Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere matters

Sunlight reaching our planet is dominantly a short-wavelength energy, which passes easily through our atmosphere to warm the surface of the planet. As the surface warms, it emits an increasing amount of infrared, or long-wavelength, energy back out into the atmosphere: the incoming short-wavelength energy has been converted into outgoing long-wavelength energy.

Molecules made up of two atoms of the same element, such as nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2), have no net change in their dipole moment when they vibrate and so do not absorb infrared energy, but 3-atom (or more) molecules, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), do. Consequently nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases as the infrared energy emitted from the planet surface would easily pass back out through an atmosphere of these gases.

By contrast, carbon dioxide does absorb the outgoing infrared energy, gradually accumulating more heat and increasing the temperature of the planet’s surface. The greater the concentration of carbon dioxide, the more the temperature increases.

It is well-known that the greenhouse effect of the carbon dioxide currently in our atmosphere is about 33°C. In other words, the planet surface is about 33°C warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect. As it stands, this is enormously beneficial to us, for a planet 33°C cooler than now would not be habitable by humans.

However, the converse is also true. A planet substantially warmer than now would not be habitable by humans either. Consequently, fundamental questions for us as a species are whether our activity is actually capable of increasing the carbon dioxide concentration significantly and how much any such increase is liable to increase the temperature.

Five Degrees difference changes our landscape

It is estimated that the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will almost certainly lead to a 2 Degree rise in global temperatures. It has been suggested that because the consequences of a 2 Degree rise are already certain, it would be better to invest in preparing for the consequences of more extreme weather events and rising sea levels rather than reducing emissions.

However, if mankind does not change it’s appetite for fossil fuels then average temperatures will rise by more than 2 Degrees. As Bill McKibben of 350.org said, there are different degrees of hell. The consequences of a 3 Degree rise are much more severe than 2 Degrees, and 4 Degrees is even worse.

For those who say that the world has survived greater variations in average temperature, they are right. Over the last 5 billion years temperatures have been more extreme and the world has kept turning. But is has a devastating impact on mankind and all biodiversity.

The last time the global average temperatures were 5 Degrees different from today was during the last ice age, when temperatures were much cooler. As a result, New York was under 15 meters of ice. The impact of a similar rise in global average temperatures would be different but just as catastrophic.

Are Deep Cuts In Carbon Emissions Optional?

Most people consider sustainable initiatives a necessity, but some believe that carbon offsetting is optional. It is important to consider why carbon offsetting is any more optional than the sustainable initiatives to measure, avoid and reduce carbon emissions. If the answer is the cost to offset carbon and the Return-On-Investment, then the time has come to change our way of thinking.

The current scientific evidence on climate change indicates there is a drastically urgent need to make deep cuts in carbon emissions immediately.

Reducing energy consumption alone will not achieve enough. For as we reduce energy consumption, the energy we save is being consumed by an increase in consumer demand and an increase in global population.

The real solution is to encourage industry to invest in alternative low-carbon solutions. This requires an increase in the price of carbon so that low-carbon solutions such as renewable energy appear economically attractive.

Reducing carbon emission credits in a carbon market can achieve this goal, because it helps speed up the transition to a low-carbon future. Climakind gives organisations access to cancel carbon emission credits (CECs) and works with them to ensure their efforts to the right thing and help stop damaging climate change are recognised. Find out how at http://www.climakind.com/.

Image credits flikr missallphoto's

What’s in a carbon offset?

Carbon offsetting is seen to provide a way to help reduce global carbon emissions. Yet, does it really?

If you have been following the world’s leading scientists any time over the past twenty years you would have heard that we urgently need to reduce global carbon emissions to avoid the consequences of severe climate change.

If done correctly a carbon offset does reduce carbon emissions. It allows you to act on your concern for the rising levels of man made carbon dioxide and empowers you to help stop damaging climate change.

The number of people using carbon offsetting is growing rapidly, with 87% more carbon offsetting in 2008 than in 2007. But what’s in a carbon offset? Does it really help to reduce carbon emissions? What are the alternatives?

Everyday, more people and businesses are becoming aware of the impact of their everyday activities on the environment. When we use electricity or transport we are producing carbon dioxide somewhere! Reducing our energy demands helps reduce the amount of carbon emissions for which we are responsible. For instance we can do simple things like turn off unused lights, use less heating and cooling, and drive less. Reducing our demand on energy has a double win; not only does it help reduce carbon emissions but it also saves you money through reducing your bills.

However, is a reduction in energy demand enough? The risk is that the energy you save may be used somewhere else. That’s where carbon offsetting comes into the equation.

To voluntarily carbon offset is to go the extra mile. After reducing our energy demands it is possible to cancel out (carbon neutralise) the emissions that are unavoidable. Many businesses are seeing the benefits of leading the way to cancel carbon emissions. Some businesses have committed to cancelling all of the carbon emissions for which they are responsible and becoming carbon neutral, such as AGL, ANZ, Dell, Goldman Sachs JBWere, Hydro Tasmania, ING, KPMG, Melbourne Water, NAB, and News Limited.

Now, the question remains; does carbon offsetting really help to reduce carbon emission? The answer depends on the type of credit used to ‘offset’.

In our next blog we will look at “What are the alternatives to carbon offset emissions”

Is this why people do so little for climate change?

For a long time I have tried to figure out the reason why people do so little to reduce carbon emissions and help stop damaging climate change. Sure it seems a lot of the answers are found on sites like how to talk to a climate sceptic, Climate Myth Busters, or Global Warming FAQ. But there was something more that eluded me, until now…

The enlightening moment came during a recent email conversation.

It all started with my request to make a sustainability event carbon neutral. I sent an email to the person in charge of sustainability outlining how it was necessary to 'walk the talk' and account for the carbon footprint of the event. The names of the event and person are withheld to protect their privacy.

Here is their response:

“Hi

Thank you for your emails. In response:

1. [The] event - I believe the majority of our carbon footprint for this event will come from electricity. We also actively encourage participants to walk/ride/public transport to the event. As [we] already purchases 25% GreenPower for our high profile facilities... I don't think we'll need to spend more to further 'neutralise' the event.”


Can you see the answer? Do you start to see why people do so little?

I responded as nicely as possible, trying to mask my frustration!

“Hi xxx

Okay. But you see how hard my job is?

You can tell people that human carbon emissions cause damaging climate change.

You can tell them we have already emitted so much carbon dioxide that there will be unavoidable consequences.

You can tell them it is urgent that we do everything we can to reduce emissions to minimise the consequences.

And yet people, included those who work in the area such as you, believe that doing a little bit is enough. They don’t think that it is important enough to do everything they can.”

Is this why poeple do so little for climate change? Do most people believe a little bit is enough? Do most people think it is not important we do everything we can?

Ian Plimer the question evader

The Plimer-Monbiot debate finally took place last night. The baby gloves were taken off and insults flowed freely from Plimer. Even the Lateline host, Tony Jones, was not safe from Plimer.

In the end the basis of Ian Plimer's book was put into serious question by George Monbiot. Monbiot asked very straight forward questions based on claims in Plimer's book and references to those claims. Plimer did not answer one question in a 24 minute interview. He uses every technique possible to avoid a straightforward answer.

Monbiot claims that Plimer's book is "filled with fabrication after fabrication, simple untruths repeated again and again".

References from Plimer's book that he could not support include:

1. Plimer's claim that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than humans, though US Geological Survey shows that human being produce 130 times more carbon dioxide than volcanoes.
2. Plimer's claim that the Hadley Centre in the UK has shown that warming stoped in 1998. He could not give the exact reference to this otherwise unknown claim.
3. Plimer's mis-quotation of the Charles Keller research. In effect Plimer turns the conclusion that temperatures have risen recently 180 degrees and claims they have not!

Monbiot labels Plimer as a question evader when he concludes that the debate has been "a fascinating exercise in evasion and distraction." Monbiot like the rest of us asks why won't professor plimer ever answer a simple question?

See the video of the Lateline interview.

Photo credits: Lateline