The nation's top climate scientist has visited some of "countries that are among the best-educated on climate change" and come away disappointed. For real disappointment, though, imagine what happens when climate scientists from those countries visit America.
The whole report [PDF] is worth reading, with many fascinating nuggets. Hansen joins the cavalcade of experts who thoroughly debunks the notion that changes in solar irradiation are responsible for global warming trend in recent decades. But what I want to excerpt here is analysis on coal, including a terrific figure that I am extracting from his document:
What the figure makes clear is that from the climate perspective, the problem is coal (without carbon capture and storage). If you want to restrain or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you need to cut coal emissions. Here is what Hansen says about the figure and its implication for policy:
The surge in global CO2 emissions is mainly a surge in coal use. The surge is mainly in the East, especially China, but the West cannot make a peep about that, because the West is building coal plants itself, has many more on the books, and presents no effective alternatives. In addition, the West is responsible for most of the excess CO2 in the air today ...
Figure 3 also shows that coal use in Russia is modest and not increasing. Thus the common assertion that Russia is a wild card that would prevent successful control of global warming is diminished by realization that the primary requirement is phase-out of coal emissions ...
In summary, policy implications of the geophysical boundary conditions include:
- Annual CO2 emissions, and thus percent reduction of annual emissions, is not an appropriate metric for controlling climate change. Lifetime of CO2 is so long that slowing CO2 emissions has little effect on climate change. Instead, we must limit the total fossil fuel CO2 emission.
- Phase-out of coal emissions is the sine qua non for climate stabilization. Oil and gas, the most convenient portable fossil fuels, are sufficiently abundant to carry the world well into the dangerous CO2 zone, but not irretrievably so. If coal emissions (not necessarily coal use) were phased out promptly (within ~2 decades, which probably would require phase-out in the West within ~1 decade), it would be practical to get back to CO2 levels lower than the present day amount. Coal is by far the dirtiest of the conventional fossil fuels, providing additional reason to target it for phase-out. Conclusion that the largest pools of oil and gas will be used, and that oil and gas reserves are smaller than coal reserves, does not imply that it makes sense to extract every last drop of oil and gas. Given the need to move beyond fossil fuels in any case, and the need to get back to a safe level of atmospheric CO2, policy-makers should consider actions that move beyond fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, preferably leaving in the ground the oil and gas that is more difficult to extract or located in environmentally sensitive regions.
- Countries cannot be allowed to "buy out" of coal phase-out via supposed reforestation or reduction of non-CO2 forcings. Sequestration of CO2 via improved forestry and agricultural practices is needed to reduce atmospheric levels below current levels. If reforestation CO2 reductions are used up as a trade-off for coal emissions it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get CO2 levels back below current levels. Similarly, the limited potential for reduction of non-CO2 forcings is needed to balance the positive (warming) climate forcing due to other non-CO2 effects, especially expected reduction of reflective aerosols.
- Unconventional fossil fuels, including tar shale, tar sands, and methane hydrates, which contain more carbon than coal and other conventional reserves, must not be widely developed.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
New interactive map shows devastating effects of global temperature rise
Ask Umbra on bike helmets
Comments
View as Threaded
Jon Rynn Posted 2:28 pm
06 Aug 2008
Maybe Hansen thinks it would be politically easier to go after coal, since people don't care where there electricity comes from, while replacing oil with electricity in the transportation sector might require more personal day-to-day changes.
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 2:56 pm
06 Aug 2008
Re "oil use has to be attacked", it will be - by peak oil.
Permalink
greentiger Posted 6:19 pm
06 Aug 2008
I'd be interested in seeing these as a function of mt-C per capita, as well corresponding graphs in BTUs--for instance the Russian graph is particularly interesting: the coal dropoff post-USSR has not recovered, but you'll notice their emissions are starting to rise, albeit slowly, probably as they've started to embrace their NG reserves.
It's unfortunate that Germany doesn't have more emissions from NG, then their graph would like a mixed-up German flag.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 6:43 pm
06 Aug 2008
As a scientist, what concerns Dr Hansen are the concentrations of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. As these levels climb up, the effects on climate change will become worse and worse.
Also as a scientist, Dr Hansen doesn't care about whether we increase these CO2 levels right now or 10 years into the future. It is all the same from a climate change perspective.
Why is Dr Hansen not worried about oil ?
Because we don't have too much oil anyways. It is all going to get burnt up. And even then, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will not be beyond hope. What makes crucial difference is the amount of coal we leave unburnt.
Instead of thinking like an activist, try to think like a scientist. Then you will get a longer perspective into the future.
Also, everyone please check the references to the book of Tom Blees "Prescriptions for the Planet" mentioned by Dr Hansen. Tom is a first rate chap and he is with us on gristmill as President Lindsay.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 8:33 pm
06 Aug 2008
I see the most ready solution for India and China in fuel switching in existing coal plants and in the many coal-fired 'captive power plants' that are popping up there every day.
They should start with co-firing torrefied biomass pellets, build that up, and gradually phase out the use of coal. Torrefied biomass pellets can replace all coal in conventional coal plants (in contrast with first-gen pellets, which can be co-fired at a max. rate of only 10 to 15%).
The major revolution is that the torrefaction process yields energy dense pellets that can be used in existing infrastructures, so there's no need to build dedicated biomass power plants, grinders, storage space, new grids, etc... The entire infrastructure of the existing coal plant can be used.
This makes it the cheapest coal beating option currently available.
Torrefied pellets also allow for far more efficient logistics and longer transport chains (distances for first-gen pellets can be squared when the biomass is torrefied first, making long distance trade - over thousands of kilometers - highly feasible).
The first big torrefaction plant is operational in the Netherlands, and that company is aggresively moving towards India and China (check: Topell.com).
India has a potential biomass waste reserve capable of supplying a total capacity of 30GW, China's is bigger. But many energy plantations can be established in the region, on degraded or eroded land, and the pellets transported via existing coal chains.
The key factor in this entire debate is the competitiveness of the alternative to coal. And given very high coal prices, some renewables stand a chance of breaking through. Once they're put in place, they won't be taken off the market.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:01 pm
06 Aug 2008
If you look at the picture in the post above, you see how rapidly the black curve going up for China and India. With depleting oil and natural gas, it will be coal that will fill up the energy needs for China and India (both have copious amounts of coal).
The energy consumption per capita (in kilograms of oil equivalent / year) :
USA : 7794.8
UK : 3918.1
France : 4518.4
China : 1138.3
India : 512.4
These numbers will rise up to both China and India to around 3000. Most of this demand will be filled up by coal, if alternatives are not quickly available.
Biomass can be good but cannot replace even a fraction of this demand.
Permalink
xss500 Posted 10:44 pm
06 Aug 2008
Nevada Treatment Centers
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:10 am
07 Aug 2008
There's a danger to what he's saying, because if we ignore the oil problem, and don't make alternatives a central plank of a mitigation platform, then his worst fears have a better chance of occuring, that is, in order to replace oil, tar sands/shale will be developed, or coal-to-liquid will make it much more difficult to stop the use of coal (and a much greater biofuel use would lead to disastrous deforestation). So I'm not just thinking like an activist here, the rumblings from expensive oil are scary enough to think that the oil problem must be tackled.
I understand why he doesn't want to go there, because it's actually much more straightforward to replace coal at this point than to replace oil, because if people want big,heavy,fast,long-distance cars, and if they don't want to live in denser environments with more transit, there's no way out. So better to concentrate on the more straightforward replacement of coal with solar/wind/geothermal. But people should be aware of the potential problems going forward.
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 1:12 am
07 Aug 2008
India and China are said to be planning an additional 500 power plants.
And, overlays often confuse me.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:45 am
07 Aug 2008
Permalink
Ted Nace Posted 4:20 am
07 Aug 2008
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Europe_and_coa ...
Help build coalSwarm-- a shared informational resource on coal and alternatives to coal.
Permalink
Island Press Posted 6:06 am
11 Aug 2008
You can find out more about this download, and links to related articles, at: http://www.islandpress.org/challengeofglobalwarming
Permalink
President Lindsay Posted 6:03 pm
12 Aug 2008
But we don't need it. We can derive synthesis gas from garbage, agricultural waste and industrial waste, and from that we can make all the same products. Even carbon neutral gasoline! Not only that, but we wouldn't even have to separate our garbage, just throw everything into the dumpster: poopy diapers, old drain oil, asbestos, dioxin, old car batteries, nerve gas, whatever. You can read about all this and the other technologies mentioned in Dr. Hansen's paper in my book as soon as it's out, in late August.
Permalink