Showing posts with label pollutants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pollutants. Show all posts

Tackling the Problem of Plastic Waste on World Oceans Day

June 8 is World Oceans Day an opportunity to reflect on the importance of our oceans as well as solutions to the numerous threats they face. In 2017 the action focus is plastic pollution. Our oceans are indispensable to life of Earth and fate of humanity is intimately tied to their well-being. Our oceans are hotter and more acidic and they are increasingly unable to serve as carbon sinks. Coral reefs are dying and entire aquatic ecosystems are being destroyed. Norwegian billionaire and ocean advocate Kjell Inge Røkke aptly summarized situation when he said, "the oceans are also under greater pressure than ever before from overfishing, coastal pollution, habitat destruction, climate change and ocean acidification, and one of the most pressing challenges of all, plasticization of the ocean. The need for knowledge and solutions is pressing."

Many of these issues are intertwined. For example global warming appears to be contributing to an alarming decline in the amount of dissolved oxygen in the world's ocean. Low ocean oxygen is part of a feedback loop which sees microorganisms produce the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. These effects could lead to ocean dead zones that are deadly for a number of marine organisms. It could even lead to a complete breakdown of aquatic food chains. These are some of the findings in a large research synthesis conducted by oceanographer Sunke Schmidtko and two colleagues from the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany. The research was published in the journal Nature.

Market growth

Plastic (celluloid) was invented by John Wesley Hyatt in 1869, however it was the invention and mass manufacturing of cheap oil based plastic in the 1960s that has led our current crisis. In 1965 we were producing about 15 million tons of plastic each year we now produce more than 300 million tons every year.

The plastic market has averaged 5 percent growth per year since 2000 primarily in packaging. Between 2000 and 2015, plastic used in packaging grew from 17 percent of market share to 25 percent. Plastic is now a $427 billion industry in the US alone. It employs nearly one million American workers and it is the third largest US manufacturing industry. Estimates indicate that if the trend continues by 2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean, by weight, than fish.

Existential threat

Yayat Supriatna, an urban planning scholar who has advised the Indonesian government said, "People don’t understand how dangerous plastic can be." Plastic is toxic and can be deadly. It is estimated that one million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles become entrapped in plastic or ingest it and die each year. Plastic is already killing millions of creatures and there is mounting evidence to suggest that plastic may be an existential threat to our species.

Plastic has become ubiquitous because it is cheap, lightweight, strong and durable. Its cheapness is due to the fact that we found a way to make it with oil. Its strength and durability are what makes it so dangerous. Plastic bottles in the ocean will not break down for 4 centuries and even then it lives eternally on as "poisonous confetti".

In 2016 a couple of sperm whales washed up on shores of Germany having starved to death due to a belly full of plastic. This is a redux of a whale found dead in the waters off the Greek isle of Mykonos in 2011. Whales are just one of many creatures that are threatened by plastic waste.

As quoted in a PRI investigative piece, oceanographer Curtis Ebbesmeyer, the man who coined the term "gyres" said, plastic pollution, "makes global warming look like child’s play". He suggests that plastic may even threaten the survival of some species including humans.

He explained the pervasive nature of the threat by saying, "We’re all infected with plastic...Molecules from some kid’s plastic bottle, dropped into the ocean in Asia, are winding up in the food Americans eat." This, Ebbesmeyer said could interfere with reproduction in a number of studies including humans.

There has been a marked decline in sperm counts which some have attributed to plastic pollution. This includes the carcinogenic synthetic estrogen imitators contained in Bisphenol A (BPA). Almost everybody has traces of BPA in their bodies. Research suggests that exposure to plastics can even impact the fertility of subsequent generations. Biological scientist, Frederick vom Saal, told Mother Jones magazine, "A poison kills you. A chemical like BPA reprograms your cells and ends up causing a disease in your grandchild that kills him."

Sizable problem

The scope of the problem is mind boggling. There are massive, swirling patches of plastic in our oceans. Some of the gyres hold around 400,000 plastic particles per square kilometre.

We continue to add 8 million tons of plastic to the oceans every year. There are 5.2 trillion bits of plastic in the sea. The problem is growing so fast that in the not too distant future plastic could soon cover half the planet’s surface. In some places there is six times more plastic in the water than plankton. The problem is growing so fast that in the not too distant future plastic could soon cover half the planet’s surface. In some places there is six times more plastic in the water than plankton.

Americans throw out more than 45,000 plastic bottles per minute or 2.5 million plastic bottles per hour. Globally people use roughly one million plastic bags per minute.

Plastic is now everywhere on the planet. Researchers from Australia’s University of Tasmania and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds found 18 tonnes of plastic garbage (239 items per square metre) scattered across a small South Pacific island 5,000 kilometers from the nearest human occupation.

The threats associated with plastics are significant. University of Tasmania researcher Jennifer Lavers said plastic in the oceans could be as great a threat as climate change. "You put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or plastic in the oceans and both will stick around," she told New Scientist.

According to an aerial survey by inventor Boyan Slat the problem of plastic pollution in our oceans is worse than we thought. The survey of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, collected over 1,000 large pieces of garbage in under 2 hours.

Government action

France has announced that it is banning all plastic bags, plastic utensils, cups, and dishes by 2020. At the end of 2015, US President Barack Obama signed a bill requiring that American manufacturers end the use of microbeads in products by July 1, 2017 and end the sale of products containing microbeads in by July 1, 2018. In June 2016 Canada's federal government decision added plastic microbeads to the Schedule 1 list of toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), enabling the government to regulate and ultimately ban the substance.

Oceans are not being protected as they should. Taking a page from the oil industry the US the plastics industry lobbyists have been successful petitioned government in an effort to minimize regulatory oversight.

The patchwork of laws and agreements, along with uneven enforcement are problematic. We also must deal with the difficult issue of waters outside national jurisdictions. We need more protections, more science and more transparency.

Business

The problem of plastic waste is a business problem that must be solved by business innovation. Western multinationals like Proctor & Gamble and Unilever, Nestle and Coca-Cola produce much of the world's plastic waste. However, thus far too little is being done to address the problem. "The corporations may offer a bit of charity here and there," Yayat says. "But they don’t really help. They’ll say the environment is the government’s responsibility."

There are powerful incentives driving corporate action. The sustainable plastic market was estimated to have reached $142.42 billion in 2015. In a Triple Pundit article about the new plastic economy Leon Kaye makes the point that the business community needs to drive a transition in the plastics industry.

"There is a large consensus that the plastics economy needs a fundamental rethink and redesign," said Rob Opsomer, the New Plastics Economy Lead with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, "and that the New Plastics Economy sets an economically and environmentally attractive direction to make that happen."

The single-use plastics industry contributes anywhere from $80 billion to $120 billion in material value losses annually. Further, as referenced above plastic polutes natural environment. This and other environmental problems associated with single-use plastic cost the global economy at least $40 billion a year.

Innovation

There are a number of innovations from the corporate sector that may help. In 2012 Italian company Bio-on unveiled a bioplastics polymer that is 100 percent biodegradable in water and soil. S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. launched an initiative to help build the infrastructure to eventually make Ziploc packaging bags widely recyclable via curbside recycling programs. Ford has replaced plastic car parts with parts made from carbon dioxide. Craft brewery is now making its six pack holders with an edible and biodegradable alternative made of barley and wheat remnants from the brewing process.

In April of this year, the BBC's Helen Briggs reported on a caterpillar that eats plastic.  Researchers at Cambridge University have discovered a plastic eating moth larvae (Galleria mellonella) that breaks down plastic's chemical bonds. It is hoped that researchers may be able to identify microbes in the caterpillar that could be used to dispose of plastic waste in an environmentally friendly fashion. The research was published in the journal, Current Biology.

Alternatives

We know that plastic is very useful, what we need is an alternative to oil based plastics that are not so environmentally harmful. This is especially important in light of the fact that only 14 percent of plastic is currently being recycled. So in addition to doing a much better job of recycling we need to make biodegradable plastics that do not use oil.

A Trucost sustainability focused life cycle report says that plastics cost $139 billion each year. However, it also suggests that plastic alternatives may be worse for the environment. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) funded report is titled, "Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement." The report drew on natural capital assessments and found the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging to be almost 4 times less than existing alternatives (glass, tin, aluminum and paper). In terms of dollar amounts, the report says that non-plastic alternatives comes with environmental costs of $533 billion annually compared to $139 billion with plastics.

However, there are other potentially viable alternatives. One renewable possibility includes hemp and other fast-growing plants containing cellulose. Companies including IBM, Ford and Dell are working to develop viable alternatives to plastics for use in products and packaging. IBM researchers said they have found a way to create cheaper, biodegradable plastic from plants. This follows a plastics recycling process IBM researchers announced last year.

We also need to be wary of false solutions. For example so called compostable plastics are not quite as helpful as it would seem. As explained by Danny Clark, "compostable plastics don’t breakdown and convert into compost or result in nutrient rich soil as the process and name would lead one to believe." Rather than put carbon into the soil, compostable plastics add CO2 (the most abundant greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere.

Circular economy

If it could be made to be viable the circular economy offers the most hope of reducing plastic waste.  The European Commission announced its Circular Economy Action Plan, which is working towards closing the loop on plastics. At a recent World Economic Forum (WEF)in Davos, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation launched the "New Plastics Economy initiative" with the report, "The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics."

As reported by Environmental Leader, this plastics initiative is designed to increase recycling and reuse as well as increase the use of bioplastics. This initiative enjoys the support of some major companies including Amcor, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical and Mars. The launch followed a report that pointed to $3.5 billion in potential environmental savings.

As reported by Thomas Schueneman, new prizes are inspiring innovation. On May 18th 2017, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation announced a $2 million plastics innovation prize in partnership with the Prince of Wales’s International Sustainability Unit. This initiative includes support from more than 40 organizations, including Core Partners Amcor, Coca-Cola, Danone, Mars, Novamont, PepsiCo, Unilever and Veolia. The two part $1 million Circular Design Challenge invites applicants to rethink how we can get products to people without generating plastic waste.

"Working towards circularity in the way we make, use, and distribute plastic packaging will revolutionize the scale of the human footprint on our planet," said Wendy Schmidt, who has already funded two major XPrize competitions focused on oceans. "The value of keeping materials in the economy is massive compared to the losses we suffer when plastic leaks into the very living systems we depend upon for our survival. The New Plastics Economy Prize is a call for creative design and technical innovation at a critical time."

People making a difference

Norwegian billionaire Kjell Inge Røkke has made a fortune from shipping and offshore drilling. He is building the largest and heaviest yacht in the world. What makes this ship exceptional is the fact that it can extract up to five tons of plastic from the ocean every day. Norway's World Wildlife Fund (WWF), will manage the ship which will also be a floating scientific lab for 60 scientists and 40 crew. The ship called Research Expedition Vessel (REV) is scheduled to be completed in 2020 has a number of ecological features that will minimize its footprint. This includes an energy recovery rudder system, medium speed engines, a direct drive diesel-electric propulsion system with battery package, an exhaust cleaning system, ballast water treatment system, low noise, WWF FSC certified woods, and lighting from LEDs.

Related
Plastic Waste in Our Oceans: Problems and Solutions
Green Plastics Report
Infographic - Plastic and the 5 Ocean Gyres 
Video: The Perils of Plastic Waste
The Mass Extinction of Our Oceans May have Already Begun
Chemical Regulation Including Plastics that is Good for Business and the Environment
Plastics and the Greener Cell Phones
PepsiCo Canada's 100% Recycled EcoGreen Bottle Breakthrough
Ford's Flower Powered Green Plastic Replacement
Best Green Automotive Innovations Include Replacements for Plastics
Recycling is a Business Imperative
Water Scarcity and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Assessing the Value of Our Oceans

The Problems and Solutions of e-Waste (Video)

This video reviews the issues related to e-waste, it also addresses some of the solutions. This video specifically reviews how Sprint, through its buy-back program, is helping to solve the monumental problem of e-waste.

Since 2001, Sprint's takeback program has collected more than 4,000 metric tons of electronic waste which comprises more than 40 million wireless devices. These programs not only keep phones out of landfills they have helped the company avoid more than $1 billion in costs. In 2011 Sprint recycled more than 11 million wireless devices, over 211,000 on average per week. Sprint is the first and only US wireless carrier to outline specific commitments that address electronic waste (e-waste) holistically.
To see the video click here.

Related Articles
The Growing Problem of Cell Phone Waste
Greenpeace e-Waste Investigation (Video)
US e-waste is Polluting Toxic Dumps in Ghana (Video)
The US Desire to be "Green" is Causing an e-Waste Hell China (Video)
AT&T's Record Breaking Recycling for Wireless Devices
Sprint's Industry Leading Cell Phone Recycling
E-Waste: A New Business Opportunity
Steve Jobs: Apple's Product Recycling Efforts
LG's Recycling Leadership
HP's Sustainable Innovation

US e-waste is Polluting Toxic Dumps in Ghana (Video)

The US Desire to be "Green" is Causing an e-waste Hell China (Video)



The best intentions to be green can flow from the United States into a e-waste hell. In with the new, means out with the old. The US throws out over 100 million cell phones per year and while people may think they are disposing of the phones in an eco-friendly fashion, the truth of where this waste actually ends up is a far different story.
Related Articles
The Growing Problem of Cell Phone Waste
Greenpeace e-Waste Investigation (Video)
The Problems and Solutions of e-Waste (Video)
US e-waste is Polluting Toxic Dumps in Ghana (Video)
AT&T's Record Breaking Recycling for Wireless Devices
Sprint's Industry Leading Cell Phone Recycling
E-Waste: A New Business Opportunity
Steve Jobs: Apple's Product Recycling Efforts
LG's Recycling Leadership
HP's Sustainable Innovation

Greenpeace e-Waste Investigation (Video)



Greenpeace has been investigating the immoral and illegal e-waste dumping in developing countries since 2002. After China, India, Pakistan and Ghana, this is the story of how one very broken TV managed to avoid being tested and recycled according to EU regulations and instead ended up in Nigeria as "second hand goods.


To find out more about the Greenpeace investigation click here.

Related Articles
The Growing Problem of Cell Phone Waste
The Problems and Solutions of e-Waste (Video)
US e-waste is Polluting Toxic Dumps in Ghana (Video)
The US Desire to be "Green" is Causing an e-Waste Hell China (Video)
AT&T's Record Breaking Recycling for Wireless Devices
Sprint's Industry Leading Cell Phone Recycling
E-Waste: A New Business Opportunity
Steve Jobs: Apple's Product Recycling Efforts
LG's Recycling Leadership
HP's Sustainable Innovation

Whats the Fracking Problem?

Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has been associated with water contamination, global warming-causing air pollution, health problems, falling property values and even earthquakes. Each year fracking pumps billions of gallons of water and chemicals deep underground under high pressure to force open cracks and release natural gas.

According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the chemicals used in fracking fluids include over 750 different chemicals. Some are innocuouse (salt, gelatin) while others pose significant human health hazards (methanol, isopropanol and 2-butoxyethanol). About 650 of the 750 chemicals used in fracking operations are known carcinogens, according to the report filed with the U.S. House of Representatives in April 2011. They include toxic chemicals like benzene and tholuene.

Returning fracking fluids are referred to as “flowback” and in addition to chemical additives, they can include many naturally occurring substances that pose hazards, including methane, heavy metals like barium and radioactive matter. Fracking can unlock 2,552 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the U.S., which is enough to power the country for more than a century. However, there are some serious problems with fracking as well as natural gas itself.

Although natural gas burns cleaner than other fossil fuels (combustion of natural gas releases less carbon dioxide per BTU than combustion of either coal or gasoline), when all things considered, natural gas is not cleaner than other fossil fuels and may even be worse.

Water contamination

According to American Rivers, fracking threatens rivers and streams that provide clean drinking water, habitat for fish and wildlife, and recreational opportunities, such as fishing and boating. Many of America’s greatest rivers are under threat from natural gas development. They include the Upper Delaware, Susquehanna, Monongahela, and Hoback Rivers.

A PNAS study found that drinking wells near the Marcellus Shale contained 17 times as much methane as those half a mile away. Part of the problem is that natural gas development enjoys exemptions from keystone environmental laws, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act.

“Unchecked by adequate safeguards, natural gas production has the potential to pollute clean water for millions of people. We have already experienced instances of surface and groundwater pollution, air pollution, soil contamination, habitat fragmentation, and erosion from extracting gas from shale using fracking,” American Rivers said.

Earthquakes

While it is widely suspected that fracking pollutes waterways, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the practice can also cause earthquakes. According to scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),  the oil and gas industry is “almost certainly” responsible for the earthquakes in the U.S. Midwest.

The midsection of America is a relatively quiet geologically zone, but in 2009 USGS seismologist Bill Ellsworth noticed a dramatic increase in the number of quakes in this area. Ellsworth and his colleagues watched the number of quakes go from an average of 20 tremors a year to more 50 in 2009, 87 in 2010 and 134 last year.

What makes the earthquakes in this area so anomalous is the fact that the thick basement rock underlying the U.S. Midwest is relatively static and it is not near an active volcano. This has led him and his team to conclude that the startling increase is “almost certainly man-made.”

Ellsworth’s closer inspection revealed that many of the new quakes were clustering around the wastewater wells, which are very deep holes where companies dump the frack water once it has been used.

Air pollution

As reported in the Washington Post, another problem with fracking is the fact that it inevitably causes methane to escape into the atmosphere. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, it is more than 20 times the heat trapping capacity of carbon dioxide. Modeling studies have suggested that if more than 2 percent of the methane from natural-gas production escapes out into the air, then natural gas may not offer much of a climate advantage over coal. The EPA pegs the leakage rate at around 2 percent, but a study from Cornell’s Robert Howarth  suggests that the leakage rate could be as high as 7.8 percent. An NOAA studyestimated the methane leakage at around 4 percent, but this study did not include inevitable leaks from distribution pipelines.

In addition to contributing to global warming , the air pollution associated with fracking also endangers human health. A Texas hospital serving six counties near drilling sites reported asthma rates three times higher than the state average; one-quarter of young children in the community had asthma.

Opponents to fracking point to numerous cases of health problems such as headaches, nosebleeds and rashes in humans, and reproductive problems in livestock in areas of the country with heavy gas-drilling activity.

Gag order

Gas companies are using state legislatures to push ahead with an agenda that destroys the environment and endangers public health. In at least two states it is now illegal for medical professionals to report the human health effects from fracking. On May 15, the Ohio State Senate approved legislation that would prevent physicians from sharing information about patients’ exposure to hydrofracking chemicals (the oil and gas industry has given hundreds thousands of dollars to the Ohio General Assembly to help secure this support).
Gas companies have also resisted efforts to find out about the toxic chemicals used in fracking. A new Pennsylvania law forbids health care professionals from sharing information they learn about certain chemicals and procedures used in fracking.

“I have never seen anything like this in my 37 years of practice,” says Dr. Helen Podgainy, a pediatrician from Coraopolis, Pa. She says it’s common for physicians, epidemiologists, and others in the health care field to discuss and consult with each other about the possible problems that can affect various populations. Her first priority, she says, “is to diagnose and treat, and to be proactive in preventing harm to others.” The new law, she says, not only “hinders preventative measures for our patients, it slows the treatment process by gagging free discussion.”

The law is not only “unprecedented,” but will “complicate the ability of health department to collect information that would reveal trends that could help us to protect the public health,” says Dr. Jerome Paulson, director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the Environment at the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C.  Dr. Paulson, also professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, calls the law “detrimental to the delivery of personal health care and contradictory to the ethical principles of medicine and public health.” Physicians, he says, “have a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the health of the public, and this law precludes us from doing all we can to protect the public.” He has called for a moratorium on all drilling until the health effects can be analyzed.

Fracking bans

France banned fracking in July 2011, followed by South Africa in August 2011 and most recently Bulgaria did the same. In Canada, the province of Quebec has banned fracking and now Quebec’s neighbors in Vermont have followed suit. Vermont is the first U.S. state where fracking is now illegal. On May 4, 2012, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed a statewide hydraulic-fracturing ban into law.
The town of Dryden, N.Y., won a court ruling saying it could prohibit fracking as part of its zoning ordinance.  State environmental officials in New York placed a moratorium on fracking while they come up with new regulations to cover oil and gas drilling in the underground geological deposits. Now that New York’s courts have given municipalities the power to ban fracking within their borders, environmentalists are pushing Governor Andrew Cuomo to outlaw the practice altogether.

More states seeking to ban fracking

In Michigan, citizens are pushing for a ballot initiative to amend the state’s constitution to ban horizontal hydraulic fracturing statewide. The proposed amendment would also ban the storage of wastes from horizontal hydraulic fracturing. An inclusive group of citizens called for a ban on fracking, in California and 50,000 Californians have signed a CREDO Action petition that supports a ban on fracking.

“Californians from rural Kern County to urban South Los Angeles and throughout the state are standing together in opposition to fracking, which threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land upon which we grow food and build our homes,” said Kristin Lynch, Pacific Region director of Food & Water Watch. “No amount of regulation can make this fundamentally destructive and toxic drilling safe; most certainly not mere notice of where fracking is taking place or the carcinogenic chemicals being used.”
Other American states and Canadian provinces are also rallying to ban fracking along with people in countries around the world.

Growing US Resistance

“Across the United States, people are waking up to the threat fracking poses to our environment and health,” said Josh Fox, creator of the critically acclaimed documentary Gasland. “Once you contaminate an aquifer, you can’t go back—just ask the residents of Pavillion, Wyo., Dimock, Pa., or Garfield County, Colo. The evidence is indisputable that this destructive practice must be stopped.”
“The grassroots are tens of thousands of people using their vacation days to go to rallies, spending their savings to get the word out, and going door-to-door getting thousands of signatures on petitions,” said Sue Rapp of Vestal Residents for Safe Energy, a local group in Broome County.

The combination of air pollution, water contamination, earthquakes, public health issues and falling property values make fracking a less than attractive option.



Related Posts
Natural Gas is Not Clean Energy
Energy Emissions Comparisons
Strategic Energy Procurement Webinar
IAIA12 Energy Future: The Role of Impact
Avoiding the Clean Tech Crash: Renewable Energy
8 Congressional Reports on Energy
Global Clean Energy Investment Sets Record
Energy & Environmental Report
UK Renewable Energy 2011 Overview
Breakdown of Obama's Clean Energy
Renewable Energy Is Our Only Hope
The Future of Energy and the Environment
Surge in Growth Predicted for Energy Efficiency
Time's Top 5 Green Energy Inventions
The Chinese Government is Investing in Clean Energy
Renewable Energy Surpasses Nuclear in the US
US Nuclear Energy in the Wake of the Fukushima Disaster
Government Incentives are Growing Renewable Energy
Republican Opposition to Obama's Clean Energy
GE's Immelt Calls Current US Energy Policy "Stupid"
Highlights of Obama's 2011 State of the Union Address on Clean Energy
Republican Gubernatorial Gains and the Clean Energy Economy

Natural Gas is Not Clean Energy

Natural gas has garnered a lot of attention, but the research reveals it is anything but clean. To increase domestic energy production and reduce reliance on coal, there is a natural gas boom in the U.S. and elsewhere. However, reliance on natural gas is not a panacea to our energy woes. According to a February 2012 study published in Nature, extracting and producing natural gas releases enough methane into the atmosphere to negate any greenhouse gas advantages that its somewhat cleaner burning chemistry provides.

Approximately 85 percent of natural gas is composed of methane, which is 105 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas (GHG). Based on EPA data, methane leaks at a rate of 3.3 percent and that number more than doubles (7.9 percent) when fracking is employed to extract natural gas. Extrapolating from this data, gas burning for electricity is much dirtier than coal burning in terms of GHG emissions.

Dr. Drew Shindell and colleagues (NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) have published a paper in the scientific journal Science (US), in which he said:
“We found that gas-aerosol interactions substantially alter the relative importance of the various emissions. In particular, methane emissions have a larger impact than that used in current carbon-trading schemes or in the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, assessments of multigas mitigation policies, as well as any separate efforts to mitigate warming from short-lived pollutants, should include gas-aerosol interactions.”
The Nature News part of the prestigious scientific journal Nature (UK) has summarized the key findings of Shindell and colleagues as follows:
“a range of computerized models to show that methane’s global warming potential is greater when combined with aerosols — atmospheric particles such as dust, sea salt, sulphates and black carbon. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol assume methane to be, tonne-for-tonne, 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide at warming the planet. But the interaction with aerosols bumps up methane’s relative global warming potential (GWP) to about 33, though there is a lot of uncertainty around the exact figure.”
Dr. Shindell has summarized the findings by saying: “What happens is that as you put more methane into the atmosphere, it competes for oxidants such as hydroxyl with sulphur dioxide. More methane means less sulphate, which is reflective and thus has a cooling effect. Calculations of GWP [Global Warming Potential;] including these gas-aerosol linkages thus substantially increase the value for methane.”

Major systemic gas leakage from the hydraulic fracking of shale formations has led Professor Robert Howarth, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, to conclude:
“The large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming. We do not intend that our study be used to justify the continued use of either oil or coal, but rather to demonstrate that substituting shale gas for these other fossil fuels may not have the desired effect of mitigating climate warming”.
The February 2012 study of air samples revealed high emission levels from gas fields. The study explains that methane leaks during production may offset any benefits of natural gas. In 2007, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) researchers noticed pollutants including methane, butane and propane, in air samples from a tower north of Denver, Colorado. They linked the pollutants to a nearby natural-gas field. Their investigation produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be better than coal when it comes to climate change.

In 2008, NOAA researchers and the University of Colorado, Boulder, estimated that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin (where more than 20,000 oil and gas wells have been drilled during the past four decades) are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere. Additional emissions come from the storage tanks and pipelines.

Natural gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal per unit of energy when burned, but separate teams at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that methane emissions from shale gas are much larger than previously thought.

Robert Howarth, a Cornell researcher whose team raised concerns about methane emissions from shale-gas drilling in a pair of papers, said “I’m not looking for vindication here, but [the NOAA] numbers are coming in very close to ours, maybe a little higher.” Howarth said natural gas might still have an advantage over coal when burned to create electricity, because gas-fired power plants tend to be newer and far more efficient than older facilities that provide the bulk of the country’s coal-fired generation. But only 30% of US gas is used to produce electricity, with much of the rest being used for heating, for which there is no such advantage.

Natural gas is touted as a cost effective energy, but capturing and storing gases that are vented during the fracking process is feasible, but considered too costly to adopt. An EPA rule that is due out as early as April would promote such changes by regulating emissions from the gas fields.

A major 2011 study by Tom Wigley of the Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) concluded:
The most important result, however, in accord with the above authors, is that, unless leakage rates for new methane can be kept below 2%, substituting gas for coal is not an effective means for reducing the magnitude of future climate change.

As explained by Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, “I think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale.” The findings surrounding natural gas has far reaching consequences, not the least of which is the emerging understanding that natural gas is not the bridge energy solution many had hoped for.

Howarth’s online version of his new 2012 paper concludes: We reiterate our conclusion from our April 2011 paper that shale gas is not a suitable bridge fuel for the 21st Century. Even without a high-leakage rate for shale gas, we know that Natural Gas Is A Bridge To Nowhere. The International Energy Agency, in its big June 2011 report on gas, said “Golden Age of Gas Scenario” Leads to More Than 6°F Warming and Out-of-Control Climate Change.

These studies demonstrate the urgency to radically reduce our fossil fuel consumption. Even with large and early cuts in emissions, the indications are that temperatures are likely to rise to around 2 °C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Currently the world’s overall emissions are increasing at a rate of 1 percent every year.

We need to shift away from fossil fuels including natural gas. We need to rapidly adopt renewable forms of energy energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal. We must rapidly move toward an economy based on renewable fuels. Studies by Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi and Robert Howarth indicate that the U.S. and the world could rely 100% on such green energy sources within 20 years.

We need to expose the subterfuge of the fossil fuel industry, which falsely asserts that “gas is clean energy” or that “gas is cleaner energy” than coal burning. Natural gas does not reduce GHGs compared with coal and therefore it will not minimize the impacts of global warming. In fact, as revealed by a growing body of research, increased reliance on natural gas will actually hasten catastrophic climate change.



Related Posts
Whats the Fracking Problem?
Energy Emissions Comparisons
Strategic Energy Procurement Webinar
IAIA12 Energy Future: The Role of Impact
Avoiding the Clean Tech Crash: Renewable Energy
8 Congressional Reports on Energy
Global Clean Energy Investment Sets Record
Energy & Environmental Report
UK Renewable Energy 2011 Overview
Breakdown of Obama's Clean Energy
Renewable Energy Is Our Only Hope
The Future of Energy and the Environment
Surge in Growth Predicted for Energy Efficiency
Time's Top 5 Green Energy Inventions
The Chinese Government is Investing in Clean Energy
Renewable Energy Surpasses Nuclear in the US
US Nuclear Energy in the Wake of the Fukushima Disaster
Government Incentives are Growing Renewable Energy
Republican Opposition to Obama's Clean Energy
GE's Immelt Calls Current US Energy Policy "Stupid"
Highlights of Obama's 2011 State of the Union Address on Clean Energy
Republican Gubernatorial Gains and the Clean Energy Economy

Clinton Working to Cut Short-Lived Climate Pollutants

During her visit to Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is continuing her efforts to cut short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP) and launching an awareness campaign to protect the Arctic. Short-lived climate pollutants are the low hanging fruit of greenhouse gas emissions. According to UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization, eradicating them with existing technologies could cut the rate of global warming in half for the next 30 to 40 years and in the Arctic by two-thirds.

Clinton supports the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants which includes methane, black carbon and hydrofluorocarbons. Secretary Clinton launched the Coalition in February and the leaders of the G8 joined in May.

Together SLCPs contribute almost half (40%) of climate warming, black carbon on its own may be responsible for half of the warming in the Arctic. By preventing SLCPs emissions can save 2.5 million lives per year, increase crop yields and food security. Climate change threatens the future of the Arctic and the globe. Without immediate and substantial mitigation efforts the polar ice will keep melting, sea levels will keep rising.

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme indicates that sea levels could rise 5 feet within the next century.

Perhaps most alarming is the fact that ongoing warming will release huge quantities of methane from the ocean floor, which could lead to runaway climate change.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
G8 Agrees to Cut Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
Clinton Working to Cut Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
New Partners of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition
Six Initiatives from the Climate and Clean Air Coalition
US Secretary of State at the Green Partnership for Growth
The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short Lived Pollutants
EPA's Carbon Pollution Standard
Primer on CO2 and Other GHGs
Global Warming Exposes Resources
Melting Arctic Ice is Releasing Massive Amounts of Methane
Natural Gas is Not Clean Energy
Reduction of Non-CO2 Emissions at COP16