Research must help us to find the solution to GHG emissions from electricity generation. Given the current technologies and the growth rate of the developing countries (based mostly on coal), we need new technologies that when ready can be implemented as government policies.
We strongly recommend increasing the research grants for global warming with emphasis on solutions. Therefore, the federal government should allocate special research funds for short term solutions to GHG. It should not come at the expense of other research grants. A balance must be kept between long term scientific research and applied science research. In the last decade, federal support for research in general has declined – it is a danger for the future of the nation.
What do we need?
- Economical way to capture CO2 and other GHG from fossil fuel based power stations (and especially coal). It must be cheap or the developing world will not implement it and we will not achieve the desired impact. Special attention should be given to two directions:
- CO2 sequestration — finding ways to capture and store CO2 for 15-50 years until we develop a better technology for using it, then it could become a resource. It is a temporary measure that bypasses the problem giving us time to develop better solutions in the future.
- CO2 use — Finding ways to capture and use the CO2 emitted from power plants without storing it. This is the preferred solution if we can find one.
- Meat production — Find a way so cows will not produce methane or find a way to capture it. It is the third largest source of GHG after transportation and electricity generation. World meat production is expected to double by 2050. It also means double the amount of Methane.
- Geothermal — We need to spend more on geothermal research in order to reduce the implementation risks and produce the scientists needed by the industry. EGS research has a lot of promise. New drilling technology may solve a critical bottleneck. The current R&D budget except for EGS is negligible, we need substantial research budget. If EGS is successful, it has an enormous potential.
- Improve the electricity grid – materials, components and algorithms. It is a critical component of our future energy competitiveness. We can lead the way and create a new industry.
- Large (1gwh) energy storage – to expand wind and solar. It is the missing element for mass implementation of interminable renewable energy sources.
- Fusion.
- Safer Nuclear — Technologies that will use more of the radioactive materials and/or will be easier to handle the waste (for example – Thorium reactor). The main focus should be nuclear reactors that cannot be used to produce a bomb. This will allow worldwide proliferation and replace coal as the main electrical fuel.
- Energy efficient material manufacturing (e.g., concrete and aluminum). 10% of U.S. electricity consumption is spent on aluminum production. Finding a replacement or improving the efficiency of the process will have a significant effect.
- Research global warming. Does it continue? At what pace? What are its causes? What will the impact be? On what time line? One important question — accurate forecast of the rise of the oceans. We should change our building codes and plan accordingly. One of the most important questions — finding the “missing sink” — 30% of the CO2 emitted is absorbed in a way we have yet to understand. This is based on the scientific community agreement that global warming is happening and it is caused by GHG. Since the cost of eliminating GHG is so large, we need to make sure that we are actually fighting the problem and its cause according to a realistic schedule.
- Adaptation to global warming. We have to get ready also for the possibility that we will not succeed in our efforts to stop climate change. How can we best adapt? The prudent thing to do is to prepare for all eventualities. The Dutch are leaders in this area.
Along the same lines, we ought to consider geoengineering.
Of course, geoengineering must not be an excuse for inaction now — it must not detract from mitigation or adaptation efforts — but we cannot ignore the fact that efforts are underway regardless. At a minimum, we should probably call for strong regulatory guidance and lay out a few key principles, for example:
- Much like nuclear proliferation, geoengineering requires a global policy regime regulating both experiments and deployment. The United States cannot address this issue unilaterally. – The international community must set general guidelines for scientific experimentation. At a minimum, any experiment must be small-scale, short-term, and conducted in a low-risk location. – Decisions to allow experiments should be made on a case-by-case basis, with the presumption that any experiments should be illegal unless approved. – Scientists and nations need to be held fully accountable for any damage caused by experiments in violation of international guidelines. Once approved, the international community needs to share part of the burden for possible damages. – Geoengineering legislation or treaty work must not distract from legislation and international agreements on mitigation or adaptation.
In the ARRA 2009 (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009), has dedicated $3.4 billion dollars.
While promising in that there is federal might behind the research, as of yet no details have been revealed on where this money is being spent.
In re: 7/20/11 ScienceDaily.com article (http://bit.ly/jSiScQ)
“New research lends support to evidence from numerous recent studies that suggest abrupt climate change appears to be the result of alterations in ocean circulation uniquely associated with ice ages.”
Another reminder that regulating carbon emissions cannot “prevent climate change.”
Could you maybe explain how you go from A to B?
The balance of the article seems to me to be suggesting that this is a tipping point type scenario, gradual global warming triggers changes in ocean currents, which in turn triggers rapid change.
I had protracted discussion about this in the AdaptAbility group on LinkedIn. If you are a member, or want to be, you will find that and a lot more that probably will interest you there. The particular article I noted here is part of a body of science research showing that abrupt, often extreme climate change is a natural phenomenon which has occurred multiple times in the past, for reasons having no relation to human activity — reasons including occasional changes in ocean circulation patterns. For an excellent review of the science on that subject, I recommend John D. Cox’s book, “Climate Crash.”
Some of the authors, among others, have complained that their article has been misinterpreted to seemingly support claims that atmosphere CO2 cannot or will not cause climate change. That is indeed a misrepresentation. Their specific finding was that the past climate change they studied was very likely caused by changing ocean currents, not by CO2.
I’m not sure what you mean by A and B, but I will state my point again: Regardless of theoretical arguments about whether and how human GHG emissions may cause global warming, or some other (uncertain) effects, the all too common claim that eliminating human GHG emissions will “prevent climate change” is false.
In the course of the AdaptAbility discussion, another member also pointed to this relevant article: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/full/ngeo1200.html
Lewis,
Thanks for the tip on the AdaptAbility group, I’ll certainly have a look, and I’ve seen the Nature Geoscience article (and yes my social life reflects that), but it’s certainly an excellent reference for the larger group.
I think I get your point now, which is that climate change (and potentially catastrophic climate change) is a forgone conclusion and we should be thinking about adaptation over mitigation? If I have this right A leads to B…apologies.
Do I have that right?
And if that’s the case (or I guess even if it’s not as I know others hold that view) – Matt, Bill, shouldn’t this be part of the larger dialogue?
Eli, getting to your last question first, this particular topic, “Global Warming Research Priorities,” is awkward. One point I continually stress — because it is so commonly violated — is that “global warming” is not equivalent to “climate change.” Correcting this error has many implications for policy that I don’t have time and space to get into adequately here.
Second, because this is an energy policy forum, and this topic is limited to “research priorities,” it’s hard to see how the subject of “climate change adaptability,” which is not necessarily tied to energy policy per se, can be addressed here. [Note: I make an important distinction between 'adaptability' and 'adaptation.'] That is, even though you and I and others may agree it is an important subject.
Getting to your first question, saying that “we should be thinking about adaptation over mitigation” is sort of right but over-simplified and not an adequate policy guidance. For the moment I will note just a couple of clarifying points.
[1] So-called ‘mitigation’ or ‘climate protection’ schemes cannot and will not “prevent climate change.” Nor will they have any significant impact on the more limited, but highly uncertain effects of AGW because: (a) the draconian regulatory measures needed to achieve ambitious GHG reduction goals have not been and will not be politically accepted; and (b) the technology does not yet exist to economically replace fossil fuel sources at the scale demanded.
[2] Because climate change is inevitable but highly variable in form and timing, prudent communities still should plan to become more resilient and adaptable to whatever hazards it may present — as part of a general strategy for “all hazards” risk reduction. That is, debates about AGW are irrelevant to that need. However, there is a practical connection between this and [1]: Resources diverted to largely futile ‘climate protection’ initiatives come at the expense of, and may actively undermine, the actions needed to increase community resilience to all hazards. Thus the actual impact of climate protection schemes is likely to make communities more not less vulnerable to disaster.
Moreover, the same warning applies to ‘climate adaptation’ activities. Because the latter are often based on the false assumptions that (a) global warming is equivalent to climate change, and (b) computer models can reliably forecast the local/regional impacts of AGW [they cannot], ‘adaptation’ measures channel infrastructure development in patterns that increase vulnerability to many unanticipated hazards.
OK, maybe that wasn’t so brief, but there is yet much more to be said about these problems. For more on the problem of conflicts and trade-offs among competing agendas, see: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51841970/The-Crisis-of-Infrastructure-Resilience-The-Clash-of-Blue-Green-and-Red?in_collection=3030833.
Also, Bill said he was going to post my latest paper, which is more directly related to this subject of AGW research priorities. I’m not sure if he has, or where, but you can find it here: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/Lewis_Perelman_Carbon_Policy.pdf.
Beyond that, it might be useful for you and me to connect directly for further discussion.