1 February 2016, WorldWatch Institute, Carbon Trading a hidden threat to soil carbon sequestration? If something has a price tag, people consider its perceived monetary value. But what if, by measuring the value of our planet’s natural systems using dollar amounts alone, we are minimizing their true worth? And what if our focus on solving global problems with money is taking all of us, especially poorer countries, down the wrong road? One global solution to the world’s climate challenges—soil carbon sequestration—may soon face the “threat of the price tag.” A French climate proposal known as the 4 Per 1000 initiative—aimed at increasing the global stock of agricultural soil carbon by 0.4 percent per year on average—attracted worldwide support and media attention when it was officially launched at the December 2015 United Nations climate talks in Paris. The initiative recognizes that good organic agriculture and grazing practices could increase the soil carbon stock and lead to cascading benefits, including improvements in areas such as soil fertility, climate resilience, the nutritional value of foods, and farmers’ livelihoods, all while reversing climate change (see previous Worldwatch blog). But the potential addition of carbon trading—a market-based tool to moderate carbon emissions—into the strategy raises serious concerns.The principles of the 4 Per 1000 initiative will be clarified at a members-only meeting in the first half of 2016, to guide the projects supported by the initiative. As of now, it is unclear whether carbon trading will be part of the design, nor is it known how heavily this initiative will be branded as “a sink for current emissions,” rather than as a true means to reverse already-excessive past emissions in combination with emission-reduction strategies. However, the enthusiasm for carbon pricing at the Paris talks, together with the fact that the initiative’s goal of “0.4 percent annual increase of soil carbon stock” was back-calculated from current fossil fuel emissions (rather than based on the actual potential of soil carbon sequestration), raises serious concerns. Read more here
Category Archives: The Mitigation Battle
28 January 2016, Renew Economy, Hunt under pressure as Australia loses climate cred, gains carbon risk. Australia’s poor record on climate change action and energy market reform has been highlighted by two major global publications this week, bringing environment minister Greg Hunt under renewed pressure to defend his department’s policy. The first, the latest rankings of the Yale environmental performance index – described by Hunt himself as “the most credible, scientifically based, hard data-based analysis in the world – shows Australia has dropped 10 places in its overall ranking on “protecting human health and ecosystems”, leaving it at 13 out of 180 countries examined (just below Saudi Arabia). According to reports, where Australia lost most of its ground on the index was in the categories of electricity generation, where it is ranked at number 150 out of 180, and in climate. This point has been seized upon by Opposition climate spokesman Mark Butler, who said in a statement on Thursday that the index downgrading showed that the Turnbull government was taking Australia backwards on climate change “at a shocking pace”. Butler – who launched the first round of consultation on the Labor party’s 2030 emissions reduction target on Wednesday – also noted that while nearly every other country had improved its EPI score, Australia had turned up very close to the bottom of the pack on carbon trends. “I think the rest of the world is waking up to the fact that although there’s a different person at the front of the government, the policies haven’t changed,” Butler told Fran Kelly in an ABC Radio interview. “We have inadequate targets, we have a government that has no renewable energy policy beyond 2020, and we have a policy in Direct Action that’s actually seeing emissions rise again after having come down 8 per cent during our term in government, they will rise by 6 per cent between now and 2020 according to the government’s own official data.” Read More here
28 January 2016, Climate Home, Scientists pour cold water on ocean geoengineering idea. One keenly-argued possible way of moderating the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may not work, scientists have concluded. They say there is evidence that seeding the oceans with iron so that the algae that live there will multiply and devour more CO2 − thus preventing it reaching the atmosphere and intensifying the human contribution to global warming – is not as promising a solution as its supporters hope. The extra iron can certainly stimulate the algae to grow more vigorously, but at a cost. More algae in one part of the oceans may mean there will be fewer in other areas, the researchers say. Report: Scientists warn against geoengineering as short-term climate fix. They report in Nature journal that the depths of the central Pacific Ocean contain ancient sediments that cast doubt on iron’s ability to slow the Earth’s steady temperature rise. In parts of the oceans that lack the iron that plants need, algae are scarce. Experiments have shown that dumping iron into these areas can encourage algal growth, so large-scale fertilisation could theoretically reduce atmospheric CO2. The seafloor sediments the team studied show that, during past ice ages, more iron-rich dust blew from cold and barren landmasses into the oceans, apparently producing more algae in these areas and, presumably, a creating natural cooling effect. But the researchers say increased algal growth in one area can inhibit growth elsewhere, because ocean waters are always on the move and algae also need other nutrients, such as nitrates and phosphates. Read More here
24 January 2016, Climate Home, 8 climate change takeaways from Davos. As global elite gather at the World Economic Forum1, moving to counter climate change competes with economic fears. It is the first major meeting of politicians and business leaders since 195 nations struck a landmark deal to limit carbon emissions in Paris in December. Thousands of luminaries have come to a Swiss ski resort to unpack the opportunities and challenges of the future. ‘Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution’ is the theme meant to guide high-powered panel sessions. Among talk of robotics, 3D printing and nanotechnology, the Paris agreement should merit mention. It aims to radically shrink the usage of fossil fuels, which the world consumes for 87% of its energy. Innovation is crucial to neutralise carbon emissions in the next half-century. As the forum nears its end, here’s what we conclude. 1. Market turmoil dominates” A global selloff of stocks has crowded out much discussion of a new global warming pact at the World Economic Forum. Markets have plunged more than US$4 trillion in value since 1 January – the worst start in yearly trading since the 2009 financial crisis – on weak Chinese growth and low oil prices. Opinion is divided on the impact of cheap crude on climate plans. Benchmark prices of $30 a barrel are “very detrimental for any [clean energy] policy”, according to Total chief Patrick Pouyanne. But analysts Climate Home asked are not worried. 2. Climate action is the smaller conversation: A climate change-induced disaster was named the greatest threat to the global economy in 2016, in a WEF survey ahead of the event, but that wasn’t fully borne out in discussions. Cutting carbon is an “issue for mainstream business, but of course not everyone is paying attention,” says Paul Simpson at the Carbon Disclosure Project. Read More here