removing carbon from the atmosphere, Senator Manchin’s conflict of interest, tree planting as a climate solution, nuclear-fusion reactors, high-altitude wind power
The Atlantic notes that a key (but not new) finding from the recent IPCC report is that humanity will have to remove large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere to prevent global average temperature from rising to a very dangerous level. While natural ecosystems can carry some of this load, there is no doubt that we will need to develop and deploy technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Recently, an alliance of major tech companies — including Google, Meta, Shopify, and Stripe — announced that it is purchasing $925 million worth of carbon removal over the next eight years through a new venture called Frontier. Frontier will be paying carbon removal companies for drawing carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it. Stripe has been engaged in this work for a couple of years, purchasing carbon removal from 14 different start-ups (you can hear Stripe’s project leader on the Volts podcast). By creating demand, they want to stimulate innovation and policy development that will bring about carbon removal at large scale (this approach, previously applied in vaccine development, is known as “advanced market commitment”). The new company’s leader states that “a billion dollars is roughly 30 times the carbon-removal market that existed in 2021. But it’s still 1,000 times short of the market we need by 2050.”
Even if large-scale carbon removal is successfully commercialized, this is not some type of “morning after” pill for excessive greenhouse-gas emissions. If we overshoot our temperature limits by failing to control emissions (which seems likely), many irreversible impacts will occur. Grist discusses these, including species extinctions and sea level rise driven by heat already captured in the ocean. It is also possible that a warming planet passes through tipping points where climate changes occur (over decades/centuries) even with extensive carbon removal in the second half of this century. Examples include insect outbreaks and wildfires that kill trees and release additional greenhouse gases, or heat and drought causing some parts of the Amazon rainforest to release more carbon than it sequesters (I explored tipping points in a previous post). If such processes take off, our carbon-removal efforts will be “like shoveling a walkway in a blizzard.” Steering clear of these tipping points is why it is so essential to cut emissions aggressively now…
another sobering warning from the IPCC, Arizona faces water-supply challenge, heat waves in the Arctic and Antarctica, transition from fossil fuels to reduce Putin’s power, fungi turn food waste into leather
The third in the latest series of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this one on the mitigation of climate change, was just released. The sobering analysis notes that the world will likely warm 3°C by 2100 on our current trajectory, well above the more protective (although still significant) 1.5°C aspiration in the Paris Agreement. If nations meet the commitments they made under the landmark Paris Agreement, the temperature rise would be 2.8°C. The New York Times notes that “holding warming to just 1.5 degrees Celsius would require nations to collectively reduce their planet-warming emissions roughly 43 percent by 2030 and to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere altogether by the early 2050s.” This means that global emissions must peak before 2025, then decline rapidly.
That is an enormous undertaking that the world so far appears unwilling to make. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called the report “a file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track toward an unlivable world,” and asked for citizens around the world to demand an end to coal burning and an accelerated transition to renewable power. Scientists stress that, even if the 1.5°C target is unattainable, all reductions are valuable at preventing even more devastating future impacts.
While there is a cost to the transition, it is less than the cost of impacts. The report notes, “the interaction between politics, economics and power relationships is central to explaining why broad commitments do not always translate to urgent action.” There is evidence that action is quite feasible. Over the past ten years, 18 countries have continued to reduce their emissions year over year, and the rate of growth of emissions was less in the 2010s than in the 2000s. As I will discuss in my next My Take, the extraordinary drop in the cost of solar, wind and batteries has greatly expanded their use around the world and suggests that transitioning to clean energy sources will be cheaper than staying on fossil fuels…
megadrought and megafloods challenge farmers and sewers, West Virginia Governor doubts climate science, California regains authority to regulate vehicle emissions, wildfire risk set to climb, trucking water could replace hydroelectric dams
The drought in the west continues. In California, the federal water project announced no deliveries of water this year, and the state water project will only deliver 5% of contracted amounts. This leaves many farmers to depend upon depleted groundwater reservoirs, and the Washington Post describes the impact on communities and agriculture in the state. Nearly 400,000 acres of agricultural land was left unplanted last year due to a lack of water, costing farmers $1.1 billion in lost productivity and costing the region nearly 9,000 agricultural jobs.
The droughts and extreme weather across America are driving up the cost of insuring the country’s farmers. Inside Climate News reports that, from 1995 to 2020, “insurance payments to farmers have risen more than 400 percent for drought-related losses and nearly 300 percent for losses from rains and flooding.” Accelerating climate change will bring more of these challenging growing conditions, making the cost of crop insurance rise even higher. NPR notes that U.S. Taxpayers cover about 60% of the cost of policy premiums and may also be responsible for insurance payouts to farmers in the event of widespread crop damage. A small farmer states that crop insurance discourages adaptation to environmental change, and only insures a small number of commodity crops like corn and soybeans.
“It actually hurts farmers from trying to be proactive and change their farms,” he said. “They can do the same thing that they’ve done for years and they’re going to get paid for it if they have a failure…”
yet another warning from world scientists, climate change alters the Gulf of Maine, beavers enter the Arctic, White House seeks to counter climate misinformation, record-setting federal lease sale is for wind — not oil and gas, a solar steel mill in Colorado
The Washington Post describes the recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as “a warning letter to a world on the brink.” The report notes that, even if humanity limits further warming to 1.5°C, a person born in the last 10 years will experience a fourfold increase in the number of extreme weather events during his/her lifetime. By 2100, 8% of the world’s farmland would become unsuitable for growing crops. Robinson Meyer summarizes the report in the Atlantic, noting that “by the middle of the century, it will be too hot to work outside many days of the year across large swaths of the world.” He also highlights the adverse impacts on human health, and stresses that the degradation of ecosystems will occur with often unquantifiable but quite real impacts (as noted in an article in Vox).
Of course, chances are that the planet will warm more than 1.5°C, and so the impacts to civilization will be even greater. “Each increment of additional warming brings more devastation, more death — and more dollars spent on coping.” With 2°C warming, hundreds of millions of people will be exposed to water scarcity, tens of millions will be exposed to extreme heat waves and millions more will die due to climate-related diseases. The New York Times notes that the IPCC suggests these changes can outstrip society’s ability to adapt. A Washington Post editorial concluded that this report cannot be a wake up call, as there is “no excuse for policymakers to be asleep to the threat of climate change at this point.” Indeed, some climate scientists are calling for a strike, telling their colleagues to refuse to produce a subsequent set of reports as a way to call attention to the urgency of the situation. An op-ed in the Guardian quotes one of the IPCC lead authors: “Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future…”
seas continue rising and the megadrought persists, world’s glaciers smaller than previously thought, bitcoin mining keeps coal plants operating, eliminating meat consumption a major climate solution, solar canopies for canals could reduce emissions and conserve water
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has concluded in a recent assessment that sea level along the U.S. Coastline is projected to rise an average of 10-12 inches in the next 30 years (2020-2050). This is as much as the rise measured over the last 100 years (1920-2020), reports the Washington Post, and it “will create a profound increase in the frequency of coastal flooding, even in the absence of storms or heavy rainfall.” NOAA’s lead scientist for sea level rise notes that “there will be water in the streets unless action is taken in more and more communities.” Inside Climate News examines NOAA’s findings in more detail, including sea level rise impacts in Mexico and other nations. An article in The Conversation provides a short primer on sea level rise. In the Guardian, UC Berkeley Professor Kristina Hill provides some thoughts on how the world’s coastal communities might respond to rising seas.
The megadrought in the American Southwest, which began in 2000 and continues today, is now the driest two decades in the region in at least 1,200 years, according to a new study summarized by the New York Times. The study was conducted by analyzing tree rings, and also showed that human-caused warming played a major role in making the current drought so extreme. Several previous megadroughts in the 1,200-year record lasted as long as 30 years, which currently appears likely for this one as well…