Koronivia joint work on agriculture – Part 2

Session II of the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture consisted of presentations by constituted bodies and financing entities.  Here is a recap:

·       Green Climate Fund (GCF) – Areas of focus include agriculture, forest and land use, and cities.   Supports projects involving capacity building, climate analysis, and project preparation. Goals include reduced exposure and risk, and food security. Metrics include % of food secure households and area (ha) of land made more resilient to climate change through modified agriculture practices. Adaptation investment criteria include impact potential, sustainable development and co-benefits (mitigation, biodiversity, health, etc.), and (interestingly) paradigm shift potential. Lessons learned since 2015 include 1) Ensuring adaptation is the primary driver of projects, instead of projects that are construction-based with adaptation co-benefits, 2) Clearly defining project objectives, and 3) Measuring co-benefits for greater overall project impacts.

·       Global Environmental Facility (GEF) – Have invested $1.8B in adaptation projects so far, with
28 million beneficiaries and 7 million ha of land made climate resilient (three of their metrics). They seek to fund projects that are cross-cutting in addressing mitigation, land degradation, and biodiversity. In assessing adaptation benefits, they use core indicators, measure context specific results, and promote knowledge management, dissemination, and evaluation. Their work is guided and informed by the gender policy.  Example – Project in Mozambique using Farmers Field School Approach. Challenges include the qualitative and indirect nature of adaptation results, lack of universal methods and data, and multifocal projects that generate co- benefits but result in increased costs of implementation and monitoring. Lessons learned include recognizing that not all benefits can be quantified and that common definitions are needed.

·       Adaptation Fund – For adaptation projects, they have invested $870m, of which $201m came from certified emissions reductions (CER) and $655m from developed countries contributions.
They categorize projects by sector, such as risk reduction, food security, water management, forests, coastal zone management, and cities. Project selection criteria include concrete adaptation actions, inclusion of marginalized groups (e.g., the most vulnerable, youth, women), and consistency with national strategies. Countries applying should be party to the Kyoto Protocol and projects should have endorsement by their government. Projects should be linked to the climate threat, not business as usual (BAU). Project examples include: 1) Adaptation in water and agriculture in Eritrea by implementing improved irrigation, soil and water conservation, afforestation, and weather and early warning systems; 2) Protecting oasis zones in Morocco by optimizing flood waters, preserving palm trees, diversifying income sources to improve living conditions, and teaching women weaving, cooking, and other trades; 3) Project in Uruguay that involves youth, builds meteorological and weather stations, and provides training; and 4) Project in the Indian Himalayas that targets marginalized communities, rejuvenates mountain springs, provides drip irrigation, establishes water use groups in each village, and employs resilient horticultural varieties. 

Comments from workshop participants include:

·       Representative of the World Farmer's Organization- Climate discussions can't be about farmers; it must be with farmers. Data is the new gold in agriculture, and even remote farmers have access. He said farmers learn more from other farmers than from anyone else, which is a good point to remember.

·       Teresa Anderson, Action Aid: Agroecology is a very effective form of adaptation. Indicators may include number of trainings, number of farmers using agroecology, and other metrics that can be tracked by farmers and farm organizations, not just consultants tracking carbon. She spoke passionately about using agroecology and commented on the empowerment it provides including in food security and with gender aspects.

·       Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus, Guatemala - UNFCCC has recognized the value of indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge. They have concern with large agricultural companies because they contribute to GHGs, destruction of lands, forests and indigenous people, and they affect food security. Often their impacts are hidden. They ask that governments recognize traditional knowledge and practices when implementing agricultural (and other) projects.

·       Soil health is a public, private, and wider societal good. 

·       Need to establish soil health targets for adaptation and mitigation and need stronger integration into NDCs. This will require providing countries with support to raise ambition on soil health-related targets.

·       Recommendations for realignment of subsidies to promote improved soil health and ecosystem services essential for sustainable agriculture.

·       There is a need to improve Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of soil health and soil carbon to reward farmers for positive externalities they generate.

·       Global Environment Facility (GEF)  has seven Impact Programs including Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration (FOLUR).  They take a landscape approach and have Sustainable Forest Management projects in the Amazon, Congo, and drylands. 

·       It can be a challenge aligning different stakeholders (e.g., ministries of environment, agriculture, energy, finance, private sector – getting them all to talk). Consider different approaches with each and find a common way to bring them together.

The third session of the workshop was opened with a plenary by Ronald Vargas, the Secretary of the Global Soil Partnership on Sustainable Soil Management.

·       33% of soils are highly degraded, which means we are losing productivity and producing emissions. Degradation includes soil compaction, erosion, and loss of biodiversity. Soil organic carbon (SOC) loss is the second biggest threat to soil function. There is a lot opportunity to reverse this, if we follow good practices.

·       60% of SOC is comprised of soil organic matter. When good practices are followed, it takes several years to build up the soil organic matter. However, there are multiple co-benefits of sustainable soil management and SOC sequestration.

·       Monitoring occurs through remote sensing and field surveys. Remote sensing is most helpful to determine land use and cover but cannot replace field surveys because information is gained by sampling at depths to determine how carbon is distributed throughout the soil layers.

·       Are countries ready to report following MRV (measuring, reporting, valuation) guidelines? Do we have enough info on SOC dynamics that can be used in decision-making?

·       Challenges and Gaps – baseline soil carbon stocks, ground data, default data for reporting, quality standards and guidelines, uncertainty.

·       Without baseline data, no basis for comparison to measure changes. We need a global soil survey using the same sampling protocol, and then need a global monitoring system based on national systems. 

·       RECSOIL – Recarbonization of Global Soils – a tool/facility to implement the Koronivia decision.

·       Conclusions – need harmonized methodologies, need to scale up good practices, need additional indicators beyond SOC, need incentives for farmers, need to establish a global soil carbon monitoring system, and need to strengthen capacity of member countries.

·       Crop residues are good for soil fertility but concern about attracting pests (e.g., rats).

·       The soil carbon sequestration market is struggling; soil projects not accepted in CDM.

·       While it is expensive to invest in improving soil carbon, you get many benefits (productivity, water retention, soil biodiversity, etc.) that continue after the project.

Mary Sakala, smallholder farmer in Zambia - Changing precipitation patterns impact farmers who rely on rainfed crops. Applying fertilizers and herbicides increase the heat in soils already facing drought; these affect soil microorganisms and ants. Fertilizers tend to focus on NPK exclusively, but micronutrients are also needed; soils often have a deficit of 13 nutrients, which are only obtainable through agroecology methods including minimum tillage, green manure, soil erosion reduction, and using seed, crop and animal diversity. Agroecology is best for adaptation and water management, and the more you use agroecology, the higher the yield (vs the more you use chemicals, the more degraded the soil gets). She also suggested we stop subsidizing fertilizers. 

Workshop agenda and presentations

More information on Koronivia joint work on agriculture

Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture – Part 1

From COP23 in 2017, the SBSTA and SBI were asked to jointly address agricultural issues, considering the vulnerabilities of agriculture and food security to climate change.  At this meeting in Bonn, a series of workshops were held under the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture. 

Talks focused on agricultural soil carbon, health, and fertility. Claire Chenu, Professor of Soil Sciences at the AgroParisTech, gave the keynote presentation on soil carbon as the key to addressing vulnerabilities of agriculture to climate change and food security issues.  She noted that there is three times more carbon in soils than in the atmosphere. Soils provide essential ecosystem services including those related to agriculture, biodiversity, forests, water quality, cultural services, landscaping, and nutrients.  Organic matter in soils provide further ecosystem services including structure, water infiltration and retention, aeration, nutrient provision, and habitat for beneficial organisms.  Protection of soils is important for food security and agricultural resilience, and furthers Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

·       SDG 2.4 (Zero Hunger/Sustainable Food Production),

·       SDG 3.9 (Good Health and Well-Being/Reducing Soil Pollution),

·       SDG 12.4 (Responsible Consumption and Production/Sound Chemical Management), and

·       SDG 15.3 (Protect Life on Land/Restore Degraded Land and Soil).

There are two main strategies in soil protection: 1) Protect existing soil organic carbon stocks (e.g., by avoiding the plowing of grasslands), and 2) Improve soil carbon stocks (e.g., by returning crop residues to the soil).  The size of the organic carbon pool depends on inputs (such as by primary production, and through exogenous organic matter) and outputs (such as leaching, erosion, biodegradation and mineralization).  Options for soil protection include increasing primary production, supplementing soils through organic inputs, reducing tillage, and using conservation agriculture or agroforestry methods. 

There are some noteworthy challenges to modifying soil conservation practices to increase soil carbon stocks. Inputs of water and nutrients may be needed and are not always available. Biological nitrogen fixation can be used instead of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, however. There may also be some negative social impacts resulting from land use change to carbon farming that may lead to pressure on land tenure and family farming. By providing an enabling environment that includes training, capacity building, credit, investment, land tenure security, and incentives, and addressing these challenges from the onset, risks can be reduced, and project benefits maximized.

While various measures may be used to increase soil carbon stocks, eventually carbon storage limits will be reached. However, ecosystem services including improved soil productivity will continue. In response to a question from the audience, Ms. Chenu clarified that these measures are not meant to offset agricultural emissions but to be part of the portfolio of solutions. Enhancing soil carbon stocks is a mitigation and adaptation measure with many worthwhile co-benefits.

Following the opening keynote address, representatives from various countries and organizations provided presentations. The following represents some highlights from the talks.

·       Brazil – Gustavo Mozer:  In the 1970s, Brazil was far from being a food secure country because agricultural practices involved intensive tillage for seed bed preparation and weed management.  Brazil invested in agriscience by establishing six research centers and employing over 650 researchers. They now have programs in tropical agriculture including plant breeding, animal breeding, and advanced soil conservation. Through these programs, they aim to address multiple benefits including carbon balance.  Forty years later, Brazil became a relevant export country. 

·       United States - Karen Ross, Secretary of CA Dept of Food and Agriculture: California has the 5^th largest economy in the world and is home to 40 million people and 77,000 farms, producing over 400 crops. They have recently suffered from the most severe droughts and wildfires in history, so they felt compelled to increase their efforts to curtail emissions. They have set a goal of 40% emission reductions below 1990 levels by 2030.  As one of their six strategies to reach this goal, they turned to improved soil management and health and have been working with the agricultural sector on reducing greenhouse gases.  Their Healthy Soils Initiative, a collaboration of partners and state departments, promotes healthy soils on CA farmlands and ranchlands. They also have a program of Climate Smart Agriculture and strive to ensure every farmer has the opportunity to ensure long-term productivity and food security.

·       Philippines on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) comprised of 10-member states: They represent more than 1/3 of world population, and more than half of the population is under the age of 30. They employ the ASEAN Guidelines on soil and nutrient management to promote climate resilient agricultural production. Included in this is good soil and nutrient management practices, use of the FAO-UNESCO Soil Classification System, and fertilizer amendment labelling compliance.

·       Russian Federation - State Program for the Development of Agriculture and Regulation of Agricultural Commodity Markets. To reduce risks, they cultivate high yield, climate-adapted crops. Overall, their winter crops are doing well due to warmer winters, but their summer crops are not. They employ forest reclamation and afforestation belts to reduce drought, water loss and wind erosion, increase yields, and protect flora and fauna. They are implementing Stalin’s Plan for Nature Transformation, which includes forest protection, crop rotation, and protection of lakes and ponds. Through these measures, they have seen a decrease in evaporation by 15% and a reduction in soil salinization in agricultural areas. They are in the process of preparing for ratification of the Paris Agreement. 

·       Senegal – Lamine Diatta, Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development; represents countries in Africa. They have a diverse range of soil and land use systems, some comprising very large land areas, some with infertility or low fertility (based on the level of soil organic matter). The government has committed to sustainable resolution of soil fertility loss. They use a national framework for strategic investment on sustainable land management (CNIS-GDT). Agroforestry methods they employ include assisted natural regeneration, protection of grazing areas, improved pasture lands, composting of organic matter, conservation of water to reduce water runoff, and small-scale irrigation programs. They shared lessons learned, including 1) Tradeoffs between soil carbon storage and soil fertility/productivity; 2) Biomass as the main source of carbon inputs, with land degradation is a major driver of loss; 3) Soil lab analyses are costly and challenging; and 4) A need to set up low cost and accurate tools for monitoring and reporting C flux. For information on the models they use to estimate the carbon sequestration potential of Senegal arable soil, please see Century Model - Tschakert, 2004, and RothC model – Loum et al., 2014.

Major Themes of the first week of SB50

              I am attending the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn (SB50) as a delegate (and alum ’94) of Moravian College. As usual, there is a lot happening with plenary sessions, informal consultations, special events, technical expert meetings, side events, and exhibits. The following are some highlights of the first week.

·       IPCC’s 1.5°C Report (Report Home) – There is an active conversation carrying over from the COP24 about whether to welcome, consider or note the report.  There is a small group of countries (including, alas, the US) hesitant to welcome the report because of the implications for implementation into NDCs and otherwise.  There has been an undercurrent of the 1.5°C Report throughout the week including meetings specifically devoted to it and frequent mention of it in presentations and interventions.

·       Biodiversity protection - It is noteworthy that the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was invited to speak at this meeting for the first time. Furthermore, their presentation was the first special event on the opening day of the Conference. Much of the attention was given to their recent report and their important contention that we must focus on the interconnections between climate change action and conservation and not attempt to address them separately. 

·       Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture – This workshop spanned several days and highlighted ways to improve soil carbon sequestration and soil productivity on grasslands and croplands.  (Agenda, see Item 5). It was noted that there is 3x more carbon in soils than in the atmosphere. Projects were highlighted that protect existing and enhance degraded organic carbon soil stocks.

·       Technical Expert Meetings on Mitigation (TEMs-M) (Agenda) – Two days were devoted to discussing the connections between food, water, and energy. Discussions have centered around decarbonizing food production (both the primary production and post-harvest phases), creating a circular economy, and implementing nature-based solutions that integrate energy and water with food production.

·       The Research Dialogue took place with the theme of Science for Transformation. This is an opportunity for Parties to the Conference to interact with the science community. There was a poster session (see photo) and two panel discussions. Through this Dialogue, I developed a few ideas to implement at home. I hope more time can be devoted to this Dialogue in the future because in-depth and meaningful conversations were still in progress when time ran out. 

Poster Session of the Research Dialogue

•  The Gender and Women Constituency has been actively promoting gender-responsive and human rights-based climate policy. Progress thus far on the Gender Action Plan has been reviewed with the goal of producing recommendations for update and renewal by the Conference of Parties (COP) in December. This constituency has noted the lack of gender consideration in the market mechanisms (e.g., who will directly benefit from development projects, who will have access to any jobs created, who will receive the training, who will make the decisions).

·       The Youth have been actively voicing their concerns through the YOUNGO constituency and otherwise. They bring hope and a productive energy to the process. Today they took part in a FridaysforFuture protest outside of the conference center (see photo). 

Youth Protest as part of FridaysforFuture

This is just a snapshot of what was discussed this week. More to come!

What are CCells and BioRocks?

When Adriana and I were walking in, between some of the side events last week, there was a whole section of little booth type kiosks, where individual organizations, institutions, and countries could grab a space and present or show whatever they pleased; oddly enough, that is where America's unofficial representation was set up. Adriana and I stopped by one of those booths and spoke with Tara Massoudi, who is head of business development for CCell, which is a technology, made and deployed by the company Zyba.

CCell is Zyba’s core product and is branded as a curved wave energy converter that moves with the waves, to simultaneously extract their energy and reduce their impact on the beach. CCell is easily implementable because it is efficient, light, and has really quite simple parts, that are easy to assemble and operate. The only downside to the CCell technology is that it does require maintenance, which can prove to be cumbersome over time, because the CCells are mainly underwater.

This CCell technology is combined, in tandem, with Zyba’s other technology, BioRock. “BioRock reefs” are what Zyba creates and BioRock reefs are wire mesh frames, that can be built to any shape or size desired. The steel frame is secured to the seabed, and then a safe, low voltage electrical charge runs through it, in the process facilitating limestone rock growth, via the minerals in the seawater. In conjunction, these two technologies are used as a mitagor to beach erosion, so much so, that they not only prevent erosion, but replenish beaches at the same time. The BioRock was shown to accelerate the growth rate for corals by 500%. In addition, corals were 20 times more resilient to environmental stressors.

From the insight that I gained with Tara, I can say that these technologies are great in your head or on paper, but when it comes to actual implementation, there can be better alternatives, and the small start up is having trouble gaining traction. But, ultimately it depends on what your purpose would be for implementing the technology. If you are the leader of a small caribbean country, and you are looking for a source of clean energy to convert your country to, solar is a much better option. It is cheaper, requires far less maintenance, and the implementation is much easier, not to mention the energy able to be harnessed is much greater. The CCell technology harnesses energy, but the tides can be inconsistent and the energy harnessed is not as great as solar. On the other hand, if you're a coastal country and your coral reefs are a large attraction of the tourist economy, and sadly they are all dying off due to climate change, CCell and BioRock technologies could be a useful tool to protect and regrow the reefs and the nation's economy in turn. BioRock technology is cool because, as I mentioned, it can be made into any shape, since it is just steel beams. BioRocks can be great, not only for stimulating undersea growth and generating clean energy, but it can also provide great new dive locations, bringing in tourists and revenue to a country’s economy.

We will see how CCell is developed in the future, and to what lengths it is implemented. I found this technology interesting, which is why I wrote about it. If you thought it was interesting too, do not hesitate to click on some of the things I linked or to do some googling of your own.

Is geo-engineering a Possible Solution to Climate Change?

Is Geo-Engineering a Possible Solution to Climate Change?

I attended multiple sessions on geo-engineering this past week and yes, I think at this point, geo-engineering is going to have to be implemented, at least on some scale, as just one of the many solutions, in hopes of mitigating and tackling climate change going forward. That being said, I do not believe that any of the geo-engineering options available to us, at this current moment, are good solutions, as they have not been made feasible yet. Some are closer than others, but even then, are far too costly to implement and also, no where near carbon negative, in the process. Of all of the possible geo-engineering strategies, the three that I learned most about, in the past week, were Solar Radiation Modification Technologies (SRM), Large Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), and opportunities for Enhanced Weathering. Many of the talks I attended focused on the financial and technological implementation arms in relation to  countries’ respective NDC’s (Nationally Determined Contributions), and in getting in line with pre-industrial carbon levels, both because those were my biggest areas of interest at the convention, as well as because there can not be technology, without finance.

The first day I was at the convention, Monday, December 10th, I went to an informal session on Section 8b, of what is now the Katowice Climate Protocol. In this informal section, along with the plenary high level negotiations I was able to attend on December 11th, I heard much of the same things, in regards to geo-engineering. Similar to what Dean Husic mentioned in her blog on geo-engineering, the scientists have now convinced the respective countries of the conference, as well as myself, that becoming carbon neutral is no longer good enough on its own. If you look at the IPCC 1.5 report, we know that a 1.5 degree celsius increase from pre-industrial levels is rapidly approaching, and will show devastating evidence of climate change, much more severe than the examples we already see happening around the world today. Previously, it was thought that two degrees was a good parameter, but the new evidence presented at COP 24, and in the IPCC 1.5 report, indicates that that may be too generous of a limit. The greatest problem with the equation is that we are already at 1.1 degrees warming, and on track to rise much greater than 2 degrees, much faster than previously projected. On top of that already difficult statement, carbon dioxide has a half life of 27 years and a residence life of 20-200 years in the atmosphere, making it one of the longest lasting greenhouse gases. What this means, is that even if the planet went carbon neutral yesterday, all of the existing carbon emitted on that last day, say it was yesterday, would take another 200 years to be naturally expunged through the environment. If that were the case, the planet would surely rise more than two degrees, having devastating results on all ecosystems. While the reality is grim, it is the reality. Rather than panicking, we have to work with what we’ve got and do the best we can to fix it. From COP24, through the experts that lead the panels, and the scientists on the forefront of this research, I learned that geo-engineering is needed to be implemented, in some way, here in the near future, if the planet has any hopes of combating climate change. But again, as mentioned previously, none of the technologies are ready, nor are they implementable on any type of scale, due to financing, regulations, the technologies not quite actually existing, and a whole host of other reasons.

The first type of geo-engineering I will talk about, the scientist insisted was not actually geo-engineering. In fact, the scientist leading the panel, Dr. David Beerling, got into a decently heated argument, via a question from the audience whether, in fact, Enhanced Weathering is considered geo-engineering or not. The doctor insisted that it was simply fertilizing the soil. For those of you who do not know what geo-engineering is, it is the deliberate, large scale, manipulation of an environment, in an attempt to affect the earth's climate, and in doing so, it will counteract the negative effects of global warming. Enhanced weathering is carbon dioxide removal through bicarbonate storage and then ultimately underwater deposition. Enhanced weathering is done first by applying silicate rocks to croplands, and in doing so, it will be able to harness natural climate reactions that have been occurring naturally in the environment for the past hundreds of millions of years. This is a semi sort of natural carbon sequestration on a very large scale, and it does have some very possible real benefits. Such benefits can be crop protection, reversing soil acidification, replenishing soil micronutrients, reversing silica stripping, and improving soil health, just to name a few. In the United States, we silica strip 21 million tons per year, and alongside the United States, China and India also mine heavily. China, the United States, and India being the three largest carbon dioxide emitters in the world, are ironically the three countries best equipped, logistically and natural resource wise, for carbon dioxide sequestration through advanced weathering. Around the world, dispersed heavily in the three mentioned countries, as well as many others around the world, there are billions of tons of basalt piled up, as a waste product. Companies pile up basalt, in waste reserves, as they dig past it, to find other more desirable gems and metals and stones. Enhanced weathering was tested at the University of Illinois on a small crop, just a few hectares of land, and it produced a 15% higher crop yield, on the affected farmland. While this is very significant, as one third of global cropland is at risk and severely damaged, and a 15% increase in crop yield could mean billions of dollars more, even on small farms, the research was not proven and required more testing, as to how much was sequestered into the ocean. What was said, however, was that this method had a large potential for nitrogen capture, as well. The one thing that I really wanted to ask the panelists, but did not have a chance, due to time, was how they predicted that the increased absorption of carbon dioxide into the sea would affect marine ecosystems in the oceans and consequently, the entire atmosphere, much later down the chain of events.

The next form of geo-engineering that I had a lot of interest in, was Solar Radiation Modification or Management (SRM). SRM technologies have two main principles, namely, reflecting more sunlight back into space and allowing more infrared radiation from Earth to escape, both in order to reduce Earth’s temperature. There are many SRM technologies and they all vary greatly, some of them being stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, cirrus thinning, and surface albedo modifications. No single SRM technology is yet ready for deployment. SRM technologies, like all geo-engineering and CDR technologies, could not be a substitute for reducing emissions, or for removing atmospheric carbon dioxide; all of these actions need to be performed in conjunction, if our planet has any hopes of surviving. The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 degrees celsius notes that, “SRM measures are not included in any of the available assessed pathways. Although some SRM measure may be theoretically effective in reducing an overshoot, they face large uncertainties and knowledge gaps as well as substantial risks, institutional and social constraints to deployment related to governance, ethics, and impacts on sustainable development. They also do not mitigate ocean acidification.” In large part, there is not enough information out, to weigh the pros and cons of SRM technologies. Nonetheless, testing is still going to be moving forward and outdoor experiments of certain methods are likely to begin soon; therefore, governance of these technologies will be extremely important going forward.

Last, but not least, is Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). Large scale CDR can also be know as Negative Emissions or Carbon Drawdown, and CDR aims to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, to be stored underground or beneath the ocean floor. If able to be deployed on a planetary scale, CDR could help to prevent ocean acidification and also slow the rate of global warming. But, again, like mentioned in the paragraph above with SRM technologies, CDR technologies are not to be and can not be a substitute for rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are many proposed CDR technologies currently, technologies and methods such as afforestation and deforestation, ecosystem restoration, enhancing soil carbon content, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, enhanced weather and ocean alkalinity, direct air capture and air storage, and ocean fertilization. Becoming carbon neutral, or getting as close to it, as quickly as possible, is one of the most important things we can do as a planet. I say this because the new nature and urgency of CDR that is now being considered, can at times, put a strain on its effective governance and it is noticeable that some groups are operating with a moral hazard and using the increased focus on CDR technologies to detract from reducing emissions, in the first place. Implementing CDR technologies, on the large scale required, could require extensive amounts of land, energy, and/or water, and possibly interfere with food production, manufacturing, or other activities. Moreover, some of the technologies could result in negative side effects from biodiversity, air, ground, water, and soil quality, and all types of others things, some that we have not even thought of yet. Following the same theme as Enhanced Weathering and SRM technologies, all CDR technologies are not yet ready for implementation. In many cases, there simply is not enough known about them, there is not enough real data on their negatives and their positives; therefore, scientists are not able to properly gauge which will be best going forward in combating climate change. Most importantly, these technologies cost a lot, both to research, and then to implement, on such a large scale, when the technologies become ready.

The provision of the Katowice Climate Protocol, in which countries pledge to increase funding is a great start towards trying to not warm the planet too much; I just hope that a lot of this funding goes towards geo-engineering research. If not, I hope that through education, countries start to realize that we have past the precipice. A lot of damage has been done to our planet and becoming carbon neutral is no longer enough. More has to be done.

COP24- Week 2: a week in review

For my first post, I wanted to give my quick two cents on the second week at COP24, to just speak a bit more generally on my experience, before I got into some more specific postings.  Similar to what Adriana and Dean Husic mentioned in their blog posts, I, too, would have liked to have been able to post throughout the week, but the time restraints of the conference definitely did make it hard to blog at the end of the day. To be honest, most days I forgot to even eat. I’d get a quick power bar in the morning, then, I would go from one event to the next, all day. As soon as one ended, I would be so interested and excited for the next, that I would run on over there, forget to do much else. By the end of the night, we would all just get a bite to eat somewhere and then return back to the apartment to work on some type of finals or blogging. But, now, onto the conference.

If you have been keeping up with others’ posts, or if you are up on the jargon and objectives of the COP24 conference, you know that the Katowice Rulebook was the hopeful outcome of this years COP24 Conference.  If the Katowice Rulebook, or the Paris Agreement, is a term that sounds unfamiliar to you, or you are unaware why that was this year’s objective, let me quick fill you in. Three years ago, COP21, in 2105, was held in Paris, and its product was the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is a joint objective of reducing emissions and combating climate change, forged by nearly 200 countries, most of whom, have very firmly committed to taking the actions needed to not warm the planet greater than two degrees celsius. The Paris Agreement is largely symbolic; while it has objectives and goals, it lacks implementation and accountability. Consequently, the Paris Agreement, along with the deliverance of the Katowice Rulebook, could be the double edged sword this planet needs to combat climate change and deliver on the Paris Agreement Work Programme (PAWP). In large part, on a global scale, not a whole lot has been done since the Paris Agreement, which is why this COP24 is widely seen as a last ditch effort to getting the world and all its countries’ inhabitants, in order with achieving getting in line with the IPCC 1.5 degree celsius report and the pre-industrial carbon levels.

Myself, who really tries to be a glass half full kind of guy, and I think a lot of the other some 28,000 people roaming the halls of the convention center, were having a hard time seeing how any sort of agreement was going to be reached. Throughout all of the plenary, side events, high level meetings, and negotiations, constantly statements were made, that were expressions of discontent and disagreement, both with what has happened since Paris, with respect to countries’ progress in relation to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC’s), as well as countries’ current projections, as to where they will be at when the next global stocktakes place in 2020. This was my opinion, all the way up until I was getting ready to leave to go back to the United States. The last day of the conference, the concluding plenary was supposed to be at 5:00pm. Dean Husic, Adriana, and I were going to attend. Initially, it got pushed back to 7:00pm; I still tried to go to that one. I waited for about 25 to 30 minutes, along with more than a half filled room of others, when it got pushed back again, to 10 pm. At that point, I could no longer stay, and decided to go to the Christmas mart and get some delicious perogies. I had enjoyed more than 30 of them, from the Christmas mart in town, during the few days I was there. I wish I had taken a picture of them so that I could insert it here, but looking back on it, I scarfed them down too fast every time! Anyway, that night I went to bed with some mixed emotions. First off, I was super happy, because my tummy was full of yummy perogies.  Second, I was really bummed that I was unable to be at the closing ceremony because of all the delays, but lastly, I was optimistic. I was optimistic because I knew that with all the delays and postpostments to the plenary, I had a strong feeling that Mr. Gutierrez, the UN Secretary-General was going to deliver an announcement, at some point, delivering some type of a “Katowice Rulebook”. I say this because, if they were unable to reach an agreement, they would have said that at the original 5pm meeting; they would not have delayed it three times, and then another three times after that. Yes, they delayed the closing plenary six times. (I think). My hunch was right, sort of. There was an agreement reached and a Katowice Rulebook was delivered. Where I went wrong was, in that, Mr. Gutierrez did not deliver it and it was not called the Katowice Rulebook. It is called the Katowice Climate Package (KCP). Due to all of the postponements, Mr. Gutierrez had to leave due to prior arrangements; instead, Patricia Espinosa, who heads the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), delivered the outstanding news that the countries worked tirelessly through the night and an agreement had been reached.

While people like Ms. Patricia Espinoza, and others, are saying things like, “This is an excellent achievement! The multilateral system has delivered a solid result. This is a roadmap for the international community to decisively address climate change” and other comments are being made such as, “The guidelines will promote trust among nations that all countries are playing their part in addressing the challenge of climate change.”, I think the real scientists are worried that this is not enough.

While myself, and some of the other climate scientists are worried, I do not want to take away from the Kawotwice Climate Package, because it is a monumental achievement, showing that countries are committed and do realize the significance of climate change. I do, however, want to express my concerns on time. Those concerns being that one, there is not enough of it, and two, as a global community, we are not acting fast enough to being where we need to be. Not where we need to be by 2020, 2025, 2050, 3000, and so on.

That being said, great things came out of the Katowice Climate Package. One of the most significant components of the KCP was the comprehensive transparency framework that it called for. This framework is intended to promote trust between nations, through accountability that each nation, is in fact, doing their part. This along with the global stocktake in 2020 will help to paint a good picture of which countries are and are not upholding their NDC’s. In the area of finance, which was one that I found most interesting, and attended a lot of talks on, which is a very touchy subject for most countries, countries have stated that they will raise investments another 100 billion US dollars, by 2020, to support developing countries.  Countries all across the board, in both the global North and South have amped up their goals for 2025 and 2050 and onwards. More significantly, there was a precedent set, that in 2023, nations will need to converge and agree at the COP2027, on the effectiveness of their climate action the past three years, as well as to monitor the development and implementation of progress and technology so far. It seems the largest achievements have happened in three year increments, COP21, the Paris Agreements, COP 24, the Katowice Climate Protocol, COP27, …. ? Hopefully, at COP27 there will be a real reality check, and some monumental change will actually happen.

Article 6 was the one place that countries could not seem to agree. Article 6 has to do with the development of a new carbon marketplace and is under the category of market mechanisms. This was ultimately the provision that had stalled the negotiations for the last two days of the conference and ultimately delayed the final legislation for more than 24 hours, all to still remain unresolved. The countries that disagreed with it were Brazil most publicly, silently backed by India, and some of the other BASIC countries, who raised concerns of principles of equality and respective capabilities, as well as the transfer of carbon emission allowances. If you would like to read more on the dispute over Article 6, I provided two links.  (https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/12/1028681)(https://indianexpress.com/article/world/paris-agreementglobal-warming-climate-change-poland-paris-rulebook-5495687/)

While the achievement of the KCP is great, I stress my concerns of timeliness, again in closing. What are they going to talk about in COP27? More or less the same stuff that they spoke about in COP24. While all this talking is great, it is talk, and to be blunt, talk is cheap. We need action, and we need implementation. The world needs it! Already at COP24, there was talk that we are not going to meet 2 degrees celsius. Moreover, the IPCC report tells us that 2 degrees is too much, and that we are already at a 1.1 degree rise and rapidly rising! If we know that 2 degrees is too much, and already it seems we are on a derailed train with no hopes of reaching the 2 degree mark, what exactly will the future hold? My first COP convention put a real, but grim, perspective on climate change, the world we live in, and what the future holds for the planet and the people on it. I just hope that awareness, through education, greatly increases in the near future, because I believe that the best way to see actual progress in legislation, implementation, and finance, is through the ground up with the grassroots movements. It starts in local cities and then moves up to the state, and so on, until you are on the world scale. Human kind needs to act fast; we are already seeing the effects of climate change take place all over the world, close to home and far away, and we need to change our ways, drastically, to have any hope of delivering a world to humans, in years to come.

Would you bike from Italy to Poland?

On Wednesday, I attended a session hosted by Ride with Us. Founded in 2014, this group began with two cycling enthusiasts who wanted to raise awareness for climate change while also taking drastic steps to reduce their own carbon footprint as they travelled to COP.  They biked 2041 km from Venice to COP20 in Copenhagen. This year, their team grew to just over fifty people as they met up with several bikers on their journey from Venice to Katowice for COP24. Co-founder, Daniele Pernigotti, shared that the conditions were challenging, especially compared to past conditions, since COPs have always taken place in early to late fall. The timing of COP24 meant snow, sleet, and rain would be an inevitable part of their journey. Additionally, less daylight meant they would have to bike for as long as they could each day before turning in for the night. However, they were able to finish the entire journey of 1262 km in just 11 days! While this may seem fast, it was interesting to learn that they did not choose their route based on speed. They had to coordinate with various bikers to meet up in different cities using bike paths throughout Europe. They also keep a pace that was appropriate for all members of the group, regardless of their skill level or athletic ability. Their intentions were not to be fast, but rather to make a point. They wanted to serve as examples to other COP attendees. These bikers know that advocating for climate action requires you to follow your own rules. If scientists want to be taken seriously, they need to serve role models to the general public and provide ways for everyone to make a difference to reduce their carbon footprint. It is interesting to note that Pernigotti shared he was never a master cyclist. Additionally, most people on their trip were just average bikers who enjoyed the sport and were willing to accept the challenge. He wanted people to know that anyone can ride their bike. The oldest person on the trip was 67, while the youngest was only 4 months old (who rode in a carriage attached to her father's bicycle). He wanted to remove the stigma of bicycles, since he believes this method of transportation often viewed as a sign of poverty. Lastly, he wanted to create an inclusive environment for people to not only get involved in the conversation about climate change, but do something positive to help reduce it's effects.

For more information on Ride with Us, visit http://www.ridewithus.eu/katowice/about-us/

Will geo-engineering get us out of this mess?

From everything that I have heard this week, even if there is any progress on the rules for implementation of the Paris Agreement (the expected product from COP24), it isn't going to get us closer to achieving a planetary limit of 1.5°C or even 2.0°C warming. To the contrary, the scientist presentations over the past two weeks in Poland have sounded pretty dire, even more so than the gloomy predictions from the IPCC Global Warming of 1.5°C report. The main message: Unless we are able to employ some pretty dramatic technology "fixes", the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions via the collective country NDCs (mitigation goals) will be insufficient in the time frame required to avert serious negative consequences. In other words, a net zero carbon balance between the planet and our atmosphere is not longer good enough. Scientists claim that we need aggressive net negative emissions, and planting millions of trees and restoring mangroves isn’t going to do that for us.

Last night, I had a long dinner conversations with some scientists who believe that carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS) is absolutely necessary. Since this will be expensive to employ on a large scale, they were wondering if OPEC would be willing to set oil at $150 - 200 a barrel to cover the cost of CCS. Seeing how people in France are reacting to a fuel tax, this would be politically challenging and have serious impacts on the economy. However, such market pricing could be the needed impetus to boost investment in renewable clean energy alternatives.

When I was in graduate school in the early to mid 1980’s, a number of laboratories were studying the impacts of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide on plant and algae growth. One idea that was floated at the time was to artificially boost the growth of photosynthetic marine plankton which could, in turn, sequester extra carbon from the atmosphere. At that time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were around 341 ppm; we hit 410 ppm this year. Scientists determined that iron was limiting, so oceans would need to be supplemented with this micronutrient and hence, this idea became known as the Geritol solution. (If you aren't old enough to remember Geritol, you may need to look it up!) We were young and quite naïve about the links between increasing carbon dioxide and climate disruption. Back then, we thought the idea was pretty crazy. We certainly never dreamed of even more science-fiction sounding ideas like trying to artificially control solar radiation through geo-engineering approaches.

Until this year, I had heard little discussion at COPS about the idea of managing solar radiation.  A leading scientist in this field, David Keith from Harvard, was also at dinner. He argued that it is better to do the research now to determine the feasibility and risks of geo-engineering -- before things get desperate and countries start blindly shooting sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere to deflect solar radiation without having the data or national agreements to guide such action. As a plant biochemist, this concept scares me. A lot. Deflecting sunlight isn't a particularly good idea for photosynthesis and primary production (think the first level of the global food chain). And we really have no idea whether the sulfate aerosols would remain in the stratosphere. As someone who works at a restoration site where vegetation was killed off in large part due to sulfur dioxide emissions being converted to sulfuric acid in the atmosphere, this idea seems doubly crazy.

But in David's view, it comes down to a question of which planetary experiment we want to run: extreme warming and climate disruption or testing some technology-approaches that may alter our future in very different ways.

Some more reading:

Goodell, J. A Hard Look at the Perils and Potential of Geoengineering, Yale Environment 360, April 1, 2010.

Suarez, P. and K. Maarten. Geoengineering: A humanitarian concern Earth's Future, December 23, 2016

Education Day – COP24

Each year at the COPs, there are a number of thematic days. Today (December 13th) is Education Day. In the original 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Article 6 focused on education, training, public awareness, public participation, public access to information, and international cooperation on these issues. This same focus on education and outreach is in Article 12 of the Paris Agreement of 2015. Out of this arose Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) which is reflected in not only the UNFCCC, but other international frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals.

A high-level event on climate education

For years, there have been conversations about how to communicate the science of climate change and its impacts in a way that is both understood by the public and helps to promote climate action. In Morocco (2016), an informal group interested in education, communication and outreach started meeting. This group, ECOS, has now been endorsed as an informal group by the UNFCCC Secretariat and represents international network-of-networks for climate literacy, engagement, action and learning. The met today to determine their mission, goals and action plans for the coming year.

Yale University has an entire program dedicated to climate change communication. Katharine Hayhoe is a scientist who has a YouTube channel called “Global Weirding” that has reached a variety of audiences, including Evangelical Christians. In 2018, she was awarded the 2018 Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communication. Stephen Schneider was a climate scientist who along with Michael Mann, James Hansen, and others, have written books about climate change that were aimed at a general audience.

The Bordeaux 2050 case study that Adriana wrote about in a separate post is a brilliant way of demonstrating climate impacts and their relevance to a particular audience.

Gillian Bowser (CSU) and I tried the Bordeaux of the future. We didn't like it.

These examples of educational and outreach initiatives (and there are countless others) are all worthwhile and necessary. But have they moved the needle in terms of a global understanding of climate change, of the very real threat that humanity (and all of the biosphere) faces? In educational assessment terms, have the learning goals been achieved? Perhaps somewhat. I know from my own teaching and conversations, that people are more aware of climate change than they used to be. But clearly it is still not sufficient.

We need the masses to persuade (demand that) their national leaders to make climate change, and protection of the people they represent, a priority. They need to step up and make climate change action (not just policy) as ambitious as it needs to be in order to keep the planet from warming beyond dangerous levels. So far, the world leaders deserve a failing grade for this assignment.

Is wine in trouble?

On Monday, I had the opportunity to attend the side event, "Bordeaux 2050: The Real Taste of Global Warming". The title not only caught my attention, but raised significant concern for me as an Italian-American who enjoys her wine. The only people I have ever met that have a greater passion for wine than Italians are the French. In this session, it was stated that the average French male consumes 42 liters of wine in a year. Knowing this, a wine producer and the French Association of Journalists for the Environment partnered on this project to have the impacts of climate change felt on a personal level. This event explained their project as an initiative to showcase the negative potential of climate change by creating a wine that exemplifies the reality of a warming world.

Of all the French wines, the most renowned and adored comes from the region of Bordeaux.  These red blends are a mix of Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot. Recently, vineyards in the region have been hit hard by extreme weather conditions. Spring comes earlier, bringing warmer temperatures. The vines awake from their dormant, winter state and begin to grow. However, early spring conditions are interrupted by intermittent frost, which can have detrimental effects on the harvest. It was stated that 40% of the harvest last year was lost due to frost. Additionally, periods of intense rainfalls have made the vines more vulnerable to mildew, which also causes grapes to be lost. The current conditions in Bordeaux are less than ideal for growing grapes. Models of future weather patterns due to climate change show that future conditions in the region will only continue to worsen. It is even predicted that favorable ares for growing wine today will be completely different from those in 2050 (see below). For wine producers, the only thing that remains certain is that grapes being planted now will be used to make wine for 2050.

Obtained from https://unfccc-cop24.streamworld.de/webcast/the-future-of-wine-bordeaux-2050

This fact led project leaders to try to simulate Bordeaux wine in 2050. They did this by taking grapes from various parts of the world that are already experiencing the effects of climate change and making wine. They called the final product "Bordeaux 2050".  They then surveyed thousands of people across the nation to get opinions on the final product. The general consensus: it's not a Bordeaux! Tasters felt that it lacked the dimension of flavor and aroma true to a Bordeaux today. It was bitter, drier, and more acidic than the wine they were used to. I had the chance to try the wine. I agreed that it was bitter and acidic, and lacked the complexity of a bold red wine. While I am not a Bordeaux connoisseur, I can say that I would not waste the money on a bottle of Bordeaux 2050.

However, the biggest takeaway from this event was not intended to be the taste of the wine. It was intended to raise concern for climate change by creating a disappointing model of a popular product that would get people's attention. While it is a shame that scientists must go to this extent to convey the severity of the fate of our planet, this is a great example of how scientists can make climate issues more personal to people around the world. I can only imagine how this project could be modified to impact more people. For example, imagine how much people in the United States would care about climate change if they thought the quality of their beer or burgers would be compromised!

 To view the entire presentation from the conference, click on the following link: https://unfccc-cop24.streamworld.de/webcast/the-future-of-wine-bordeaux-2050

Also, check out this link for the Bordeaux 2050 video summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n2xP37UPLU