Subscription Center
May 4, 2009 06:18 PM | 22
What is the "right" level of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent "dangerous" interference with the climate? In the last two centuries, concentrations have risen to roughly 387 parts per million—and are rising by roughly 2 ppm per year thanks to the more than 30 billion metric tons of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere annually through things like burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees. (That's up from 280 ppm for all of recorded history before the Industrial Revolution.)
Climatologist James Hansen, for one, thinks the answer is 350 ppm. While recent changes are small compared to the massive climate shifts in the Earth's history—as much as 10 degrees Celsius warmer—the reasons for today's shift is different (humans) as is the speed. "Humans are now 10,000 times more powerful than natural geologic changes," Hansen said at a conference this past Saturday organized by students of Columbia University's masters program in climate and society to examine whether (and why) 350 ppm might be the right number. "We're now, unfortunately, in charge of future changes."
Hansen’s prescription to get down to 350 and avoid most of the unpleasant side effects of climate change, such as sea level rise: Stop burning coal and reforest marginal land, the former to stop putting tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and the latter to soak some of it back up. To do that will require a hefty price on CO2 emissions (ameliorated somewhat, in his opinion, by a dividend back to every American taxpayer). "I hope cap-and-trade doesn't pass because we need to have a more effective approach than that."
Others had different ideas. Environmental scientist Daniel Hillel noted that the mauling of global soils by modern agriculture had resulted in the emission of 20 tons of carbon per hectare per year but that this actually represented an opportunity, through good soil management, to put back into the soil some 600 to 900 megatonnes of carbon per year for the next several decades. "Our task is to reverse this process of degradation and spewing of CO2," he said, "and restore carbon to the soil."
One important possibility for that is so-called biochar—blackened biomass (read: charcoal) that can improve the fertility of soils and trap carbon at the same time. The anomalously fertile soils found in parts of the Amazon can be traced to such biochar, known locally as terra preta, created hundreds of years ago by its pre-Columbian inhabitants. Doing that on a broader scale could help the climate change problem, argued biogeochemist Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University.
Activist Majora Carter similarly argued for a "horticultural infrastructure"—large-scale urban forestry, green roofs, local agriculture, even wetlands restoration—to replace the concrete infrastructure that currently exists as well as a national grid to move renewable electricity from the middle of the country to the coasts, perhaps built along the current interstate system. "We would not have a dire climate crisis if we actually cared about poor people," she said, noting that mountaintop removal mining, power plants, incinerators, industrial hog farms and the like—the point sources for greenhouse gas emissions—are only found in impoverished communities. "The promised land is not black or white or brown or even yellow. The promised land is green."
At the same time, it is unlikely that industries such as coal will be simply shut down, argued Columbia law professor Michael Gerrard. "The last time the U.S. government shut down a lawful industry required a constitutional amendment, had all kinds of collateral effects and didn't last very long," he noted of Prohibition for alcohol in the early 20th century. That said "today, every new coal plant has a smokestack, a boiler and a lawsuit."
The real key to moving away from coal will be creating a carbon market that puts a punitive price on CO2-creating fossil fuel burning, said economist Gernot Wagner of the Environmental Defense Fund. Given existing technologies, he estimated the cost of combating climate change globally at $400 billion per year for the next five years. "This is AIG territory," he admitted, referring to the price tag of the bailout to the insurance giant. The "only way" to pay for that now that government coffers have been emptied by the financial crisis would be a robust market in trading the right to emit CO2.
Of course, maybe the problem will solve itself—at least that's what folks who believe in peak oil, peak fossil fuels or "peak everything" would argue, such as peak oil educator and author Richard Heinberg. Peak anything, simply put, is the point at which producers are pulling as much as will ever be possible of a given fossil fuel, say, as will ever be possible, ushering in potentially catastrophic shortages if demand for said fossil fuel continues to grow. His estimates of true coal reserves argue that "the worst of IPCC emission scenarios won't happen," he said of the possible pathways for CO2 emissions over the next century put out by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "The amount of coal and other fossil fuels actually extractable corresponds to the lowest IPCC scenarios." That isn't an excuse for inaction, however, he added.
And probably one of the most significant and easiest actions that could be taken is to simply stop cutting down trees. Such activity contributes one-fifth of human CO2 emissions, or "more CO2 emissions than all the world's planes, trains and automobiles," according to Papua New Guinea's climate negotiator (and YouTube phenomenon) Kevin Conrad. "Forests could provide time for us to implement other new technologies," he noted. "What we're talking about here is a technology that everyone already understands: how not to cut a tree."
Editor's Note: We live-Twittered the conference. See tweets here or follow me at dbiello or us at sciam.
Image: NOAA
Tags:
greenhouse gas levels,
climate change,
350 ppm,
350,
co2,
carbon dioxide,
global warming,
greenhouse gas,
ipcc
More News Blog:
Next: Could nanotech particles help treat STDs?
Previous: Nuclear fallout aids carbon dating for rare whiskeys
See what we're tweeting about
DrBondar Evolutionary Tales – A Hip Hop Theatre Cycle: Baba Brinkman @BabaBrinkman is Back! http://t.co/LN63rp2xJx #SciAmBlogs
DrJudyStone Lovely #photos: lightning strikes the Grand Canyon http://t.co/83siek3N2k
notscientific Epidemiology summarised in three words:
Frequency
Distribution
Determinants
By @cherrymakes http://t.co/xJmBiBwXRP #scilogs
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
22 Comments
Add CommentI like many of the suggestions here, including no more cutting down trees. However, my love for the trees is more emotional than rational. It has been suggested that cutting the trees and growing new ones would actually accelerate carbon-sinking. This is based on the idea that old trees don't grow much since they've reached their normal height whereas new trees have plenty of growing, and, therefore, carbon-sinking, to do before they reach that point. I'd love to see some references on this to see if it's true or not. If true, it could save several wood-related industries (logging, home-building, furniture, etc) AND help salvage the environment. (Yes, I'm fully aware that it could not be the only solution and other actions need to be taken as well.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems we are willing to try anything and everything to prevent C02 buildup - except population control. It is almost "the solution that dare not speak its name". Why do we have this blind-side? Why is our right to reproduce more sacred than the entire planet ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is any proof that 350 is 'the right number.' If CO2 buildup has gone from 250 to 390 in the last 150 years and we have virtually no change in temperature and no rise in sea levels during the same period, where is the proof? This seems like another factless scare tactic, like 'the spread of communism' or Pig Flu.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe would be much better off freeing up trillions for research and development with tax credits than hysterically taxing the US another three trillion dollars a year for something that may have no effect. We could lower PPM to 200 over the next ten years(or raise it to 500 despite efforts) and be in the same situation, still be puzzled, still exaggerate the threat, and look back at 30 trillion dollars misspent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe would be much better off freeing up capital for reasearch and development with tax credits than panicking and levying a tax on the US alone for three trillion dollars a year. We could lower PPM to 200 over the next ten years, see simiilar evidence of climate change, see the same scare tactics from scientists looking for federal funds and politicians looking for votes, and just be puzzled. We could raise it to 500 and see no change at all. There is no formula we can plug inputs into.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.columbia.edu/cu/climatesociety
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's awesome. Columbia University has a master in climate change that focuses on political science, sociology, and government. Classic. Look through it, they don't seem to offer cutting edge predictive tequniques, but instead train people to be the next Al Gore: choosing fear, and HUGE government over science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was good to finally read a Scientific American story mentioning Biochar technology. Scientists have been working on this for fifteen years now, and only this year has it been taken seriously, at present by the UN and EU authorities. Biochar technology could be applied NOW to start reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. See www.eprida.com for more details.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat post, one thing I'll take exception with: peak oil won't necessarily be good for the climate, because of the increase in use of alternative fossil fuels. Some peak Oilers just posted a pretty good paper on the subject:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5344
350 ppm might well be a good goal, but it's a very distant goal, and one that doesn't need a date. Shouldn't we be thinking first about when we're going to stop increasing our yearly CO2 emissions, or maybe even stop accelerating them? Then when will we get them back down to today's level, then 1900 etc.? And then when will the CO2 ppm start to level off, then drop, or will it, considering that by then higher temperatures will be causing more natural sources, more wildfires, less CO2 dissolving in the oceans etc.? Some people talk about cutting emissions by 80% by 2050. Does that mean making plans until 2049, then cutting?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes MisterA, population control, and rapid, drastic reduction, intentionally or otherwise, would be a big part of the picture, then opulence control. That would be greatly aided if we came to recognize that human evolution happens by memes (see Wikipedia) much faster than genes.
Willie, if you don't believe the great majority of independent climate scientists, have you been involved in making global measurements or calculations, or have some better source of info than politicians, economists, business people and what we'd all most like to hear? If you have some of that, I'd sure like to have some too. True scientists know there is no ultimate "proof", of anything, because we know we never have all the facts.
The great majority of government backed scientist believe this hype. Many independent scientists think that we are not sure what is going on and to what extent. There is always climate change. Europe just started figuring ocean currents into their formulas. That was a big ommision. If ice melts, ocean levels may very well go down. Sun activity and lack of volcanic activity may be more important to climate variance than CO2. Nitrogen from crops is almost certainly more damaging than C02 emmisions. We never have all the facts and Socialist aroud the world want to impose Trillions of dollars in taxes and new spending. Who saw that coming? The huge majority of people in the US are unconcerned with global warming despite the constant lies they are exposed to. This is because nothing has been convincingly proven. Nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The great majority of government backed scientist believe this hype."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour presuming your conclusion that GW is hype.
"Many independent scientists think that we are not sure what is going on and to what extent."
Who are these "independent scientist" and what expertise do they have in climate physics? Do not think that no one has failed to notice your (in your mind doubtlessly) pejorative use of "government scientist".
"There is always climate change."
The genetic fallacy of thinking. Please be aware that because something has had one cause in the past it does not mean that it precludes a different cause now.
"Europe just started figuring ocean currents into their formulas."
Citation of peer reviewed research please.
"If ice melts, ocean levels may very well go down."
What? Please explain in fuller detail.
"Sun activity and lack of volcanic activity may be more important to climate variance than CO2."
Not in the present warming trend of the past thirty years. Do you really think that the geophysicist have overlooked the Sun?
"Nitrogen from crops is almost certainly more damaging than C02 emmisions."
Oh, do pray tell, how Nitrogen is warming the atmosphere or are you just trying to confuse the issue?
"We never have all the facts ..."
The logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. Just because we do not have all the facts does not does not mean we can not come to reasonable and rational conclusions with the evidence we have now.
."..and Socialist aroud the world want to impose Trillions of dollars in taxes and new spending."
Evidence for this vast world wide conspiracy of socialist geophysicists?
"The huge majority of people in the US are unconcerned with global warming."
The logical fallacy of argument ad populum. If the huge majority of people where unconcerned with lead poisoning does that make the issue of lead poisoning go away?
"This is because nothing has been convincingly proven."
1. Science does not operate on proofs but best evidence.
2. If you would actually read what the geophysicists are saying then you might learn what evidence there is.
Nothing.
i don't see other people doing much to remove co2 from the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisatmosphere. but i have been doing it since 1993 = 16 years...
when i plant plankton in an ocean, lake, or river, they begin growing,
multiplying, and removing co2, while increasing o2.
in addition, when i plant them in streams, they remove chemical pollutants from the water, and bury them under sediments.... improving ocean for increased plankton growth,,,
glen hemerick, 15871 peacock hill rd se, olalla, wa 98359
phone 253-857-7225 ghemerick@yahoo.com, ghemerick@harbornet.com
"government scientist"? During the Bush years a "government scientist" or really science advisers are all government and no scientist. It looks like some real scientist's may be getting back into the government for independent scientific advice (and not rubber stamping) but this has not been the case for a long time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd contrary to the "government / Socialist paranoia you seem to have (socialist taxes? WTF) . . The supposed "government scientist" you state really downplayed climate change for there political masters policies as best they could for years.
It was the non-hand picked government scientist's and the independent ones that really tried to let people know what was going on. The evidence (good and every growing evidence) is strengthening there position daily that humans ARE making a difference and to our own projected detriment. It is there job to inform us of the information . . it is up to us and our governments to DO something or not.
These same scientists have been looking at the growing data and have made their concerns public globally! ( globally!!) There is a global scientific consensus across the spectrum (political, geographical, etc . . ) This would not happen by force even if a group, government, or conspiracy wanted it to (too widespread and diverse). For scientists the evidence is everything . . there are still arguments (good ones) for variations in models, etc but the overall consensus is the same.
Unfortunately trying to repair/revert what we have done IS in the political arena and solutions / policies are hyped and pushed (only way to get a couch potato to do anything). So if you have a beef with government policy that is fine (we all do to some degree and that is good) but do not attack the science behind climate change till you learn more . . since your supporting arguments against the possibility of a human helped climate change where, well, rather lame. You may want to turn off the talk radio and stay away from conspiracy web sites and try to REALLY research and learn about subjects you do not understand rather then regurgitate propaganda and pseudoscience out of ignorance.
Is there any audio or video of this conference somewhere?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've looked around and can't find any . . .
Who do you work for and who is paying you to make these outrageously wrong comments?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" If ice melts, ocean levels may very well go down. "
Maybe in your bizarro world. Global warming is causing thermal expansion of the oceans, the rise in sea level will not just be from melting ice but from the fact that the water itself is warmer and therefore it expands. Read up on this at least before you post comments like that.
A lot of people, including some progressive radio hosts, and scientists, are now talking about population control. I would guess it will become an obvious factor very soon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this280ppm.com CarbonNeutrality ( Carbon Neutrality ) Rip-Off
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoseph Turquie and Neil Feldstein brings new CarbonNeutrality ( Carbon Neutrality http://www.280ppm.com ) Trading pollution credits business which is just a rip-off.
CarbonNeutrality 280 ppm certificates are sold through franchise dealers such as Atlantic-Millennium (Toyota, Honda) John Staluppi Auto Group to car buyers who feel so guilty about contributing to global warming and of course, dont tell you how they guarantee that they will reduce carbon dioxide.
A few years back; Joseph Turquie and Neil Feldstein Neil Lincoln/Mercury Hyundai Corp., d/b/a Neil Lincoln-Mercury Hyundai ( Medford );Neil Buick Corporation, d/b/a Neil Buick Pontiac Dodge Isuzu ( Medford ), nearly 25 years of experience misleading and deceptive advertisements included those which:
-Promote the lowest prices in ads, without disclosing (or doing so in extremely fine print) that the advertised price excluded a range of additional fees and charges or applied rebates of very limited availability;
-Promote $0 Down payment that misleads consumers into believing they can complete the purchase/lease of a vehicle without paying-out any money. Consumers later learn that registration fees, taxes and other charges must be paid when the contract is signed;
-Advertise 0% APR that fails to disclose conditions, qualifications and limitations that materially affect the offers availability and violates the federal Truth-In-Lending law;
Advertise low monthly lease payments in violation of federal advertising laws that require the disclosure of information about other costs that would significantly increase the total cost of leasing; and
-Promote Bad Credit? No Problem! ads that mislead consumers into believing that they can receive financing regardless of their credit history and fails to disclose that the finance rates for high risk borrowers may be prohibitively high.
Neil Lincoln-Mercury Hyundai, Neil Buick Pontiac Dodge Isuzu and other a few other dealers have agreed to pay a total of $57,500 in penalties and to stop their misleading and deceptive marketing practices. details: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2004/apr/apr26a_04.html
Still feel so guilty about contributing to global warming?
well, the cilmate changes may not seems to be a reallity to most of the humans living in countries high above the seal level. but for me and people in my small country we live no more than 3 feet, Maldives. our small islands are going to be the first nation that will be under the sea, with the raising of sea levels , even as i write, some of our island are having trabble cases of errosion and reaf damages, like dying of coral reef which is the only natural barrier of protaction, for us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif the carbon emmison continues at the current rate we will be the first to lose our freedom, and become climate change refugies, then i am asking which of your nations will take us to your countries, will we be together, as maldivians, what is the hope that i am to give my 3 year old son regarding the safty of our beautiful island nations which every one call paridies on earth.
All political persuasions agree, building soil carbon is GOOD.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Hard bitten Farmers, wary of carbon regulations that only increase their costs, Building soil carbon is savory bone, to do well while doing good.
Biochar provides the tool powerful enough to cover Farming's carbon foot print while lowering cost simultaneously.
Another significant aspect of bichar is removal of BC aerosols by low cost ($3) Biomass cook stoves that produce char but no respiratory disease emissions. At Scale, replacing "Three Stone" stoves the health benefits would equal eradication of Malaria.
http://terrapretapot.org/ and village level systems http://biocharfund.org/
The Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF).recently funded The Biochar Fund $300K for these systems citing these priorities;
(1) Hunger amongst the world's poorest people, the subsistence farmers of Sub-Saharan Africa,
(2) Deforestation resulting from a reliance on slash-and-burn farming,
(3) Energy poverty and a lack of access to clean, renewable energy, and
(4) Climate change.
The Biochar Fund :
Exceptional results from biochar experiment in Cameroon
http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=3011
http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/10/01/761/comment-page-1#comment-2558
The broad smiles of 1500 subsistence farmers say it all ( that , and the size of the Biochar corn root balls )
http://biocharfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=75
Mark my words;
Given the potential for Laurens Rademaker's programs to grow exponentialy, only a short time lies between This man's nomination for a Noble Prize.
This authoritative PNAS article should cause the recent Royal Society Report to rethink their criticism of Biochar systems of Soil carbon sequestration;
Reducing abrupt climate change risk using
the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory
actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/09/0902568106.full.pdf+html
There are dozens soil researchers on the subject now at USDA-ARS.
and many studies at The up coming ASA-CSSA-SSSA joint meeting;
http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2009am/webprogram/Session5675.html
Senator Baucus is co-sponsoring a bill along with Senator Tester (D-MT) called WE CHAR. Water Efficiency via Carbon Harvesting and Restoration Act! It focuses on promoting biochar technology to address invasive species and forest biomass. It includes grants and loans for biochar market research and development, biochar characterization and environmental analyses. It directs USDI and USDA to provide loan guarantees for biochar technologies and on-the-ground production with an emphasis on biomass from public lands. And the USGS is to do biomas availability assessments.
WashingtonWatch.com - S. 1713, The Water Efficiency via Carbon Harvesting and Restoration (WECHAR) Act of 2009
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_SN_1713.html#commentform
Congressional Research Service report (by analyst Kelsi Bracmort) is the best short summary I have seen so far - both technical and policy oriented.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40186_20090203.pdf .
United Nations Environment Programme, Climate Change Science Compendium 2009
http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/
http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/PDF/Ch5_compendium2009.pdf
Endorsements;
Bill Clinton said Biochar;
Mantria Industries inducted in Clinton Global Intuitive
http://www.mantria.com/eg_presidential_video.shtml
About time Al Gore got on the Biochar Bus, now if he will stick at it, waving out the windows;
Al Gore praised in Brazil the indigenous practice of "terra preta"
http://www1.voanews.com/spanish/news/latin-america/Al-Gore-Brasil-terra-preta-indigenas-amazonicos-64318922.html
Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
Cheers,
Erich
This is a idea I've got for helping with cars put a fan under the bonnet that will charge the car up when it start losing power the fan will kick in and power the battery so when it get the power back it stop. The car has to be moving to work. And the fan will move up abit if the car gose not so fast. Also it has dynamos in the wheels like the old bike to work the head lights and back lights so the other cars can see it. In homes and cars to you could use drain water with a fan in it to go up to the house that is power by a wire from that fan to each house also you could power the charger that charge the car that you can have at home all in the petol place
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Clare Mcvety
Why don't you try this idea if you have't done it yet. Where you have a fan recharge for a car so if the car runs out of power the fan will kick in and power the battery up. when once is power up the fan will stop. But the car has to moving to work. Also the fan gose up if it dose not go as fast so the wind can get better thougth the grill of the car. Also there are dynamos in the wheels of the car like the old bikes then it can have lights so the car can see them behind. Also you could think of using drain water for the charger that charge the car and not power plants and maybe do that with house power put a fan into the drains to help.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Clare Mcvety