Feature: Managing the Atmosphere
The Earth’s atmosphere is the result of billions of years of geological activity and interaction with living organisms. Until recently, the stability of its composition has been something we have taken for granted.
Now human activity is beginning to change that and for the first time we find that we must begin to manage the atmosphere, or risk destabilising our planet’s climate.
The climate change conference in Copenhagen ended without a binding global agreement on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
So, if governments cannot agree on measures to mitigate climate change, who then will provide the incentives and initiatives and perhaps more importantly the finances, that are needed? A growing number of leaders are beginning to look to the private sector to provide solutions. With regard to climate change, is it business to the rescue?
Discussion - January 2010
Are commercial partnerships between science and industry the best way to reduce GHG emissions?
25 Comments from our contributors
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Superintendant of Utilities
University of Cincinnati
said: On 01/01/2009
The best way to reduce green house gases is education, education, education. Our schools pay NO attention to teaching energy use, conservation, sustainability as part of the foundational curriculum.
Unless we train and educate the entire population to be stewards of energy and the environment you are pushing on a rope.
Chair
Fund for the Environment and Urban Life
said: On 01/01/2010
My take is different. Efforts to improve the environment must focus on how we live our lives. It’s important, but like it has, technology will lead us only where technology takes us… and too often this has been very bad for the environment. If we want something better we have to take control and make it, and focusing on our own behaviour is the first and right way to be environmentally responsible. Small things like recycling, composting, home gardening and similar actions we choose to take every day truly matter if done on a large scale, but, as a scholar once said, “Big Things Matter Most.” Big Things are where we choose to live, the type and size of home we choose, where we work, how we choose to get there, what kind of car or how many cars our family has, where we choose to shop, etc. So there are big and small things we can do, and leaving it to science and technology or anyone other than ourselves is, and pardon if I show my age… a cop out.
Director of the Advanced Energy and Materials Systems Lab
University of Canterbury
said: On 01/01/2010
The ONLY way to reduce GHG emissions is to both reduce fossil fuel supply and increase forest regeneration. Are commercial partnerships the best way to do these two things? No, social change is the best way. A global cap and curtailment on oil, coal and gas production would be an act of social justice for our great-grandchildren. Regenerating the denuded lands of all of the continents would make a start on the reparations for our grandparent’s economic activities.
Would science and industry partnerships develop in response to reduced fuel supply in the market? Probably.
Would these types of partnerships be the best way to ensure environmental and forest regeneration was done in a sustainable and ecologically resilient way? Certainly.
With fuel supply caps and regeneration reserves developed, there would be plenty of new industry opportunities and new science and engineering questions. With the funds freed-up which are currently spent on subsidising fossil fuel systems and purchasing the fuels, there would be new money for investing in new ideas.
Growth from reduction? Why not.
Association Manager
European Geothermal Energy Council
said: On 01/01/2010
Before the EU Member States implement the directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide (CCS) and the directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable Sources,
EGEC, representing the geothermal industry, and relying on its members’ expertise in geology and hydrogeology, belonging to organisations involved in geothermal but also CCS technologies, presents here its position addressing the synergies and conflicting issues in both technologies.
- Having regard to the RES Directive, defining geothermal energy as a renewable “energy stored in the form of heat beneath the surface of solid earth”
- Having regard to the CCS directive (recital 19 and article 4), “Member States should retain the right to determine the areas within their territory from which storage sites may be selected. This includes the right of Member States not to allow any storage in parts or on the whole of their territory, or to give priority to any other use of the underground, such as exploration, production and storage of hydrocarbons or
geothermal use of aquifers. In this context, Member States should in particular give due consideration to other energy-related options for the use of a potential storage site, including options which are strategic for the security of the Member State’s energy supply or for the development of renewable sources of energy”.
EGEC considers:
_ CCS is a solution to mitigate climate change at short and medium term, towards a carbon free European energy
_ It could be applied in particular if no alternatives exist, like for energy-intensive industry (steel, cement, glass…),
_ CCS should use privilege off-shore storage sites wherever feasible,
_ CO2, like natural gas, is a sensitive fluid which needs to be stored in safe conditions with an impermeable cap to avoid migration.
A research collaboration should start immediately between both the Geothermal and CCS communities1 on common areas of interest in order to decrease the costs and resolve environmental issues:
- drilling stimulation and reservoir assessment, 3D & 4D modelling, deep geological
mapping (1-5 Km),
- Creation of a Fund for covering the drilling risk,
- monitoring of micro-seismicity
- a research program should be launched on permanent fixation of CO2 in the form of
calcite in basaltic rocks
- a research program should be initiated on the safe use of CO2 as a heat carrier fluid in
geothermal systems such as EGS
Therefore EGEC suggests:
_ the CCS projects financed by the European Economy Recovery Plan (ca. €1.050 billion) and the NER300 must share with the public their results on exploration and storage
_ the CCS exploration licence must be granted for a defined area and for a specified period of time. The area and the duration of the license should be appropriate for the size and type of the project as done in the oil and gas industry
_ the potential of deep geothermal in Europe must be evaluated (with a special
emphasis on Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS))
EGEC urges public authorities to produce an underground regional planning in order to optimise resource allocation between geothermal energy, carbon storage and possible other underground usages, and therefore maximize the benefits for society.
There is obviously conflicting potential as a result of the competition between CO2 disposal and geothermal energy projects because they may target the same deep aquifers, or the same areas within sedimentary basins. Geothermal energy may also be produced from rocks below the depth range for potential CO2 disposal sites, and investigations are needed to determine if geothermal exploitation beneath CO2 deposits might be feasible at all.
Carbon capture and storage is essentially a bridging technology whereas geothermal energy is a sustainable energy resource.
Zones of dual use capability should be clearly identified and priority should be given to their use for geothermal energy over their use as a carbon storage site.
EGEC foresees an important development of geothermal energy in the future and especially after 2030 when Enhanced Geothermal Systems will be a widely-used technology. The increase of a renewable energy source, a long term solution, must not be hampered by a technology, CCS, that has the potential only to serve as a temporary, interim GHG mitigation measure.
Footnotes:
1 plus oil & gas sector on some topics
Associate Professor
Ryerson University, Canada
said: On 01/01/2010
It’s not the best. It’s one of many that should be pursued. Industry has to accept a certain responsibility for the state we’re in. The goal of science is to explain. Presumably, science and industry together means learning to explain why we’re in the state we’re in. Also, industry will have to change if we’re to continue in any meaningful way as a proper society. Industry rarely has the opportunity to reflect on its own practises because they’re too busy getting things done.
Academia is where the reflection ought to come from, because academics are – let’s call it “professionally reflective.” Academia can help industry guide itself out of the current situation. But that’s not just science. It’s technology, engineering, social science, medicine, philosophy, and pretty much everything else.
Facilitator
Eco Design Center, Sri Lanka
said: On 01/01/2010
I rate this combi low in the top 10 of effective alternatives, below such combis as science and forestry, science and agriculture, science and media, science and education, science and micro finance, science and philosophy, science and …………
Industry is mainly the cause and can only tinker a bit at the solution.
Project Geoscientist
Nexen Petroleum U.S.A., Inc.
said: On 01/01/2010
Absolutely. Science is the only true way that we will be able to tackle this problem head on without any bias…that is, as long as their industry partner does not meddle in their actions and force the data to fit certain models, while denying others. On that same note, they also cannot pay the scientists for a certain result that will benefit them – they’ll have to take the scientific results at face value. Most people do not know this, but many key departments within my industry (Oil & Gas) are soundly based on scientific principle. Many years are spent evaluating the prospectivity of a region before any wells are drilled. Obviously, we must have good evidence that hydrocarbons are present before we spend money drilling the objectives. So, in this regard, the Oil & Gas industry is driven highly by scientists – we are the ones that open new plays and geographical regions to drilling – again, it’s all based on scientific principle. I guess the real question should be, will industry follow the advice of the scientists? In this day and age, who knows? Especially when it comes to such a sensitive topic as Climate Change.
In response to Dr. Salustri, I do not see a large difference between scientists working in industry and academia – ALL of us came from academia (and in my industry, most persons typically have attained advanced degrees), and not to mention, the majority also belong to professional associations steeped in academia. The interesting thing is that what may be academic to the laymen (or the misinformed), may be a very real problem in industry.
Simply put, many of the earth’s problems are going to be tackled (and hopefully solved) by scientists and engineers – Mr. Diget’s response makes no sense…taking a direct quote from his post: “What can science do to reduce green house gas emissions?” Hmmm…perhaps they can build a device or filter that traps these gases before they escape into the atmosphere…or they could design a new engine that runs on an abundant and clean resource…and, of course, the holy grail – they can master COLD FUSION! It’s not going to be your postman solving these problems, like I said, it’s going to be the scientists and engineers of the world solving them.
Head of Business Analytics
News International
said: On 01/01/2010
A considerable proportion of greenhouse gas emissions are driven by the activities of individuals and by organisations supplying their needs (and demands). Science and industry can reduce emissions through government funded initiatives or as a result of requirements resulting from government regulation (local, regional, national or international). This is a push approach to satisfying a market demand which the wider ‘market’ may not recognise or even accept exists. I suspect this approach would result in a plateau in improvement that is insufficient to achieve the desired result. The US government’s reaction to oil price rises and threats to supply in the early 70s resulted in energy policies that required motor manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles. However, failure to apply increased taxes to the consumer price of fuel combined with post crisis falls in the cost of oil meant these vehicles were out of step with consumer demand. To this day US vehicles are considerably less efficient than those used in more heavily taxed regions.
I believe that a combined (coupled) push and pull approach is required to drive consumer behaviour and demand. All stakeholders need to work together to create frameworks within which innovators are encouraged to develop more efficient ways of satisfying consumer needs, industry is motivated to identify, develop and invest in new markets while government applies ‘depletion’ taxes to unsustainable activities.
Renewable energy developers argue that they cannot match the energy costs of traditional markets while these traditional markets complain of unfair incentives. I believe that current energy costs make no recognition of the depletion of reserves, simply covering discovery, extraction delivery and market costs plus profit. Nor do they recognise that these industries benefited from many incentives in the past as each was developed to replace an unsatisfactory predecessor (natural gas replacing coal gas, replacing coal etc…) and especially since many were historically government owned/funded.
In summary, yes science and industry have a vital part to play in reducing green house emissions. However, a framework of positive incentives is required to accelerate and maintain market momentum.
Director
Sustainable Development at TECOM Investments & Enpark, Dubai Holding
said: On 01/01/2010
Absolutely. What is the point of a scientific discovery if cannot be used by mankind to improve either knowledge or quality of life. Science needs to identify opportunities and their applications in a commercially feasible manner. Why not put solar cells on mobile phones for charging them instead of selling charger, adaptor and cable set for each mobile phone sold? Science and industry need to work with each other to develop such applications. A classic case is the development of LEDs in recent times – this technology is now available commercially and it is astounding to see the progress this technology has made in penetrating the market so rapidly. Such mass transformations directly reduce carbon footprint by over 80%.
Convenor
Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming
said: On 01/01/2010
The Mission of the IPCC when it was set up was to ’stall’ Climate Change long enough for a low-carbon energy platform to reach baseload capability. While the rest of the world ran off in search of renewable energy solutions, one man concentrated on building ‘a bridge to the future’ – Prof. Rattan Lal declared in 2006 that the only way to do this is to draw down the “Legacy Load” of GHG responsible for the deterioration in climate stability. The Soil Carbon Solution is unfashionable, but it is real. Not one renewable energy source will have the critical mass or massive capacity or full deployment necessary to carry a baseload inside 50 years and none of them can remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The only process known to extract CO2 from the atmosphere is photosynthesis. The only photosynthetic processor with the necessary critical mass, with massive capacity, that is fully deployed and ready to start today and can reach full capacity within a year or so is Agricultural Soil. (Forests are good, too, but too slow to grow for our purposes. And you can’t eat them.) Prof. Lal’s conservative estimate:‘The technical potential of carbon sequestration in world soils may be 2 billion to 3 billion mt per year for the next 50 years. Thus, the potential of carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation together is equivalent to a draw-down of about 50 parts per million of atmospheric CO2 by 2100.’ I am proud to say that both sides of politics in Australia are now committed to soil carbon sequestration as policy.It is the only solution with the capability of achieving the IPCC’s mission, while restoring the health and resilience of degraded agricultural soils, improving water availability, reducing fertiliser costs, improving biodiversity, building Food Security capacity, and lifting living standards among farmers in developing countries. If you believed that you could do all that just by doing your job as a soil carbon scientist, how hard would it be to get out of bed in the morning? I am proud to say that we have Australia’s best soil scientists working hard to resolve the outstanding issues because the politics will not wait for the science. As Dr. Lal told his members, when President of the American Soil Science Society, the train is leaving the station. Don’t be left on the platform. (Dr Lal is Director of Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Centre and Professor of Soil Science.)
Head of the Climate Analysis Section
National Center for Atmospheric Research
said: On 01/01/2010
Scientists are convinced that global climate change resulting mainly from increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from human activities represents a very serious long-term threat to the planet. The concerns are that the changes are coming fast enough and will become big enough to be very disruptive to the environment and ecosystems, and jeopardize farming and the core of civilization. Many in the general public and politicians evidently do not adequately appreciate that by the time the problem is so obvious to everyone, it is far too late to do anything about it. The infrastructure, the very long life of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the slow response of the oceans and the climate system mean that we are already guaranteed a lot of further warming.
The atmosphere is a global commons. Air over Japan one day is over the United States several days later and over Europe a few days later still. Global warming is a classic case of the “tragedy of the commons”. It is in our own interests and those of industry and countries to exploit the atmosphere as a dumping ground for carbon dioxide to the maximum extent possible. But because everyone does it, atmospheric composition changes along with adverse effects on climate and air quality.
Key considerations in addressing global warming include equity among nations, and equity among generations of people and especially for our grandchildren and their children. The precautionary principle (which suggests that we should be prudent and cut emissions given the uncertainties on just what will happen) comes into play. Vested interests must be dealt with. Underlying the whole problem is the need for more sustainable development. All of these things reflect value systems of individuals, groups, religions, and nations, and all need to be considered in developing ways forward. Given the conflict between individual interests and global health of the planet, what is required is fair global governance but none exists; the United Nations is a very weak forum in this regard.
The main proposed solution is that there has to be a cost to putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The main tools for achieving this are through taxes or fees, and cap and trade systems. In the latter, the market place is utilized along with incentives and penalties, and caps on emissions that get tighter over time. So far industry has had a free ride and typically objects to the extra costs, even though they get passed onto the consumer. However, the resulting revenue does not disappear and can be used to offset undesirable consequences, and provide incentives for renewable energy, mass transit and different ways of doing things. It is probably a mistake to put it into a general fund.
As the Copenhagen summit nears, essentially what is happening is a lobbying effort of all vested interests and by all countries to get the best economic deal they can. Some countries argue for equity in terms of emissions per capita, but it is total emissions that count. Population is a serious but largely unspoken part of this problem. Short-term development continues without sufficient regard for the long-term climate. If one country does not play their appropriate role, then it is up to other countries to provide for penalties, such as tariffs on imported goods, to prevent industry moving to places that have not imposed such costs on carbon dioxide. International trade and foreign policy quickly become embroiled. Security and economic considerations soon follow.
I do not believe that it is so much what we do, but rather the real challenge is how we go about it and how we implement the needed changes. In particular, if changes are brought in gradually, so that sensible planning for them takes place, then the changes should not hurt the economy; rather the economy benefits because things are done more energy efficiently and sustainably. But some practices must be phased out. Is 2020 too soon to do this properly?
Because it is truly a global problem, it makes no sense for a country to take unilateral action unless those actions make sense for other reasons. Hence this issue requires global leadership especially from countries who have polluted and are polluting the most. This includes the United States which did not sign the Kyoto Protocol and has not stepped up to its responsibilities – yet. However, President Obama has pledged action and leadership, but so far actions have been stymied by the Congress. Other countries, including Japan, need to be ready to step up and provide a good example for smaller countries to follow.
I am optimistic that substantial progress will be achieved on this issue. It will take the right mix of penalties and incentives, and will have to overcome strong lobbying from fossil fuel industries. Clearly it involves delicate diplomatic negotiations. A flexible and adaptive approach is essential. Fundamentally this is not just a climate change problem; it is a resource and sustainability problem that we are overdue in addressing. But we need to act. We owe it to our children.
Head of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
said: On 01/01/2010
When we emit carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, much of it remains there for over 100 years. Thus, if all we did was stabilize emissions, concentrations would continue to rise. The situation is like a bathtub with a very large faucet and a very small drain. Unless the faucet is closed way down the tub will continue to fill. In the case of emissions of CO2, stabilizing concentration at a reasonable level will require something like an 80% reduction in global atmospheric CO2 emissions.
Most of the CO2 we produce comes from burning coal, oil and natural gas for heat or to make electricity or power cars and trucks. Clearly, achieving and sustaining an 80% emission reduction will require a fundamental change in the way we produce and use energy. That in turn means a collaboration between science, technology and industry will be essential.
But it will not be sufficient. When there is a market opportunity, industry is very good at picking up basic technologies that already exist, tuning them into useful products, and promoting their wide adoption. But that sentence contains two big caveats: “when there is a market” and “basic technologies that already exist.” We need to consider both.
The Need for Market Demand
Industry develops products such as efficient airplanes or advanced cell phones, either because there is already a market, or because forward looking entrepreneurs believe that if they develop a product they can create a market. Neither of these conditions yet exist for many of the technologies that the world will need to make a dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions, while sustaining a reasonable standard of living.
We all know that we need to reduce CO2 emissions. But until regulation places a price on those emissions (as an economist would say, “internalizes the externality”), few consumers and even fewer industries will make big investments to reduce their CO2 emissions. Of course, in Europe there is a price on (some) CO2 emissions. But at less than 15 euros per tonne, that price is still much too low to induce most of the technical innovations that will be needed. For example, it will take a carbon price of over 40 euros per tonne before technologies for carbon capture and geological sequestration become commercially viable.
Several of my colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University have shown that environmental regulations have driven innovation in the area of stationary and mobile source control for conventional pollutants. Once we get a serious regulatory constraint in place for CO2 and other greenhouse gasses the same will happen for those emissions. In the mean time, governments that are not yet prepared to impose serious emission constraints can accelerate the development of low and no-carbon energy technology through direct and indirect subsidies. But, in the future, subsidies must be applied with far greater thought and care than they have been in the past. Not all technologies are ready for prime time. It has made good sense to subsidize wind, because, with transfers of existing technical capabilities from other sectors (power electronic technology transferred from traction motors, blade technology transferred from racing yachts, etc.) wind has been driven down the learning curve to the point where it is now cost competitive. The same is not true for solar PV, where massive subsidies by governments in Germany, California, and Japan have supported considerable deployment of the current generation of silicon-based PV cells without driving prices down to the point that solar PV is even close to making economic sense for bulk power. PV is an example of a technology where the need is for large constant research investments, not subsidized deployment of the present generation of technology.
Existing Technology
When there is a market, either because of consumers’ wants and needs or because of environmental regulation, industry can do an excellent job of taking existing basic technology and turning it into products and services. What industry does not do well is develop new basic science and technology which will form the basis of new products and services a decade or more in the future. In the past, regulated industries such as AT&T or dominant industries had the luxury of running long-term research organizations such as Bell Labs and the IBM Watson Labs. Today most such entities are long gone. Only government (or private foundations) can adopt the longer patient perspective that is needed for basic energy-focused science and technology research.
We can make a very large start on reducing our emissions of CO2 with technology that exists today. This is especially true of technologies and strategies for energy efficiency. It is also true for many emission abatement strategies. For example, all the technologies needed to do CO2 capture and geological sequestration exist at commercial scale and simply need to be combined and applied to the production of electric power. Similarly, the first generation of technologies needed to integrate large amounts (> 30%) of intermittent wind into power grids, and to develop first generation plug electric vehicles, exist now, or can be readily developed from existing basic knowledge.
Bottom Line
Collaborations between science, technology and industry can help the world take the initial steps toward reducing CO2 emissions. However, over the longer run, if we are to decarbonizes the world’s energy and transportation systems at a cost that is low enough for all of the world’s peoples to afford while also enjoying a reasonable standard of living, we’re going to need several new generations of technology. That is not just going to happen on its own. It will require major investments in directed research which will almost certainly not result from “partnerships between science and industry.” Governments will have to make those investments.
Policy Officer
EUREC Agency
said: On 11/01/2010
They certainly help, but they are not the whole story. I understand “commercial partnership” to mean a company contracting research or development work to a research centre at something close to the real cost. If this improves the performance of an energy technology, then it can certainly contribute to reducing GHG emissions. Industries spending money on research, whether conducted in-house or by contractors, are putting themselves in a good position to stay competitive.
But energy research also delivers a societal good, which means that it is worthwhile trying to create partnerships between science and industry even if they are not “commercial”. I’m talking about publicly-funded R&D projects with industry partners. These enable industry to gain access to new knowledge at a discount. To maximise the societal good, results from these projects must be put in the public domain: not so many that any other company can immediately gain the insight that the companies in the project have worked hard to obtain, but enough to benefit the rest of the industry. Deciding where the balance lies is difficult, and relates to the extent of industry co-finance in the project. Traditionally, renewable energy companies have not collaborated in creating new knowledge, but I hope this attitude can change. In PV, an ‘Open Innovation’ model is now being explored where different companies jointly contract work to a research centre and share the results. In Germany such models have existed in established industries like drivetrain manufacture or combustion for decades (‘Forschungsvereinigungen’).
Finally, let’s not forget that energy technology, including renewable energy technology, needs high-risk research in highly innovative concepts. The prospect of a return on investment in this research is too distant for Industry to be interested in funding it. Such research work should be defined by and led by research centres with a very high proportion of public funding.
President and Mentor
Knowledge Era Enterprises International
said: On 13/01/2010
Suppose we are walking along a forest path and suddenly see a tiger spring out at us. Would we take time to discuss what we should do? Hardly, as our brain is wired for this type of danger.
Suppose someone tells us the CO2 level is approaching 388 ppm. Then they add that if the level prior to the Industrial Era (280 ppm) doubles, the average world temperature might go up 6 degrees C rather than the assumed 3 degrees C. We’d likely be puzzled as to what this might mean and hardly see any danger here. And if they expressed concern for the methane that might be released by the thawing of the permafrost or the methane hydrates that could be released from the seafloor, we’d quickly want to change subjects and ask about the latest sports scores.
Our brains have no inherent knowledge that methane is a much more corrosive GHG than CO2. In fact, most of us hardly have the ability to grok (understand at a deeper intellectual and emotional level) the true significance of so much of what’s being discussed today. Too often, statistics bore us and PowerPoints put us to sleep. Is there another way to discover the dramatic interconnections between these twelve important themes?
One way might be to enlist students at a nearby B-School, asking them to prepare Discovery Maps (posters A1 in size) on each of these topics (plus others that should be added). This is exactly what we did in an MBA Program in Christ University (held jointly with the University of Applied Sciences, Würzburg-Schweinfurt) in Bangalore very recently.
Working in teams of four, the students prepared Discovery Maps for each of the twelve topics. Using the Internet, they looked for relevant reports, statistics, and graphics. In addition, they asked four sets of questions: Powerful Questions about the topic, questions about key Tipping Points, questions about the Linkages to other topics and questions about what we really don’t know about the topic. After three days of intense work, their Discovery Maps were printed locally. As an example, here is their CO2 Discovery Map:
One of Twelve Different Discovery Maps
On the fourth day, they invited business and academic leaders to join in a Discovery Café. The participants rotated between the different tables every twenty minutes. The students who had prepared the individual Discovery Maps explained their findings and answered questions. After close to three hours, the participants really had a profound understanding of each of the topics AND the subtle but real interrelationships between them (i.e. they grokked them all).
The impact was profound. And instead of running away, they realized the need to stand tall and help to redirect our living and working patterns in order to again “live lightly yet lively!” Certainly, the First Nations have known how to do this. Perhaps it is time to return, in humility, to the Indus River Valley Culture, the Australian Aborigines, the Indians of the Americas and other cultures still in contact with the wisdom of the past. Here are the seed corn insights for our future.
The MBA Students in Bangalore in Intense Dialogue about their Discovery Maps
In fact, the participants realized it is time to rethink our organizations in terms of John Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line: (Fair) Profit, (Developing) People, and (Enhancing the) Planet especially if we wish to live wisely so that future generations might remain on this planet, perhaps for the next 500 to 800 million years or longer, depending upon when the sun becomes too hot.
In short, the partnership between science and industry needs to also include B-Schools (plus museums that do not only look back, but ahead by adding future centers, other programs such as those in Sustainable Resource Management, organizations like the Earth Day Network and even religious communities that see the challenges, such as the Muslim Seven Year Action Program on Climate Change) so that we can come to understand the GHG emissions challenges in a larger perspective and begin to adjust our economic activities, not to enhance our greedy selves, but in deep appreciation for the very opportunity we have to be on this “Blue Pearl.” Our present “growth model” has been heavily subsidized with relatively cheap petroleum, but now it’s essential to find another economic engine with a low carbon footprint, yet which is exciting and engaging. Are our B-Schools ready to meet the challenge? This effort might start in India where they have such ready access to a wonderful wisdom tradition, but it cannot only start there.
Chairman & Managing Director
Tormacon Limited
said: On 13/01/2010
The recent Copenhagen conference fiasco shows that the problem of climate change and GHG emmissions is an endmic one and is not likely to be tackled easily. The political leadership the world over is myopic andit shall be imperative for bsuiness and science to join hands and carry on their crusade. Agreed that there is no single solution to reduce GHG emissions. No single economically and technologically feasible solution would, on its own, suffice for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from different sectors. It ius also true that no action can be taken eithert by science or by industry alone. It is coordinated effort by both that might be useful. But unless there are appropriate regulkations, all efforts might be futile.
In order for real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to take place, changes must come from industries and businesses themselves. The state has an important role in taking part in this agreement; however action will need to be taken mainly by the private sector. By grouping countries in pairs through a system of bilateral cooperation, a mutual reinforcement between a developed and developing country can be established. This will ensure that countries will commit to meeting common goals in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. However unless the research scientists provide the industry with appropriate technologies, all the regulations and all the pious wishes of industry shall remain in limbo.
Parties recognize that climate change is a global, complex, long-term challenge that will require a sustained effort over many generations. One essential element of an effective response entails promoting the research, development and commercial use of innovative, economic, zero- or low- emission technologies for the electric power and other sectors, including technologies for carbon capture and sequestration.
Let’s see the major sectors that need attention. First of all is energy sector. US$ 20 trillion is expected to be invested in upgrading global energy infrastructure from now until 2030 to meet rising demand, which will grow by about 60 per cent in that time according to the International Energy Agency and the additional cost of altering these investments in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is estimated to range from negligible to an increase of 5-10 per cent. The way in which these energy needs are met will determine whether climate change will remain manageable. Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will determine to a large extent the long-term global mean temperature increase and the corresponding climate change impacts that can be avoided.
The wide deployment of climate-friendly technologies is critical. Existing clean technologies need to be rapidly adopted by the private sector and deployed widely, including through technological cooperation between industrialized and developing countries. Addressing climate change will, however, require continuous improvement through innovation and the development of new technologies.
Cleaner technologies and energy efficiency can provide win-win solutions, allowing economic growth and the fight against climate change to proceed hand in hand. With the continued dominant role of fossil fuels in the global energy mix, energy efficiency, cleaner fossil fuel and carbon capture and storage technologies are needed to allow their continued use without jeopardizing climate change objectives.
Renewable energy can help.
According to UNEP and New Energy Finance, sustainable energy investment has increased markedly over the past couple of years, with wind, solar and biofuels attracting the highest levels of investment. This reflects technology maturity, policy incentives and investor appetite. Investor appetite suggests that existing technology is ready for scale-up and that renewable energy can become a larger part of the energy mix without waiting for further technology development.
To fully meet the mitigation challenge across the globe, such a scale-up needs to be promoted and the further diffusion of technologies needs to be supported, including through enhanced cooperation between industrialized and developing countries. For this to happen, governments need to further concretize and support a market-friendly, clear and predictable playing field for private investors.
Governments need to promote a range of energy options. These could include encouraging natural gas over more carbon-intensive fossil fuels as well as mature renewable energy technologies such as large hydro, biomass combustion and geothermal. Other renewable sources include solar assisted air conditioning, wave power and nanotechnology solar cells, although they all still require more technological or commercial development. Yet another option could be carbon capture and storage technology, which involves capturing carbon dioxide before it can be emitted into the atmosphere, transporting it to a secure location, and isolating it from the atmosphere, for example by storing it in a geological formation.
The second sector that needs attention is Construction and Buildings. Approximately 30 per cent of the projected baseline emissions in the residential and commercial sectors — the highest rate amongst all sectors studied by the IPCC — could be reduced by 2030 with a net economic benefit. Energy consumption and embodied energy in buildings can be cut through greater use of existing technologies such as passive solar design, high-efficiency lighting and appliances, highly efficient ventilation and cooling systems, solar water heaters, insulation, highly-reflective building materials and multiple glazing. Government policies on appliance standards and building energy codes could further provide incentives and information for commercial action in this area.
Transport is the third sector that contributes to GHG emissions. Technologies that could help reduce emissions range from direct injection turbocharged diesels and improved batteries for road vehicles to regenerative breaking and higher efficiency propulsion systems for trains to blended wing bodies and unducted turbofan propulsion systems for airplanes. Biofuels also have the potential to replace a substantial proportion of the petroleum that is currently being used by transport. Providing public transport systems and promoting non-motorised transport can also reduce emissions. Management strategies for reducing traffic congestion and air pollution can also be effective in reducing private-vehicle travel.
The fourth sector that needs attention is industry. The greatest potential for reducing industrial emissions is located in the energy-intensive steel, cement, pulp and paper industries and in the control of non-CO2 gases such as HFC-23 from the manufacturing of HCFC-22, PFCs from aluminumsmelting and semiconductor processing, sulphur hexafluoride from use in electrical switchgear and magnesium processing, and methane and nitrous oxide from the chemical and food industries.
Agriculture is the fifth sector that contributes to these emissions and needs attention. Sequestering carbon in the soil represents about 89 per cent of the mitigation potential in this area. Other options include improved management of crop and grazing lands (e.g. improved agronomic practices, nutrient use, tillage and residue management), restoration of organic soils that are drained for crop production, and restoration of degraded lands. Lower but still significant reductions are possible with improved water and rice management; set-asides, land use change (e.g. converting cropland to grassland) and agro-forestry; and improved livestock and manure management.
Forests represent the sixth sector. Arresting today’s high levels of deforestation and planting new forests could considerably reduce greenhouse gas emissions at low costs. About 65 per cent of the total mitigation potential for forests lies in the tropics and 50 per cent can be achieved by simply avoiding deforestation. In the longer term, the best way to maintain or increase the ability of forests to sequester carbon is through sustainable forest management, which also has many social and environmental benefits. A comprehensive approach to forest management can ensure an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy that is compatible with adapting to climate change, maintaining biodiversity and promoting sustainable development.
Wastes by themselves are seventh and most important sector. Post-consumer waste makes up almost 5 per cent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Technology can directly reduce emissions by recovering gases emitted from landfills but also through improved landfill practices and engineered wastewater management. Controlled composting of organic waste, state-of-the-art incineration and expanded sanitation coverage can also help avoid generating these gases in the first place. It is estimated that 20-30 per cent of projected emissions from waste for 2030 can be reduced at negative cost and 30-50 per cent at low costs.
These seven sectors comprise the major polluters and require undivided attention of all the players. The most serious consequences of climate change are not inevitable. Taking concerted action today can help delay and avoid some of the impacts of climate change. Reducing fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions should be the first priority of governments, corporations and individuals when it comes to addressing climate change. To do otherwise would saddle current and future generations with enormous infrastructure, health and ecological costs. For example, municipalities in the Great Lakes Region, home to more than 60 million people, face significant upgrades in their water and sewage treatment infrastructure to cope with changes in water availability and flooding events. Other adaptation costs are likely to be incurred in the agricultural, tourism, forestry, and health care sectors.
The types of communities and buildings we live and work in have a significant influence on the amount of energy we use. Provincial government policies, regulations and funding priorities strongly influence how our communities develop and the nature of building construction. In order to move to a less greenhouse gas intensive economy, working with the federal and municipal governments and with appropriate industries, the science has to provide necessary technologies.
Without additional action by governments, emissions of the six main greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, PFCs and HFCs — are set to rise dramatically. Between 1970 and 2004, emissions of these gases increased by 70 per cent. By adopting stronger climate change policies, governments could slow and reverse these emission trends and ultimately stabilize the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. For example, stabilizing greenhouse gas levels at 445-490 ppm — the most ambitious target that was assessed — would require global CO2 to peak by 2015 and to fall to 50-85 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050. This could limit global mean temperature increases to 2-2.4°C above pre-industrial levels..
Stabilizing greenhouse gases levels at 535-590 ppm would require global CO2 emissions to peak by 2010-2030 and return to -30 per cent to +5 per cent of 2000 levels by around 2050. This could limit the temperature increase to 2.8-3.2°C. If emissions peak later, more warming can be expected. By way of comparison, the 2005 level of greenhouse gases is about 379 ppm.
Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will determine to a large extent the long-term global mean temperature increase and the corresponding climate change impacts that can be avoided. Properly designed climate change policies can be part and parcel of sustainable development and the IPCC’s findings confirm that sustainable development paths can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce vulnerability to climate change.
This market shift will create new supply and demand for emission-reducing technologies, new financial instruments for emissions trading, new mechanisms for transferring technologies globally (i.e. Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism), and new pressures to retire historic sources of greenhouse gases (GHG). The shift will affect all companies to varying degrees, and all have a managerial and fiduciary obligation to assess their business exposure and decide whether action is prudent. In short, as the market shift of climate change looms on the business horizon, the argument against action is increasingly harder to make.
For many within the business community, the future is a carbon-constrained world and the time for action is now. Companies with this perspective already have engaged in GHG reductions. Yet other companies continue to resist and deride their proactive competitors with labels such as ‘carbon cartel’ or ‘Kyoto capitalists.’ Such resistance is a very risky strategy, however, in the face of the coming market shift.
The debate is thus strategic (not scientific) and companies taking voluntary climate action are not practicing philanthropy or pure social responsibility (although many couch their activities in the language of ‘doing the right thing’). In fact, many companies are agnostic about the science of climate change. They engage the climate-change issue as a way to protect their strategic investments and to search for business opportunities in a changing market landscape.
We have to link GHG emissions to business interests. While the strategic benefits of adopting voluntary GHG emissions are as varied as the companies undertaking them, the universal key to financial success is a company’s assessment of its strategic positioning vis-à-vis GHG emissions. As a baseline model, companies have sought strategic benefits from voluntary GHG reductions within seven general frameworks: (1) operational improvement; (2) anticipating and influencing regulations; (3) accessing new sources of capital; (4) improving risk management; (5) elevating corporate reputation; (6) identifying new market opportunities; and (7) enhancing human resource management. Each presents new kinds of questions to help companies ascertain their vulnerability under a climate change protocol.
In today’s business world, several companies already have a history of experience in working with climate-change issues. These are the companies now trying to shift their climate-related strategy from one focused on risk management and bottom-line protection to one that emphasizes business opportunity and top-line enhancements. While this does not mean that all such initiatives are singularly driven by the issue of climate change, nonetheless, climate change is a market shift that further enhances the value proposition of the initiative.
In the end, sustainable climate-related strategies cannot be an add-on to business as usual. Instead, climate-related strategies must be integrated into a company’s overall business strategy for success. The industry also needs to be assured that research scientists are devoted to provide suitable solution. Agreed that in order for real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to take place, changes must come from industries and businesses themselves; but they need a close support from science and also assurance that the state plays an important role in taking part in this collaborative action. However action will need to be taken mainly by the private sector.
Lecturer at Department of Energy Management
Dhurakij Pundit University
said: On 13/01/2010
Understanding the relationship between GHG emissions and key driving factors is crucial for estimating future scenarios of the society. Combating climate change requires that the full legal power, technical capacity, financial resources, scientific knowledge, and all levels of government to be integrated into a single system of management. Certainly, partnerships between science and industry are essential step for GHG emission reductions. However, there is no single solution the best way to reduce GHG emissions. This issue is very complex and multifaceted that no individual can have all the solutions. Partnerships between science and industry may not be the best way but if they are integrated into other bodies they would be the best way to reduce GHG emissions, so what we need is that the integrated approach.
We live in an interesting time. Energy issues and associated environmental challenges continue to hold centre stage because 75% of GHG emissions come from the energy sector. We have to accept the fact that climate change is an issue involving all of us. We all contribute to GHG emissions. Researchers worldwide are tackling climate change in various ways and different research communities consider the problem in different ways too. For example, engineers typically look at the contributions of various energy sectors (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial and transport sectors) as well as the energy mix in an energy system. Economists see the emissions linkage to income, elasticity market role, price, etc. Social scientists see wider perspective. Science and industry are not completely detached. A close linkage exists in many cases which require to be strengthened at multiple scales. Science has been able to help shape the society and its knowledge has helped thousands of industries, organisations and individuals in understanding and finding solutions for modern life.
Scientific knowledge is and will always be the most decisive of human beings. Science allows us to learn and understand from past transitions and to help explore future transitions. The industry gets benefits from scientific developments in their manufacturing processes and others. Thus, science and industry are already partnerships in nature. In addition to the industry, science has been helped to formulate policies, such as energy and climate policies. This is due to it provides us an understanding of the problems, including causes and impacts, therefore, scientific-based policies tend to have higher effective solutions. For example, in my recent work on the comparative study of energy and carbon emissions development pathways and climate policy in Southeast Asian cities, it is found that scientific knowledge allows policy-makers to formulate effective energy and climate policies. Some cities are raising energy and climate awareness to their residents but some are in the development stage. In many cases, they often show climate policy linkages through co-benefits in relation to activities in energy efficiency, energy conservation, urban air pollution and land transport management. Also, many cities are interested in development energy and climate projects for generating local revenue through Clean Development Mechanism and selling Certified Emission Credits. This can be seen as the fruitfulness of the science in opening industrial opportunities.
Chief Operating Officer
Carbon Disclosure Project
said: On 13/01/2010
Business and industry will be crucial in providing the solutions to climate change and in achieving the emissions reductions required, as laid out by the scientific community. If we are to reduce emissions in developed economies by 80% by 2050, we will need to draw on the innovation of corporations to develop new technologies to deliver low carbon solutions.
There is no doubt that the insights of the scientific community are key in informing business. Telecoms company BT has set its emissions reduction target based on the requirement of an 80% reduction by 2050 – this target was informed by scientific consensus. Equally, we are seeing government reduction targets being informed by science. The UK Climate Change Act of 2008 has made legally binding commitments to cut UK emissions by 80% by 2050, so we are seeing the scientific community is influencing both corporate and government targets.
In order to achieve these targets, we need to transition to a low carbon economy. This transition will involve significant research and development of new technologies which will enable emissions to be cut. Renewable technologies such as wind, solar and wave energy generation create enormous opportunities for scientific knowledge being brought to bear on the development of new technologies. Collaboration between scientists and business leaders will play a key role in developing the right technologies. We also see this clearly with carbon capture and storage (CCS). The requirements for research and development to take CCS to scale are significant and we will see a major role for scientists throughout the development process.
So the collaboration between science and industry is an inevitable and important part of driving emissions reductions and as the commercial opportunities around emissions reductions increase, so too will the scope for investment in commercial relationships between the scientific community and industry. However, it is important to remember that for businesses the first step in reducing emissions is measurement – if you don’t measure you can’t manage and we see many hundreds of companies among the 2,500 who report through CDP setting emissions reduction targets as a result of measuring their carbon footprint. Commercial partnerships between scientists and business leaders have an important role to play, but equally important is that every business with a carbon impact, goes through the process of measuring it – because if you don’t measure, you can’t manage and it all begins with keeping score.
Associate Editor
Global Politician
said: On 21/01/2010
If the reduction of GHG (Greenhouse Gases) is a public good, it should be provided mainly by the government (or by NGOs), possibly – but not necessarily – in conjunction with industry. If cutting emissions is essentially a commercial or private good, it is best left to market forces (firms, exchanges) with science merely providing guidance and input to agents and players.
It would seem that environmental goods are public goods.
Pure public goods are characterized by:
I. Nonrivalry – the cost of extending the service or providing the good to another person is (close to) zero.
Most products are rivalrous (scarce) – zero sum games. Having been consumed, they are gone and are not available to others. Public goods, in contrast, are accessible to growing numbers of people without any additional marginal cost. This wide dispersion of benefits renders them unsuitable for private entrepreneurship. It is impossible to recapture the full returns they engender. As Samuelson observed, they are extreme forms of positive externalities (spillover effects).
II. Nonexcludability – it is impossible to exclude anyone from enjoying the benefits of a public good, or from defraying its costs (positive and negative externalities). Neither can anyone willingly exclude himself from their remit.
III. Externalities – public goods impose costs or benefits on others – individuals or firms – outside the marketplace and their effects are only partially reflected in prices and the market transactions. As Musgrave pointed out (1969), externalities are the other face of nonrivalry.
The usual examples for public goods are lighthouses – famously questioned by one Nobel Prize winner, Ronald Coase, and defended by another, Paul Samuelson – national defense, the GPS navigation system, vaccination programs, dams, and public art (such as park concerts). To this we should add mitigating the effects of climate change, cleaner air, and similar environmental goods.
It is evident that public goods are not necessarily provided or financed by public institutions. But governments frequently intervene to reverse market failures (i.e., when the markets fail to provide goods and services) or to reduce transaction costs so as to enhance consumption or supply and, thus, positive externalities. Governments, for instance, provide preventive care – a non-profitable healthcare niche – and subsidize education because they have an overall positive social effect.
Still, pure public goods do not exist, with the possible exception of national defense. Samuelson himself suggested [Samuelson, P.A - Diagrammatic Exposition of a Theory of Public Expenditure - Review of Economics and Statistics, 37 (1955), 350-56]:
“… Many – though not all – of the realistic cases of government activity can be fruitfully analyzed as some kind of a blend of these two extreme polar cases” (p. 350) – mixtures of private and public goods. (Education, the courts, public defense, highway programs, police and fire protection have an) “element of variability in the benefit that can go to one citizen at the expense of some other citizen” (p. 356).
From Pickhardt, Michael’s paper titled “Fifty Years after Samuelson’s ‘The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure’: What Are We Left With?”:
“… It seems that rivalry and nonrivalry are supposed to reflect this “element of variability” and hint at a continuum of goods that ranges from wholly rival to wholly nonrival ones. In particular, Musgrave (1969, p. 126 and pp. 134-35) writes:
‘The condition of non-rivalness in consumption (or, which is the same, the existence of beneficial consumption externalities) means that the same physical output (the fruits of the same factor input) is enjoyed by both A and B. This does not mean that the same subjective benefit must be derived, or even that precisely the same product quality is available to both. (…) Due to non-rivalness of consumption, individual demand curves are added vertically, rather than horizontally as in the case of private goods”.
“The preceding discussion has dealt with the case of a pure social good, i.e. a good the benefits of which are wholly non-rival. This approach has been subject to the criticism that this case does not exist, or, if at all, applies to defence only; and in fact most goods which give rise to private benefits also involve externalities in varying degrees and hence combine both social and private good characteristics’ “.
The Transformative Nature of Technology
It would seem that knowledge – or, rather, technology – is a public good as it is nonrival, nonexcludable, and has positive externalities. The New Growth Theory (theory of endogenous technological change) emphasizes these “natural” qualities of technology.
The application of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) alters the nature of technology from public to private good by introducing excludability, though not rivalry. Put more simply, technology is “expensive to produce and cheap to reproduce”. By imposing licensing demands on consumers, it is made exclusive, though it still remains nonrivalrous (can be copied endlessly without being diminished).
Yet, even encumbered by IPR, technology is transformative. It converts some public goods into private ones and vice versa.
Consider highways – hitherto quintessential public goods. The introduction of advanced “on the fly” identification and billing (toll) systems reduced transaction costs so dramatically that privately-owned and operated highways are now common in many Western countries. This is an example of a public good gradually going private.
Books reify the converse trend – from private to public goods. Print books – undoubtedly a private good – are now available online free of charge for download. Online public domain books are a nonrivalrous, nonexcludable good with positive externalities – in other words, a pure public good.
Environmental goods require an initial investment (the price-exclusion principle demanded by Musgrave in 1959 does apply at times). Nor is strict nonrivalry possible – at least not simultaneously, as Musgrave observed (1959, 1969). Our world is finite – and so is everything in it. The economic fundament of scarcity applies universally – and public goods are not exempt. This is called “crowding” and amounts to the exclusion of potential beneficiaries (the theories of “jurisdictions” and “clubs” deal with this problem).
Nonrivalry and nonexcludability are ideals – not realities. They apply strictly only to the sunlight. As environmentalists keep warning us, even the air is a scarce commodity. Technology gradually helps render many goods and services – including, hopefully, environmental ones – asymptotically nonrivalrous and nonexcludable.
Bibliography
Samuelson, Paul A. and Nordhaus, William D. – Economics – 17th edition – New-York, McGraw-Hill Irian, 2001
Heyne, Paul and Palmer, John P. – The Economic Way of Thinking – 1st Canadian edition – Scarborough, Ontario, Prentice-Hall Canada, 1997
Ellickson, Bryan – A Generalization of the Pure Theory of Public Goods – Discussion Paper Number 14, Revised January 1972
Buchanan, James M. – The Demand and Supply of Public Goods – Library of Economics and Liberty – World Wide Web: http://www.econlib.org/library/Buchanan/buchCv5c1.html
Samuelson, Paul A. – The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure – The Review of Economics and Statistics, Volume 36, Issue 4 (Nov. 1954), 387-9
Pickhardt, Michael – Fifty Years after Samuelson’s “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure”: What Are We Left With? – Paper presented at the 58th Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance (IIPF), Helsinki, August 26-29, 2002.
Musgrave, R.A. – Provision for Social Goods, in: Margolis, J./Guitton, H. (eds.), Public Economics – London, McMillan, 1969, pp. 124-44.
Musgrave, R. A. – The Theory of Public Finance -New York, McGraw-Hill, 1959.
Co-founder, Foreign Editor
SolveClimate.com
said: On 21/01/2010
The answer is a resounding yes.
Of course, stopping dirty coal is priority #1 when it comes to solving the global climate and energy challenge. But a portfolio of solutions exists at every level of government and at every level of society. All should (and can) be deployed together to hasten our use of clean power, our economic recovery and our international security.
Geothermal energy could play a vital role.
Naturally, utility-scale deployment of hot rocks would deliver the greatest greenhouse gas savings and economic benefits. The resource potential is unquestionably massive, and totally undeveloped.
Estimates claim it could be as much as 2,000 GW worldwide. For context, geothermal plants churn out just 10 GW of global electricity today.
But support for massive power plants need not come at the expense of local efforts, where geothermal is becoming a useful efficiency resource.
In the U.S., geothermal systems are beginning to be embraced at a broad level. The Geothermal Energy Association estimates there are 1.5 million households using geothermal heat pumps nationwide. The energy benefits of these systems has been staggering. Electricity savings of 50 percent are frequently recorded, with some individuals claiming savings of 70 percent or more. It is believed that for every 100,000 homes with geothermal systems, around 2 million barrels of foreign oil is saved each year.
Some of the most promising inroads in this area are taking place in big urban centers as part of the green building boom. In the city of Chicago, for example, the AFL-CIO labor union has linked up with a local geothermal firm to install “smart” geothermal building systems for heating and cooling in commercial, public and residential buildings. These projects are creating local jobs in neighborhoods most in need of them. They’re also saving tons of energy — between 50 percent and 80 percent of heating, cooling, and ventilation costs.
All those watts saved are the key reason why such local programs must be encouraged. The single most powerful thing that any locality or individual can do to create a sustainable future for them and the planet is to invest in energy efficiency — be it through geothermal systems or efficient lighting or smart appliances.
Chief Technology Officer
A2BE Carbon Capture LLC
said: On 21/01/2010
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be significantly reduced by restoring the photosynthetic blue green algae soil crust colonies that underpin the health of our planet’s soils. Global soil crust restoration is a natural geo-engineering approach that could remove 1 billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year by 2050. It may also help reverse decades of microbiological soil damage due to over-grazing, unsustainable agriculture, pesticides, fire and even significant war induced damage. The full scope of possibility is still poorly understood. However, a consortium of business interests, national interests, and scientific research organizations are joining in a common quest to develop, produce and deploy a family of soil solutions we call TerraDerm.
Blue green algae are also called cyanobacteria and are found in the first few crusty millimeters of undisturbed and sun exposed soil the world over. The crust is due to the entangled filamentous sheaths of polysaccharide exuded by the cyanobacteria and they bind the soil particles together to resist wind and water erosion. Another fundamental benefit is that these cyanobacteria photosynthetically capture both carbon and nitrogen directly from the atmosphere and provide these in bio available forms that provide energy and nutrition to colonies of microorganisms deep in the soil. Fed by the cyanobacteria, these deeper microorganisms create humic acids that extract phosphorus and micronutrients from the rock grains thereby ultimately creating growth conditions suitable for germinating vascular plants like grasses and shrubs.
Indigenous strains of these soil cyanobacteria underpin the micro-ecology of bare and unshaded soils and are found all over the planet from relatively moist locations to the arid hot deserts of all continents. Even infrequent moisture can sustain and propagate soil crusts as they survive extended periods of dehydration. However, mechanical, chemical or fire damage can take decades or centuries of recovery and with that damage the planet has lost a significant natural sink of atmospheric carbon.
How big is the “lost soil carbon sink” problem? Of the world 13 billion hectares of land mass about 2 billion hectares have been degraded by human activity and an additional 1.4 billion hectares are considered wasteland even though they are successfully but sparsely populated. We estimate that approximately 1 billion hectares among these lands may benefit from restoration of the soil crust to its original condition or a similar indigenous based version of its microbiological character.
What is the proposed solution? We believe that if these soil surfaces are evenly re-inoculated with the right combination of indigenous microorganisms, micronutrients and stabilizers that the soil will begin to re-colonize itself from the soil surface downwards over the course of years or a few decades rather than the hundreds of years that might be otherwise required through natural processes alone. With the right combination of science and engineering the inoculation could be accomplished using agricultural aircraft that will minimize further damage to the soil crusts. While many geo-engineering proposals suggest adding compounds to the atmosphere or into the oceans where their effects are unavoidably multi-national; the effects of soil crust reseeding is naturally limited to the areas being deliberately treated.
How does this differ from adding “biochar” to soil? In biochar proposals approximately 1 kg of inorganic carbon must be mixed into to each square meter of soil. In the TerraDerm approach less than 1 gram of live dormant inoculant is required to be sprinkled onto each square meter. With occasional precipitation and frequent sunlight the seeded colony grows and comprises a self-spreading solar powered fertilizer that nourishes an entire depth of developing soil. Aircraft can be employed in spreading since the application mass is so small and the application is only required on the sunlit soil surface.
Can meaningful amounts of carbon dioxide be removed from the atmosphere? Yes, possibly an entire Climate Wedge or even more yet considerable scientific and engineering analysis and experimentation remains to be done. From our review of the research, a mature soil crust can sequester 30 grams of atmospheric carbon per square meter per year. Over time, the presence of this crust can enable the establishment of secondary vascular plants such as scattered grasses and shrubs that increase the net primary productivity of carbon sequestration rate above and below ground to approximately 100 grams per square meter per year. If 1 billion hectares of suitable global lands were to be inoculated by air and resulted in similar secondary growth, then by 2050 the combined photosynthetic uptake would drawdown 1 billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year. This constitutes 1 Climate Wedge as defined by Socolow et al and thereby represents 1/7th of the total global greenhouse gas problem.
What are other benefits to re-establishing global soil crusts? This same approach of re-establishing indigenous blue green algae colonies could substantially reduce the need to apply GHG emitting nitrogen fertilizers to agricultural crops and grazing lands thereby increasing food production without the attendant GHG emissions of factory fertilizers. Wind eroded plains could be stabilized thereby reducing airborne dust deposits on mountain snowpack and glaciers that accelerates their melting and shortens growing seasons on the plains. Mechanically stabilized soil surfaces also slow down water erosion and runoff increasing water penetration into the soil with benefits to local growth.
If re-establishment is so good, why is it not widely reported on and practiced? It has never before been practical to generate the quantities, purities or forms of cyanobacterial inoculant needed for widespread testing and application. Although decades of limited and scattered studies exist, the technology and science needed to fully develop inoculants, the attendant stabilization compounds, the formulation technology and the spreading means has not been available. Much of this is changing with the development of algal cultivation and harvesting technologies required to support the nascent algal based biofuels industry. Many of these algal growth and harvesting technologies that are currently being developed for food, fuel, pharmaceutical, and chemical feedstock use could be repurposed to cultivate in liquid media the same cyanobacterial based soil microorganisms that live in the top millimeters of soil. Specifically closed algal photobioreactor technology allows these soil microorganisms to be rapidly cultivated and harvested without over competition from wild aquatic species. Another complexity that has held the science back is that the instrumentation required to study soil carbon fluxes in the field is only recently becoming available. Additionally, the time scales of soil experimentation and testing are naturally long, meaning coordinated and accelerated testing sequences need to be developed to advance the science in multiple global locations. What is required is a sustained confluence of soil science, algal science, and international government funding along with the tools, machines and techniques now being developed for the algal based biofuels industry. That confluence of interest is beginning to form up. At A2BE Carbon Capture we are positioning to become a collaboration node, as well as a premier supplier of algal cultivation and harvesting technology to this still dawning, yet vastly promising and innovative industrial and scientific response to global warming.
Former Executive Director
Nuclear power Corporation, India
said: On 22/01/2010
One of the ways to reduce GHG emissions will be to use high efficiecy electrical power generators based on new electromagnet principles of power generation and invention of new machines. Such an institution will require dedicated researchers in engineering and physics areas where free thinkers can guide them to concentrate on more fundamental laws in science and engineering and also researh on the unfinished inventions by Faraday , Tesla and some more earlier researches in this field. This programme needs close coordination between engineering, scienctific and technological organizations.
One reason to hold such development has been lack of resources for such researches, both in past history as well as presently. Added with this problem has been a categorical statement by the Patent Office in USA that any invention claiming perpetual motion will not be enertained. Some Science and Technological Departments do not finance inventions that are not based on the current laws of physics. These organizations do not know that the current theories in some discliplines of science have reached an impasse and have little hope even to understand the basic nature of energy unless the theories are revised. Thus, under this fluid state of science, it is imperative that experiments are done with new principles that will lead to new inventions.
One way is that industrial organizations patronize certain areas of researches and provide resources to private researchers who have zeal and deep interest to invent new system of power generation. This arrangement may be preferred over a centralized government bodies where competitive tendencies for positions may retard progress.
It is equally importatnt that senior engineers / researchers, who have spent decades experimenting on devices, developing new concepts / theories, are able to advise other researchers as to which field of research is to be followed rather than letting the young engineers grope in dark. A period of less than a decade is suficient to discover new concepts and new machines that may deliver more output power than the input.
Cooperation and close coordination of science and industry is a must to finance discovery and invention of new system of power generation where fossil fuel requirement is bare minimum, if not altogether eliminated.
Director
Centro Mario Molina Chile
said: On 22/01/2010
Where exists partnerships between science and industry? In developed countries. Where is the bigger need for more clean technologies? In developing countries. There is a gap here that needs a solution before to answer your question. The international regulatory framework for GHG in combination with local efficient regulation are key to create the demand and conditions, together with the resources for technology transfer and adaptation. We can see the results of CDM projects; we have now some experiences in renewable energy in developing countries, but in mostly of cases without an electric generation market that gives long terms incentives for a real change in the energy matrix. Or in auto market: we are seeing now the plague of SUVs coming to the south, where the emission standards are not well defined or they doesn´t exist at all. Forget it about fuel economy standards.
By the other side, there are a huge need in education and information to promote a change in consuming behavior, in the way that let the people to understand the life cycle of the products, considering emission and energy efficiency in the purchase decision.
We need a whole world and options approach, considering technology, markets and people, or we will see in the future something similar to business as usual GHG emission scenario, where the partnership between science and industry have a good impact in developed countries with just some drops of new technologies falling in the developing countries; where the emissions are growing very fast.
Coordinator
UNDP climate change project
said: On 25/01/2010
In accord to the Protocol of Kyoto the CDM mechanism should promote the transfer of technology from developed countries to developing countries to reduce GHG emissions. In this case the commercial partnerships are the best way to reduce emissions. The CDM have success in big countries like Mexico, Brazil, India , China, in this cases the effective transfer of technology have taken place in a commercial context.
In the most part of non Annex countries (developing countriels) the commercial context may be is not the best way, in this case it seems to me, the governments should be involved more effective trough policies to reduce GHG emissions.
The international cooperation should work in a new more creative activities to finance the GHG emissions reductions in an adaptation context in developing countries.
Senior Consultant
Asset Management & Sustainability Assessment
said: On 27/01/2010
The answer has to be yes, but not without other partnerships. Science in the wider sense is where much front edge thinking on trend breaking futures and debate on the pros and cons can begin. Industry is where current investments have been made and need to be reshaped to bring about changes in CHG emissions. Partnerships between science and industry allows promising strategies to be identified, developed and enabled with those who are capable of investing and delivering. However, without in effect a wider partnership with government and community it is difficult for industry to have enough certainty to know where to invest. Governments need to give industry the assurance that the investments made will not become redundant due to change in government policy. At the same time governments need to be transparent with their communities when developing policy and trend breaking futures. Open, well informed debate is important for community ownership of policy and visions. When government policy and strategy are in line with an informed community, then I think the conditions will better exist for industry investment in the trend breaking futures that reduce GHG emissions.
Chairman
United Soybean Board
said: On 28/01/2010
In the early 1990s, the United Soybean Board (USB), through its U.S. soybean research and promotion program known as the soybean checkoff, funded research to see if a new market could be found for the glut of soybean oil that at the time reduced U.S. soybean farmers’ opportunity for profit. Specifically, this U.S. farmer-driven organization invested in the scientific research behind the viability of the clean-burning, renewable fuel now commonly known as biodiesel. In that time, with continued financial support from U.S. soybean farmers, collaboration between science and industry has proved biodiesel capable of being part of world’s current and future energy solution. Today, researchers continue to investigate biodiesel’s positive environmental characteristics, including its ability to reduce most of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targeted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Biodiesel represents one of the best carbon-reduction strategies available with today’s vehicle technologies. Scientific studies conducted by the U.S. departments of Agriculture and Energy have proved that biodiesel reduces life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions by 78 percent. The smog-forming potential of pure biodiesel hydrocarbons has proved to be 50 percent less than those from petroleum diesel fuel. Pure biodiesel, or B100, also significantly reduces total unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. Soy biodiesel also has one of the best energy balances for a renewable, sustainable fuel that continues to improve due to technology such as the use of biotechnology. Just last year, a study revealed that for every one unit of energy used to produce soy biodiesel, we gain 4.5 units of energy. Petroleum diesel has a negative energy balance.
But were it not for our network of soybean crushing plants, soybean oil refining plants, fuel suppliers and other U.S. biodiesel industry stakeholders employing this technology and distributing it on a large scale, these environmental benefits could not be realized. In 2008, the most recent year for which the U.S. National Biodiesel Board has full production figures, the U.S. biodiesel industry produced more than 700 million gallons of biodiesel, making biodiesel’s environmental benefits available throughout the United States and in other parts of the world. We realize we have some catching up to do when it comes to biodiesel. But U.S. soybean farmers continue to be the driving force behind most of the research and promotion of biodiesel conducted in the United States.
Some of USB’s other scientific and industrial partnerships have also shown that they can help the environment. For example, soybean checkoff funding has led to the development and commercialization of hundreds of consumer and industrial products that use renewable, sustainable soybean oil instead of petrochemical ingredients. And these products come without cost to the world’s food supply. The food industry uses 87 percent of the U.S. supply of soybean oil. Oil makes up just 18 percent of a soybean, while the remainder consists of protein-rich meal. A USB study found that industrial demand for soybean oil for such things as biodiesel and soy-based products increases the supply and decreases the cost of soybean meal, which can be used to produce more food in the form of animal protein.
Finally, the practices and methods involved in the production of our crop continue to grow more and more sustainable, thanks in part to sound, peer-reviewed science. Every year, biotechnology leads to crop varieties that require less inputs, such as herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer; fewer trips through the fields applying these inputs; and less GHG emissions as a result. Furthermore, these scientific advances continue to maximize yields; optimize the components of a soybean for such purposes as producing biodiesel and other soy-based products; and further harmonize the partnerships among farmers, science and industry.