If I feel
a strain this week, it's not because of the volcano blowing planes out of the
sky over Europe. Unless the larger
Icelandic volcano nearby goes off, scientists say the dangerous ash will not
really cool the planet much. It may
damage our economy more in the short run.
But the
biggest-ever suspension of air travel reduced carbon emissions for a few days,
and taught a few people how to take a train, or use video-conferencing. Every cloud has a silver lining.
No, my
worry is about this week's program. All
I have is an interview with a top scientist, a recording of Congressional
testimony, and a reading from James Hansen's latest book.
Sounds
less exciting than a volcano, or Tiger's latest mistress expose...
But wait,
what if I told you half of the recent ice melt in the Arctic was not caused
by extra greenhouse heat? What if
rivers running dry, and people dying by the millions, all came from the same
cause?
Did you know there is fast-warming, and slow warming? That smog could be heating and hiding warming at the same time? So much, that we could experience a permanent burst of heat, taking us past the 2 degree safety mark, in just a matter of days?
Science
can be way ahead of Hollywood when it comes to danger and mystery. Welcome to the Radio Ecoshock special on BLACK
CARBON.
It is as
evil as it sounds. Black carbon comes
from incomplete combustion. It happens
naturally from forest fires - although some of the great fires are not so
natural. Warming has already shifted
rainfall patterns and brought earlier dryness - from Australia to California to
Greece and Africa.
A lot of
black carbon comes from diesel engines - the highway trucks, public buses,
construction equipment, generators and trains.
These particles are too small to see.
Photo blow ups reveal diesel carbon looking like tiny meteorites, with
rough surfaces and pock-marks. Those
surfaces get coated with pesticides and other toxic chemicals, making it
directly past our body defenses, into our blood streams. You can find out more in my Radio Ecoshock
special for April 25th, 2008 "Highway to Hell, How Smog Kills". Grab that free from our archives at
ecoshock.org.
The short
story is low-level smog greatly raises the number of heart attacks. As Dr. Joel Schwartz of Harvard reveals,
patients die quickly in their homes, or on the streets, DOA before they reach
the hospital. This happens all over the
world.
But black
carbon haze goes much higher than our office towers. It floats up into the atmosphere, browning out the Sun - over New
England in the Summer, over the West Coast cities, over the whole of Pakistan
and Northern India, over much of China.
And, as we'll learn today, these dark particles absorb heat directly
from the Sun, helping to overheat the world.
The haze
also reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth, reaching our crops, by
as much as 10 percent. A huge loss of
agricultural productivity.
Even when
they land, most often collecting on mountains, and in the Arctic, black carbon
speeds up melting of snow and ice. That
change of Albedo adds to warming, and the abnormal run-off adds to both drought
inland, and rising seas everywhere.
And
strangest of all, we could probably fix the black carbon problem comparatively
cheaply. But if we fix it quick, the
climate could suddenly turn on us, heating up the world. Damned if we do, and damned if we
don't. Welcome to the ironic universe.
I'm Alex
Smith. Let's find out about black
carbon, before it kills us.
READ MORE
(including a quick summary of expert testimony on black carbon to the House
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, chaired by
Representative Ed Markey. A reading
from James Hansen's new book "Storms of Our Grandchildren". And clips of what the world's biggest coal
companies told Congress about global warming.
One of
the scientists called to testify was Tami Bond, an expert in black carbon.
[Tami
Bond interview, audio
only 17 min]
Black
carbon. What is it? On March 16th, a Congressional Committee
held a hearing called "Clearing the Smoke:
Understanding the Impacts of Black Carbon Pollution." That was the House Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming, Chaired by Massachusetts Representative
Edward J. Markey, Democrat.
You can
download the full hour and a half discussion, with the latest science and
public policy options, as two free mp3 files, at our web site,
ecoshock.org. Look for the
audio-on-demand menu on our home page, and choose "Climate Solutions"
to find these committee recordings.
Part
1 45 minutes, 10 megabytes is here.
Part
2 42 minute here.
Our time
is short, so here are the bulletin points you need to know, from this hour and
a half of discussion with top scientists.
1.
Surprisingly, both Democrats and Republicans agree on the risks, and
need for action on black carbon.
Republican Rep Jim Sensenbrenner, of Wisconsin, thinks quick action on
black carbon can and should be done, because it doesn't risk the economy, as
action on CO2 would...that's partly because, he says, quote "most of the
world's black carbon is produced in Asia" and "it would be a lot
cheaper to buy stoves for developing nations than to implement draconian
regulations on CO2"
... and
that is the problem, Republicans want Asia to act, while avoiding regulation of
the fossil fuel industry at home.
1(a)
Scientist Tami Bond says a team of scientists will report on black carbon this
June. Here is a You tube video
of her initial statement.
2.
Scientist V. Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution outlined how black carbon
directly impacts the water budget of the planet. (by changing cloud
formation, impacting the monsoons, causing earlier snow melt in from Himalayas
to Rockies, and causing more snow and ice melt in the Arctic.)
3.
Ramanathan testified black carbon causes anywhere from 20 to 60 % of the
warming brought on by carbon dioxide.
It is possible that half the warming impacts experienced so far are
really from black carbon.
4. Again,
Ramanathan tells us: the weight of man-made carbon dioxide is a staggering 880
billion tons, while black carbon is a miniscule 250,000 tons. Even that small amount has almost half the
effect of CO2, Ramanathan believes.
5. We are
adding about 35 gigatons of CO2 every year, growing at a rate 2-3%. At this rate, CO2 could double by 2100.
6.
Finally, Ramanathan explains that black carbon science-in-the-making, it is so
new, compared to CO2 study. That is
why the public is so unaware of this problem.
7. Black
carbon impacts depend on models. There
is no direct measurement yet. Scientist
Drew Shindell of NASA puts the range at 15 to 55 % of warming caused by CO2 -
but quote, "even larger in the Arctic, due to it's strong impact on snow
and ice."
8. Conrad
Schneider, Advocacy Director, Clean Air Task Force, estimates in the U.S.
alone, diesel particulates will cause over 21,000 premature deaths this year.
9. We learn the EPA is studying black carbon, is supposed to report back about a year from now, in 2011.
10. Filters
are available today, that can trap up to 90% of black carbon pollution from
diesels; there are "over 11 million diesel engines in use today
without filters" in the U.S - and hundreds of millions globally.
Current
U.S. regulations will take decades to clean up diesel pollution if ever. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has only
the authority to regulate 1 million of the 11 million diesels out there, in the
U.S. The Clean Air act only allowed
stricter emissions when an engine is rebuilt.
And only 1 million are expected to be rebuilt in the next decade. Still, fixing that million would be
equivalent of removing 21 million cars from the road. EPA has that authority, but is still studying whether to exercise
it. That is, nothing is being done with that authority.
11. We
learn from Conrad Schneider, that various bills are available, from Waxman
Markey to the Transportation Act, but not much is really happening. The Waxman Markey bill proposes foreign aid
for cook stoves, because "half the people on Earth use inefficient cook
stoves."
As Dr.
Ramanathan can relate from his own family experience in India, it is not
enough to parachute in better stoves.
There are cultural resistances that have to be overcome, to allow people
to actually use them. People prefer
"the old ways" and may think food from old stoves tastes
better...like "smoked" food.
For example, as Ramanathan says, 150 million households use stoves made
of mud, burning cow dung and crop residues.
These people in India are highly resistant to change.
I note
there was no discussion of solar cooking in Africa or India.
12. To
reduce the damage from black carbon, farm burning needs to change from the
Spring to another season, because Spring is when the fall out on Arctic ice
has the greatest impact.
13. Bond
says health benefits of reducing black carbon are easy to see, as opposed to
the long term benefits of cutting carbon dioxide. We can improve health, and help the climate at the same time.
14. NASA's Drew Shindell says diesel particulate filters are the best investment for both health and climate
15. Dr.
Ramanathan says globally, the Albedo affect of black carbon is about 10% of the
total black carbon problem. Drew
Shindell adds that the impact on the Himalayas is "ambiguous," due to
the large amount of other particulates, including dust. But the impact of black carbon in the Arctic
is clear. Quote: "It's quite
possible that black carbon is responsible for over half of the accelerated
melting we've seen in the past few decades [in the Arctic] - or at least
over the 20th Century."
And
Shindell tells the Committee, quote: "Unlike CO2, which just drifts around
uniformly everywhere, the black carbon being physically emitted in the Northern
Hemisphere, fairly close to the Arctic, allows it to have an even stronger
impact on the Arctic, than it does on the global average."
16. Here
is another surprise. Scientist Tami
Bond says black carbon is NOT coming from coal burning power plants. In America, coal power combustion is
efficient enough to stop those emissions.
that is an Important point: black carbon comes from inefficient or
incomplete burning, whether fossil fuels or living plant matter.
17, [In
part two, at 6:53] Dr. Ramanathan suggests the successful cleanup of sulfate
emissions (to stop acid rain) appeared to contribute to global warming, but
really just unmasked the hidden emissions.
18. To
add to the complexity, not all black carbon is the same, says Ramanathan. Fossil
fuel black carbon is worse, pound for pound, than what comes from burning
biomass - and we increased our fossil fuel use, over the past 30 years.
19. The
EU countries have more black carbon production from private vehicles,
because there are way more light duty diesel cars and trucks in Europe, than in
North America. This hurt people's
health in Europe, and adds more to both general short-term warming, and damage
to the Arctic. Mandatory particulate
filters could stop those damaging emissions.
20.
Likely the most effective legislation so far, to reduce heavy diesel emissions,
the main source in the U.S., was $300 million for engine retrofits passed in
the Recovery Act, otherwise known as the stimulus program. But the EPA received $2 billion dollars in
applications for diesel retrofits, says Schneider. The demand for replacements and retrofits is there, but not the
funding. Fund it, and a lot of old
polluting engines will be cleaned up, while creating 19,000 jobs.
The $300 million went to retrofit school buses, some municipal transit systems, and some private company equipment.
21. Another program, called the Diesel
Emission Reduction Act, or DERA, originally authorized over a billion
dollars to overhaul the fleet, but has really only received funding in the $60
million dollar range annually, which means little was actually accomplished.
The
Transportation Bill re-authorization is another opportunity to fund black carbon
reductions, Schneider says. [in his end summation].
22 Drew Shindell says in the '90's the UK
enacted a law making the emission of black smoke a punishable offence. The City of London ended up suing the London
Underground for a carbon polluting power plant - and lost when the Underground
said the smoke was brown not black.
Just a funny story, because it comes from the 1890's, not the
1990's. His point: we have known about
the public health dangers of black carbon for a long time. Acting on it now is a public health issue,
even if there was no warming effect.
But Dr. Shindell says black carbon reductions do not buy us any time
when it comes to climate change, because we have no time left. We must take immediate action to reduce
carbon dioxide, which lasts for centuries.
23.
[19:07] Committee Chair Edward Markey says inspiration for hearing came from Dr.
Ramanathan's article in Foreign Affairs, published in the September/October
issue for 2009.
[ Details: Foreign Affairs
"ESSAY SEP/OCT 2009
The Other
Climate Changers
Jessica
Seddon Wallack and Veerabhadran Ramanathan
Most
initiatives to slow global warming involve reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Little attention has been given to reducing emissions of the light-absorbing
particles known as "black carbon" or the gases that form ozone--even
though doing so would be easier and cheaper and have a more immediate
effect."]
24.
Ramanathan, who is a pioneer in this new science, says two thirds of the black
carbon over South Asia, (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal,) comes from burning
biomass in cooking stoves. Some
initial research shows village women are tired of all the work required to cook
that way. Collecting the fuel takes up
so much of their day. They might go to
gas if offered. But, as Ramanathan
points out (28:40) the biomass fuel is more sustainable and less carbon
polluting than any fossil fuel. Crop
residues and cow patties recycle existing atmospheric carbon, instead of adding
more CO2 from fossil storage under the Earth.
The solution is mostly just to burn the biomass better, with complete
combustion.
Cost is not really the problem. Ramanathan says the concentrated 750 million people on the Indo-Gangetic Plain constitute about 150 million households. Replacing all those cook stoves would only cost $4 billion dollars. Quite possible. More difficult, is to get all those cooks to change methods, to accept the new stove technology, and the changes that might make, in the taste of traditional Indian cooking.
25.
[23:16 part two] Ramanathan suggests removing one ton of black carbon could
equal taking out 1000 tons of CO2, when it comes to warming.
26
Representative Emanuel Cleaver from Missouri arrives. He tells of his visit to Tanzania, Africa - within view of Mount
Kilimanjaro, where the snow is disappearing. It is frightening when Cleaver says none of the Massai people he
encountered had heard about global warming at all. Nothing. [(at 34:35 Part two]
27. [31:10] There is no industry near Kilimanjaro, but there is smog. Brown cloud pollution may have no local source. These clouds when high travel thousands of kilometers. Ramanathan says, quote: "In the dry season, between October to April, the entire Arabian Sea and the North Indian Ocean is filled with haze. It's transported both from the South Asian side and from Africa."
28.
Ramanathan cautions that all the Kilimanjaro melt not be from global
heating. It may also be caused by
drying, a loss of humidity brought on by shifts in the weather systems, which
we know is a result of climate change and/or warming oceans. That is sublimation, where the snow
evaporates, and may cause up to half the loss of snow on the mountain.
29.[ 33
min] Scientist Drew Shindell suggests it may not be advisable to fund black
carbon reduction in the same legislation intended to reduce carbon
dioxide. Long-term emissions like CO2
draw in things like the Kyoto Treaty, and Clean Development Mechanisms. He suggests instead a separate black carbon
fund should be established.
30.
[33:35 (part two)] Drew Shindell says he is Chair of a United Nations
Environment program that is attempting to assess the impact on climate, of both
black carbon and ozone. We can expect
to hear more from the U.N.
I'm Alex
Smith. Those were the main points, as I
heard them, from a Congressional Committee called "Clearing the Smoke:
Understanding the Impacts of Black Carbon Pollution." That was the House Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming, meeting on March 16th, 2010, and
Chaired by Massachusetts Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat.
You can
download the full hour and a half discussion, with the latest science and
public policy options, as two free mp3 files, at our web site,
ecoshock.org. Look for the
audio-on-demand menu on our home page, and choose "Climate Solutions"
to find these committee recordings.
We talk
about coal damage to the land, water, and the atmosphere. But few of us can call the top executives of
the world's largest coal companies to say what they think about climate
change. The U.S. Congress can, and
that's what happened on April 14th, 2010.
The House
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming called
a session with Gregory Boyce, President and Chief Executive Officer, Peabody
Energy Corporation; Steven F. Leer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Arch
Coal, Inc.; Preston Chiaro, Chief Executive for Energy and Minerals, Rio
Tinto; and Michael Carey, President, Ohio Coal Association.
Select Committee hearings are not always worth our listening time. Frankly, it took an hour and a half to squeeze out a few morsels from the coal company CEOs. It was a struggle to get Gregory Boyce, President and CEO of Peabody Coal, to admit that science shows carbon emissions threaten the climate.
And several
of the politicians, from West Virginia to Colorado to Arizona, seemed like they
were working for the coal companies, instead of the people. That's the way it sounded to me.
Let's
listen to a few clips. First off
Gregory Boyce of Peabody, America's largest coal company, and a world power,
with massive exports from Australia as well, is explaining the importance of
coal to the world, when an interruption occurs. A protester, saying there is no "clean coal" was
thrown out.
And
here are the words which should frighten us all.
Peabody's Boyce says:
"So in conclusion, the real question isn't will we use coal. The U.S. has more coal than any nation on Earth. We have hundreds of billions of tons of coal in the U.S., trillions of tons in the world, WE WILL USE IT ALL."
Say goodnight to our friendly planet, if Peabody coal makes that come true.
Chair Ed
Markey asks all the coal reps if they agree with Don Blankenship of Massey
Energy, that "global warming is a hoax and a Ponzi scheme" as
posted on his twitter page.
Peabody's
Boyce replies:
"Do
not agree with Mr. Blankenship. Our
view is the globe's climate has been changing since the globe was formed. Levels of CO2 have risen in the atmosphere,
and we have been a strong advocate for technology advances to reduce in the
atmosphere, particularly from the use of coal."
Yes, sir, somehow, CO2 has risen in the atmosphere.
The coal
executives, with the exception of Mr. Preston Chiaro from Rio Tinto, kept going
back to the supposed climategate email scandal, retreading the path of
denial. Chair Markey doggedly asks them
if they believe climate science, or not?
No surprise, the answer from Peabody CEO Boyce skips around the subject,
and then brings in all that "doubt" from the East Anglia emails. The denial tactic.
Again, East
Anglia emails mean we should pull back from any regulation of carbon, and maybe
study the matter for another few decades.
Why not, we have time to burn, literally.
Finally,
Peabody's Boyce agrees that CO2 is rising in the atmosphere, but doesn't admit
his company, and his industry, is largely responsible. It is like a tobacco executive saying yes
people who smoke are dying (but we don't admit any responsibility for
that...). We are talking about a
climate holocaust, but no one mentions that.
After two politicians helpfully add to the doubt and denial, I begin to
wonder, is there anyone sane in the room, other than Ed Markey? Yes there is, and it is Jay Inslee,
Representative from Washington State.
Inslee explains that his young grandchild will probably not see living coral reefs, will find an acidic ocean, may not be able to fish for salmon, and will experience a generally damaged climate - due to the emissions from the coal industry.
None of
that impresses Representative John Shadegg from coal-dependent
Arizona. Here is his quality argument,
on why the coal companies are right to call for the EPA to give up trying to
regulate carbon pollution.
In the
Shadegg clip - he claims that if it took 18 years to develop solid global
warming science, it should take almost as long to investigate that science,
following the East .... oops, can't say that word, emails. Even though Chair Markey has announced a
Committee of the British Parliament has cleared the East Anglia unit, finding
global warming science solid - Shadegg questions all that. He doesn't sound too sure where the
Parliament is. A strange performance,
but one well suited to the coal company line.
Mr.
Shadegg, if you can't say the word "Anglia" maybe you should have
practiced your denier notes ahead of time.
Getting
back to the real world, we find Chairman Ed Markey making a remarkably calm
plea to the coal industry, as he explains legislation designed to save their
industry from oblivion, by developing carbon capture and storage. His Waxman-Markey legislation promises
$60 billion to the coal industry, to develop carbon capture and storage
technology. Without that, Markey
says, the coal companies are going the route of the car companies, ignoring
obvious market forces. For example,
renewable energy is fast replacing coal as the source of choice in many
states. And new natural gas discoveries
in the United States (in gas shales) also threaten coal.
In fact,
I find this a little unsettling, that Congress is trying to give the coal
industry another 60 billion dollars, instead of just putting that money into
real clean energy, while retraining the miners. Should we save the industry that dooms us to a wrecked
climate, at all?
Just
another day in the life of an American Committee, as the struggle continue to
pass any kind of climate legislation, anything at all, in America. Meanwhile, for the big coal CEO's, it's back
to work, and the quarterly profit statements.
And so far, nothing happens. It
is still free to fill the sky with waste exhaust.
Alex.
Radio
Ecoshock