Farting Cows Destroy the Planet

Last month, Nature published an analysis on ruminant animals' production of flatulence, which amounts to an alarming 100 million tons of methane released into the atmosphere annually. It is the largest man-made methane source after rice agriculture, and scientists say it is not getting enough attention as needed to combat climate change. 

They are now looking into more ways to reduce methane emissions, mainly through decreasing the demand for meat, increasing livestock feeding efficiency, etc.

For more information, check out the Wired article.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

In 1997, Charles Moore, a Californian racing boat captain, discovered the Garbage Patch, an ocean area of millions of square kilometers containing excessive floating plastic, on his way home from Hawaii (Grant 2009). The Patch is located in the northern Pacific Ocean and is caused by the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, which is the clockwise spiral of currents created by a high-pressure air system between East Asia and North America (Silverman). The air in the gyre center is very calm and stable, and the inward motion draws in debris at the convergence zone, eventually making its way to the gyre center, where it accumulates (NatGeo). According to Marcus Erikson, director at Algatita Marine Research Foundation, it is the ‘perfect environment for trapping’ debris (Reid).

Figure 1. Location of the Garbage Patch relatively to the Subtropical Convergence Zone.

Source: NOAA 

 

The Garbage Patch is an oceanic desert that contains phytoplankton and few big fish and mammals (Silverman). The ratio of plastic to plankton is 6:1 (Grant 2009). The plastic weighs three million tons (Reid), 80% of which comes from land (Grant 2009). Contrary to popular belief, the debris mostly consists of microplastics, which cannot be seen by the naked eye (NatGeo).   

The Great Patch is divided into two masses: the Eastern and Western Patch, with Hawaii separating the two (Reid). In total, it is twice the size of France (Grant 2009) and has tripled since the 1990s (Reid). The debris is continuously mixed by wind and wave action, and disperses over a wide area and through the top of the water column. The Patch collects trash mainly from North America and Asia (NatGeo). In 2004, EPA reported that the USA released 850 billion gallons of untreated sewage per year, including cotton buds, condoms, and dental floss (Hohn 2008).

According to UNEP, there are 46,000 floating plastic pieces per square mile of the Patch. Plastic doesn’t biodegrade; it photodegrades by long exposure to sunlight, fragmenting into smaller pieces without breaking into simpler compounds. The manufactured 2mm pellets (nurdles) concentrate toxic hydrophobic chemicals such as POPS, dioxin and D.D.T, to around one million times the normal value (Reid). Plastic becomes ‘poison pills’, and once they enter filter feeders, they move up the food chain (Hohn 2008). Each year, more than one million birds and marine animals die from entanglement or ingestion of plastic (NOAA). The most famous victim is the Laysan albatross:

 Figure 2. Greenpeace ad 'how to starve to death on a full stomach' to raise awareness on wildlife destruction in the Garbage Patch. The photo on the right displays the plastic content found in this albatross.

Source: Greenpeace

No nation is taking responsibility to fund the cleanup (NatGeo). Trying to remove the garbage will cost billions, as it is widespread over a large area and to ~30m depth. The first crucial step is to decrease plastic reliance (Reid). Environmentalist David de Rothschild says that the annual budget for the United Nations Environmental Programme last year was $190 million. And the budget for the latest James Bond movie was $205 million (Grant 2009).

So, future geologists, get ready to see plastic-coated strata marking the 20^th and 21^st centuries. 

References:

Silverman, Jacob. "Why is the world's biggest landfill in the Pacific Ocean?" HowStuffWorks.

"Great Pacific Garbage Patch." National Geographic.

Reid, David. "Earth's Eighth Continent." BC Institute of Social Ecology.

Hohn, Donovan. "Sea of Trash." The New York Times. 22 Jun 2008.

"Great Pacific Garbage Patch." Marine Debris. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Grant, Richard. "Drowning in plastic: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is twice the size of France." The Telegraph. 24 Apr 2009.

The Ice-Cold Bling

Recently, the Earth Sciences team from the Australian National University discovered the igneous rock intrusion kimberlite, which commonly holds diamonds, in the northern Prince Charles Mountains.

The Prince Charles Mountains

Studies confirm that the kimberlite was emplaced by tectonic activity associated with rifting of India from Australia-Antarctica.

Although some would jump at the opportunity to start mining Antarctica, it is very unlikely that the Prince Charles Diamond would become the next lady's-best-friend, as environmental protections are tight.

Find out more about the story here.

Cleaning up the Grey Giant

Since 1979, China has undergone rapid economic growth, especially due to market reforms that concentrate on exports. This development led to environmental degradation, which were ignored until recent years (Zhang, 2012). Today, various environmental issues account for 9% of the country’s GDP, namely to health damage from air pollution and soil nutrient degradation (The Economist). The Environmental Performance Index, created by Yale and Columbia Universities, ranks China at 116 out of 132 countries (Zhang, 2012): 43% of its surface water and 57% of its urban groundwater are too polluted for use, and soil pollution is dramatic to such an extent that its data is ‘state secret’. Northern China is under severe water stress, which is worsened by pollution, and 80 million people are living at sea level and are threatened by sea-level rise (Grumbine, 2013). 

Figure 1. A river in China

Source: The Economist

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 656,000 died prematurely from sickness related to air pollution in China. Let’s take Beijing as an example: Last year, the government released false statistics that air quality was improving within the city – experiencing 286 ‘blue sky’ days in 2011. In reality, anyone who lives there can insure that heavy smog persisted throughout the year. This event triggered the citizens to demand the government to track particulates of 2.5 microns or less (PM 2.5), which originate from dust and emissions from vehicles, coal combustion, factories and construction sites. They are the main culprit for smog formation and easily enter the lungs and bloodstream. From January 2012, Beijing began to release hourly monitoring statistics of PM 2.5, which is four to six times above American limits (LaFraniere, 2012). Another tipping point for the people came in January 2013, when warm air settled over the region, trapping pollution from 200 coal-fired power plants and five million cars.

As a result of this, the Chinese government tightened its reforms on air pollution, forming its first carbon market and delegating more responsibility to local officials to monitor environmental development (The Economist). Although the Communist Party will not slow down its economic reform, its new policies will incorporate more social and environmental elements (Grumbine, 2013). It plans to spend $275 billion over the next five years to clean up its air. Apart from the odd spike in Beijing in the beginning of this year, air quality has generally been improving (The Economist):

Figure 2. China's bad air days have been decreasing

Source: The Economist

China has begun to relocate factories, reduce coal burning, raise vehicle emission standards (LaFraniere, 2012), and reduce the number of new cars registered within its big cities (Yale). Most of its improvement is due to a scheme that forced 1,000 state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to use energy more efficiently – complying with building codes, efficiency targets, etc. At present, 10,000 SOEs are involved (The Economist).  

Wang Yuesi, chief air pollution scientist at the Chinese Academy of Scientists, say that China needs twenty more years to meet WHO standards (LaFraniere, 2012). They used to say, ‘grow first, clean up later’. China looks like an expert, turbo-speed cleaner: it is the world’s biggest polluter and green energy investor, concentrating on mainly wind and solar power, with plans of nuclear power stations. The West believes that China has an advantage of imposing tougher policies that democrats tend to avoid. However, when it comes to the environment, local officials can quietly ignore policy – ‘center proposes; provinces and counties disposes’ (The Economist).

For China, environmental development remains second-tier compared to economic growth. Nevertheless, it can learn from others, as it is a late developer. If the Panda has the capacity to grow so much in the past thirty years, it can certainly clean up its own mess.


References:

Zhang, Junjie, Dr. "Delivering Environmentally Sustainable Economic Growth: The Case of China." Asia Society (2012). 

Grumbine, R. Edward."China at Crossroads: Balancing The Economy and Environment." Yale Environment360 (2013).

LaFraniere, Sharon."Activists Crack China’s Wall of Denial About Air Pollution." New York Times (2012).

"The East is grey." The Economist (2013).

An Art Statement: (RES) Dysprosium

While reading my 'Dazed and Confused' October issue, I came across (RES) Dysprosium, a part of artist Iain Ball's project 'Energy Pangea'.

 The sculpture.

What's in the picture? It's a sculpture. The photo above was taken in the Akbastau region of Kazakhstan, where state-owned Kazatomprom operate their uranium mines. Their site is notorious for groundwater contamination and hazardous industrial waste. 

Toshiba entered the picture in 2010, working with Kazatomprom to utilize Dysprosium and Neodymium, which are byproducts of uranium extraction.

(RES) Dysprosium was created in conjunction with Toshiba's project in order to generate more attention on the continuing efforts of environmental improvement and to support native technologies. It is meant to be used within the region and is a combination of 'technological, commodified and spiritual value'.  

Even art is becoming more environmentally conscious.

The Arctic Scramble

Figure 1. Arctic supply lines.

Source: B&C Alexander

Six nations border the Arctic Circle – Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the USA – and they all are struggling to lay claim to every meter of that cold, harsh place. Why?

 

For marine-based tourism? Barely. In 2004, 1.2 million cruise ships traveled the Arctic. Three years later, this figure more than doubled.

For valuable fisheries? Maybe. Cod, herring, and pollock fisheries will also migrate northwards as seas warm.

For navigation? Hmm. Due to melting sea-ice in recent years, the Northwest Passage has opened up, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Tankers and icebreakers also travel along the Northern Sea Route, connecting Europe/West Russia and East Russia/Asia (NatGeo). 

Figure 2. The routes.

Source: National Geographic

For oil and gas? YES. The Arctic is believed to hold 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its undiscovered gas. That’s why every meter matters (Quirin, 2012).

Let’s take a look at how the Arctic Circle is divided up. In 2008, Durham University’s International Boundaries Research Unit released the region’s first detailed map, in order to highlight potential ‘hotspots’ for border disputes. A year earlier, Russian scientists planted a flag on the North Pole seabed, and not everyone was happy.

Figure 3. Marine borders. For more information on the key, please read on here.

Source: Durham University

Essentially, coastal states have unchallenged rights of resources up to 200 nautical miles offshore, called their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Some countries with landmasses extending into the sea may claim an area up to 350 nautical miles offshore. From this basis alone, there is overlap between USA and Canada, Norway and Russia. The map represents each country’s maximum claim, leaving the Arctic with two ‘patches’ of ocean left unconquered (BBC News).

Got land? Planting a flag is merely the beginning. Extracting oil and gas from these offshore zones involves high costs and high risks. The harsh climate will negatively affect staff and equipment. The projects will need entirely new ‘greenfield’ development due to little or no existing infrastructure. Spill containment and recovery are also harder to manage compared to conventional zones. 

So what are the countries’ current plans and future prospects?

Russia lay claim to forty-three out of sixty-one large Arctic oil/gas fields. They have begun to drill for hydrocarbons on continental shelves and are submitting an application to extend their borders to include an additional 1.2 million square km. Only two of their companies have license to operate: Gazprom and Rosneft, and with North America’s shale boom, they have to rethink their LNG project.

Canada began its exploration in 1972. The absence of infrastructure caused Arctic activity to cease in the 1990s, only to be rekindled this year by Chevron and Statoil in Beaufort Sea.

Norway also started its North Sea oil production thirty years ago. Its border dispute with Russia is pending parliamentary approval, so in the upcoming year, more of Barents Sea will be available for exploitation (optimistically).

The USA’s Alaskan Arctic region holds the largest oil deposits. This summer, Royal Dutch Shell began its operation, and oil is expected to be extracted from the Beaufort Sea by 2020 (Ernst & Young).

The Arctic Circle is fragile, and its ecology, environment, and indigenous people need protection (NatGeo). At the very least, a research program, including spill management and oil recovery techniques, now incorporate the nine major oil companies working in the Arctic. Neither Gazprom nor Rosneft is involved (BBC News).  

References: 

Schiermeier, Quirin. "The great Arctic oil race begins. "Nature. 31 Jan 2012.

"Arctic oil and gas." Ernst & Young.

 

"Aspen Commission: Amid Climate Change, Arctic Cooperation Urgently Needed." National Geographic. 16 Mar. 2011.

"Arctic Map shows dispute hotspots." BBC News. 5 Aug 2008.

Money doesn't grow on trees, but gold does.

A month ago, a research team in Australia found that a species of eucalyptus trees can detect gold reserves up to 30m underground and transport miniscule amounts to its leaves. Since 30% of world's gold reserves are said to lie within this region, the gold miners are just about to get busy.

 

 Goldfields-Esperance region's gold trees

Check out the full article.

Carbon Tax vs. Cap-and-Trade

So I decided to educate myself on the basics of carbon taxation, only to come across a popular argument of the costs and benefits of the two main market-based ‘polluter pays principle’ options to regulate GHG emissions: carbon tax and cap-and-trade. 

Figure 1. Self-explanatory? (Source)

What are they?

Cap-and-trade is a scheme popular among the politicians. The government sets an overall maximum emissions limit – a cap (HowStuffWorks), consisting of allowances to distribute among oil, coal, and natural gas producers and importers. Initially, the government allocates the allowances to companies without cost (Avi-Yonah, 2009), while in later stages, auctioning takes place. A fossil fuel company that runs out of allowances has two options: to reduce their carbon emissions or to buy (trade) other companies’ spare credits. On the flipside, a company with ‘surplus’ allowance can either sell it or bank it for future use (HowStuffWorks).  

Figure 2. 'Cap' & 'Trade'

Source: FirstCarbonSolutions

Carbon taxation is a bit more straightforward - a tax is imposed at X pounds/tonne of carbon content on the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions. The tax rate is based on the ‘social cost of carbon emission’. Companies with carbon sequestration programs also receive tax credits.

Now let’s examine the costs and benefits of each: 

• Cap-and-trade makes politicians more popular, while taxing causes political resistance. 
• There are many questions to answer in a CaT scheme: Where should we set the baseline emissions cap? How do we distribute the allowances? Free or auction? How much should each industry receive?
• CaT: Governments also have a safety valve to distribute extra allowance when prices soar, which essentially means raising the cap, which essentially defeats its purpose. For example, the mandatory EU European Trading Scheme (ETS), which covers 12,000 factories in twenty-five countries, experienced a price collapse in 2006 when too many allowances were distributed.
• CaT only generates one-off revenue (which goes to funding alternative energy research) from auction allowances, while tax produces a continuous flow.
• In the early stages, CaT is cheaper for companies due to initial free allowances. Taxation, on the other hand, incurs an immediate cost (Avi-Yonah, 2009).
• CaT schemes involve a complex, time-consuming system, while carbon taxation can be implemented immediately. In CaT, the government has to act like a bank, setting up accounts, trading units, enforcing trading penalties etc. They need to employ more people to operate this complex system, leading to a drain in funds. Wittneben calls the EU ETS out for ‘corruption’ and ‘deceit of the public’ – the scheme has been successful in transferring money from taxpayers and consumers to government, but has been unsuccessful in reducing emissions.
• Taxation holds cost certainty (price = amount of tax, which wouldn’t change without national policy change), enabling businesses to plan ahead, while CaT prices fluctuate to supply/demand. There is also no upper limit to emission reduction, while a cap on emissions = a cap on emission reduction (Wittneben, 2009). 

This January, California established its own CaT, which will expire in 2020. It is the US’ first sub-national carbon market and the world’s second biggest, following EU ETS (Guardian).

Currently, Australia PM Tony Abbott wants to repeal the carbon tax (at $22.23/C tonne). In its place, he will set up ‘an emission reduction fund and market-based incentives for businesses’ (Reuters).  

As Wittneben puts it, the bottom line is ‘we want a system that lowers emissions at the lowest cost to society and provides environmental integrity’. Since the Kyoto Protocol, COP19 and other past climate conferences proved not too aggressive or effective, I believe we should cut past the long bureaucracy and policy ambiguity and implement a simple carbon tax. One proposed CaT bill was over three hundred pages long, while a carbon tax bill was seventeen (Ecosystem). You choose.

References:

Taschini, Luca, Simon Dietz,and Naomi Hicks. "Carbon tax v cap-and-trade: which is better?" The Guardian [London] 28 Jan 2013.

         

Yueyang, Maggie Lu."Australia's new PM brings carbon tax repeal bill, aspromised." Reuters [Sydney] 12 Nov 2013.

        

Dowdey, Sarah. "How CarbonTrading Works."HowStuffWorks.

Goldstein, Allie."Cap-and-Trade Is Not A Tax, California Court Says." EcosystemMarketplace, 18 Nov 2013.

Avi-Yonah, Reuven S., and DavidM. Uhlmann. "Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax is a BetterResponse to Global Warming than Cap and Trade." Social ScienceResearch Network. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 29 Jan 2009.

Wittneben, Bettina B.F.. "Exxon is right: Let us re-examine our choice for a cap-and-trade system over a carbon tax." Energy Policy. Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, 20 Jan 2009. (Access through university database)