The Hard Look

Permafrost Paranoia

The April issue of Nature highlights our lack of knowledge on how global warming will affect the permafrost.  It’s an interesting question because if just 1% of the possible 1,800 Gt of organic carbon in the permafrost rotted and decomposed in a warmer world it would be as if we quadrupled our current rate of carbon emissions.  (See the Nature article here.) There’s a lot we don’t know, but what we do know doesn’t suggest a crisis, especially in light of potential natural or man-induced adaptation.

Examination of carbon-14 levels indicates nature laid down the organic material in the permafrost a long time ago.  About half the organic material sits deep enough that its decomposition produces methane and the methane levels emerging from this layer increased during the warming in the 1970s, but have been declining since then, despite increasing temperatures and melting.  Several natural adaptations, including increased ground cover and tree growth also limit CO2 emissions.  Alternatively, more and more organic matter becomes available for decomposition as temperatures rise, despite increased sequestration in plants.  Modelers admit they don’t have a handle on the dynamics of this vast ecosystem yet and can’t say whether it’s appropriate to worry about a massive CO2 release from the permafrost, or loss of soils, etc.  What is clear is that this new soil is ideal for many useful short-season crops, and aerial seeding of switch grasses, and the like might produce soil stability, massive carbon entrainment, and for the hardy, an economic crop. 

In any case, the forest is advancing northward.  Deer, elk and caribou herds are gaining pasturage.  Bear are gaining habitat too.  And someday, perhaps in the next few decades, those who wish a quiet and unique view of the northern lights may be able to find new hotels serviced by ship in places where before there was nothing but permafrost.

A CO2 Cartel Is Doomed

Those who wish to prevent further man-made global warming (think the IPCC) are trying to create an economic cartel no different than the oil cartel.  In each case, the cartel acts to limit production.  In each case, production control is a voluntary act.  In each case, the cartel falls apart when a member decides they need more production than the cartel will allow them, especially in the face of unmet demand. 

The IPCC, who seeks to create this CO2 cartel, ran into a stone wall in Bankok, Thailand, last week.  China, India, Indonesia and African nations said they won’t follow the cartel and limit CO2 production until they have significantly increased their economic development, something that is going to take a lot of CO2 to accomplish.  And, just like the oil cartel, the rest of the members reacted predictably.

Not only are these very large CO2 polluters (2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th after the U.S.) unwilling to cooperate with cartel production limits, neither is the US.  Bryan Walsh of Time Magazine thinks that “as long as [China and India] send out signals that they're unwilling to consider substantial global-warming action — especially anything that could result in mandatory targets on emissions — even green Democrats in Congress will have a difficult time defending carbon controls at home.  (Time’s article is here.)   And, it isn’t just the U.S.  Time cites to Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, who suggests, "It ought to be clear that the developed world will not move without something from the developing nations."

Cartels don’t work.  Never have.  Only one model will work to ensure full cooperation on reducing CO2 to the levels the IPCC seeks – world hegemony. The IPCC lacks the moral and intellectual authority necessary to be a hegemon.  So does the U.N., Al Gore, Prince Charles and the Green Parties throughout the world, all of whom would be delighted to be one.  No, the basket is empty.  We have no environmental hegemon today and I don’t see one peaking over the horizon anytime soon. 

This is the grim reality of global CO2 control.  Those in the business community may find these facts helpful as you plan your investments and growth projections over the next decade or two.  As for the politicians, there is nothing more than cold comfort on this previously warm and fuzzy agenda item.  Finally, I offer no suggestion on how to create a political mechanism that could effectively limit CO2 world wide.  I have confidence that the marketplace will find new technologies that, if cost-effective, will reduce CO2 at the margin.  But as for large scale reductions in CO2 emissions, I see nothing to make that happen. 

CO2 a Poison Too?

Well, it had to happen.  The Supreme Court, the self-professed conditio sine qua non science body in the United States who has relegated the EPA and the National Academy of Science to back bencher status, had declared CO2 to be an air pollutant.        OK.       Fine.         So what?

You gotta understand inside the beltway in Washington, D.C.  When SCOTUS tugs on your belt, the pants on the guy next to you drop to the floor.  And that’s what is now happening with CO2.  Here’s the logic, if you want to call it logic.   First, CO2 is declared an air pollutant.  Next we think about ways to sequester CO2 by pumping it into old gas mines.  Then we realize this is a hazardous waste disposal operation (forget the massive costs of haz waste disposal, I’m not going there.)  Of course pumping stuff into the ground raises concerns about the waste getting into drinking water supplies.  Now we are at the crux of the problem – CO2 polluted drinking water.  Heaven forfend!  What’s next, banning soft drinks?  They’ll have to pry the Caffeine-Free Diet Coke can from my cold dead hands .  .  .  . 

If you think this is just a funny story, take a gander at the Testimony of Kip Coddington, an oil and gas attorney, arguing the unintended consequences of the Supreme Court's scientific pronouncement before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee last month. (See it here.) He’s a smart guy, and this is his argument, made with a straight face.   No, really, a straight face.  Well, as I said before, you gotta understand inside the beltway in Washington, D.C.

Starve the People, Save the World

In an IPCC report issued this week in Bangkok, we learn that rice paddies are the main cause of rising methane emissions in the 20^th century.  And, because, on a molecule per molecule basis, methane causes 20 times the global warming than CO2, these rice paddies demand instant attention.  And this is only going to get worse because it appears that over the next 100 years, humans will place more land into rice production.  See the report summary here. 

So, what do we do?   Because methane production from rice paddies is not climate dependant, but instead depends on the input of organic carbon, water regime, time and duration of drainage and soil type, rather than on local temperature the only way to reduce rice paddy methane is to reduce the amount of land used to grow rice.  See data here.  That, of course, means less rice.  That, of course, means less food for the poorest people in the world (that’s why they call them developing countries). 

So, starve the people, save the world. 

Since the IPCC thinks rising temperatures are going to cause mass human die-off in developing countries anyway, the IPCC offers the choice of politically managed mass suicide versus mass human extinctions, and appears to be leaning toward the former.  Naturally, the developing countries are not about to drink the Kool Aid on this one.  Their view is that concern about rice paddies is nothing more than developed countries blaming less developed countries so as to avoid receiving all the bad press.  See quote here: 

Well, what do the IPCC poobahs have to say about this conundrum?  After the opening session of the Bangkok meeting, at which the “rice paddy report” was released, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said, that he expected heated debate during the five-day summit of scientists and policy-makers. But when asked what he though would come out of the meeting he replied, "I don't know."  Quote here. Gosh, not even an idea?  Guess he doesn’t want to be the one to tell the world we are going to have to give up a basic food.  Well, can you blame him – I wouldn’t want to either.