Climate Climate & Energy

Current Events

Wind power is controversial but should keep on keeping on, says report U.S. wind-power capacity has quadrupled in the past six years and could eventually produce up to 7 percent of the nation’s electricity. Easy-breezy? Not quite: Wind-industry growth lacks “any truly coordinated planning,” says a report from the National Academy of Sciences. Developers and […]

Summaries of a summary — the new black?

Finally, below is the first half of my summary of the IPCC summary (PDF):

In 2030 macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation, consistent with emissions trajectories towards stabilization between 445 and 710 ppm CO2-eq, are estimated at between a 3% decrease of global GDP and a small increase, compared to the baseline. However, regional costs may differ significantly from global averages (high agreement, medium evidence).

In 2050 global average macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation towards stabilization between 710 and 445 ppm CO2-eq, are between a 1% gain to a 5.5% decrease of global GDP. For specific countries and sectors, costs vary considerably from the global average (high agreement, medium evidence).

Reece on MTR mining

Erik Reese has an op-ed in the NYT about mountaintop-removal mining and a new program that shows promise in helping landscapes recover from it. Here’s the nut: Appalachia’s land is dying. Its fractured communities show the typical symptoms of hopelessness, including OxyContin abuse rates higher than anywhere in the country. Meanwhile, 22 states power houses […]

Charcoal carbon sequestration — birth of a new CO2 removal wedge?

I would love to hear Graham Nash and David Crosby rerecord their old "Carry Me" song about agrichar and removing carbon from the atmosphere while revitalizing soils:

"Bury me, buuuu-reee me, bury me, across the world ..."

This is sounding so good it's scary -- like I am being set up to have my bubble burst when it turns out to violate one or more basic physical laws, or only be net negative by ignoring some huge emissions somewhere in the process, or whatever. But for today, I'm going to feel a little better:

Faster and more dramatic than previously expected

... are manifesting very quickly and will change the landscape in pretty big ways.

Man, that’s the worst headline ever

Here’s a short but fascinating BBC story about a ginormous (11MW, with plans for expansion) concentrated-solar power plant in Seville, Spain — the first commercial concentrated-solar plant in Europe. Hundreds of mirrors reflect sunlight at a single point at the top of a tower, where the heat boils water for stream that drives a generator. […]

Climate change justice is contentious

As this round of the IPCC unfolds, developing countries are scurrying to relieve themselves of any major responsibility for historic emissions and, consequently, aggressive mitigation policies.

For example, China has requested inserting language that formally recognizes the percentage of emissions for which developed countries are responsible -- 95 percent from the pre-industrial era until 1950, and 77 percent from 1950 to the start of the millennium.

Planktos may be a bad idea, but innovation is good

The green blogosphere generally reacted with chuckles or consternation to Planktos' announced plans to dump tons of iron into the ocean to, you know, see what happens. Gar Lipow took the article as another excuse to bash carbon offsets.

To follow the logic, you first have to know why anyone would want to dump several tons of iron into the sea. Planktos hopes to demonstrate that seeding the oceans with certain nutrients is a credible way to stimulate plankton blooms. It further hopes to demonstrate that these blooms are a credible way to sequester atmospheric carbon. Carbon markets provide the incentive for this quixotic undertaking. If the experiment is successful -- a big if -- Planktos could one day tap into the many billions of dollars available for carbon reduction projects.

And why wouldn’t they?

RealClimate, a blog run by leading climate scientists, thinks Planktos's scheme to dump iron particles in the ocean to make plankton bloom and sequester carbon is "thin soup."

I have some extended quotes from David Archer on the subject below the fold. But if you are interested, read the whole thing.

In spite of public relations claims by Planktos representatives in comments, it appears that most of the scientific community does not think highly of the Planktos claims.

Scan much?

The final IPCC WGIII report is out, but the PDF seems like a horrible scan or something — it’s almost unreadable. Anybody got a clean copy they want to send me?