The Importance of Incentivizing the Agricultural Industry to Participate in Climate Change Response (and How Did We Forget About Biochar)?
There has been plenty of criticism - some warranted, some not - of new language, pushed by the farm lobby, governing carbon offsets in the climate change legislation. Prior to this amendment, precisely what qualified as an offset was unstated. EPA would be given responsibility for promulgating rules that would define offsets, within broad parameters set forth in the legislation. By contrast, Title V - "Agricultural and Forestry Related Offsets" - identifies an "initial list" of specific types of agricultural and forestry practices that would qualify as offsets, and gives the Department of Agriculture authority to establish a program governing the generation of offset credits from agricultural and forestry-based sources.
One critic asserts that the farming lobby is overreaching. Having already gotten a "free pass" as the "one major source" of carbon emissions not covered by the House climate bill, this critic chastises the farm lobby for demanding another "that they be allowed to earn some extra cash by reducing their carbon footprint on their farms and selling these 'offsets' to factories and power plants unlucky enough to be subject to the carbon cap regime." This is the classic example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Offsets represent a critical tool in our arsenal for battling climate change. Thankfully, the climate change bill already recognizes that by expressly authorizing regulated entities to reduce their emission allowance requirements through development or acquisition of offsets. The new language simply clarifies that if farms invest in carbon-reducing activities, the resulting carbon offsets could be sold to regulated entities for use in meeting GHG emission obligations under the climate bill. This is precisely what we should be doing - facilitating achievement of the GHG reduction targets specified in the bill.
My only criticism is that sponsors of the ag offset amendment omitted from the list of qualifying offsets a very important one: biochar. Biochar is a charcoal-like product that is produced by heating crop residues, animal manure and many other organic wastes in an oxygen-depleted environment. Heating agricultural wastes in this manner generates an off-gas, which can be used for fuel, and a solid -- biochar -- which effectively sequesters carbon. If biochar is placed in soil, the carbon it contains will remain in place for hundreds of years without releasing carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus, instead of the crop residues and animal manure being broken down by biological processes that release CO2 into the atmosphere immediately or within a matter of weeks, the carbon is sequestered and will not be released into the atmosphere for centuries. As a result of this practice, agriculture can become "carbon negative" -- which is better than "carbon neutral." Acknowledged experts such as Durwood Zaelke have demonstrated that widespread adoption of this practice by agriculture could as big an impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels as renewable energy. Let's hope the Senate corrects the omission of biochar from the list of accepted agricultural offsets.
Black Carbon Impact on People and the Planet
The justly well-regarded Health Effects Institute is out with a new study that has obvious implications for public health, but I believe it should impact the climate change debate as well.
The study suggests people exposed to airborne soot are nearly twice as likely to die from heart disease that previously thought. Here's a description from The New York Times article:
The review found that the risk of having a condition that is a precursor to deadly heart attacks for people living in soot-laden areas goes up by 24 percent rather than 12 percent, as particle concentrations increase.
A variety of sources produce fine particles, and they include diesel engines, automobile tires, coal-fired power plants and oil refineries.
When you see the source of these emissions, you can start to see why this public health study makes climate news as well.
Climate change folks have been talking about soot, too, except we call it "black carbon." Reducing black carbon protects the Earth's albedo (reflectivity) by reducing deposition of soot on reflective surfaces, both man-made and natural, particularly the Earth's vanishing glaciers and icepacks. Black carbon-intense activities like cooking fires and land clearing in the developing world have been connected to public health issues too. Plans to capture these emissions and create biochar would benefit the planet and the people, a win-win for the developing world.
But it isn't just about the developing world. As the Waxman-Markey bill moves through Congress, it is worth pointing out that putting a price on carbon and limiting black carbon emissions won't just make Americans safer in the long-term, but it will make us healthier in the short-term.
Is Bio-Char the Next Great Hope?
Never heard of bio-char? I was only vaguely familiar with ituntil this Tuesday. That's when McKenna Long & Aldridge's DC office played host to this year's EPA Climate Leaders award winners in a program co-sponsored by the firm and the Association of Climate Change Officers.
The event brought together some of the foremost thought leaders on climate change science andfeatured several enlightening presentations, including one by Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development.
He described the dramatic effects on climate change of acting to control "non-CO2 climate forcers" such as black carbon (which we've written about) and bio-char.
Zaelke believes bio-char could play a significant role in reversing levels of carbon in the atmosphere.
In a nutshell, we can "cook" agricultural wastes (corn stalks, crop stubble, etc.) and generate a gas that can be used as a fuel, plus a solid material -- bio-char. If you bury the bio-char the entrained carbon remains fixed for hundreds of years. This leads to dramatic reduction of carbon emissions associated with otherwise normal biological processes breaking down agricultural biomass.
According to Dr. Zaelke if we were to encourage this practice we could return to healthy CO2 levels in the atmosphere within several decades. If you would like to receive a copy of Dr. Zaelke's presentation, please contact me.
Black Carbon Steps from the Shadows as a Major Climate Culprit Worldwide
You may have recently heard about “black carbon” and wondered if it was a climate epithet, a word reversal in a familiar product (carbon black), or simply redundant (carbon is black). But in fact “black” or elemental carbon is emerging as a particularly potent greenhouse agent that needs to be reckoned with on its own terms with special measures to prevent releases to the atmosphere. Recent studies suggest that black carbon emissions, which are not yet controlled by the Kyoto or Montreal Protocols, are the second largest contributor to global warming (after carbon dioxide) and that reducing them may be the fastest strategy for slowing climate change. Black carbon emissions are greatest from developing countries, a trend which is expected to increase, but the US and other developed nations can also do much more to address the problem. Reducing black carbon emissions offers a nearly instant return in lowering the greenhouse effect, because black carbon particles remain airborne for weeks while carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for more than a century (see footnote 24 of IGSD October 2008 Climate Briefing).
Recent studies and public testimony by scientists cited in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report suggest that emissions from black carbon are the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide emissions and that reducing these emissions may be the fastest strategy for slowing climate change. Soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide. Also recent studies suggest that black carbon plays a large role in the retreat of arctic sea ice and Himalayan glaciers. Black carbon warms the planet by absorbing heat in the atmosphere and by reducing albedo, a measure of the earth’s ability to reflect sunlight, when deposited on snow and ice. The effect is worse than imagined only months ago. Further, mitigation would have immediate health benefits in addition to the long term effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The largest sources of black carbon are Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Between 25 and 35 percent of black carbon in the global atmosphere comes from China and India when it is emitted from the burning of wood and cow dung in household cooking and through the use of coal to heat homes. Emissions from China doubled between 2000 and 2006. The problem is not just a question of climate forcing. The inhalation of smoke during indoor cooking has been linked to the deaths of an estimated 400,000 women and children in south and east Asia. Advocates for black carbon controls have pointed out that well-tested existing technologies used by developed countries, such as clean diesel and clean coal, could be transferred to developing countries to help reduce their black carbon emissions. A later blog will address an ancient but promising technology that offers promise worldwide for controlling black carbon releases -- bio-char.
But developing nations are not the only significant sources. Countries in Europe and elsewhere that rely heavily on diesel fuel for transportation also contribute large amounts. Advocates for stronger soot controls in developed nations say that per capita emissions of black carbon from the United States and some European countries are still comparable to those from south Asia and east Asia.
The US emits about 21 percent of the world’s CO2, and only 6.1 percent of the world’s soot, but the US and the European Union could further reduce their black carbon emissions by accelerating implementation and sharpening the focus of existing air quality laws and regulations and by supporting the adoption of pending International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations. Existing regulations also could be expanded to increase the use of clean diesel and clean coal technologies and to develop second-generation technologies. Senator Hilary Clinton of New York, together with Senators Carper and Kerry, has introduced a bill that would require the US Environmental Protection Agency to study black carbon emissions toward identifying US and global black carbon emissions inventories and levels, the science and extent of black carbon climate impacts including appropriate metrics, and best technology to control emissions. The House had already hosted a hearing a year ago on the issue.
In the US, black carbon is indirectly regulated as a component of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) under the Clean Air Act. Black carbon constitutes 5-10 percent of PM 2.5 on an annual average basis, but can be much higher on particular days. For example, days affected by fire events show higher levels of black carbon than the annual average. Gasoline combustion, diesels, and fire are the major US sources. (Click here for more info on the composition of PM 2.5). Fine particulate matter affects millions of people who live in vehicle-rich cities and suburbs or near industrial smokestacks. Prolonged exposure to tiny particles up 1/30th the size of a human hair can cause serious respiratory problems such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, and heart attacks.
Black carbon may be indirectly reduced soon in the US because EPA has put more than 215 counties on notice -- including much of the Eastern Seaboard from New York to Washington, as well as Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco -- that they are unlikely to meet the national standard for fine particulates. The proposed designations cover metro areas in 25 states and could have major implications for economic growth and transportation planning across the country. Steps to control PM 2.5 include tightening pollution controls for cars, trucks, and non-road engines used for construction. Such programs can be expensive to design and implement, and some critics have argued that meeting such standards comes at the expense of economic growth. But now controlling black carbon in PM 2.5 adds a climate benefit to what otherwise has been viewed as primarily a cardiovascular and pulmonary health issue.
The debate over use of the Clean Air Act for climate management purposes now includes whether black carbon is a pollutant subject to direct CAA regulation. If CO2 is a CAA pollutant, why would black carbon be treated any differently? Senator Obama has said that he would urge use of the CAA tools if Congress does not promptly enact climate legislation. Senator McCain's representatives have said that the Senator would be “reluctant” to use them, while “Sen. Obama would not hesitate to use them as necessary to achieve climate goals,” according to his energy spokesman Elgie Holstein.
Click here for the IGSD’s August 2008 Climate Briefing.
Click here for additional information on inventories of US black carbon.
Click here for more information on black carbon and vehicles in the US.
Click here for basic background information on black carbon.
Click here for an August 2008 report from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences elevating the issue of black carbon.
