Laurence O'Sullivan's Blog

Posted by Laurence O'Sullivan

Most people and governments are aware of the problems caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions, and all of them purport to be taking measures to curb the problem.

Carbon Dioxide Levels and the Developed World

Because the developed world is responsible for approximately 80% of the cumulative man made rise in carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution, the Kyoto Protocol required these countries to make the biggest cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, most of the developed countries are making some attempts to cut their carbon dioxide emissions. As a result their emissions, if not actually decreasing, are not rising as fast as the less developed world.

Developing Countries and the Kyoto Protocol

Because the developing countries argued that they were not responsible for most of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, the Kyoto Protocol largely gave them a pass on emission limits. Now, new figures from the Global Carbon Project, show that despite Kyoto, carbon dioxide levels continue to increase, even beyond the most pessimistic forecasts, and these figures show that it is now the developing countries that are the main culprits in this increase.

Economic Growth and Energy Subsidies

A link can be established between the drive for growth and fear of inflation on one hand and the demand for fossil fuels on the other. Governments such as Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia and China heavily subsidize fuel, especially diesel, which of course drives up demand for such products. In China alone, BP estimates that the fuel subsidy costs in the region of $40 Billion.

Western developed countries are being forced to cut back on energy use due to high prices and the economy, but countries in Asia, where subsidies are endemic, are estimated to be responsible for 90% of the world's increase in oil use last year.

Posted by Laurence O'Sullivan

While researching the article “Simple Guide to the Kyoto Protocol” I was struck by the small size in the proposed cut in average carbon dioxide emissions, just 6% of the 1990 levels. But by the time Kyoto was ratified, in 2005, that 6% of 1990 levels was nearer 18% of the levels at ratification. Just shows how much carbon dioxide levels rose in just 15 years.

The Kyoto Protocol has still over 3 years to run and whether the world will meet its Kyoto commitments by that time is still to be determined. Nevertheless we are well on the way to a follow up on Kyoto and this looks like being more controversial and much more difficult to sell to the world than Kyoto itself.

While, with the exception of the United States, virtually the whole developed world signed up to the original treaty, it may be more reluctant to do so with any new environmental pact, without guarantees that resultant cuts in emissions would apply to all signatories to the treaty. It also looks like emission cutbacks would be more onerous next time round with greater economic impacts for the developed world.

The developing world found it easy to sign up to Kyoto as they were absolved of making any significant cutbacks in their emissions and the carbon trading mechanisms set up under Kyoto gave a boost to their economies. This will not be the case in any new treaty. There will be limits applied to the developing world, especially to China and India.

Just as Kyoto became bogged down in politics, so too will any new follow up treaty. This does not augur well for the environment. Deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions will be needed to avoid the dire consequences of climate change.

Posted by Laurence O'Sullivan

On the History channel I watched a program on the “Atomic Doomsday Clock”, designed for the cover of a nuclear news magazine founded in the 1950s. At the height of the cold war the minute hand of the clock could be moved forward or backward from the stroke of midnight, depending on the world situation at any given time.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ending of the cold war, the doomsday clock lost a lot of its fascination for the world, but I realized that the concept was ideally applicable to the climate change crisis that we now face.

To design my “Environmental Doomsday Clock” I merged a photograph of the earth and one of Mars, both from NASA, to give a clock face. The pre-midnight half is a vibrant living world while the after midnight side is a dead world. I put carbon dioxide levels of 385ppm, 425ppp and 500 ppm at the 10, 11 and midnight time points.

As designed, my clock shows us at 10 minutes to midnight at the present day levels of carbon dioxide. But while writing and researching the article, Carbon Dioxide Tipping Point, I realized that no one knows exactly how close we are to midnight, and indeed some scientists think the hand should be past midnight already, or at least much closer than I have designed it.

Posted by Laurence O'Sullivan

While reading and researching the Kyoto Protocol and its various Assessment Reports it became clear to me that, to fully understand it, I would need degrees in Law, Medicine, Chemistry, Biology and Astronomy. There is no doubt that the first great international effort at controlling climate change was worth it. Even the controversy surrounding its application and acceptance helped to make people more aware of the environmental effects of Carbon dioxide.

I came away with the impression that on the whole the International Panel on Climate Change did a good job, with a few notable exceptions.

Setting binding levels of Carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2012 was good, but not applying these limits to very large developing countries, such as India and China, allowed some developed countries, notably the United States and Australia, a good excuse to opt out from the whole process. Australia has since opted in due to a change in government and many States in America have adopted many of the limits proposed by Kyoto, especially California.

Kyoto encouraged the use of renewable energy and any such encouragement is to be welcomed, but I remain skeptical on the whole concept of carbon trading and carbon credits. This doubt was really brought home to me when I read the yearly report from the company for which I worked most of my life, The Electricity Supply Board of Ireland. They have set targets for 2015 of 20% energy by renewables, mainly wind and water, which is good, but by the same year they claim they will be a “Carbon Neutral” company, while still producing 80% of their energy from fossil fuels.

I think the whole concept of carbon trading can induce a sense of complacency in the developed world.

Posted by Laurence O'Sullivan

In reading about the environment, I am struck by the fact that the battle against climate change seems to be “two steps forward, one step back”. The scientists tell us that the main task is to curb carbon dioxide emissions, but in doing so we can cause other environmental problems. But when I researched the article Biofuels for Green Energy it quickly became apparent that substituting alcohol for gasoline had begun to diminish the land available for reforestation and had some impact on the food chain.

Nuclear power seemed another good means of reducing greenhouse gases until you see the environmental damage done by working nuclear power plants, with their nuclear waste. Of course nuclear power plant accidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl cause huge environmental damage and pollution.

The last environmental crisis, the depletion of the Ozone layer, was largely solved by the Montreal Protocol and the outlawing of ozone depleting substances such as CFCs. But the substances brought in to replace these, hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) and perfluorocarbon (PFC), are some of the strongest greenhouse gases known to man.

Even renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, while they do cut out carbon dioxide emissions during their working life need a large investment of carbon emitting energy to produce them in the first instance.

The battle against climate change will be slow and frustrating, with no “silver bullet” to quickly solve the problem for us. International protocols on carbon dioxide emissions, to be as successful as the Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer, will have to be very widely applied and accepted.

Posted by Laurence O'Sullivan

While I was researching the two articles on recycling, Materials Best Suited to Recycling and Recycling Programs can Encourage Waste Reduction, it put me in mind of the recycling programs available here where I live, in Pattaya, Thailand. There are none for the simple reason they are not needed.

Garbage collection cost 40 baht a month (just over US$1) and the garbage trucks come around about three nights a week to collect them. Garbage bins are kept outside the gate and trash is not separated. But during every day, two to three different people will come around all roads in Pattaya, with a little handcart, and go thru the garbage, removing plastic, bottles and paper. They do this without making a mess, and everyone accepts them as a fact of life. They then sell on whatever is saleable to various other people and companies to earn money. The city garbage collectors themselves are allowed to sift thru the trash as well and remove anything they think they can sell.

This concept does not only apply to kitchen trash either. Any broken or damaged item of furniture or electronic equipment that I do not need, I leave outside my gate and within twenty minutes its gone, either to be used again or resold.

This reminded me of my childhood in Ireland in the “hungry fifties”, before it became the “Celtic Tiger”. At that time Environmentalism and recycling as concepts were unheard of, yet we recycled every glass soda, milk and beer bottle we could find. We did it because shopkeepers paid us 2 cents per bottle.

This shows that waste is a luxury of the affluent and recycling works best when there is a monetary gain involved.

Posted by Laurence O'Sullivan

It seems that mankind's ability to damage the environment continues unabated. As a species, we are unique in many ways, not least in our ability to change our environment. All species, both plant and animal, must adapt to the environment that they find themselves in or else face extinction. While we do have the ability to adapt to various different environments we also have the ability to change our environment to suit our needs.

Cynthia Rosenzweig, of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in a report titled “Mankind is the Earth’s biggest threat” says “Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and the warming world is causing impacts on physical and biological systems”.

We are aware of the huge strides the Chinese economy has made over the past decades, but now as we watch the Beijing Olympics on our TV screens we can see the results of that “progress” in the hazy pictures of Beijing. Of course it is not only the air pollution that has suffered because of China’s rapid industrialization. Check out the article on the iconic Baiji River Dolphin to see what can happen when we indiscriminately change the natural environment.

We know of the rising cost of gasoline and the damaging effect it has on our environment, but in our rush to compensate by using biofuels we are in danger of further damage to the ecosystem. Although definitely a part of the solution to global warming, there are problems with biofuels.

Carbon Dioxide and climate change is the headline grabbing topic of the day, but it is not the only problem. Intensive farming, the growth in legal and illegal logging, rising water pollution levels and more and more waste production all pose serious threats to our environment.