"Ocean Acidification" or "Why You Should Be Scared About Rising CO2 Emissions Even If You Are A Climate Change Skeptic"

At this point the debate given from dwindling but increasingly aggressive climate change skeptics goes something like this:
1. We concede that the climate is warming
2. We concede that CO2 levels are rising
3. But there is still not enough evidence that the changing climate is linked to anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 emissions.
4. Therefore, we should not hasten to reduce our CO2 emissions because the consequences of doing so are extreme and may not do anything to help climate change.

Many skeptics maintain this view despite the mountains of evidence that CO2 and climate are indeed linked and that humans are more than likely a major contributor to these effects. They say this despite their counter-arguments being disproved time after time. They say this despite the fact that the risks involved with climate change far exceed the sacrifices needed to change our behavior. They say this despite the fact that the planet is not something we ought to gamble with, regardless how right or wrong the science is.

Given that this debate is often as fruitful as debating a creationist on evolution, I propose a different tact in winning support for timely action on this issue: explain the looming problem of ocean acidification.

The problem:
CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans. In fact, about a third of the CO2 we have emitted is now contained in the world's vast oceans. Once absorbed, CO2 then undergoes a chemical reaction to create carbonic acid. It's now been proven that the ocean's acidity level has slowly but surely been increasing from the CO2 humans have emitted. This has enormous consequences for the marine food web. Aquatic ecosystems are sustained by small organisms like coral, diatoms and pteropods:


The survival of these organisms depends on their ability to create a protective carbonate shells. When the water's acidity increases, their shells simply dissolve and these organisms cannot survive.

Let me make one thing clear about this phenomenon: this acidification is occurring due to a very basic chemical reaction that is well understood and has been proven countless times in the laboratory. There is no uncertainty about the effects of CO2 on water's acidity. It is also well known that the affected organisms make up the base of the food chain in many ocean ecosystems. Thus if uncertainty in climate science creates a stumbling block when arguing skeptics, perhaps we can turn to an argument unrelated to climate -- an argument for which there is virtually no uncertainty that an unchecked rise in CO2 will have global consequences. If skeptics are unwilling to be convinced on the climate argument alone, perhaps they would be willing to recognize the economic, social, and political consequences of the collapse of global fisheries.

Recent Accomplishments: Thesis + Apartment

Greetings! I now return victoriously from my hiatus to bring you several new and interesting posts that have been percolating during my abscence from the blogosphere. To kick things off right, I thought I'd just share what I've been up to for the last year or so:

http://www.princeton.edu/~eburgess/EdwardBurgessThesis.pdf

Still hard to believe I finished that beast. It didn't really turn out how we hoped but then again science rarely does. Regardless, we discovered some interesting things and there is always more work to be done. Here's a little recap:

-Greenland plays a major role in climate change. If it melted, sea level could rise 7 meters.
-Understanding how the Greenland Ice Sheet formed will give us a better idea of how it interacts with global climate and how it might change with future global warming
-We tried to use argon dating on ice from the bottom of the Greenland Ice Sheet to pinpoint its buildup, but the ages we measured were from the future.
-The error was probably due to argon contamination from the earth's crust below
-We still founds lots of other interesting properties in the ice but I wont bore you with them here. Read the thesis if you want to know.

Fun fact to tell your friends: there are microorganisms that have survived over 250,000 years 3 kilometers under the ice in Greenland.

In other recent news, I scored an apartment in NYC for next with on of my best friends Santosh and his current NYU roommate Anand who is a really awesome dude. So psyched! Come check us out: 212 E. 10th St., Apt. 3B (off 2nd Ave). Now I just have to figure out how I'm going to afford it. Hard to believe I'll soon be living life in the Big Apple.

Us vs. Them: Why you hatin' on big oil?

Ellen brought up some very good points today after visiting the climate change rally here on campus. I am fully supportive of their cause and I think it's great that people are getting really active on this issue, but a few things gave me pause about the approach.

One of the speakers spoke very critically about the oil industries' lack of effort to combat climate change. He claimed that they don't really get it and are purposefully moving slowly on reducing fossil fuel use. However, I hesitate to think this is an issue the oil industries don't care about or aren't thinking about. Rather, solving climate change is an enormous challenge and in all likelihood the oil companies simply haven't managed to come up good solution that wont put them out of business. It seems silly to boil this down to a simple us vs. them, because in reality we are all in this together. Climate change affects everybody and instead of fighting each other and pointing fingers at "the enemy" we should be working together towards a solution. This is a common cause for humanity and there are no easy solutions and no clear culprits. After all, everyone depends on oil to a large extent and we shouldn't hasten to criticize its producers. Furthermore, I think it just makes big oil less willing to cooperate with environmentalists if they are constantly being blamed for inaction.

Some of the display booths had what I thought to be some very unhelpful information as well. One in particular showed different energy sources in two columns: GOOD and BAD. The good included: wind (a no-brainer), hydroelectric, and hybrid cars. The bad column included: SUVs, nuclear power, and coal (probably the worst culprit IMHO). This concerned me because I don't necessarily think of nuclear as being a "bad" energy technology. Surely it is no perfect solution and is held back by concerns over waste, proliferation, and fear of disaster. But in terms of climate change it is perhaps the best choice (zero CO2 emissions). Furthermore, wind and hydro have major drawbacks as well. Wind is scarce and intermittent and hydro is very environmentally hazardous for other reasons. In a broad sense I think it is mistaken to categorize any energy source as "good" or "bad" because in reality each has its benefits and drawbacks. We have to think harder about what solutions to use since there is simply no magic bullet or "good" technology that will fix all our problems. Undoubtedly any progress made will involve a variety of technolgies and approaches to cutting carbon emissions.

Regardless of all these issues, I think overall it is good to see people raising this issue and getting involved. Recent support from the business world, the supreme court decision, Al Gore's movie, and increased general awareness is really pulling climate change to the forefront of national politics as should have happened years ago.

On a hilarious note, I snagged a Gore 2008 button from one of the booths trying to get him to run for president. I can't imagine he would actually run. But would you vote for him if he did?

Navigating Post-Kyoto Climate Controls w/ Jeffrey Sachs

This afternoon I went to a terrific lecture given by world renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs. He is currently director of the Earth Institute at Columbia and is well known for his bestselling book: The End of Poverty, which argues that extreme poverty can be eradicated by 2025.

The title of his lecture was: Negotiating the Post-Kyoto Climate Change Framework -- a very appropriate subject since this issue is so closely tied to the global economy and the future of world poverty. Sachs was a very charismatic speaker and really reinvigorated my optimism about solving the problem of global climate change.

He began by drawing analogies between climate change the political stages of another global environmental issue: depletion of stratospheric ozone by CFCs during the 70s and 80s. The evolution of this problem, and its eventual solution, occured in several stages that are similar to the current situation with climate change and provides a model to follow:

Political stages of ozone depletion:

1. Scientists discover by chance that CFCs, hailed as a safe and useful refrigerant, are destroying ozone in the atmosphere that protects us from skin cancer.

2. Some political interest in addressing this issue is achieved, but it is largely blocked by industry opposition (chiefly Dupont - largest CFC manufacturer). Vienna convention adopted with the international goal of tackling the CFC issue but the agreement lacks real teeth -- i. e. no binding requirements.

3. NASA releases picture of earth with ozone hole over Antarctica -- this pivotal image alone led to public understanding the magnitude and urgency of the problem. Meanwhile Dupont invents an alternative to CFCs and gives the nod to politicians that industries can cope with this issue. Montreal protocol is enacted and begins a concrete timetable for phasing out CFCs, though still has a small impact

4. London ammendments build upon the Montreal Protocol and lead to consequential reduction in CFC concentrations. For the first time, the world succeeds in coming to a global solution to a challenging environmental issue.

I was happy to hear Sachs this analogy since it is one I have often referred to myself in describing the political challenges of confronting climate change. He acknowledged however that the climate issue is vastly more complicated and is on a much larger scale than ozone.

How does this model play out for climate?

1. First scientest discover in the 70s and 80s that greenhouse gases are

2. Political is garnered and in 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted, which was ratified by the US, legally obligating them to tackle the climate issue. Still, the UNFCCC had no real binding restrictions and thus has no real power in mitigating climate change. Much opposition and skepticism remains.

3. Science is validated and methodically communicated through the IPCC. Like the NASA image, the event that has really solidified public support for the climate issue (regardless of actual attribution) was Hurricane Katrina. Like the Montreal Protocol, the Kyoto Protocol was an important step in galvanizing efforts to address the climate issue, but really bears no weight in creating a quantitative reduction of carbon emissions. Indeed it was merely intended as a stepping stone for more effective protocols down the road. In 2012, Kyoto expires and (hopefully) a new, up-to-date Protocol will be enacted. Given the time needed for countries to agree upon and ratify such a treaty, the negotiations really need to start ASAP and will commence this winter. Realistically though the U.S. has its hands tied for moving on this issue until 2009 -- the end of the current administration which will keep our country from ratifying any climate treaty (as they have done with Kyoto).

One key point Sachs emphasized and that is worth repeating is that lots of businesses are rallying for the U.S. to instate a tangible climate policy. This is not a sudden moral epiphany they have come to, but rather, they are beginning to realize that it is an issue they can deal with. Much like Dupont realized after developing the CFC alternative, energy companies are beginning R&D of technologies that make carbon reduction possible. Furthermore, for many large companies already see this as a fixed cost since carbon restrictions and trading schemes are already in place in European markets. Thus a uniform policy would be better for them to have a common standard to work with. Additionally, since regulation in the U.S. seems certain at some point down the road (especially on the heels of the recent supreme court decision), business are pushing for it to happen quickly so they can gain some business certainty about how to make future investments. As Sachs said, "the business community is way ahead of the politicians right now, and they're pulling the politicians to an agreement."

4? What is in store for the future:

Sachs predicted that upcoming climate negotiations will establish a post-Kyoto treaty with a global standard for carbon emissions that will be binding for all nations -- not the current split between the developing and industrialized world as is the case with Kyoto. Even China (soon to be the biggest CO2 contributer) has expressed interest in dealing with climate change. China and India are anxious to be on the cutting edge of new technologies, and want to work with companies like GE to develop prototypes for new carbon capture/storage or more efficient combined cycle coal plants. Sachs made it clear that without this sort of multilateral agreement (esp. with China's growth) no mitigation strategy would be feasible. To accommodate this strategy should be some kind of fund for international aid to help developing countries address this issue.

One pivotal point Sachs introduced is that economists estimate that the cost for mitigating emissions to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 will likely cost less than 1% of world income. Though not insignificant (~$500 billion), 1% does seems like an accomplishable goal. Especially considering the fact that nobody has done a comprehensive economic study of the costs for consequences that could dislocate large populations (e.g. melting of Himalayan glaciers that feed vital rivers in India/China). Already we are seeing the effects of climate change on drought in areas like the Sahel and Darfur in Africa. Global policies are still largely made concerning the interests of the wealthy countries, but Hurricane Katrina may have served as a wake up call that the costs are real and no-one is invulverable to climate change.

Many mechanisms are available for a global accord on carbon reduction. One could envision market based strategies such as the current European permit trading scheme, or a tax credit system, or simply a set standard. Since many groups with competing interests will be vying for different strategies, the likely outcome is that we will have a mixed bag of solutions. Although ideally we would have a clear-cut, axiomatic mitigation strategy, the solution will undoubtedly be messy, and variable between regions and industries. Maintaining equity on a broad spectrum with so many players involved will be a challenging goal but should not keep us from coming to quick resolution.

Although maybe appearing uneconomic on the surface, Sachs was very keen on promoting a system of standards, with clear global targets for specific industries (e.g. power generation - especially coal, transport fleets, steel & cement, deforestation). While many have been optimistic about strategies like renewable energy being solely able to replace fossil fuel dependence, this prospect seems "almost unimaginable" at this point and our strategy should undoubtedly promote new fossil fuel technologies like carbon capture and storage.

Lastly, Sachs acknowledged that we are committed to a certain amount of climate change from emissions already released, . Given this, a part of the international agreement should also entail some strategies for adaptation to the inevitable changes that are coming -- particularly for the poor who will be most affected by it.

My friend Owen reported on this lecture in the Daily Princetonian:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/04/13/news/18077.shtml

Sea Ice

On Monday I went to an interesting lecture in the Princeton Geosciences department by someone studying sea ice. Sea ice is really important for the global climate change. Look how it waxes and wanes each year with the seasons in the picture below. Sea ice also plays a major role in reflecting incoming sunlight that would otherwise warm the oceans.

(Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center)

One important climate warming feedback scenario is created by the melting of sea ice. More melting of sea ice leads to less sunlight reflected leads to more heat absorbed by arctic oceans leads to more ice melting.

I learned a lot during the talk. It turns out that sea ice actually doesn't melt per se, but it is dissolved by the influx of salty water. And there are lots of really interesting and complex interactions between the temperature of the ocean and the ice, especially when the ice gets thin. In short, we could be in for some major unpleasant surprises from future anthropogenic warming since the ice doesn't simply "melt" and "refreeze" as one might expect. There's a distinct possibility that we could reach a point of no return where extensive sea ice simply can't be regenerated.

The most astounding aspect of the speaker's talk was the fact that we still are so clueless about the basic properties of something as simple and ubiquitous as ice. Science still has so much to learn about our own planet!

Just couldn't resist this one: (Thanks iTunes search function!)