Reducing soot: common ground for climate negotiations

By John C. Topping, Jr.

Cleantech Asia Online

1 August 2009

 

As the December 2009 Copenhagen climate conference approaches, scientific evidence mounts that the Earth is nearing a tipping point that will melt much of the Greenland ice sheet and some of Antarctica as well, ultimately dooming nearly all of our coastal cities. In addition to the warming influence of the increasing carbon dioxide emissions from the global energy sector, melting of snow, sea ice, and glaciers is reducing reflection of incoming solar radiation and increasing Arctic temperatures; the resulting warming is thawing permafrost, which will likely generate a huge quantity of Nature’s store of greenhouse gases.

 

There are glimmers of hope on the horizon. In the US House of Representatives, passage of Waxman-Markey, an overly modest bill, at least suggests sweeping emission reductions might ultimately be achievable in the world’s richest nation. Last year also, the rate of new coal plant installation in China was halved and there was a huge upsurge in renewable energy investment. In the Philippines, a sweeping renewable energy law was passed. Finally, Mexico gave a tentative commitment to reduce its greenhouse emissions by 50% below 2002 levels by 2050.

 

Despite these remarkable breakthroughs, the Copenhagen conference is in some danger of becoming a train wreck. Waxman-Markey narrowly passed the House with trade sanction provisions designed to attract reluctant Rust-Belt Democrats; such provisions jam a thumb in the eye of key developing countries and will cost the votes of moderate, free-trade Republicans whose support may be essential to reach the 60 votes needed to end the debate in the Senate.   A key sticking point in the US Senate is the lack of evidence that key developing countries will be willing in the future to commit to reductions, or at least limits, in their greenhouse emissions. Discussions on carbon dioxide are caught up in contentious debates over disparities in per capita emissions, historical responsibility for past warming, and the likelihood of future growth in emissions. 

 

It seems wildly unrealistic to see a bridging of this divide in Copenhagen.  This risks the failure of the entire global climate protection effort and with it, after glacial melting and sea level rise, irreversible impacts on iconic species. We will also see the drowning, over the next two to three centuries, of major parts of Miami, Boston, New York, Tokyo, Sydney, Jakarta, Shanghai, Manila, Calcutta, Mumbai, Alexandria, Lagos, Acapulco, Cancun and countless other cities. If the US Senate thinks that populous developing countries will not subscribe to emission limits, the prospects of enacting strong US domestic climate and energy legislation will likely be lost, especially given the need to achieve the two-thirds Senate vote constitutionally required for the US to ratify treaties. In the absence of strong US action, it seems highly unlikely that rapidly industrializing countries such as China and India would move past the steps they are likely to take in the absence of climate concerns to modernize development.

 

Fortunately, recent scientific developments may provide an escape from this impasse. It is one that would not only lead to dramatic reductions in the growing warming influence, but would also save hundreds of thousands of lives each year.  In a seminal article in Nature online in March 2008, V. Ramanathan and G. Carmichael indicated that the warming influence of black carbon (often called soot) may be as high as 55% of  that  caused by carbon dioxide. Not only is black carbon a powerful absorber of incoming radiation, it also speeds glacial melt, impairing water supplies and reducing reflectivity for incoming radiation. Soot also causes huge impacts on human health; the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 1,062,000 deaths in Asia in 2000 were attributable to indoor air smoke from solid fuel use and that an additional 537,000 deaths that year in the region were attributable to urban air pollution. 

 

There are however, some remarkably easy fixes. In the Philippines for example, around 82% of the black carbon comes from the residential sector, mostly from inefficient cook stoves. More efficient stoves that combust cleanly are available for around US $15--$20. In addition, these improved cook stoves use agricultural residues such as rice hulls for fuel, halving annual residential fuel costs to US $13 while producing ash that can be used as fertilizer. Solar powered stoves for homes cost only about US $100 in the Philippines, require no fuel and entirely eliminate the production of black carbon.  

 

Another way is to replace vehicles using very inefficient two stroke engines to further reduce black carbon emissions. A retrofit of motorized tricycles or rickshaws in Asia costing about $350 would reduce their carbon dioxide and black carbon emissions by about 70% while increasing fuel efficiency by about 50%. The fuel savings would enable drivers to repay the loan in less than a year. Microcredit mechanisms may facilitate rapid improvements in fleet efficiency.   International development financing from richer nations such as the US might greatly speed the installation of cleaner cook stoves, saving lives and fuel, all while producing immediate effects on radiative forcing.

 

Perhaps because of its short-lived time in the atmosphere--only about a week or two--black carbon has been given short shrift in greenhouse discussions that have often focused on long-lived carbon dioxide. Yet there is a flip side to this--soot reduction can happen very quickly, producing an immediate drop in radiative forcing; moreover, once taken, these reductions are likely permanent. It is unlikely that anyone will go back to their old stove or the inefficient motorized rickshaw.

 

Although the Philippines produces only about 0.3% of global black carbon emissions, Asia produces about 40%, with China responsible for about 19% and India 8%.  Asia-wide black carbon emissions break out as roughly 60% in the residential sector, 25% in the power and industrial sectors, and 15% in the transportation sector. Health professionals, engineers, street smart politicians, and savvy negotiators should look at the possibility, even before Copenhagen, of jump starting soot removal efforts. If well designed, these programs are likely to become popular at the grass roots in developing countries.

 

Once US Senators and other OECD leaders understand that these near-term lifesaving warming reduction measures are much more likely to be accepted by emerging nations than binding CO2 limits, we may be on a path to lasting climate accords.