine-geoengieneering.aspx">formally adopted amendments</a> which would establish a new "positive list" of marine geoengineering techniques that could be permitted under the Protocol, subject to a test of scientific legitimacy using tailored "Assessment Frameworks." The amendments are a slightly modified version of a proposal originally put forward by Australia, Nigeria, and South Korea in May (see <i><a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-london-protocol-proposal-to.html">New London Protocol Proposal to Regulate Marine Geoengineering</a></i>, 5/18). Like that earlier proposal, the amendments as adopted include only ocean fertilization on the initial positive list, with provision for the addition of other marine geoengineering methods.<br />
<br />
The amendments represent an expansion of scope for the LC/LP beyond its current sole focus on ocean fertilization to possibly encompass other techniques such as enhanced weathering or microbubbles. Furthermore, as <i>amendments</i> rather than <i>resolutions</i> (the official status of all previous ocean fertilization provisions), these new rules, if they enter into force, would be legally binding on consenting parties rather than strictly voluntary. The amendments will enter into force 60 days after two-thirds of the Contracting Parties deliver an "instrument of acceptance." The amendments were adopted at the 35th meeting of the LC and the 8th meeting of the LP, held jointly in London.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-78393399684489279672013-10-08T14:11:00.000-07:002013-10-08T14:11:48.519-07:00First Evidence Indicates Minimal Political Fallout from EPA CCS StandardTwo weeks after the EPA released a proposed emissions performance standard that would require CCS for all new coal-fired power plants (see <i><a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/09/epa-releases-revised-performance.html">EPA Releases Revised Performance Standard Requiring CCS</a></i>, 9/23), initial evidence suggests that the political fallout for Democrats is minimal. The new standard and the supposed "war on coal" being waged by the Obama Administration have become a flashpoint in the Virginia governor's race between Democrat Terry McAuliffe, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton confidante, and Republican Ken Cuccinelli, the state's Attorney General. Southwest Virginia is coal country, leading McAuliffe to evade questions about the standard in the days following EPA's announcement. When he finally <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/after-hedging-mcauliffe-says-for-first-time-he-supports-epa-rules-on-coal-fired-plants/2013/10/01/42075002-2ab4-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html">expressed support</a>, Cuccinelli went on the attack and accused McAuliffe of hostility toward Virginia's coal industry.<br />
<br />
A <a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2013/10/07/virginiapoll100713.html">new poll</a> of 1,150 likely voters commissioned by Politico shows that the issue has failed to catch fire among the state electorate. In response to the question, "Do you support or oppose new Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, regulations on coal-fired power plants aimed at curtailing climate change?," 45% of respondents expressed support, 33% were opposed, and 22% were unsure. Predictably, support was high among Democrats (67%) and low among Republicans (21%), while independents were 44% in favor, 36% opposed, and 19% unsure. These results are largely mirrored in overall voter preferences, with 44% of respondents supporting McAuliffe, 35% supporting Cuccinelli, and 12% supporting Libertarian Robert Sarvis (in a hypothetical two-man match-up 52% of respondents prefer McAuliffe compared to 42% for Cuccinelli). Cuccinelli is demonstrably suffering from voter dissatisfaction with the Republican-led shutdown of the federal government, which affects Virginia disproportionately given the state's high number of government employees and large federal presence.<br />
<br />Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-36764293540279939082013-09-27T11:06:00.000-07:002013-09-27T11:06:03.423-07:00IPCC WGI Gives Impartial Consideration to GeoengineeringThis morning, IPCC Working Group I (WGI) released its highly anticipated AR5 <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf">Summary for Policymakers</a> on the physical science basis of climate change. The final paragraph of the report considers geoengineering:<br />
<br />
<i>Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system. CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale. Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification. If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and SRM methods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale.</i> (p. 21)<br />
<br />
This is a relatively balanced statement, justifiably skeptical but neither implacably opposed nor enthusiastically supportive. Language favorably disposed toward geoengineering, which the Guardian newspaper claimed was being pushed by the Russian delegation in a story last week (see <a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/09/russia-pushing-ipcc-wgi-to-recognize.html"><i>Russia Pushing IPCC WGI to Recognize Geoengineering as Policy Option?</i></a>, 9/20), is nowhere to be found. (The Guardian report did, however, provide vocal geoengineering critic Clive Hamilton the opportunity to draw an intimate connection between climate engineering and the predatory Russian state in a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/24/why-geoengineering-suits-russias-carbon-agenda">follow-on essay</a>.) The IPCC will take up geoengineering at greater length when Working Group III (WGIII) on mitigation finalizes its contributions to AR5 next April in Berlin.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-32117298153590216762013-09-26T06:09:00.001-07:002013-09-26T06:09:13.039-07:00Norway Scraps MongstadThe outgoing government of Norway has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24183443">halted carbon capture operations</a> at the Mongstad CCS demonstration facility, which opened to great fanfare just last year (see <i><a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/06/more-on-mongstad.html">More on Mongstad</a></i>, 6/1/12). Cost overruns and schedule delays were given as the reasons. "At both the national and international level, the development of technologies to capture and store CO2 has taken longer, been more difficult and costly than expected," said Oil and Energy Minister Ola Borten Moe. Mongstad's closing serves to underline the point that, absent a significant price on carbon, the business case for CCS is very weak, and demonstration and deployment will likely continue at an anemic pace. Performance standards, as laid out in new and upcoming EPA regulations on power plant carbon emissions, offer a promising (if blunt) way around this enduring market failure.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-79727603795867053112013-09-23T14:34:00.001-07:002013-09-23T14:34:38.758-07:00EPA Releases Revised Performance Standard Requiring CCSLast Friday, the <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/da9640577ceacd9f85257beb006cb2b6!OpenDocument">EPA released</a> a <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/20130920proposal.pdf">revised New Source Performance Standard (NSPS)</a> intended to regulate CO2 emissions from new fossil fuel-fired power plants. The EPA issued its initial draft standard in March 2012, which called for limiting power plant emissions to a maximum 1,000 pounds of CO2 per MWh of electricity generated per facility (see <a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/05/calls-intensify-for-more-global-action.html"><i>Calls Intensify for More Global Action on CCS</i></a>, 5/16/12). After a year of pushback from the coal industry (see <i><a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/07/epa-advancing-ccs-rule-for-new-power.html">EPA Advancing CCS Rule for New Power Plants</a></i>, 7/5), EPA decided to split the standard in two, with one rule applicable to most natural gas plants and another to coal plants. Specifically, large (i.e., greater than 850 mmBtu per hour) new gas-fired turbines, which are inherently cleaner than coal-fired plants, would remain subject to the 1,000 pounds CO2 per MWh rule, but new coal-fired units would be limited to a slightly less rigorous standard of 1,100 pounds CO2 per MWh. This would effectively require all new coal plants to be equipped with CCS. (Small new gas plants would also be limited to 1,100 pounds CO2, while coal plants would have the additional option of meeting a marginally tighter but more flexible standard of 1,000-1,050 pounds CO2 per MWh averaged over seven years.)<br />
<br />
The coal lobby and its political backers have responded to EPA's revised proposal by accusing the Obama Administration of waging a "war on coal." With mid-term elections coming next year, Republicans will attempt to use this issue against their Democratic opponents in states with significant coal operations, in particular West Virginia and Kentucky. On the eve of the rule's release, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who is up for re-election in 2014, began the counterattack by declaring that "<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/coal-barack-obama-epa-greenhouse-gas-emissions-97104.html">The President is leading a war on coal and what that really means for Kentucky families is a war on jobs.</a>" Coal companies themselves will blame the proposed rule for their industry's declining fortunes, despite the fact that coal has been steadily losing market share for years largely due to the flood of cheap natural gas made available by hydraulic fracturing techniques.<br />
<br />
Environmentalists, meanwhile, view the revised NSPS as the prelude to a much larger battle to come next year, when the EPA will unveil a new performance standard for existing power plants, for which the economic stakes are substantially higher. The proposed standard for existing plants will be issued no later than June 1, 2014. The current, revised standard for new plants is now subject to a 60 day comment period, and, depending on the outcome of possible court challenges, could take effect as early as fall of next year.<br />
<br />
From the perspective of geoengineering, the promulgation of this revised standard is very encouraging. Most importantly, it will help reduce emissions from the coal industry. If new coal plants cannot comply with the new requirements, then they will not be built. If they can comply, then the construction of new coal-fired plants with CCS systems will almost certainly contribute to declining costs across all segments of the CCS chain, valuable practical experience through "learning by doing," and enhanced preparation for extending CCS to industrial facilities. And these gains will in turn accelerate the development of BECCS and the transport and storage dimensions of direct air capture (DAC). Realizing such benefits, however, will depend entirely on the legal wrangling and political maneuvering to follow in the months ahead.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-45668277440161900292013-09-20T10:11:00.000-07:002013-09-20T10:15:23.208-07:00Russia Pushing IPCC WGI to Recognize Geoengineering as Policy Option?The Guardian newspaper is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/19/russia-un-climate-report-geoengineering">reporting</a> that Russian negotiators are pushing for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I (WGI) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the physical science basis of climate change, due to be finalized next week in Stockholm, to acknowledge the potential role of geoengineering as a response to climate change. According to documents the Guardian claims to have seen, Russia has suggested the report's conclusion state that a "possible solution of this [climate change] problem can be found in using [sic] geoengineering methods to stabilize current climate." These documents also reportedly indicate that geoengineering research is currently being conducted by Russian scientists.<br />
<br />
The Guardian continues by quoting Silvia Ribeiro of the ETC Group:<br />
<br />
<i>We have been warning that a few geoengineering advocates have been trying to hijack the IPCC for their agenda. We are now seeing a deliberate attempt to exploit the high profile and credibility of this body to create more mainstream support for extreme climate engineering. The public and policymakers need to be on guard against being steamrollered into accepting dangerous and immoral interventions with our planet, which are a false solution to climate change. Geoengineering should be banned by the UN general assembly.</i><br />
<br />
The story ends by claiming that Sweden, Norway, and Germany have expressed discomfort with Russia's proposal, with German negotiators noting that "The information on geoengineering options is too optimistic as it does not appropriately reflect the current lack of knowledge or the high risks associated with such methods."<br />
<br />
While all these facts may be accurate, it is important to bear in mind that not only has the Guardian kept these leaked documents from public view, it also has a history of very bad reporting on geoengineering (for example, see <a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/07/more-questionable-reporting-from.html"><i>More Questionable Reporting from the Guardian</i></a>, 7/19/12). The Guardian also has a barely concealed working relationship with the ETC Group, which long ago erased any semblance of objective, unbiased reporting by its journalists on the subject of geoengineering (for example, see <i><a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/10/oif-accusations-fly-at-cbd-cop11.html">OIF Accusations Fly at CBD COP11</a></i>, 10/17/12). Hopefully more information from alternative sources will come to light over the next few days to provide a fuller picture of what is happening.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-45777602779486238452013-09-16T06:26:00.000-07:002013-09-16T06:26:41.623-07:00China Scaling Up Weather ModificationChina's main weather modification agency, the China Meteorological Administration (CMA), is undertaking a <a href="http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/202936/8389975.html">national plan</a> to increase the scale and coordination of rain and snow enhancement, hail suppression, and fog dispersal programs across the country. Under this new, more systematic framework, weather modification activities will be organized along regional lines, with six major regions coordinated by a central interprovincial body. The northeast, central, and southeast regions will seek to maximize the wheat harvest, the northwest region will focus on "environmental protection," the southwest region will promote agriculture and hydropower, and the northern region will aim to increase water supplies. Overall, the government intends to increase annual precipitation by 60 billion metric tons and expand hail suppression to cover more than 540,000 square kilometers between now and 2020.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-15091913552583811102013-09-13T06:55:00.002-07:002013-09-13T06:55:51.657-07:00Britain's Astronomer Royal Joins Calls for More ResearchBritain's official Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, has added his voice to recent calls for more research into geoengineering (for example, see <i><a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/08/gore-down-suzuki-in-middle-on.html">Gore Down, Suzuki in the Middle on Geoengineering</a></i>, 8/26). Lord Rees, a former president of the Royal Society and current professor of cosmology at Cambridge University, made his appeal in <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/11/astronomer-royal-global-warming-lord-rees">closing remarks delivered at the British Science Festival</a> in Newcastle on Thursday. Research is warranted, Rees declared, due to the risks posed by global warming: "If the effect [of heightened CO2 levels] is strong, and the world consequently seems on a rapidly warming trajectory into dangerous territory, there may be a pressure for 'panic measures' ... These would have to involve a 'Plan B' - being fatalistic about continuing dependence on fossil fuels, but combating its effects by some form of geoengineering." But Rees was careful to underscore the serious problems that would accompany any turn to geoengineering: "Geoengineering would be an utter political nightmare: not all nations would want to adjust the thermostat the same way." The position of Astronomer Royal, while honorary, is very prestigious, and Rees' comments will likely carry some weight among the broader public.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-79722038479105240812013-09-04T05:58:00.001-07:002013-09-04T05:58:59.766-07:00Germany Passes CCS LawAfter a long delay, the German parliament has <a href="http://www.dw.de/uncertainty-lingers-on-new-carbon-capture-law/a-16064312">passed a law</a> permitting a limited number of CCS pilot projects to go forward. Early versions of the bill would have allowed underground storage of up to 3 million tons of CO2, but the final text adopted by the Bundestag and Bundesrat allows for only 1.3 million tons of carbon storage. The ruling coalition of Christian Democrats and Free Democrats carried the measure over the objections of the Greens and the Left party, while the opposition Social Democrats abstained from voting. Importantly, the new law permits individual states to prohibit underground carbon storage within their jurisdictions. Mecklenburg-West Pomerania currently prohibits CCS, and Schleswig-Holstein is considering a ban.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-24840259032871339152013-08-30T05:56:00.000-07:002013-08-30T05:56:37.882-07:00Switzerland Officially Approves BiocharSwitzerland has become the first European country to officially approve the use of biochar in agriculture. In April, the <a href="http://www.ithaka-journal.net/schweiz-bewilligt-pflanzenkohle-zur-bodenverbesserung?lang=en">Federal Ministry of Agriculture issued formal clearance</a> for biochar production and application under a detailed regulatory framework. Producers wishing to sell biochar require approval from the Swiss-based nonprofit Delinat Institute, which is administratively responsible for quality control and production oversight. Delinat Institute approval, in turn, requires producers to obtain a European Biochar Certificate (EBC-Certificate), issued solely by the independent q.inspecta certification body. For now, only untreated wood may be used as biochar feedstock, but other sources will be considered and possibly authorized over the next three years. At that point, the government plans to add biochar to the official List of Approved Fertilizers. Although Switzerland is not part of the EU, it is hoped that this carefully defined new system will encourage greater regulatory clarity and boost biochar market growth throughout Europe.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-36328679811516487052013-08-26T14:29:00.000-07:002013-08-26T14:29:18.984-07:00Gore Down, Suzuki in the Middle on GeoengineeringIn a new <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/21/al-gore-explains-why-hes-optimistic-about-stopping-global-warming/">interview</a> with the Washington Post, former Vice President and prominent climate campaigner Al Gore offers his candid view on geoengineering. In response to a general question on the subject, Gore declares that geoengineering is<br />
<br />
<i>complex because there are some benign geoengineering proposals like white roofs or efforts to figure out a way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere, though no one has figured out how to do that yet. But the geoengineering options most often discussed, like putting sulfer dioxide into the atmosphere or orbiting tinfoil strips -- these are simply nuts. We shouldn't waste a lot of time talking about them. Some people will anyway, but they're just crazy.</i><br />
<br />
While his characterization of research advocates as "crazy" is obviously over the top, it is refreshing to see Gore drawing distinctions between different geoengineering techniques, in particular "soft" CDR versus "hard" SRM. Yet he clearly remains skeptical toward both branches of geoengineering technology.<br />
<br />
Further north, Canadian environmental activist David Suzuki recently expressed similar skepticism toward climate engineering in an <a href="http://www.straight.com/news/411836/david-suzuki-how-geoengineering-relates-climate-change">online column</a>, but he leavened his comments by acknowledging that research is warranted. "Geoengineering to combat climate change is largely untested. Because we've stalled so long on reducing carbon emissions and still aren't doing enough, we may have to consider it," Suzuki writes. He goes on to note that "Scientists at the Berlin Social Science Research Center suggest creating a 'new international climate engineering agency ... to coordinate countries' efforts and manage research funding.' Because some geoengineering is likely unavoidable, that's a good idea" (see <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/we-need-a-global-geoengineering-watchdog,-researchers-say">here</a> for a summary of the referenced proposal). Just last year, Suzuki declared his strong opposition to CCS (see <a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/07/david-suzuki-urges-opposition-to-ccs.html"><i>David Suzuki Urges Opposition to CCS</i></a>, 7/7/12), yet now he considers CCS a "carbon-reduction method" potentially worthy of research, suggesting that his attitude on the issue is evolving in a positive direction.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-62058296694740322652013-08-22T05:38:00.000-07:002013-08-22T05:38:51.695-07:00Fiji Calls for Climate EngineeringA Fijian official speaking at a South Pacific climate conference has <a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2013-08/21/c_132650492.htm">publicly expressed support</a> for geoengineering. Esala Nayasi, director of the political and treaties division of the Fiji Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was quoted by the state Ministry of Information saying that, "As PICs [Pacific island countries], it is incumbent on us to endeavor to advance our interest within the international community and we need science, we need research, we need data and we need climate change engineering." The meeting, titled "First Open Discussion Workshop About Climate Engineering: Perspectives of Pacific Small Island States," was held in Suva and sponsored jointly by the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies and the University of the South Pacific.<br />
<br />
Small island states like Fiji are a natural constituency for geoengineering (see <i><a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/07/climate-change-security-and-small.html">Climate Change, Security, and Small Island States</a></i>, 7/21/11), so it is no surprise to see such statements beginning to emanate from representative countries. It will be particularly interesting to see whether broader groupings such as the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) start to echo calls for support, at least for accelerated research efforts.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-69151003303584113092013-08-16T09:36:00.000-07:002013-08-16T09:36:27.763-07:00GeoMIP Publishes First ResultsThe Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), an international collaborative project designed to test the robustness of SRM modeling results across multiple climate models, has <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50646/abstract">released results</a> from its first round of simulations. "Experiment G1" focused on a simple scenario in which results from a preindustrial control run were compared to results from a simulated quadrupling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere; both runs were then compared to results from a geoengineering simulation in which top of atmosphere (TOA) radiative forcing is initially lowered by a maximum 0.1 W/m2 to mimic the effects of SRM. These test parameters were run using twelve different global climate models to determine which results held relatively constant across multiple models, indicating theoretical agreement on the broad consequences of SRM deployment.<br />
<br />
The main findings of G1 include:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Geoengineering can return high temperatures under global warming to preindustrial levels, with some regional variation.</li>
<li>Geoengineering can prevent Arctic sea ice loss under global warming.</li>
<li>Precipitation in the tropics declines under geoengineering due to reduced atmospheric convection.</li>
<li>Plant growth increases in a geoengineered world as a result of the CO2 fertilization effect combined with reduced heat stress.</li>
</ul>
<div>
The authors conclude, "For most of the results presented in this study, changes in <i>G1</i> [geoengineering simulation] relative to <i>piControl</i> [preindustrial control run] are substantially smaller than changes in <i>abrupt4xCO2</i> [global warming simulation] relative to <i>piControl</i>" (p. 11). While these scenarios are greatly simplified and highly idealized, comparison of modeling results provides first-order quantitative evidence of how a geoengineered world would look relative to a world experiencing significant climate change without SRM.</div>
Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1843193020550922792.post-53569141810635398662013-08-15T06:51:00.000-07:002013-08-15T06:51:16.182-07:00IEA Updates CCS RoadmapIn 2009, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published a CCS Technology Roadmap laying out practical steps governments and other stakeholders could take to move CCS from a limited number of pilot and demonstration projects to global deployment in power generation and industrial sectors. The 2009 Roadmap famously argued that without CCS, the cost of reducing global emissions to 2005 levels by 2050 would increase by 70%. Last month, the IEA released an <a href="http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,39359,en.html">updated 2013 edition</a> of the CCS Roadmap intended to revise recommended actions in light of recent developments. Bluntly put, given the lack of progress on CCS deployment worldwide, IEA has scaled back its original 2009 plan to a blueprint that is less ambitious and more realistic, yet renders deployment goals and mitigation targets (and systematic development of BECCS and related CDR technology) less likely to be achieved.<br />
<br />
The IEA is admirably honest in its assessment of CCS progress since 2009: "given today's level of fossil fuel utilisation, and that a carbon price as a key driver for CCS remains missing, the deployment of CCS is running far below the trajectory required to limit long-term global average temperature increases to 2 [degrees] C" (p. 7). The revised roadmap details 24 actions that should be taken in the short, medium, and long term along all links in the CCS chain to meet the 2050 emissions goal. In particular, "seven key actions represent the backbone of activities absolutely necessary during the seven years up to 2020" (p. 41): increased government funding; policies to promote CO2 storage; CCS-ready requirements; expanded capture in industrial applications; more public outreach; significant gains in power plant energy efficiency; and planning for future transport infrastructure.<br />
<br />
The roadmap rightly observes that "The most pressing requirement for the next seven years is creating and consolidating business cases for the initial large-scale CCS projects" (p. 26). In other words, private actors need to be given good reasons for adopting CCS--currently, with no real carbon price and minimal financial incentives, there simply are no good reasons from a business perspective. And it is far from clear that the revised actions recommended in the 2013 Roadmap will be adequate to provide them. Emissions performance standards for electricity generation, a potentially powerful regulatory tool that would mandate a certain level of CCS adoption by the power industry, gets surprisingly short shrift in the roadmap. Implementing robust performance standards would fundamentally alter business cases for power companies: the question would no longer be "why should we pay for CCS?," but rather "what is the cheapest way to comply with carbon regulations?," to which CCS would frequently be the answer. The Obama Administration is currently pursuing this approach (see <a href="http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/07/epa-advancing-ccs-rule-for-new-power.html"><i>EPA Advancing CCS Rule for New Power Plants</i></a>, 7/5), with a revised standard for new power plants due to be unveiled next month.Josh Hortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119913240229321280noreply@blogger.com0