Peat, the accumulated turf made up of decayed vegetation, forms in many parts of the world in places like bogs, moors, and swamp forests. Due to its high carbon content, it can be harvested and burned as fuel. There are estimates that the global inventory of peat, covering 2 percent of all land area, contains 8 billion terajoules of energy. A new study has revealed that peat also has a high potential to contribute to climate change. The study, published by researchers from Bangor University in Maine, found that drought causes the release of far more carbon dioxide from peat than previously assumed.

Peatlands of the world lie in regions which are predicted to experience more frequent and severe droughts as climate change deepens. This will lead to the peat drying out and releasing vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Peat normally contains ample moisture which locks in the greenhouse gas. As it dries, the peat becomes exposed to the air where CO2 can be released.

The new study was published in the journal Nature Geosciences by Dr. Nathalie Fenner and Professor Chris Freeman of Bangor University. They found that not only with drought increase the rate of CO2 release, but that the release will also continue after the drought has concluded and the peat is re-wetted. This is because the new rainwater will drain away the dried out peatlands as dissolved organic carbon, where it can also be released.

“As our global climate and rainfall patterns change, our peatlands may not have sufficient opportunity to recover between these drought-induced episodes of CO2 loss,” explains Dr Fenner. “What we previously perceived as a ’spike’ in the rate of carbon loss during drying out, now appears far more prolonged- with a potential peak after the initial drought period is over.”

Other potential problems from future droughts in peatland may be the deterioration of drinking water quality from the dissolved organic carbon. Peatlands can often be found upland in the northern hemisphere and their waters may travel down gradient to reservoirs or into the groundwater. Also, the loss of carbon may lead to degradation of the peatland itself. More lowland flooding may be possible as the peatland’s natural sponge-like quality diminishes. Habitat and species loss may also occur.

“The previous focus of research in this area has been on the drought period, and our own work identified how the release of CO2 occurs,” explains Prof Freeman, who leads the Wolfson Peatland Carbon Capture Laboratory at Bangor University. “We were initially surprised at finding that the effects are so prolonged- we think what’s happening is microbial and that this activity has been triggered by the introduction of oxygen into previously waterlogged conditions. Once the water returns, conditions have changed and the microbes are further able to thrive until conditions eventually return to normal.”

Article by David A. Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Looking for Climate Change Leadership? Try Mexico City
• Second-largest Palm Oil Company Commits to Preserving Valuable Forest
• Here’s A Reason to Care About Climate Change: It Could Ruin Texas Football
• Emerging Economies Among the Most Vulnerable to Climate Change, Report Says
• New Study: Livestock Emissions Key in Global Climate Change Fight

The European Union says crude oil extracted from Alberta’s tar sands should be ranked as a dirtier fuel source than oil tapped from conventional oil wells, a move that could effectively ban the import of the controversial oil.

The European Commission endorsed a measure that would essentially rate fossil fuels based on the CO2 emitted during extraction, refining, and combustion. The EU has proposed that tar sands oil be ascribed a greenhouse gas value of 107 grams per megajoule of fuel, compared with 87.5 grams for ordinary crude oil.

“With this measure, we are sending a clear signal to fossil fuel suppliers,” said Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s climate change commissioner. “As fossil fuels will be a reality in the foreseeable future, it’s important to give them the right value.”

Such a ratings system may eventually be applied to natural gas extracted from shale oil formations. The exploitation of Alberta’s tar sands has generated increasing protest from environmental groups. In addition to destroying large swaths of forest, the extraction and processing of the sludgy bituminous material typically requires more energy and water than conventional production. Canadian officials and petroleum industry leaders vowed to fight the measure, calling it a “stigmatization” of a fuel source found only in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

photo: hidden side

Related posts:

• Emissions from Tar Sands Will Dwarf Carbon Cuts in Canada
• Tar Sands Pipeline Passes Key Hurdle as Protests Continue
• Success of Tar Sands Prompts Expansion Globally
• Winter Sports Champions Fight Canada’s Tar Sands Industry
• Judge Dismisses Gifford Claims Against USGBC

A series of pole-to-pole research flights conducted by U.S. researchers have provided the most comprehensive picture of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and confirmed some of climate scientists’ more dire concerns about human-caused global warming.

Using sophisticated instruments capable of detecting a wide range of atmospheric components, scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research found evidence that the melting of Arctic ice is leading to significant releases of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, and that the releases could have significant impact on the climate.

Data collected during the mission, known as HIPPO, also suggests that black carbon particles — released by diesel engines, industrial activities, and fires — are more widely distributed than previously known, particularly in large plumes that travel from Asia, over the central Pacific Ocean, and onto the U.S. West Coast.

“Levels were comparable with those measured in megacities such as Houston or Los Angeles,” said Ryan Spackman, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a member of the research team.

photo: r.rosenberger

Related posts:

• New U.S. Satellite to Monitor Global Climate Change
• Wind Energy Beyond Wind Turbines
• Crop Performance and Green House Gas Emissions
• Biofuels Takes Off on Commercial Flights
• Lufthansa: Biofuels Could Be Aviation’s Standard in Five Years

Measuring the emission of greenhouse gases from croplands should take into account the crops themselves. That’s the conclusion of a study in the Sept.-Oct. issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality, which examined the impact of farm practices such as tillage on the greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide. Expressing emissions per unit of crop yield rather than on a more conventional per area basis produced very different results, says the study’s leader, Rod Venterea, research soil scientist with the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service.

In particular, his team found that total nitrous oxide emissions were not significantly affected by tillage practices when expressed on an area basis. When they were calculated per unit yield of grain, however, emissions were significantly greater under no-tillage compared with conventional tillage. A byproduct of many agricultural systems, nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) with a heat-trapping potential more than 300 times that of carbon dioxide.

The findings have important implications for how the greenhouse gases generated by agriculture are reported, evaluated, and potentially mitigated. Nitrous oxide emissions were slighter higher under no-till on a per area basis in the study, Venterea explains, but not high enough to differ statistically from those under conventional tillage. “But when we added in the fact that no-tillage also reduced yields, the effect of tillage did become significant,” he says. “The point is that you need to look at both nitrous oxide emissions and yield together.”

While previous studies have shown that practices like fertilizer and tillage management can affect nitrous oxide emissions, relatively few have reported the effects of these practices on crop performance at the same time. In addition, GHG emissions are commonly expressed with respect to area of field: for example, kilogram nitrous oxide emitted per hectare. Recent research has suggested that expressing GHG emissions per unit of yield may be more meaningful, although few studies have actually done that.

To see how yield-scaled calculations might change the picture on emissions, USDA-ARS researchers in collaboration with University of Minnesota colleagues measured the effects of tillage and nitrogen (N) fertilizer management on nitrous oxide emissions, grain yields, and crop N uptake over three consecutive growing seasons in Minnesota. The experiment was conducted in research plots used for corn and soybean production, which were maintained under either no-till or conventional tillage for 18 years.

When the scientists calculated nitrous oxide emissions per unit yield of grain or grain N, they found that emissions under no-tillage were 52 and 66% higher, respectively, than with conventional tillage. In other words, for this cropping system and climate, Venterea says, no-till practices would generate substantially more nitrous oxide than would conventional tillage for the same amount of grain. The effect was due to lower yields under no-till, combined with slightly greater area-scaled nitrous oxide emissions.

Reduced yields under continuous no-till management in parts of the upper Midwest and other regions have been attributed to lower soil temperatures in spring, which may inhibit plant development. In other geographic regions, though, no-till can actually increase yields.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a clear, colorless gas, with a slightly sweet odor. Due to its long atmospheric lifetime (approximately 120 years) and heat trapping effects —about 310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide on a per molecule basis — N2O is an important greenhouse gas.

Nitrous oxide has both natural and human-related sources, and is removed from the atmosphere mainly by photolysis (i.e., breakdown by sunlight) in the stratosphere. In the United States, one of the main human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water. On a global basis, it is estimated that natural sources account for over 60% of the total N2O emissions.

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Expansion of Cropland is Stretching Earth’s Ability to Store Carbon
• Switchgrass Shows Potential as Biofuel Material
• The White House Goes Solar
• Federal Agencies Plan for Sustainability
• Russian Heat Wave Dents Hopes of Climate “Winners”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes its first-ever comprehensive review of low-carbon energy sources and potential, a 900-page “Bible” on renewable energy.

Word snuck out last week that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had undertaken a massive, unprecedented review of renewable energy studies and potential. The IPCC reviewed 164 renewable energy scenarios and written up a 900-page report on this, the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, which was published today, May 9, in Abu Dhabi (UAE), the home of the new International Renewable Energy Agency.

Some of the key findings are:

1. technically, renewable energy could easily supply all of the world’s energy needs (and much more) by 2050.
2. politically, up to 77% of global electricity demand could be satisfied by power from renewable energy sources by 2050.
3. costs of renewable energy are projected to decrease significantly in coming years and significant deployment is projected.
4. governments need to pursue the more aggressive policies and growth path in order to keep greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 parts per million, a critical necessity according to climatologists.

The report, unfortunately, left out a relatively new WWF report, The Energy Report, which detailed a plan for a 100% renewable energy future by 2050 — the report was too new to be included in the review. Thus, it discounted what’s possible. Additionally, it did not lay out a clear plan for how to go about achieving the cleanest energy future. “IPCC delivers a landmark report that shows the rapid growth, low-cost potential for renewable energy – but unfortunately does not endorse a 100% renewable energy pathway until 2050,” said Dr. Stephan Singer, Director for Global Energy Policy for WWF International.

Nonetheless, this is a groundbreaking, influential report that shows the world the a renewable energy future is ours if we take the appropriate steps.

Clean Energy Future Not Just about Climate Change

The IPCC report clearly shows that beyond the clear climate benefits of a renewable energy future, renewables offer many other benefits and advantages over fossil fuels and nuclear energy, such as:

1. health benefits
2. security of energy supply
3. creation of jobs and economic stimulus
4. they can provide electricity to over 2 billion people who currently don’t have electricity or have very erratic electricity access

Strengths and Weaknesses of 30-Page Summary for Policy Makers

All IPCC reports include a summary for policy makers that must be agreed to line by line and word by word by every member country, quite a task. This was completed in the very early morning on May 9 after several days of learning about and discussing the report.

There are weaknesses of such a process — it generally weakens the statements and recommendations of the full report. “Unfortunately, the Summary for Policy Makers is only a feeble outline and does not in the least match the high quality of the full report,” said Dr. Singer. “One needs to turn to the full report to understand the massive job the IPCC has managed to achieve.”

On the other hand, it binds all governments and report scientists to the final, published findings. This strengthens their reputability.

Learn more here: Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation

Article by Zachary Shahan, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Extreme Weather to Increase as Climate Changes, IPCC Says
• China Nods to Warming Skeptics, Glaciers Continue to Melt
• U.S. Scientists Propose New Procedures for U.N. Climate Panel
• The new Tesla Model S is… very sexy
• Web Application Allows Easy Analysis of Climate Pledges

It’s called the Greenerator (thanks to my Twitter pal SolarKnowledge for pointing out this one), and it’s the sort of renewable energy device that offers apartment dwellers a way of generating sustainable energy without the attached real estate.

The brainchild of Jonathan Globerson, a product designer who fills the spectrum from prototype developer to web marketer guru, the Greenerator at first glance looks like a decorative wind spinner, but closer examination reveals a surprisingly aesthetic marriage of vertical axis wind turbine and flexible solar panels.

Consisting of a double helix of flexible solar panels, as well as a saucer-shaped generator, controller, ultra-capacitor and inverter for the wind generation portion, the Greenerator can reportedly power a 32-inch flat panel TV.

According to Globerson, the device will save 6 percent of a user’s electric bill and prevent 2,000 pounds of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) over its lifetime. Add the fact that it looks hella cool, and can probably hypnotize balcony dwellers on a hot summer afternoon, and you have the best of all possible worlds.

The advantage of the Greenerator is that it can be hung from an apartment balcony, or at the edge of the roof soffit (with a landlord’s permission), and in the latter case might even take advantage of the “roof effect” via its magnetic levitation (maglev) technology – two features widely touted by the Mag-Wind, a maglev vertical axis wind turbine that also reportedly benefits from roof updrafts (though we don’t hear much about this roof effect anymore).

Globerson’s device uses thin-film solar cells, which are cheaper to manufacture and use fewer rare earth materials, another plus in its favor. In fact, many thin-films are ink-jet printed with organic dyes (e.g. thiophene derivatives of acyl bromides and carboxylic acids, or cationic dyes).

Related posts:

• Britain Completes First Green Zone
• American Voters Have No Appetite for Sacrifice — But What About Prosperity?

Seven years after opening, North America’s only national market trading all six greenhouse gases will close its doors at the end of this year.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), a voluntary but legally binding system where members commit to annual greenhouse gas emission reduction targets will not be able to function in the absence of federally-enacted cap-and-trade, reports The Financial Times.

Atlanta-based Intercontinental Exchange, which purchased CCX in April, reportedly will keep the separate Chicago Climate Futures Exchange, a clearinghouse for carbon offsets and credits, open until at least the end of 2012, when the carbon credits provision of the Kyoto Protocol is set to expire.

“The bulk of the users have said to us that they really don’t want to continue to trade voluntarily in the absence of any credit for their work by the current administration,” said Jeff Sprecher, chief executive of IntercontinentalExchange.

IntercontinentalExchange purchased CCX, the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange and the European Climate Exchange in April for about $634.5 million

Sprecher said he remains bullish on emissions trading in Europe, where the European Climate Exchange is profitable, but he’s far less enthusiastic about carbon trading on a national scale in the U.S., where any discussion of a national cap-and-trade these days is a non-starter, especially with big Republican wins in last week’s midterm elections.

While the only national carbon market in the U.S. will close at the end of this year, regional markets like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the East and the Western Climate Initiative in the West and Canada may still have a chance at thriving. Because they do not require buy-in from all fifty states, and because the politics of energy in the U.S. usually break down along regional divisions, as opposed to partisan ones, there may be more cohesion in smaller markets rather than a single national one.

Since launching in 2003 CCX has grown to 450 members, attracting a diverse array of companies in both size and business sector to trade emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons.

Article by Timothy B. Hurst, appearing courtesy Earth & Industry.

Related posts:

• Buckminster Fuller’s Advice on Clean Energy
• CleanTech’s future in the Headlines: Extra, Extra, Read all about it!
• China Named Leader in Green Energy Investing
• China to Impose Targets on Regions to Cut Carbon Intensity
• Gifts, Sex and Drugs: Energy Agency to be Split as Result of Oil Spill

Aviation is responsible for an estimated 2 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, and many believe they could be even more damaging because they release these pollutants high in the atmosphere.

Despite the immense challenges involved in sustainably serving millions of passengers a year, these three international airports have already achieved the much-coveted “carbon neutral” status.

Since 2005, Swedavia-owned Stockholm-Arlanda airport has been using only “green” electricity and since 2006 only district heating based on biofuel. Now, they’ve found a way to tap the world’s largest energy storage unit − the aquifer that exists underneath the massive building and terminals. This aquifer reduces the airport’s annual electricity consumption by 4 GWh and its district heating  consumption by around 15 GWh, for a total of 19 GWh − equivalent to the energy consumed by 2,000 single-family homes.

In January 2008, the Christchurch International Airport Limited (CIAL) became the first airport company in the Southern Hemisphere to attain certified carbon neutral status through the reduction and offsetting of the greenhouse gas emissions directly generated by the airport company’s operations. Currently the airport recycles all paper, waste oil, cardboard, plastic, metal and glass, and all green garden waste is composted. CIAL Facilities Services staff also use EM Bokashi to reuse food scraps. CIAL uses electricity, LPG and diesel for energy supply, and has reduced electricity use for air conditioning by using groundwater as an energy source.

In August, Canada’s Gander International Airport (CYQX) became North America’s first carbon neutral airport. In an effort to establish a sustainable culture at the airport, authorities have established a program to reduce paper consumption, a procurement policy that gives preference to green vendors, and created strict anti-idling policies. The airport has also reduced electricity use, enabled more comprehensive recycling, and installed energy retrofits. Gander is just one among a small number of airports around the world that signed the 2008 Aviation and Environment Summit Declaration, which asks the industry to commit to carbon-neutral growth and a carbon-free future.

The buzz around carbon-neutral airports seems to be growing in still developing nations as well. Just two weeks ago, Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) set a goal of making its five international airports carbon-neutral by 2020.

Article by Beth Buczynski, appearing courtesy Crisp Green.

Related posts:

• Honeybees Deployed to Test Air Quality at German Airports
• Solar-Powered Aircraft Flies At Night, Sets New Records      
• First Flight Takes Off on Kerosene from Natural Gas
• Majority in U.S. Support Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax, Survey Says
• Is Carmageddon’s Legacy the L.A. Microflight?

On the same day Californians went to the polls to vote on Proposition 23 [and defeat it], a ballot measure which would have effectively frozen the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the state’s pioneering climate and energy legislation regulators in New Mexico approved a set of comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions reduction regulations that are more aggressive than any other such rules in the country.

In a 4-3 vote, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) approved two sets of proposed global warming regulations:  the first establishes rules for Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Verification and the other deals more specifically with Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade regulations.

The moves today from the EIB clear the way for New Mexico’s participation in the Western Climate Initiative, a consortium of seven Western states and four Canadian provinces working to reduce carbon emissions with a regional cap-and-trade mechanism.

Outgoing New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson commended the panel’s decision to adopt the regulations, saying that “addressing climate immediately is the right thing to do.”

“I am pleased that the EIB adopted the program I have worked so hard to develop,” said Gov. Richardson in a statement on Tuesday “I call on the federal government to build on New Mexico’s program and the WCI to implement a national cap-and-trade system.”

The rules will require about 63 facilities, primarily fossil fuel-fired power plants and oil and gas operations, that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases annually to start cutting emissions by 2 percent per year below 2010 levels, beginning in 2012.

Clean energy supporters hailed the decision both because it establishes New Mexico as a national leader in the creation of a 21st-century U.S. energy policy, but also because it positions New Mexico as an attractive market for clean energy investment.

“We’re thrilled,” said Dr. John Fogarty of New Energy Economy, one of the 17 organizations that has been urging the EIB to adopt carbon reduction regulations for the last two years. “This regulation sends a clear signal: New Mexico is open for business in the new energy economy.”

But even though New Mexico has now established these regulatory standards in readying for involvement in the Western Climate Initiative, there may still be some political wrangling remaining –  just as the EIB was issuing approval of the proposed greenhouse gas rules, New Mexico voters were turning out to cast a vote for Republican gubernatorial candidate and global warming skeptic, Susana Martinez.

Martinez, who claimed victory as the next Governor of New Mexico late on Tuesday night, does not exactly put climate and clean energy at the top of her legislative agenda, telling Politico in August that she had her doubts about the human causes of global warming.

“I’m not sure the science completely supports that,” she said.

Article by Timothy B. Hurst, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• New Mexico Approves Cap on Carbon Emissions
• Leaders Grandstanding on New Greenhouse-Gas Regulations
• California ‘Clean Car’ Rules Mandate Boost in Electric Vehicle Sales
• Google Satellite Platform Allows Tracking of Environmental Changes
• Study Identifies Mexico as Huge Solar Resource

Gosh, it irks me to have our leaders take advantage on our ignorance – but I guess that what they do for a living.

Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the EPA, said recently that the agency will “issue guidance soon that states and polluters may use to implement the agency’s new greenhouse-gas regulations,” and that complying with the rules “is practical and is manageable.” Of course, it’s not at all clear what that means in terms of pragmatic consequences. But that didn’t deter our elected leaders from seizing opportunity to grandstand on either side of the aisle. Knowing that most people have no clue of the basic economics of new energy, and simply love a partisan fight, they were on camera more or less instantly.

Lawmakers led by Senator Jay Rockefeller want to postpone EPA action, saying the rules will hurt businesses and consumers grappling with a sluggish economy. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to schedule a vote on Rockefeller’s bill “before we leave here.” Rockefeller is “aggressively pursuing” a two-year delay of the greenhouse-gas regulations for industrial sources such as power plants because “the unelected EPA” shouldn’t get ahead of Congress.

Is anyone asking about creating a level playing field for clean energy? About the real effect in job creation? Maybe, but they’re incredibly hard to find.

Related posts:

• New Mexico Adopts Country’s Most Comprehensive Greenhouse Gas Rules
• EPA Dips a Cautious Toe in the Tepid Waters of Carbon Dioxide Regulation
• EPA Implements New Climate Change Regulations
• First Greenhouse Gas Permit Issued
• How Obama Could Get His Job Groove Back