Last week an article was published on the Guardian which discussed the announcement by Canada that they would phase out coal power
by 2030. Coal has been one of the key energy sources since the 19th
century, previously having been heavily relied upon by developed countries but
now having shifted to the rapidly developing nations, and in particular China. The
dirtiness of coal power means that cutting it out of the global energy budget
is essential if we are going to curb emissions.
Figure 1. Global energy consumption since 1820. Coal power has continually increased through this period. Source
The decision by Canada to cease using coal follows in the
footsteps of the UK, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Germany, who
have all also pledged to move away from it. We are also seeing reductions in the
use of coal in China.
The country’s coal power tripled between 2000 and 2013, but it has now peaked
and has declined by as much as 3% in the last year.
These countries reducing their coal use far from means
that coal power is on the way out. China, though decreasing its reliance,
is still planning to build new plants,
along with both India, Indonesia and other developing nations. Adding Donald
Trump into the equation, and the outlook continues to not look so great. Coal
power currently makes up 1/3 of the US energy market (USEIA, 2015),
and Trump made the promise of increasing “clean” coal production a major focal
point of his campaign.
Having previously not had much idea about clean coal I
came across the quick video below that explains it, and some of the
disadvantages.
It remains to be seen whether coal will again be used
more regularly in the US. A number of experts suggest that even if Trump
planned on it, the economy could be the major hurdle.
As it stands, the price of natural gas is the lower of the two and, with coal-related
jobs already lost, further investment would be needed to bring them back.
As detailed in a video from an earlier post, 2030
is considered a key point for when significant emission reductions have to have
been started. So much of this is dependent on switching to clean energy, and so
the global reliance on coal becomes more imperative, and dangerous, by the day.
Following the last post on climate change mitigation
within cities, I’m now going to switch to the opposite end of the spectrum and
look at rural environments and agriculture.
With such a significant proportion of emissions
originating from agricultural practices, it is understandable that it has
become an epicentre for emission reduction ideas. These range from individual
ideas, most notably a simple reduction in the amount of meat consumed to lower the demand, but research has also been completed into making
agricultural practices more environmentally friendly.
Smith et al. (2007) estimated that the potential cut of emissions from agriculture totals as much
as 6000 Mt CO2-equivalent per year. After a bit of quick maths, this
equates to the emissions of over 1.2 billion cars (based on the EPA stats for
average emissions,
and roughly equals the total number of cars on the road globally.
The paper by Smith et al. categorise mitigation
strategies into three main principles:
1.Reducing emissions: the most
appropriate methods are location dependent but in a broad sense emissions can
be controlled by managing the agricultural ecosystem more efficiently. An
example would be using feeds for livestock that help to limit methane
emissions.
2.Enhancing removals: Better management
of soils to either increase storage of carbon or slow the rate of release.
3.Avoiding emissions: Predominantly
achieved through the use of crops or residues for energy, helping to lower emissions
despite still releasing carbon dioxide.
The study then goes into detail about specific mitigation
strategies, broken into the following categories:
- Cropland management
- Grazing land management/pasture improvement
- Management of organic soils
- Restoration of degraded lands
- Livestock management
- Manure/biosolid management
- Bioenergy
Cropland management is probably the most encouraging of
these, with none of the strategies shown to produce higher CO2, CH4
or N2O emissions. Specifically, land-use change offers reduced
emissions for all three gases with extensive evidence and agreement within the
scientific community.
Finally, the paper produces data for the regions that
have the highest mitigation potential (Figure 1). Southeast Asia and South
America.
Figure 1: Mitigation potential calculated for each country. Southeast Asia and South America hold the most potential for emission reductions. Source: Smith et al. (2007)
Potential vs reality
Something that is briefly mentioned but generally
overlooked by the authors is the disparity between the mitigation potential and
the quantity of mitigation that is actually realistic. Smith et al. (2005) studied the level of overestimation of carbon
sequestration in European croplands. The paper looked at carbon sequestration
data for a number of cropland management methods and the distribution of the
different practices through a number of European countries, resulting in an
estimate for the total carbon sequestration in each country.
A key finding was that the total cropland area being
actively managed decreased in all countries between 1990 and 2000, and was
likely to continue to decrease through to 2010. The authors found that carbon
sequestration was negligible in most countries, and vastly different to the
large estimates for mitigation potential produced by other studies. This gap is
put down to economic, social and political barriers, and it is noted that little
progress will be made without active backing and encouragement from
policymakers.
Despite this, evidence does exist that agricultural
emissions are decreasing. The OECD have found that there has been a reduction in emissions within its member
countries (listed here)
despite an increase production volume of 1.6% per year. It is worth noting,
however, that the OECD is formed of developed countries and so is unlikely to
be representative of the global picture.
Effect of climate change on agriculture
There isn’t a one-way relationship between agriculture
and climate change. As global temperatures rise and a more variable climate is
experienced, the future for one of the most depended-upon sectors becomes
increasingly uncertain. The effect on crop yields will be location-dependent,
but significant areas are expected to see reductions (Figure 2).
Figure 2: The estimated changes in yield for maize, wheat and rice per country based on projections from the IPSL and Hadley models. Maize appears to be the most negatively impacted crop and is expected to suffer drastic reductions in yield. Source: OECD
In Kenya, the farming sector is responsible for more than
25% of the GDP and over 75% of the population relies upon agriculture for some
part of their earnings.
The country’s National Climate Change Action Plan highlighted five key risks
that are expected to hinder the sector:
- Less days for crop growth.
- Higher frequency of droughts.
- Reduced planning owing to more unpredictable climate.
- More frequent flooding of agricultural land.
- Increased pests.
These effects are clearly not exclusive to Kenya, and the
strain on food production will only worsen as they occur. Climate-smart agriculture
(CSA) is
an approach championed by the FAO(a short summary video from Youtube is found below) which seeks to achieve locally-driven solutions in response to three key objectives:
- Increases in productivity and income.
- Climate change adaptation.
- GHG emission reductions.
By creating locally-focussed solutions that are aligned
with some (or in some cases all) of the above, individual communities are given
more help to tackle the detrimental effects climate change could have on their
agriculture. The first point relating to increased income is particularly
important because, as with the issues relating to carbon sequestration
implementation, promotion from governments and authorities is essential.
I’m going to start this post with a couple of videos
which present the sustainable efforts of an eco-city in Tianjin, China (and
featuring some typical geography video music). Instead of retrofitting
sustainable measures to an existing settlement, they are rather building an
entirely new city, named Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city, which is located
about 40 km from Tianjin city centre.
I find climate change in China particularly interesting. A
stigma exists of the country that it is highly polluting, with dirty air and
very little care for the environment. Whilst it is true that it is the biggest
emitter of carbon dioxide, and air pollutants are a major concern, the steps
the Chinese are taking towards climate change leave a lot to be desired of
other countries.
But do eco-cities actually work?
The legitimacy of whether eco-cities are working is a
topic of much discussion. Flynn et al. (2016) argue that to judge whether their success, we need to critique all areas of the process, including the design and build, and the effect on the behaviour of the new residents.
A key facet of the paper are the findings of a questionnaire of the residents, looking at their attitudes pre- and post-moving into the eco-city. One interesting outcome relates to the mode of the transport used for different activities (Figure 1). In almost all cases, the use of private cars has decreased, although, perhaps ironically as it was one of the major selling points from the videos above, the only case in which it has increased is for travelling to work.
Figure 1. Mode of transports of residents living in Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city compared to previous residence.
Source: Flynn et al. (2016)
The study also presents changes to the amount of walking that residents partake in. 42%
of residents said that they walked less regularly than prior to moving, 33% reported
it to be similar and just 25% answered that their walking had increased. Again, this shows that the aims of the project are perhaps not as realistic as hoped. Finally, the
paper also finds that the whole premise of the eco-city being designed to be more
environmentally friendly actually results in residents believing that they can use more
energy at their convenience. Rather than the clean energy of the city
accompanying a behavioural shift towards more careful use of resources, it appears to possibly be having the opposite effect and leading to a more elaborate lifestyle.
Premalatha et al. (2013) extend this point further, focussing on two zero-carbon eco-cities: Dongtan City in China, and Masdar City close to Abu Dhabi. Dongton
was designed as the world’s first-ever zero-carbon city, and was planned to be
a model for sustainable city building that could be followed for all future
developments. Masdar was even more ambitious by being stated to be the first
ever zero-carbon and zero-waste city.
The
authors argue that both cities were over-ambitious in their approaches, and
that for a city to sustain life through a truly ‘zero waste’ existence actually
contradicts the second law of thermodynamics and that some form of waste must
eventually be created. This, along with other shortcomings of both cities, such
as an over-reliance on renewable energy, has resulted in both ultimately
failing at their aims. Masdar has, for example, had to rely heavily on
fossil-fuel-induced energy being imported from Abu Dhabi.
The
concluding statements of Permalatha et al. echo those of Flynn et al. For a
sustainable city to reach its maximum potential, the character of the residents
themselves must adapt too. Installing appliances and creating buildings that
are low energy only serve as deflections from the underlying issue – that we
rely too much on energy – unless they are accompanied by a change in mindset
and lifestyle.
There are few cities that have set such ambitious climate
change targets as Toronto; Canada’s most populous city has been a trailblazer
of climate change action since the late 1980s (Gordon, 2015). Following a conference held in the city in 1988, officially titled
Our Changing Atmosphere: Implications for
Global Security, the Special Advisory Committee on the Environment (SACE)
was created and a target of city emission reduction targets were implemented – one
of the first of their kind in the world (Lambright et al., 1996).
In the 28 years since this target, Toronto has continued
to set ambitious aims. 1991 saw the formation of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund
(TAF) by the City of Toronto. In 2007, the Toronto Environment Office published
its Climate Change, Clean Air and Sustainable Energy Action Plan: Moving from Framework to Action. The plan set out the challenge of an 80% reduction
of 1990 emissions by 2050, and was coupled with a pledge of $1 billion
investment between 2008 and 2013 to ensure its success (Gordon,2015). The result of these have been a 24% reduction in city emissions since 1990, contrasted with a 20% rise in Canada’s nationwide emissions.
What
are some examples of initiatives have the city adopted?
Methane capture
from waste
Much of the success has been due to the City of Toronto,
through the TAF. For example, the fund identified the opportunity to utilise
methane that was leaking from its primary landfill site, creating enough energy
to power approximately 24,000 homes.
This was made possible by a $34 million investment, which is expected to be
recouped within 11 years.
Renewables
There has also been a commitment to the development of
renewables. This has again been led by the City of Toronto itself, aiming for
all City buildings to be utilising renewable power by 2020.
2004 saw the city have its first permanent wind turbine
installed at Exhibition Place, helping to generate clean energy and remove
harmful chemicals. In the same year, Exhibition Place also had the largest PV
plant in Canada at the time installed on the roof – both projects were funded by the TAF.
The wind turbine at Exhibition Place
Source: The Star
Green roofs
Following the introduction of a 2013 by-law, all new buildings with gross floor
areas of 2,000+ m2 within the city must have a proportion of the
roof space occupied by a green roof. This ranges from 20% for 2,000-4,999 m2
to 60% for 20,000+ m2 . The City also offers financial incentives to eligible buildings for green roof installation.
In addition to CO2 removal, the roofs have the
potential to lower the ambient temperature by more than 16oC compared
to standard asphalt surfaces (MacIvor et al., 2016).
Over 250,000 m2 of green roofs was created between 2010 and 2015.
Me looking out for Toronto green roofs whilst completing the Edgewalk on the CN Tower.
I think there are two clear drivers behind Toronto’s
success:
1. An almost universal adoption of values by the local government and
population
2. Top-down investment from the Council.
The city represents
what is possible if the municipal government buys into – both conceptually and
financially – the realism of climate change. The schemes mentioned above are
just a taste of what Toronto is doing to mitigate its carbon footprint, and I
think the city represents a fantastic example of what is possible with top-down
green initiatives.
By 2050, two thirds of the global population are expected
to live in urban areas,
despite only forming 2% of the land mass of the globe. The strategies that
cities are taking to combat emissions are therefore crucial to limiting warming
to the targets set at COP21.
Figure 1: New York City's daily emissions if one tonne of CO2 was represented by a bubble with a diameter of 33 m. (Source: NPR)
Although cities are considered to contribute up to 80% of global emissions, there is some debate as
to whether there is too much blame placed on them. A paper by Dodman (2009) investigates the emissions per capita for 11
cities in four continents, and finds lower per capita emissions for all but two
cities (Beijing and Shanghai) compared to their national averages. Dodman uses
this as evidence to suggest that by putting so much of the blame on urban
areas, we are actually deflecting efforts away from more important emission-reduction
opportunities, particularly unsustainable consumption.
A point made by Dodman, that I strongly agree with, is
that cities present a great opportunity for emission reductions. There are four
key reasons behind this, outlined below (Dodman, 2009):
1.Local
authorities in cities carry more power in terms of land use and planning, and
so can introduce environmental initiatives even if they are not picked up
nationally.
2.New
technologies are generally introduced first into cities due to their high
concentration of people and industries.
3.The
mixture of city authorities, financial partners and research institutions found
in cities leads to new physical and behavioural innovations being introduced.
4.Reductions
in carbon emissions can also lead to secondary benefits, such as reduced fuel
costs and better health from lower air pollution.
Bulkeley (2010) adds more to the topic, suggesting that the development and implementation of
mitigation strategies within cities has grown out of a lack of initiative at
national level. The policies that are created at city-level have more of a
focus on mitigation over adaptation, and have a large aim toward solutions that
carry an economic benefit in addition to environmental advantages (Bulkeley,
2010). I think this is key to forming meaningful strategies that have mass support.
So much emphasis is placed the economy, and this is especially crucial for
those in the developing world. This was touched upon during the Before the Flood documentary, during an interview with Sunita Narain in which she discusses that
there are significant energy shortages in India. For sufficient and competent solutions
to be introduced, there must too be an economic incentive, and so a requirement
exists for climate change mitigation strategies to be synonymous with
development.
Cities are clearly imperative to battling the issue of
climate change, not least because of the volume of emissions from them and the concentration
of people that live within them. Over the next few posts, I’m going to focus on
some of the efforts of individual cities to see what initiatives are in place
to inspire others.
Finally, a really insightful website to check out if you are interested in the actions some cities are taking toward climate change is C40. This is a network of 40 megacities from around the world, with details on the efforts and plans of each.
