SOS from the Copenhagen, Sir

Subtitle: Save Our Soot… Why, what did you think it meant?

This blog previously noted a concise explanation of global and regional climate changes due to black carbon:

40% of soot comes from power sources, mainly coal and oil. Quickly reducing soot could have substantial short-term effects on the rate of climate change. Such reduction is evidenced by a decline in ABCs (Atmospheric Brown Clouds).

Black carbon in soot is the dominant absorber of visible solar radiation in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon, although distributed globally, are most concentrated in the tropics where solar irradiance is highest. Black carbon is often transported over long distances, mixing with other aerosols along the way. The aerosol mix can form transcontinental plumes of atmospheric brown clouds, with vertical extents of 3 to 5 km. Because of the combination of high absorption, a regional distribution roughly aligned with solar irradiance, and the capacity to form widespread atmospheric brown clouds in a mixture with other aerosols, emissions of black carbon are the second strongest contribution to current global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions. In the Himalayan region, solar heating from black carbon at high elevations may be just as important as carbon dioxide in the melting of snowpacks and glaciers. The interception of solar radiation by atmospheric brown clouds leads to dimming at the Earth’s surface with important implications for the hydrological cycle, and the deposition of black carbon darkens snow and ice surfaces, which can contribute to melting, in particular of Arctic sea ice.

Dr. Mark Jacobson, Co-founder and Director of the Atmospheric Energy Program at Stanford University’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

As if we needed a further reminder that we desperately need implementation of carbon free technologies for power generation and transportation, that is, if we want somehow to mitigate destruction of life on the planet as we know it, then Jamais at Open The Future, via the ever popular, Peak (mind the Red Cloud) Energy, has a post on “black carbon” – None More Black.

Compression ignition engines burning diesel fuel emit soot. Particulate matter from ocean-going and land-based transportation, plus the massive amounts from fossil fuel burning electric power plants, plus that from worldwide biomass combustion, results in the second biggest contributor to global warming.

As to the Copenhagen reference in the title, in terms of air pollution, the global shipping sector has gone largely unregulated. Yet, word from Copenhagen is that pollution from diesel engines on oceangoing vessels such as container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships went unaddressed.

“So, you mention Copenhagen because it is a port city where there has been a great amount of focus recently and, in addition to contributing to destruction of the ozone layer and ocean acidification, SOx emissions are a main component of unhealthy smog in port cities like Copenhagen?”

Well, yes and no. Yes, because SOx emissions are significant contributors to air pollution in many ports around the world. And. SOx emissions combine with particulate matter and aerosols to make those nasty ABCs that reduce albedo and negatively effect the health of people in port cities and those inland.

OTOH, No, and you haven’t been keeping up with the comments, have you? Reddit commentator spuur observed that “Danish companies such as MAERSK are responsible for at least 10% of the World’s pollution from shipping.” COP15 took place in Copenhagen at the Bella Center, which was constructed from shipping containers.

Fred with clothes

Q.E.D…. Ah, but I see your bags are packed and it’s time to go, probably not a good time to mention pollution from jet planes also went unaddressed. Anyway, a key question to ponder on making your way back home from COP15: How come his Royal Highness Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark gets to ride around in a Fisker Karma with no clothes?

Well, bye-bye, are you sure you don’t want to take a few ham sandwiches with you to eat on the plane?

Black Soot Coating Himalayan Glaciers is Accelerating Melting (treehugger.com)
Smog Could Cause 2.5°C+ Warming, Even With Strong Global Climate Deal (treehugger.com)

3 Comments

jcwinnie

Posted 2009-12-20 at 10:11 am | Permalink

Some on the Internets are try, try, trying to make the best of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 15th Conference Of Parties (COP 15). Jack Rosebro simply acknowledges that the parties settled on a non-binding 2 ºC Warming Limit.

“We must be honest about what we have got”, said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer. “The world walks away from Copenhagen with a deal. But clearly, ambitions to reduce emissions must be raised significantly if we are to hold the world to 2 degrees.”

So, every indication is that the warming (isn’t language interesting) limit will be exceed, a limit that the Tuvalu proposal rejected as too high, since a 2 ºC maximal warming limit leaves some member states very vulnerable to sea level rise from that much HEATING. (Sorry)

Observational data subsequent to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which had cited the 2 ºC guardrail (earlier post) as a prudent limit, has indicated that a lower maximal warming limit may be required to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

Although the Copenhagen Accord has failed to deliver tangible progress on major issues (my emphasis), it commits agreeing parties to a 31 January 2010 deadline by which they would submit national emissions reduction ~~promises, promises, promises~~ goals. For developed countries, specific reduction targets as well as the reference year used to calculate those targets must be provided; for developing countries, including emerging economies, actions to reduce emissions must be submitted, but do not have to be quantified.

The accord also sketches out the financing of climate mitigation and adaptation measures in developing countries, much of which was separately offered by developed countries in parallel with the climate talks.

Support for such measures is defined in the accord as “approaching USD 30 billion” during the 2010-2012 period, and scaling up to USD 100 billion per year by 2020. Financing of adaptive measures would be prioritized for the most vulnerable countries, such as small island states and sub-Saharan African nations. In a nod to deteriorating support among developing countries for the 2 ºC target, the Copenhagen Accord also recommends “consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science” by 2015, “including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
jcwinnie

Posted 2009-12-20 at 11:21 am | Permalink

Asked if this deal made Copenhagen a success, Brazil Ambassador Sergio Serra replied, “There is the perspective that with this agreement we may reach a satisfactory and equitable result next year.” Then he paused: “The disappointment is still there.”
jcwinnie

Posted 2009-12-20 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

For Reuters, Gerard Wynn (Editing by Jon Hemming) compiled a list of excluded sectors and loopholes in the Copenhagen agreement.

* No agreement on whether to include emissions from aviation and shipping in climate targets, and make it mandatory to include farming and forestry.

* Kyoto excludes greenhouse gases from aviation and shipping, responsible for at least 5 percent of global emissions.

* Under Kyoto, rich countries do not have to include in their targets emissions from land use, including forests and farming.

* Combined, farms and deforestation account for a third of all global greenhouse gases.

The compilation omits mention of binding limits on emissions, which is necessary.

After Gutenberg