[TheClimate.Vote] June 21, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/June 21, 2019/


[What should we do]
*Winning Recipe*
Energy policy expert S. Julio Friedmann, who graduated from USC Dornsife 
in 1995 with a Ph.D. in geology, describes the steps needed to create a 
successful future in terms of climate and energy.
By S. Julio Friedmann - June 17, 2019
- -
Beyond the astonishing scientific consensus on human-induced climate 
change from greenhouse gas emissions, reasonable people disagree on what 
to do. Delays in implementing important policies worldwide have 
heightened the urgency to act, and during the last 20 years, we've made 
remarkable progress in deploying efficiency measures and some kinds of 
clean energy. Still, several years of growing emissions and lack of 
progress after the 2016 Paris Agreement have largely ended the happy 
talk in serious policy and business circles. The technology gets better 
-- we do not.

So, what should we all do?
- - -
Invest in innovation: Over the past 100 years, important clean energy 
innovations started with federal and other public research and 
development funds. These programs helped university, business and 
government researchers solve vexing problems and make rapid advances 
towards commercialization.

Government procurement: Solar panels, fuel cells, lithium-ion batteries, 
nuclear reactors, and LEDs all moved from the benchtop to early 
applications through government purchase, often by the Department of 
Defense, NASA or the Department of Transportation. These public 
purchases created early markets and moved these technologies down the 
cost curve.

Push into markets through policy: A combination of market incentives 
(like investment tax credits) and regulatory limits (like appliance 
efficiency standards) created markets where these clean energy 
innovations could benefit from commercial entrepreneurs and economies of 
scale, making rapid and profound improvements on cost and performance. 
These improvements enabled further policy measures such as renewable 
portfolio standards without unreasonable fiscal commitments. For climate 
change, policy measures are essential to create and expand these markets 
and provide competitive landscapes for cleaner tech.

Innovate in business and finance: This is where America shines. Once 
markets are aligned with policy outcomes, independent financiers, 
entrepreneurs and business leaders unleash their own innovations and 
capital to create new jobs and industries, develop export technologies 
and markets, and reinvent the present into the future while creating wealth.

This recipe is most important for those approaches that have not yet 
cleared into widespread markets. Advanced nuclear, the next wave of 
solar and batteries, carbon capture technology, CO2 recycling, and other 
approaches require additional support and investment. We need more 
options, not fewer.

Two individuals embodied and mastered the recipe set nearly a century 
ago. Vannevar Bush served President Roosevelt before and during World 
War II. Bush created the modern scientific enterprise in 1939 with two 
massive scientific and technical efforts: the National Defense Research 
Committee and the Office of Scientific Research and Development. Knowing 
that we needed more than we had to beat the Axis powers, his efforts 
delivered many critical innovations that helped the Allies win. These 
large public investments in research, design and development engendered 
the first round of government procurements for the innovations that 
followed.

Daniel Guggenheim created aviation business. He made supply chains and 
whole enterprises, and helped drive public policy to support them. He 
also invested some of his personal fortune in fundamental math, science 
and engineering, mirroring and augmenting public investments. Together, 
the efforts and investments stimulated by Bush and Guggenheim created 
the modern aviation industry and U.S. military superiority.

The recipe is the same for clean energy and climate, and the potential 
commercial and national benefits are equally great. The punchline is 
that there is much we can do to rapidly reduce and even reverse 
greenhouse gas emissions.*Not much can be done individually -- most of 
the recipe must be organized and executed at the state, national or 
international level, or by companies in the private sectors. To that 
end, the central task for citizens is to elect individuals who care 
about the topic of clean energy and who seek to act.* [my bold]
https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/3037/s-julio-friedmann-in-my-opinion-climate-change/


[June 20, 2019]
*The Dangerous Methane Mystery*
by Robert Hunziker
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf ("ESAS") is the epicenter of a 
methane-rich zone that could turn the world upside down.
Still, the ESAS is not on the radar of mainstream science, and not 
included in calculations by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change), and generally not well understood. It is one of the biggest 
mysteries of the world's climate puzzle, and it is highly controversial, 
which creates an enhanced level of uncertainty and casts shadows of doubt.

The ESAS is the most extensive continental shelf in the world, inclusive 
of the Laptev Sea, the East Siberian Sea, and the Russian portion of the 
Chukchi Sea, all-in equivalent to the combined landmasses of Germany, 
France, Great Britain, Italy and Japan.

The region hosts massive quantities of methane ("CH4") in frozen subsea 
permafrost in extremely shallow waters, enough CH4 to transform the 
"global warming" cycle into a "life-ending" cycle. As absurd as it 
sounds, it is not inconceivable.

Ongoing research to unravel the ESAS mystery is found in very few 
studies, almost none, except by Natalia Shakhova (International Arctic 
Research Center, University of Alaska/Fairbanks) a leading authority, 
for example: "It has been suggested that destabilization of shelf Arctic 
hydrates could lead to large-scale enhancement of aqueous CH4, but this 
process was hypothesized to be negligible on a decadal-century time 
scale. Consequently, the continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean (AO) has 
not been considered as a possible source of CH4 to the atmosphere until 
very recently." (Source: Natalia Shakhova, et al, Understanding the 
Permafrost-Hydrate System and Associated Methane Releases in the East 
Siberian Arctic Shelf, Geosciences, 2019)

Shakhova's "until very recently" comment explains, in part, why the IPCC 
does not include ESAS methane destabilization in its calculations. 
Meanwhile, Shakhova's research has unearthed a monster in hiding, but 
thankfully, mostly in repose… for the moment. Still, early-stage warning 
signals are clearly noticeable; ESAS is rumbling, increasingly emitting 
more and more CH4, possibly in anticipation of a "Big Burp," which could 
put the world's lights out, hopefully in another century, or beyond, but 
based upon a reading of her latest report in Geosciences, don't count on 
it taking so long.

Shakhova's research is highlighted in a recent article in Arctic News: 
"When Will We Die?" d/d June 10, 2019, which states: "Imagine a burst of 
methane erupting from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean that would add an 
amount of methane to the atmosphere equal to twice the methane that is 
already there."...

Shakhova's studies are based upon marine expeditions, including drill 
campaigns that investigate the thermal regime, geomorphology, lithology, 
and geocryology of sediment cores extracted from boreholes drilled from 
marine vessels and not based solely upon climate models calculated on 
desktop computers.

In conclusion, as the world community continues to accept the reality of 
climate change as an existential threat, which fact is emphatically 
spotlighted by the likes of the Children's Crusade, originating out of 
Sweden, and the Extinction Rebellion, originating out of the UK, it is 
important to emphasize the timing factor. Nobody knows 100% for certain 
how the climate crisis will turn out, but there is pretty solid evidence 
that the issue, meaning several ecosystems which are starting to 
collapse in unison, is accelerating, by a lot. So, there is not much 
time left to do something constructive, assuming it's not already too 
late. Speaking of which, a small faction of climate scientists has 
already "tossed in the towel."
After all, it's not that hard to understand their point of view as many 
ecosystems have already hit tipping points, which means no turning back, 
no fixes possible, but still, (and, here's the great hope) nobody really 
knows 100% for sure how all of this will play out.
Nevertheless, in a perfect world that really/truly "follows the science" 
a Worldwide All-In Coordinated Marshall Plan to do "whatever it takes" 
would already be in a full-blastoff mode.
But… It's not!
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/20/the-dangerous-methane-mystery/
- - -
[Shakova source matter on methane]
*Understanding the Permafrost-Hydrate System and Associated Methane 
Releases in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf*
Natalia Shakhova , Igor Semiletov and Evgeny Chuvilin
Published: 5 June 2019
*Abstract:* This paper summarizes current understanding of the processes 
that determine the dynamics of the subsea permafrost-hydrate system 
existing in the largest, shallowest shelf in the Arctic Ocean; the East 
Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS). We review key environmental factors and 
mechanisms that determine formation, current dynamics, and thermal state 
of subsea permafrost, mechanisms of its destabilization, and rates of 
its thawing; a full section of this paper is devoted to this topic. 
Another important question regards the possible existence of 
permafrost-related hydrates at shallow ground depth and in the shallow 
shelf environment. We review the history of and earlier insights about 
the topic followed by an extensive review of experimental work to 
establish the physics of shallow Arctic hydrates. We also provide a 
principal (simplified) scheme explaining the normal and altered dynamics 
of the permafrost-hydrate system as glacial-interglacial climate epochs 
alternate. We also review specific features of methane releases 
determined by the current state of the subsea-permafrost system and 
possible future dynamics. This review presents methane results obtained 
in the ESAS during two periods: 1994-2000 and 2003-2017. A final section 
is devoted to discussing future work that is required to achieve an 
improved understanding of the subject.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/9/6/251/htm



[Economist Nordhaus speaks]
***Economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet*
William Nordhaus
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - June 18, 2019
The melting of the Greenland ice sheet may only have "a small effect" on 
the "social cost of carbon" because "melting is slow and damages are far 
in the future", according to a new study by economist Prof William 
Nordhaus. (The social cost of carbon is a measure of the net economic 
cost of emitting one additional tonne of CO2.) The research analyses the 
economic impact of Greenland ice sheet melt by combining long-term 
economic growth models with climate models. It finds that the 
"disintegration" of the Greenland ice sheet would add less than 5% to 
the social cost of carbon.

*Significance*
This study integrates an economic model of climate change with a small 
structural model of the Greenland ice sheet (GIS). As such, it provides 
a methodology for incorporating large earth system changes into standard 
economic cost-benefit or damage-limiting analyses. It finds that adding 
the GIS has only a small effect on the social cost of carbon (SCC) 
because melting is slow and damages are far in the future.

*Abstract*
Concerns about the impact on large-scale earth systems have taken center 
stage in the scientific and economic analysis of climate change. The 
present study analyzes the economic impact of a potential disintegration 
of the Greenland ice sheet (GIS). The study introduces an approach that 
combines long-run economic growth models, climate models, and 
reduced-form GIS models. The study demonstrates that social cost-benefit 
analysis and damage-limiting strategies can be usefully extended to 
illuminate issues with major long-term consequences, as well as concerns 
such as potential tipping points, irreversibility, and hysteresis. A key 
finding is that, under a wide range of assumptions, the risk of GIS 
disintegration makes a small contribution to the optimal stringency of 
current policy or to the overall social cost of climate change. It finds 
that the cost of GIS disintegration adds less than 5% to the social cost 
of carbon (SCC) under alternative discount rates and estimates of the 
GIS dynamics.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.short?rss=1



*This Day in Climate History - June 21, 2010 - from D.R. Tucker*
June 21, 2010: In the New Republic, Brad Plumer writes that if the 
Senate can't pass cap-and-trade, the EPA should move ahead with 
regulating carbon emissions. He further observes:

    "In the long term, though, we'd really need a price on carbon to
    transform the country's energy sector and give people incentive to
    develop new clean-energy technologies--having the EPA just flatly
    tell polluters that they have to adopt this or that specific
    pollution-cutting gizmo isn't very good for innovation. But hey,
    maybe a few years from now we'll have a Congress that's ready to
    address this problem. Odder things have happened."

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/the-vine/75723/leaving-global-warming-the-bureaucrats
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote

/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries no 
images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only messages 
provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic 
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.