Green Options

Overall, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased 29% between 2000 and 2008 and 41% from 1990-2008, and the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now at its highest in at least 2 million years, according to a new study in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The new report published this week by an international team of researchers who are part of the “Global Carbon Project” shows emissions trends through 2008 (including changes in emissions causes and in the amount of emissions remaining in the atmosphere) and brings up some major questions for the future as well.

Most of you know by now that deforestation, and the emissions that cleared forestlands add to the atmosphere, exacerbates climate change. But it may come as a surprise to learn that the opposite is true. New scientific findings suggest that climate change is threatening remaining forests more dramatically than previously suspected.

Until recently, climate scientists thought that trees, and the biodiversity they support, could withstand a temperature rise lower than 3C. New findings, announced at last month’s Copenhagen “Congress” to discuss climate issues, estimate that a 3C temperature rise will result in a 75% loss of forests. The report’s sponsoring organization, the UK Meteorological Office’s climate change research division, has said that a 4C temperature rise - consistent with current human activities - will cause 85% of trees to disappear.

Under even the most conservative climate change scenario - a 1C temperature jump - will kill off one third of Amazonian forests, which alone contain one tenth of total carbon stored in land ecosystems.

Scientists now estimate that the chance of staying below a 2C temperature rise are only 50%, even if drastic cuts in emissions take place over the next ten years. Already, a .75C temperature rise above pre-industrial has been locked-in, with another .6C expected, based solely upon current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

According to the Hanoi-based Prosperity Initiative, a shift toward more bamboo production by small scale farmers in Vietnam could bring 750,000 people out of poverty by 2020. It could also help circumvent worldwide demand for timber as a building material.

Due to its many benefits, bamboo has been touted as an environmental miracle crop. It’s a significant carbon sink, it grows fast, is more termite-resistant than timber, and can be used for everything from food to clothing material to scaffolding for building construction.

But are environmentalists being bamboozled? Despite its benefits, increased bamboo production could raise a lot of concerns too.

There are 9,045,389 Swedes, and 55,000 of them are members of the Forestry and Woodworkers Union. That’s a lot of people paying dues to acknowledge their interest in woodlands.

Biochar. It’s been around for a little while, but is only beginning to gain traction in climate change and global warming circles for its carbon negative properties. Biochar is a charcoal soil additive that is created through the “thermal treatment” (burning) of biomass residues such as rice and peanut shells, tree bark, sludge from paper mills, and other organics.

Gazing into the future of a carbon market, two things seem certain: a fundamental change to the economy and sweeping land reforms.

There are two well known and highly charged sayings about land:

—–agriculture is the foundation of economic growth
—–all land use is inherently political

The fast approaching world of a carbon market could see how we use land becoming the most important issue in stopping climate change becoming a disaster for mankind.

Indigenous groups from the Americas, Africa and Asia are worried that, if industrialized nations are allowed to purchase carbon rights from their forests, they will lose out, seeing ownership change hands without them even being consulted.

We’ve spoken often about those areas in industry that are contributing most to the current climate change. However an industry that has been swept under the radar is the agriculture industry. Not only does it too expel its own worth of emissions, but it could very well be the answer to a lot of our problems.

We’ve seen what their fertilizers are doing to the outlet of the Mississippi in the Gulf

[...]

If you remember the ’70s, you also remember Chiffon Margarine teaching us that “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” Today, though, we’re learning a new lesson: “It’s not as easy to fool Mother Nature as some presumptuous humans might think.”

Take, for example, one of the hot new technology fixes being proposed for global warming: ocean fertilization. The idea is to seed the oceans with iron or other nutrients to encourage [...]

Anyone who keeps up with the science of global warming knows that carbon dioxide alone isn’t the problem. Besides that and the other greenhouse gases (methane and nitrous oxide, for instance) we spew into the atmosphere, there’s also the threat of feedback loops and other mechanisms that could magnify the impact of those pollutants even more.

One of those mechanisms, it turns out, is drought. Which is a [...]

Technology can undoubtedly make the world a better place. Where, after all, would we be without the wheel, agriculture or email?

Still, there’s almost always a flipside to technological advances. The wheel improved not only travel, but warfare. Agriculture made food more reliable for humans … but also, eventually, helped give rise to confined animal feeding operations, the Gulf of Mexico’s Dead Zone and, for better or worse, the Hardee’s Thickburger. As for email? I have one word for you: Spam.

So when it comes to the fixes being offered for climate change, it’s wise to approach technology warily. Yes, in theory, we could erase our ever-growing greenhouse gas problem if we perfect carbon capture and storage … but that won’t eliminate the environmental degradation wrought by coal mining or the threat of peak oil. And, yes, more nuclear power might reduce our dependence on foreign oil … but it could only increase threats of sabotage or terrorism.

Even more troubling are the global warming “solutions” being offered by fans of geoengineering. This is the idea of seeding the oceans with iron to encourage plankton growth that absorbs carbon dioxide. Of course, too many nutrients in the ocean also cause algal blooms that suck up oxygen, making vast areas unlivable for marine species — again, think the Dead Zone. That’s why it was encouraging this week to hear one international organization come out against geoengineering experiments in the world’s oceans.

The International Maritime Convention (IMO), a United Nations agency with 167 member-states (including the U.S.) makes its primary focus maritime safety. This week, though, members of the IMO’s London Convention, a 1972 treaty on marine pollution, said they also have authority over geoengineering experiments at sea. Their “statement of concern” warned that, given our current knowledge of how ocean fertilization works, large-scale experiments of that nature “are currently not justified.”