climate alertclimate.org/archive/publications/climate alerts/sept-2012.pdfaction has been provided...

CCCL IMATEL IMATEL IMATE AAALERTLERTLERTA Publication of the Climate Institute | Protecting the balance between climate and life on Earth

CLIMATE INSTITUTESeptember 2012Volume 23, No. 1

Sept

embe

r 201

2—

Volu

me

23, N

o. 1

Special Issue: Saving the Arctic

Climate Institute | www.climate.org

Climate Alert

Commentary byJohn C. Topping, Jr.

The Arctic may beembarking on a cli-mate change morerapid than at any

time in the history of the human spe-cies. Reports in August indicated thatGreenland glacial melting over thesummer had already exceeded any-thing in the observational record. Thesame month scientists at the US Na-tional Snow and Ice Center reportedthat summer sea ice extent fell belowthe previous record low set in 2007.Reports by Russian and US scientistshave raised concerns that a warmingArctic may be experiencing acceler-ated release of methane from thetundra, from lakes and ponds andeven from ocean sediments, and thatthis could further speed a rapidwarming already underway in theArctic. The Arctic may be reaching acritical tipping point where disap-pearance of year round summer seaice could, especially during the coldseasons, disrupt weather and oceancirculation patterns with effects wellpast the northern polar regions andwith albedo changes that couldspeed warming both in the Arctic andon other parts of Earth. Coastal re-gions across the planet, alreadythreatened by rising sea level fromthermal expansion of upper layers ofthe ocean and melting alpine glaciers,would be further imperiled by rapidmelting in Greenland.

Rapid action is essential if we are toavert irreversible ecological changesand highly disruptive climate changein the Arctic. This all is occurring asinternational action on climatechange is gridlocked. Fortunately

some traction is now being realizedin a growing global effort to reduceemissions of short-lived climateforcers (SLCFs), such substances asblack carbon, methane and othertropospheric ozone forming com-pounds. The intellectual rationale forthis effort was first set forth by theClimate Institute’s Chief Scientist,Michael MacCracken, in June 2008 ina seminal paper in the Journal of Airand Waste Management, later fol-lowed by an important 2011 UNEPreport; much of the political heft foraction has been provided by US Sec-retary of State Hillary Clinton, whohas been a driving force behind aburgeoning Climate and Clean AirCoalition.

This effort recognizes that 1) actionon SLCFs such as black carbon andozone forming compounds yields sig-nificant health as well as climatebenefits; 2) action on methane oftenhas considerable economic benefitsthrough energy harvesting andsafety benefits such as reducing risksof coal mine accidents; 3) many SLCFmitigation measures can be startedquickly and enable us to leapfrogpast the protracted wrangling associ-ated with CO2-focused negotiations;and 4) control of SLCFs can yield dra-matic reductions in the radiativeforcing that drives climate change.

The relatively short residence timeof these compounds in the atmos-phere means that actions to curbemissions of black carbon (which alsodarkens sea ice), methane and ozoneforming compounds affecting theArctic will have a near-term effect inslowing the ongoing increase in ra-diative forcing, possibly before theArctic has passed irreversible tippingpoints.

The proposed ANSI Life Cycle As-sessment Standard, which is likely tobecome final in the US by early 2013,includes a specific metric for contri-butions to Arctic warming that wouldlay the groundwork for estimatingthe relative effectiveness of reduc-tions in emissions of black carbonand ozone forming compounds. Thiscould be a very important step be-cause present emissions reductionproposals give a zero valuation forthe reduction of black carbon and arelatively low valuation for methane.

Recognizing the importance of theproposed new ANSI LCA Standard,the Climate Institute in collaborationwith leading Arctic and other envi-ronmental scientists, forestry and lifecycle experts, indigenous leaders,and environmental organizations in-cluding the Worldwatch Institute,National Wildlife Federation, South-ern Alliance for Clean Energy, HeinzCenter, and Environmental and En-ergy Study Institute, has stepped for-ward to create an Arctic Climate Ac-tion Registry (ACAR) to promote andfacilitate reductions in emissions ofblack carbon, methane and ozoneforming compounds that have signifi-cant near-term effects on the Arctic.

This Special Issue of Climate Alertdelves into some sticky scientific issues(e.g. variation of transport and albedoeffects by season and feedback mecha-nisms that can often amplify warming)and potential mitigation measures, in-cluding forest and agricultural manage-ment (especially reducing forest firesand grassland burning), oil and gas ex-traction and production, air travel andshipping. Action to avert irreversibleand highly disruptive Arctic climatechange is essential in its own right; itcould also energize badly stalled climatenegotiations.

A Message From the PresidentArctic Climate Mitigation: Both an Imperative and a Key to Ending the Global Climate Gridlock


Climate Alert

To move to the next level of evalu-ating and scoring the health, environ-mental, and resource implications ofhuman activities, the American Na-tional Standards Institute (ANSI) isnearing the conclusion of a multi-year process of developing, propos-ing, reviewing, and completing theapproval of a new life cycle standard.This standard, entitled “Life CycleImpact Assessment Framework andGuidance for Establishing Public Dec-larations and Claims” is being pre-pared by the Standards Committeeon Type III Life-Cycle Impact ProfileDeclarations for Products, Servicesand Systems, whose Subcommitteeon Impacts of Greenhouse Gases andBlack Carbon is Chaired by ClimateInstitute President John Topping.

The areas encompassed by the pro-posed standard include: depletion ofenergy, water, minerals and metal,and biotic resources; impacts on landuse, ecological systems, and criticalspecies; impacts of emissions ofgreenhouse gases and black carbonon global climate change, the ampli-fied changes going on in the Arctic,ocean acidification, and ocean warm-ing; regional environmental conse-quences resulting from regional envi-ronmental acidification (i.e., acidifica-tion of precipitation), stratosphericozone depletion, ecotoxicity, and eu-trophication; the impacts of emis-sions on human health, includingnear surface ozone, particulate mat-ter, toxic chemicals, toxic emissions,indoor air pollution and ingestion oftoxic materials; and risks from un-treated hazardous and radioactivewastes. The intent of being so broadis to help ensure that the full range ofpossible impact categories are con-sidered so that a comprehensive syn-thesis can be presented and consid-

ered instead of an analysis or claimomitting important implications of anactivity, product, or service.

The key advance taking place inType-III analyses is that the standardnot only will now take account of theimplications of the activity itself (sothe resources and energy requiredand the emissions and waste prod-ucts), but also takes account of howthese implications then cause im-pacts themselves. As an example, thestandard accounts not just for theamount of air pollutants emitted, butalso for the health and environ-mental effects of the resulting at-mospheric pollution, making it mat-ter whether an industrial plant is lo-cated in an urban or rural area aswell as its control of emissions.

Consideration of the environmentalimplications of activities on climatewould be a major advance. At pre-sent, compilation of CO2-equivalentemissions using the 100-year GlobalWarming Potential (GWP) is the met-ric that is the basis of internationalnegotiations because of the interestin limiting long-term global warming.The new standard proposes to alsoconsider the implications for near-term warming (so out to 2050, whichis when global average warming isprojected to be near 2ºC), for oceanacidification, for Arctic warming, andfor ocean warming (which is coupledto the potential for long-term warm-ing). In broadening the set of impactsof greenhouse gases to this broaderset of metrics, this increases atten-tion on the importance of reducingemissions of methane and black car-bon, as was highlighted in the recentUNEP Assessment as well as earlier inresearch by Michael MacCracken, theClimate Institute’s chief scientist forclimate change programs. With the

especially rapid pace of climatechange in the Arctic, sharply reducingthe emissions of these short-livedspecies is especially important be-cause the moderation of warminginfluence can occur over decades andless. While it has unfortunately beenproving difficult for nations to so faragree on reductions on emissions ofCO2 and long-lived species, the manyco-benefits of reducing the emissionsof short-lived species (including espe-cially reduced air pollution andhealth impacts) can hopefully serveas added incentives for expanding onthe present efforts in this area(unfortunately mostly voluntary inthe US, at present, but proposals tostrengthen these regulations are inprogress).

Because of this broadening of themetrics that the standard proposesbe used, it is important that its re-view and adoption proceed apace.Since being approved earlier this yearby the Standards Committee as readyfor external review, the proposedstandard has been posted by ANSI forwidespread review and comment.This open review process is just con-cluding, and the coming few monthswill be spent reviewing the com-ments and revising the proposedstandard. The intent is that, assumingthe review and revision effort is suc-cessful, will be to present the pro-posed standard for formal ANSI ap-proval by the end of 2012 or soonthereafter. Once approved, the nextsteps will be to move toward interna-tional adoption of the standard andto encouragement, both voluntaryand eventually regulatory, of the useof the standard in promoting actionsto cut emissions and impacts, espe-cially in the near-term in the Arctic asa key step to slowing global climatechange.

THE POTENTIAL FOR THE NEW ANSI LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS STANDARD TO SLOW ARCTIC WARMINGBY MICHAEL MACCRACKEN, CLIMATE INSTITUTE CHIEF SCIENTIST

Climate Institute | [email protected]

Climate Alert

The Arctic is more than just a geo-graphic area; it is a location withunique flora and fauna, a place towhich species migrate and draw uponits resources, and home for manythousands of years of peoples whohave figured out how to survive, andeven thrive, in conditions so harshthat their culture has necessarily hadto be built on the basis of sharing andcooperation to survive. And the Arcticis also being changed more rapidly byhuman-induced climate change thananywhere else on Earth. While mostof those living in the mid- and low-latitudes cannot understand whythose in the Arctic would not want tobe warmer, those living in the Arctichave attuned their practices and cul-tures to the cold, and are having avery difficult (and expensive) timefiguring out how they can survivewith much less cold.

The Arctic is cold compared tolower latitudes because, over thecourse of a year, it receives much lesssolar radiation. During the summer,as much solar radiation reaches thetop of the atmosphere in the Arctic asat the equator, and temperatures inthe Arctic rise to well above freezing,melting back snow and ice. In thewinter, however, the Arctic receivesno solar radiation, and so depends onthe oceans and atmosphere to carryheat poleward from lower latitudes(primarily from heat stored in thetropical and subtropical oceans)where the Sun is providing energyyear round. The cold conditions in thewinter freeze rain into snow andopen ocean waters into sea ice, turn-ing the surface white. To the extentthe snow and sea ice last into thetimes when the Sun is shining in theArctic, they, along with clouds in the

region, reflect a substantial fractionof the incoming solar radiation backto space, allowing the region to staycool and, at least in the past, the seaice to persist through the summerand the surface of the region’s manymountain glaciers and the GreenlandIce Sheet to lose no more mass thanwas gained from each year’s snowfall.

With the region’s climate changingonly very slowly over the past severalthousand years, the flora and faunathat survived and succeeded in theArctic were those that were bestadapted to the relatively stable base-line conditions and the variations thatcould occur. Thus, the polar bearcould survive because it learned howto capture seals when they came upto breathe at holes in the ice, thewalrus could survive because it hadsea ice as a resting spot as it soughtfood on the continental shelves, andthe caribou could survive because thefrozen land surface (i.e., the perma-frost) melted just enough each sum-mer for plants they could eat to growenough to sustain them, but therewas not so much warming in thespring that river ice melted, makingriver crossings with their calves muchmore difficult as they migrated to theedge of the Arctic Ocean each year.

The Indigenous Peoples of the Arc-tic figured out how to succeed insimilar ways—how to capture whalesand seals as they surfaced in cracksand holes in the sea ice, and beforethe sea ice melted or broke awayfrom land and took them to theirdeaths; how to share the bounties oftheir harvest with all in the commu-nity, just as they would share in thework of their community, for doingotherwise, would likely end in deathduring a particularly harsh winter or

as a result of an injured leg that pre-vented harvesting a seal or whale dur-ing the very busy, and very short,warm season.

Now, the climate of the Arctic ischanging, and changing dramatically.Emissions of carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gases are preventing theArctic from cooling as much during thewinter and retaining more of the in-coming heat during the summer, espe-cially as a result of the snow and icemelting back earlier in the year and sodarkening the surface and allowingmore absorption of solar radiation.The melting back of the sea ice meansless area for walrus and polar bear touse in getting the food they need, lesstime and support for the peoples ofthe Arctic to catch the seals andwhales that provide vital food for theircommunities, and less suppression ofocean waves that erode the barrierislands where the communities havebeen established. The melting back ofthe permafrost not only replacestransportation routes to meltedmarshes, tilting and cracking roadsand foundations when refreezing oc-curs in winter, but also leads to re-lease to the atmosphere of the carbonstored in the soils, either as mostlycarbon dioxide, which would lead tosome additional global warming, orwith a significant fraction of methane,which would lead to a good bit ofglobal warming. The melting back ofglaciers and the Greenland ice sheetadds water to the oceans, raisingglobal sea level, presently at a rate ofinches per century, but potentially at adevastating rate of feet per centuryfor coastal areas around the world.

For those of us in middle latitudes,warming of the Arctic and the amountand changes in the timing of the coldair that is created there from fall

A Changing ArcticBy Michael MacCracken, Climate Institute Chief Scientist

Volume 23, No. 1


Climate Alert

(Continued from page 4)through spring affect the weather inmid-latitudes.

The weather in the eastern half ofNorth America is a result of cold airmoving to lower latitudes from theArctic across central Canada and theGreat Plains colliding with warm,moist air mostly from the Gulf ofMexico, Caribbean Sea, and the At-lantic Ocean. This collision createsthe fronts and convectivestorms that bring precipi-tation and storms, includ-ing high winds and torna-does. Before the Arcticwarmed, there was typi-cally enough cold air topush this collision of airmasses in wintertime tonear the Gulf Coast; withthe Arctic warming, thetiming and location ofthe collision is shiftingpoleward, with the warmseason tending to be-come longer across muchof the contiguous 48states. When a La Niñaoccurs in the easterntropical Pacific Ocean,the warm moist air isable to push furthernorth across North Amer-ica, this past winter push-ing so strongly that thepolar air was kept in theArctic as it blew across northern Can-ada, only to then spill out in forceover Europe, making their wintervery cold. In the few preceding yearswhen the Pacific was more in an ElNiño state, the reverse happened,and cold air outbursts from the Arcticcould push the moist air back towardthe Gulf of Mexico, leading to bigsnowstorms along the US East Coast

when the collision of cold and moistair occurred in the Mid-Atlanticstates, causing significant disruption.

Weighed against the significant dis-ruption to the flora and fauna of theArctic, to the peoples and traditionallifestyles of the region, to the in-creasingly disruptive consequencesof the Arctic’s contribution to sealevel rise, and to the disruption of theweather of the mid-latitudes, it is

suggested by some that there arebenefits from Arctic warming. In-deed, for a few months of the year,shipping routes from the Atlantic toPacific basin nations will be reduced(although there will be costs to en-sure this is done safely and withoutdamage from pollutant emissions inthis sensitive region), and there willbe easier access to natural resources

(although there will be significantcosts to ensure there are not damag-ing spills). As for the results of assess-ments of relative costs and benefitsin regions around the world, thebenefits tend to be financial and ofquite limited magnitude, whereas thecosts and damages tend to be muchmore fundamental and disruptive forthe Earth’s biosphere and cultures,with many species likely to go extinct

and long established communitieshaving to relocate, not just the vil-lages of Indigenous Peoples in theArctic, but, as a result of global sealevel rise, cities around the world.

The disruption that is occurring andthe risks of much more seem far inexcess of potential benefits, and it isfor this reason that the Climate Insti-tute is committed to limiting warm-ing in the Arctic to the greatest ex-tent possible (see page 19).

In addition to warming caused by emissions of greenhouse gases and warming aerosols in and near the Arctic, anumber of Earth system processes tend to amplify polar warming. Source Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 2004.


Climate Alert

Arctic climate is an important indi-cator of global climate change. Globalwarming is most pronounced in thisregion, with warming occurring attwice the rate as the rest of theworld. Temperature increases of 2-3°C since the 1950s have been re-corded, with increases of up to 4°C inwinter months. The IPCCprojects annual warming of5°C by the end of the 21stcentury in the Arctic, ac-cording to the ensemblemean of the A1B scenario,with a range across all sce-narios of +2-9°C. In con-trast, global projections arein the range of 1.1°C to 6.4°C, with “best estimates” of1.8-4.0°C.

The “northern, high-latitude maximum in warm-ing consistently found in allAOGCM simulations” is referred to asarctic or polar amplification (IPCC,2007). Arctic amplification occurs as aresult of positive climate feedbacks,namely the ice-albedo feedback, themelting of permafrost and subse-quent release of greenhouse gases,and the formation of wetlands. Thereduction in the amount of time thatsea ice insulates the atmospherefrom the Arctic Ocean is anotherpositive feedback in the Arctic.

The ice-albedo feedback refers tothe fact that snow and ice melt withrising temperatures, and this de-creases albedo, or reflectivity, andthe amount of shortwave radiationthat is reflected back to space. Sincesnow and ice are highly reflective, thenewly exposed surface absorbs moreradiation than before which leads toadditional melting of snow and ice.Hence, the initial decrease in albedo

propagates a further reduction in al-bedo. Because the earth’s energybudget is partially dependent on al-bedo, the decrease in albedo in-creases surface temperatures andaccelerates global warming.

Melting of permafrost is anotherpositive feedback. Permafrost is per-

manently frozen subsurface material(rock, soil, sediment, etc.) that re-mains at or below O°C continuouslyfor two or more years. It containsdeposits of carbon and methane (e.g.coal, gas, decayed plant matter),which can be released as permafrostmelts. Because carbon dioxide andmethane are greenhouse gases, emis-sions from permafrost would contrib-ute to additional warming. Methaneis much more potent than carbondioxide on a per molecule basis, sothe potential for accelerated warmingis a concern, especially in the nearterm due to methane’s short lifetimein the atmosphere.

Thawing permafrost is also a con-cern because microbes and methano-gens consume and release carbonand methane, and this process ismade easier with warmer tempera-tures. Similarly, permafrost some-

times contains methane hydrates.Some studies suggest warming couldresult in rapid decomposition of hy-drates and release of methane intothe atmosphere.

Wetlands also contribute to meth-ane releases and are a positive feed-back. As ice melts, the environment is

more conducive to wetlandformation via higher tem-peratures and a longer thawseason, which means addi-tional releases of methanethrough diffusion, gas bub-bles, and plants. Wetlandsalso house methanogenic bac-teria, which enhance emis-sions. The long-term net ef-fect of wetland formation iscomplicated; however, as arecent study from Nature

Geoscience suggests, an in-crease in soil drainage with

warmer temperatures could regulatethe extent of wetlands.

Lastly, a positive feedback occurs asthe insulating effect of sea ice is re-duced. This contributes to increases inglobal warming through air-sea heatexchange. As higher latitudes warm,sea ice extent decreases, which dimin-ishes its insulating properties.

In addition to positive feedbacks thatamplify warming, higher temperaturesalso trigger negative feedbacks thatreduce warming. One of the mainnegative feedbacks discussed in thecontext of Arctic and global climatechange is the potential weakening ofthermohaline or overturning circula-tion, the ocean “conveyor belt” thatdistributes heat and matter across theearth’s oceans. As the oceans warm,salinity and density decrease, whichmeans less deep water formation.Weakened thermohaline circulation isa negative feedback because it prom-

Arctic Climate Feedbacks and ProjectionsBy Lauren Smith

Volume 23, No. 1

Geographical pattern of surface warming in ˚C. Source: IPCC, 2007.


Climate Alert

(Continued from page 5)otes colder conditions and increasedalbedo in the Arctic as less heat istransported poleward, which causesa weaker circulation still. Most stud-ies express uncertainty aboutchanges to the overturning circula-tion over the next century. The IPCCAR4 suggests this would cause someregional cooling but also emphasizesthe much stronger effects of green-house gases on surface temperature.

Other negative feedbacks includeincreased freshwater input into theocean which results in less oceanmixing and reduces temperature in-creases, increases in vegetationwhich absorbs CO2, and increases inmoisture supply and evaporation thatcould restore glaciers.

Impacts and ProjectionsOne of the most pressing issues

associated with warmer tempera-tures is sea level rise from meltingglaciers and thermal expansion. Sealevel rise is projected to increase 0.18to 0.59m at 2090-2099 relative to1980-1999. This poses serious eco-nomic and social consequences forcoastal communities, with consider-able adaptation and relocation costs.In one study, it was estimated thatrelocation of Kivalina, Alaska to anearby site would cost $54 million.

Other projections for Arctic climateinclude: positive trend in the NorthAtlantic Oscillation during the 21st

century, increases in temperatureextremes and heat waves, increasesin precipitation (10-28% by the end

of the 21st century), and decreases insea ice (~22-33% by 2080-2100).

Warming also affects local ecosys-tems. A warmer climate means speciesadapted for colder climates will be indanger of losing their habitat andother species will thrive further north.Arctic plants and animals are vulner-able to attacks from pests and para-sites that develop more effectively inwarmer conditions, and impacts toindividual organisms and food sourcesimpact the entire food chain. Meltingpermafrost also means loss of habitatsand human infrastructure, and meltingof glaciers and sea ice increase thefreshwater supply to the ocean andaffect marine ecosystems. Impacts onculture and communities are also dis-cussed on page 10.

Short-Lived Climate Forcers in the ArcticBy Ashwin Kumar

Mitigating Arctic climate change isurgent, but there are limits to whatcan be achieved. The earth’s tem-perature field is not in equilibriumwith radiative forcing; that wouldrequire hundreds of years for theglobal oceans to warm. While theoceans and surface are warming, theearth is emitting increasing amountsof radiation back to space. But in themeantime there persists an energyimbalance which causes temperatureto rise for a long time. Even if wewere to immediately stop all anthro-pogenic forcing, cumulative emis-sions since the industrial revolutionhave committed the earth to a globalmean surface temperature rise ofapproximately 0.6 degrees Celsius.For the Arctic region, this figure ismuch higher because temperatures

here rise much faster than in lowerlatitudes (Arctic amplification).

Because radiative forcing from car-bon-dioxide already present in theatmosphere cannot be eliminatedsoon, the only option to significantlymitigate near term climate changesin the Arctic is via short-lived climateforcers. These are methane, ozoneand black carbon and have an impor-tant effect on radiative forcing in theArctic, albeit one that is secondary tocarbon-dioxide. Methane and ozoneare both greenhouse gases, theymake the atmosphere more opaqueto outgoing longwave radiation andenhance surface warming. Black car-bon suspended in the atmosphereabsorbs sunlight, but instead of emit-ting photons as a result it convertsthe energy to heat. Where it depositson ice and snow, black carbon dark-

ens the surface to sunlight so thatmore of it is absorbed. Methane,ozone and black carbon are calledshort-lived climate forcers due to theirshort lifetimes in the atmosphere. Somitigating their emissions will, inabout a decade at most, eliminatethem from forcing. Therefore, actionon short-lived forcers can hold backsome part of Arctic climate change.But this cannot be a substitute forearly action on carbon-dioxide abate-ment. For, long-term temperaturechanges in the Arctic would depend oncumulative emissions of this gas, anddelaying abatement would only makeit more difficult to keep this under therequired target. In contrast, mitigat-ing short-lived forcers might appeal asflexible measures to be used at theright time. However the climatechanges already happening in the Arc-


Climate Alert

(Continued from page 7)tic suggest that there is no time tolose.

Furthermore, eliminating black car-bon and ozone emissions that have ahigh chance of causing radiative forc-ing in the Arctic is potentially morecost-effective, compared to reducingglobal carbon-dioxide emissions, atmitigating Arctic climate change overthe next several decades.

Where do these short-lived forcerscome from? In a generic sense, theycome from natural and anthropo-genic sources throughout the world.Methane is produced from coalminesand from natural gas deposits, rice-cultivation, waste disposal, burningwood, and in the gut of certain ani-

mals. There are also large under-ground deposits of methane in theArctic which would become difficultto contain as overlying ice melted.Ozone is produced as a product ofcomplex reactions involving gaseousand volatile compounds in the pres-ence of sunlight. The main ozone pre-cursors include nitrogen and nitricoxides, methane, volatile organiccompounds, and carbon monoxide,and there are multiple pathways inwhich they can combine to yieldozone. Black carbon is produced fromthe incomplete combustion of fossilfuels and biomass; and deliberatefuel burning and natural fires contrib-ute to its emissions.

Carbon dioxide in the atmospherelasts much longer than the 1-2 years ittakes to mix air around the globe. As aresult this gas is well-mixed and can bemitigated anywhere on the earth forthe same effect on Arctic climate. Incontrast, ozone and black carbon haveatmospheric lifetimes measured indays, so understanding their sourcesand transport becomes paramount.Methane has an atmospheric lifetimeof about 9 years. So it is relatively well-mixed, and mitigation benefiting theArctic can occur globally. In Section 2.1we elaborate on the sources andtransport of these short-lived pollut-ants, and examine mitigation strate-gies that might make a difference.

Volume 23, No. 1

ane leaks from various stages of natu-ral gas production and transportwherever this occurs.

The picture is different for ozoneand black carbon with their muchshorter atmospheric lifetimes. Long-range transport of these short-livedpollutants emitted in mid-latitudes isdominated by westerly winds. Theseare poleward winds blowing throughmuch of the mid-latitudes from westto east and throughout much of theyear. Westerlies increase in strengthwith height, and are more intense inwinter months when north-southtemperature gradients are higher.Therefore pollutant transport is gen-erally more efficient in winter. Andfor pollutants that are lofted higherinto the atmosphere, longer dis-tances from the Arctic become in-creasingly important as source re-gions. The eastern coasts of Asia andNorth America lie near the origins of

their respective oceanic mid-latitudestorm tracks; where these storms areaccompanied by significant rising mo-tion, pollution from these regions canbe transported to high altitudes in theArctic. The result is that emissionsfrom northern Eurasia are the largestlong-range contributors to near-surface black carbon in the Arctic. Butat rising altitudes in the Arctic atmos-phere, emissions from East Asia playan increasing role so that high up inthe troposphere these emission arethe largest source of Arctic black car-bon. Elimination of black carbon in theArctic would require widespread con-trols throughout the northern hemi-sphere. But since low altitude blackcarbon exerts the strongest influenceon surface temperature, aggressivelytargeting emissions originating innorthern Europe could be a priority; ofcourse in addition to emissions occur-ring within the Arctic from stationary

SOURCES AND SEASONALITY OF SHORT-LIVED CLIMATE FORCERSBY ASHWIN KUMAR

Unlike most elsewhere in the world,short-lived forcers in the Arctic pri-marily originate in other regions andare transported over long distances.There are local sources in the Arctic;the main ones being methane fromwetlands, as well as ozone precursorsand black carbon from ships and fromboreal forest fires. But mitigation ofnear-term Arctic climate change re-quires attention to distant sources ofthese pollutants; and these sourcesand long-range transport effectsmust be understood. The exception ismethane. Being long-lived and well-mixed, its mitigation can be under-taken anywhere to affect Arctic forc-ing. Here there are opportunities forreduction such as capturing methanegas from coal mines and from solidwaste in landfills. Furthermore, thecaptured methane can be used forpower production or heating. Possi-bilities also exist for repairing meth-


Climate Alert

(Continued from page 8)and marine fuel sources, and fromforest fires.

The strongest influence on Arcticozone is from nitrogen and nitric ox-ide emissions in North America. How-ever, owing to the chemistry ofozone formation, controls on thesepollutants will be most effectivewhen combined with controls onother precursors: methane, volatileorganic compounds, and carbonmonoxide. Reducing transportationand industrial emissions from sourceregions in North America, togetherwith controlling agricultural fires innorthern Eurasia, can contribute tocontrolling ozone in the Arctic. Fur-thermore, if shipping in the Arcticgrows in volume, controlling emittednitrogen oxides might also becomecrucial to this effort.

Seasonal variation in emissions andin the various chemical and physicalprocesses involved in long-rangetransport causes some source regionsof short-lived Arctic pollutants to be-come more important during someparts of the year. However, the Arcticsummer is when the surface tem-perature response closely follows themagnitude of the Arctic surface ra-diative forcing. During other seasons,the Arctic temperature response ismore strongly associated with overallnorthern hemispheric forcing.This highlights the importance oflarge scale intra-hemispheric energytransport for the Arctic surface tem-perature during months besides thesummer. A corresponding mitigationstrategy might be to prioritize thosesources which, in summer months,originate much of the long-rangetransport of short lived pollutants tothis region. With black carbon andozone, surface air concentrations in

the summertime Arctic are most sen-sitive to emissions from Europe;emissions from North America andEast Asia have a significant but muchsmaller effect, particularly for blackcarbon. Likewise, European blackcarbon emissions are the largestsource of surface deposition in theArctic, and for deposition overGreenland in the summer months. Inspring, emissions from North Amer-ica are most important for depositionover Greenland. On a per-mass basisduring spring and summer, deposi-tion of black carbon over Greenlandis most sensitive to emissions fromNorth America while deposition overthe rest of the Arctic is most sensitiveto emissions from Europe.

Prioritizing the mitigation of blackcarbon emissions from Europe, fol-lowed by emissions from NorthAmerica, will likely have the largestimpact on Arctic surface forcing dur-ing the months when the sun is shin-ing brightest and when local forcingplays the major role. While the ef-fects of black carbon mitigation willonly be felt during the sunlit monthsin the Arctic, some measures such asenergy efficiency improvements canalso reduce emissions of greenhousegases that play a warming role year-round. As for ozone, emissions reduc-tions from Europe will be importantto decrease summer forcing in theArctic; and the necessary invest-ments will yield benefits throughoutthe years. Ultimately, however, thefate of Arctic ice is influenced by sur-face regional conditions and thephase of precipitation at all times ofthe year. Outside the summermonths, energy transport to the re-gion plays an important role in theenergy budget; so short-lived forcersthroughout the northern hemisphere

must be eventually brought undercontrol. Measures to mitigate long-range transport of short-lived forcerscan thus have indirect benefits for theArctic, by decreasing warming closerto the source, particularly when imple-mented in mid-latitudes. In addition,local co-benefits of reduced air pollu-tion and improved crop yields fromdecreased surface ozone could also beconsidered in planning such actions.

Conditions in the summer pose animportant challenge. Present-dayaerosols in the Arctic tend to produceclouds brighter and longer-lasting thanthey would otherwise be, by distribut-ing cloud water over more droplets. Inthe summer when the sun is shiningbrightly, this leads more sunlight to bereflected back to space. Reducingblack carbon aerosols in the Arcticwould tend to diminish this effect, off-setting some of the beneficial effect ofmitigating direct warming. In the cru-cial summer months, it would then beimportant to know what the net effectof mitigating black carbon on surfacewarming is, and there haven’t beenany studies till date of this issue. Inwinter over the Arctic, aerosols havethe same effect on clouds but the con-sequences for radiation balance areopposite because longwave radiationplays the major role. As a result byreducing longwave cloud forcing of thesurface, mitigating black carbon duringwinter months could yield a furtheradvantage for surface climate.

In summary, there are many optionsfor reducing Arctic climate forcing. Atthe same time, climate effects of ac-tions will be influenced significantly byfactors outside human control. There-fore it is necessary to explore robuststrategies that demonstrably reducesummer radiative forcing in the Arctic,while also creating conditions for re-ductions throughout the mid-latitudesand for much of the year.


Climate Alert

Residents of northern Alaska andCanada are expected to experiencethe most disruptive impacts of cli-mate change. Approximately 65,500people live in areas of Alaska that arecurrently dealing with some of thesedisruptive impacts. Native Alaskansmake up the majority of this popula-tion, and they continue to practicetraditional subsistence lifestyles, liv-ing in small villages inaccessible byroads. As the climate changes at anunprecedented rate, their traditionalway of life and their villages arethreatened.

Climate change has brought moreextreme and variable weather to theArctic, creating hardships for NativeAlaskans. The unpredictable weathermakes gathering subsistence re-sources more dangerous. Ice condi-tions caused by later freezes and ear-lier thaws are especially hazardous tohunters and can even prevent hunt-ing trips. Warmer winters and lesssnow fall makes traveling by snowmachine difficult if not impossible.Melting sea ice has forced hunters totravel farther distances in order toreach the edge of the ice to findgame.

The unpredictable weather hasalso brought more largestorms, resulting in floodingand erosion that endanger en-tire villages. A 2004 U.S. Gov-ernment Accountability Officereport recognized 86% of Na-tive Alaskan villages face risksof flooding and erosion, withfour facing imminent threats.By 2009, 31 villages were iden-tified as facing imminent threats.Twelve villages are currently inthe process of relocating or

exploring relocation options, and theresidents have been called the firstU.S. climate change refugees. In ad-dition to the emotional toll of leavingtheir village, Native Alaskans are fac-ing financial and bureaucratic chal-lenges before being able to relocate.These are especially difficult hurdlesfor communities that are used to be-ing largely self-sufficient.

As Native Alaskans struggle withextreme weather, they are also deal-ing with food storage concerns. Notonly is melting permafrost damagingvillage infrastructure and hinderingtravel, but it is harming traditional icecellars. Some Native Alaskans havediscovered their permafrost “freezers”no longer keep whale meat and muk-tuk (whale blubber) frozen yearround. This creates the potential forhealth risks as a result of eatingspoiled food and presents a new chal-lenge for communities that may har-vest one whale annually and make itlast all year. Additionally, enteringdamaged ice cellars is dangerous be-cause they have a greater chance ofcollapsing.

These are just a few examples ofhow Native Alaskans have already

been affected by climate change. Asclimate change continues, they willface new challenges and furtherthreats to their traditional culture.Mary Pete, a Native Alaskan and theCommissioner of the U.S. Arctic Re-search Commission, explains the im-portance of her lifestyle, “Throughsubsistence, indigenous peoples areable to connect with the land and ourplace in it; we derive our identitiesfrom our homeland.” If climate changeis allowed to run its course, a culturemay be lost.

Effects of Climate Change on Native AlaskansBy Molissa Udevitz

Volume 23, No. 1

Alaskan Ice Cellar. Photo: Kenji Yoshikawa.

Current and projected sea ice and vegetation condi-tions in the Arctic. Projections for sea ice are 2080-2100; vegetation 2090-2100. Source: IPCC, 2007.


Climate Alert

Evidence in the scientific literatureclearly indicates that the Arctic iswarming at an unprecedented rate,which is likely to have many impactson the environment and climate atboth the local and global scale.Whether a particular impact is per-ceived as negative or positive oftendepends on one’s interest and is anextremely controversial topic, despitethe fact that most ‘positive’ impactstend to have negative implications forthe environment.

In terms of the potential economicgain, a warming Arctic seems favour-able for many industries. As land andsea ice melt, the Arctic becomesmuch more accessible, allowing forthe exploration of many natural re-sources that were once considerednon-beneficial to extract, includingthe mining, oil and gas, and fishingindustries. In addition, a reduction insea ice opens up new trade routes forcommercial shipping lanes, which cansave significant amounts in terms oftime, energy and capital. Other posi-tive impacts include greater potential

for agriculture at higher latitudes, anextended growing season, and in-creased energy security for the coun-tries lucky enough to have boundaryclaims within the Arctic region.

However, all of these ‘positive’ as-pects have knock-on effects, resultingin negative environmental impacts,such as habitat destruction, pollution,human-made disasters, conflict ofresources, and positive feedbackmechanisms for further climaticwarming. Even with the most rigor-ous health and safety guidelines andindustry protocols implemented, thechance of disaster occurring in theArctic is significantly greater thanmost other places on Earth, due to itsinhospitable environment, its unpre-dictable and changeable weather,and the remoteness and unfamiliarityof the Arctic to invasive human spe-cies. As a result, increasing humanpresence in the Arctic region is onlyincreasing our vulnerability to haz-ards and consequential disasters,since nature is far more prominent inthese foreign conditions.

The effects of Arctic warming aregoing to have negative implicationswhich are felt globally. Unlike theAntarctic which essentially has a rela-tively self contained climate that maytake decades or even centuries to besignificantly affected by climatewarming, the Arctic is considerablyinfluenced by anthropogenic climatewarming. If warming continues at thecurrent rate, there is a chance thatfundamental consequences will oc-cur, such as Arctic summers beingfree of sea-ice, a disruption to oceancirculation patterns, rising sea-levels,increased conflict for natural re-sources, melting permafrost, in-creased erosion, and a loss of many

Arctic species which depend on the iceto live. Not to mention the culturalimplications on native communitieswho require the sea-ice to travel,hunt, and live their lives in traditionalways.

Some of these consequences arealready being felt in the Arctic, and arelikely to become more severe as posi-tive climate feedback mechanismspersist, thus enhancing the rate ofwarming. Of particular concern is thethawing permafrost around the ArcticCircle. In addition to the direct effectsof permafrost melting, such as build-ing foundations sinking and roadsbuckling, there are indirect conse-quences of much greater significance.Methane that has been trapped un-derground for thousands of years isbeing released into the atmosphere asthe ice melts. This greenhouse gas is20-25 times more powerful at trappingheat in the atmosphere than carbondioxide, and has the ability to speedup warming in the Arctic exponentiallyas critical thresholds in the climatesystem or reached.

As a result, the economic gain fromsome industries in the Arctic in theimminent future will likely be dwarfedby the cost of global adaptation to cli-mate change. As the climate systemadjusts to warmer conditions, sea lev-els will rise, environments and wildlifewill be affected, and natural weatherevents will likely become more ex-treme, affecting the vast majority ofthe planet in some form.

Benefits and Hazards of a Warming ArcticBy Charles ffoulkes

Volume 23, No. 1

Sea Ice Extent—Aug 27, 2012. National Snowand Ice Data Center, Boulder, CO


Climate Alert

The Arctic region exhibits vast res-ervoirs of methane (CH4), found infrozen Arctic tundra soils, marinesediments including gas hydrates,and the Arctic Ocean itself. Despitethe natural variations of Arctic meth-ane release into the atmosphere, itcan also act as a dangerous positivefeedback mechanism in anthropo-genic climate change, which en-hances the warming process as in-creased levels of the gas arereleased.

The Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) indi-cate that methane concentra-tion in the atmosphere hasincreased by 150% (increasedby 2.5 times) since 1750. Fur-thermore, ice core records sug-gest that methane levels arecurrently higher than any pointin the past 650 ka, indicatingthat the influence of anthropo-genic activities has had a pro-found impact on the climate.The importance of methane inthe climate warming battle isdue to its heat trapping proper-ties. Methane is a potentgreenhouse gas which is approxi-mately 20-25 times more efficientthan Carbon Dioxide (CO2) at trappingheat in the atmosphere. As a result,even relatively small releases of thegas can have a significant influenceon regional climates. Current esti-mates suggest that the present‘global warming’ effect from green-house gases is comprised of approxi-mately 60% CO2 emissions, 20% CH4

emissions, 14% from halocarbons and6% from nitrous oxide emissions.

Methane is found in natural gas de-posits and is generated naturally bybacteria that break down organic

matter, such as in the guts of farmanimal. About two-thirds of globalmethane comes from man-madesources. The release of methane istherefore a key concern for warmingin the Arctic, which despite the fact ithas a relatively short atmosphericlifetime of only 12 years or so(comparative to CO2 which is around100 years), it still contributes an in-creased radiative forcing of approxi-

mately 0.5 w/m2.Large quantities of methane are

stored in permafrost or cryotic soil,which is soil at or below the freezingpoint of water 0 °C (32 °F) for two ormore years. In the Northern Hemi-sphere, permafrost accounts for 24%of the land, where surface air tem-peratures only fluctuate above freez-ing for short periods of the year,which maintains the frozen groundfor multiple years/decades. However,due to anthropogenic warming, theArctic soils are melting for longer pe-riods, causing noticeable quantities ofmethane to be released into the at-

mosphere from the soil, cracks in seaice and cracks in frozen lakes.Although these rates are still relativelysmall in comparison to global CH4

emissions, it is likely that within thenext few decades they will be muchmore significant as the ground contin-ues to warm, partially associated withchanges in surface albedo.

The significance of Arctic methanerelease was emphasised in a recent

study, which indicated that in2003, 2% of global CH4 emis-sions came from the Arctic lati-tudes. However, findingsshowed that by 2007, methaneemissions from the Arctic hadincreased by 31% (more thanany other region), representingan added 1m extra tons ofmethane each year. The meltingof permafrost also has addi-tional implications in the Arctisregion. As the ground becomesice-free, the soil subsides andmoves, destabilising the foun-dations of buildings, roads,pipelines etc that were onceestablished in the frozenground. In the next few dec-

ades, it is likely that melting perma-frost will have added economic impli-cations, as repairs and maintenance ofinfrastructure is required throughoutthe Arctic.

Arctic amplification associated withmethane release is therefore a seriousmatter for concern, leading some sci-entists to describe melting permafrostas a ticking time bomb that couldoverwhelm efforts to tackle climatechange. Conversely, some experts be-lieve greater attention should bemade to curb methane production,since reductions in methane emissionscould bring faster results in the fightagainst climate change due to its short-lived occurrence in the atmosphere.

IS METHANE REDUCTION THE KEY TO SLOW ARCTIC WARMING?BY CHARLES FFOULKES

Volume 23, No. 1

Extent of the northern circumpolar permafrost region and soilorganic carbon content to a depth of 1 m, estimated using the

Northern Circumpolar Soil Carbon Database.

Climate Alert

Before humans take measures tolimit the amount of carbon floodinginto our atmosphere, we must an-swer the basic question: where in theworld is the carbon?

The lithosphere (the geological partof the earth closest to the surfaceand the location of our fossil fuels) isthe number one source of carbon inthe world, with the oceans followingas the second largest source. Butwhat about the terrestrial parts ofEarth – the places where we build ourcities and homes, raise our families,and live our lives.

Forests represent the largest sourceof terrestrial carbon on the planet. Infact they store nearly all of theEarth’s terrestrial carbon and con-tinue to sequester more every year(forests sequestered an estimated 2.4gigatonnes of carbon per year from1990 to 2007). Thus, it is no surprisethat the management and conserva-tion of forests constitutes a crucialpoint of leverage for mitigating theeffects of climate change.

Of course, simply stating “forestsstore the most carbon of any terres-

trial biome” lacks depth and detail.What kinds of forests store the most?

Though most imaginations might bedrawn to luscious scenes of a tropicalrain forest dense in biodiversity, thetropical forests of the world do nothold the highest amount of carbon. Itshould be noted, however, that tropi-cal forests do play a large role inGreenhouse Gas emissions – 20% ofglobal emissions, according to conser-vation biologist Stuart Pimm of DukeUniversity. "But,” Pimm notes, “-- andit's a very big 'but' -- if you look atwhere the biggest reserves of carbonare, they're actually in the boreal for-ests of Canada and Russia and that'sbecause the forests there accumulatelarge amounts of carbon, especially inthe peat."

A recent study sponsored by theBoreal Songbird Initiative reveals thatboreal forests (also known as thetaiga) alone store more carbon thanany other terrestrial ecosystem andstore twice as much per unit of areaas tropical forests. As well, these for-ests span the largest area of any ter-restrial biome. As the executive sum-mary of their report indicates, “Theglobal boreal forest presents the

world’s best opportu-nity to apply conser-vation as a climatechange strategy…”

Due to their loca-tion, the fate of theboreal forests inextri-cably affects the fateof the Arctic. Themain threat to theArctic specificallycomes in the form offorest fires and thesubsequent release ofpyrogenic (black) car-

bon. Some studies have suggestedthat 20-50% of the black carbon ob-

served in Arctic during the month ofJuly originated from boreal forestfires. Recent observations also cor-roborate earlier findings and confirmblack carbon from the boreal forests,as a source for reducing the albedo ofthe arctic ice and snow (therefore ex-pediting both the summer meltingprocess and climate change in gen-eral). With such a high percentage ofblack carbon originating from borealfires, the need to limit their occur-rence, or control them in such a wayas to minimize the black carbon out-put, becomes crucial.

Though speculation might attributethese fires to human related sources,lightning actually sparks more firesthan any other cause. Of all the firesthat occur, 5% of the total occurrencesaccount for 85% of the land areaburned (i.e. large fires that occur lessfrequently account for the greatestamount of damage). These large fireshave increased in frequency in the lastfour decades of the twentieth century,an increase that can be attributed inpart to global warming and associateddroughts (though it should be notedthat a simply warmer planet does notnecessarily mean more forest fires).Combined with the recent prolifera-tion of the mountain pine beetle(alternatively known as spruce bee-tles), which have continued to spreadnorthward due to higher annual tem-peratures and have resulted in majorswathes of dead trees serving as per-fect tinder for fires, the boreal forestsoffer a critical point of leverage for thesituation in the Arctic. We can eitherallow the current levels of black car-bon from forest fires to persist — andpossibly increase, or we can search forstrategies to reduce the transfer ofblack carbon to the Arctic.

WHERE IN THE WORLD IS THE CARBON? – THE ROLE OF FORESTS AND FOREST FIRESBY DEVIN ROUTH

Volume 23, No. 1



Climate Alert

Many of us know that black carbonis responsible for 30% of Arcticwarming, but few are aware thatthree quarters of the black carbonand brown carbon on Arctic ice andsnow comes from crop stubble burn-ing and grass (pasture) fires, all litintentionally.

Timing of pasture fires (in Kazakh-stan and Siberia particularly) mayreduce Arctic black and brown car-bon warming by as much as 9%,based on the Australian CarbonFarming Initiative experience.

How do grassland fires compare toother emission sources?

Biomass burning stands out as thelargest source of several Arctic cli-mate forcers. The ARCTAS missionfound that biomass burning contrib-uted 39% of the Arctic black carbon,69% of Arctic methane and 48% ofArctic carbon monoxide (a precursorto ground level ozone and smog).ARCTAS also mapped the transportpathways whereby black carbonreached the Arctic.

To examine biomass burning moreclosely, we find that agricultural andgrassland fires are responsible for69% of fire activity, and forest andshrubland fires responsible for just24%, despite record forest fires in theboreal forests of northern Russia.

Previously underrated, we are start-ing to fully appreciate the impact ofcrop stubble and pasture grass fires: Agriculture and grass fire smoke

plumes rise as high as the lowerstratosphere, then can be carriedgreat distances;

ARCTAS found that agricultural andgrass fires have higher enhance-ment ratios of black carbon thanforest fires;

Lower fire temperatures and sig-nificant smouldering releases more

methane, NMVOCs and carbonmonoxide – products of incom-plete combustion.

Ice samples tell the storyBut critical evidence comes from

extensive surveys of Arctic sites in2008 and 2009, tracing the source oflight absorbing aerosols black carbonand brown carbon to crop and grassfire, boreal forest fire, marine ship-ping and other pollution. Theyfound that 75% of black carbon andbrown carbon in Arctic ice and snoworiginated from grassland and agri-cultural fires.

If we break this down in the propor-tion of fire incidence above, we findthat grassland fires may be responsi-ble for 18% of black and brown car-bon on Arctic ice and snow, and stub-ble burning responsible for 56%.

Huge mitigation potentialRussia is the world’s fourth largest

wheat producer, with extensive crop-ping areas, and the biggest Arcticcontributor of black carbon fromopen burning; Siberia is experiencingdeforestation fires for agriculturalexpansion; and Kazakhstan has ex-tensive pasture burning. Crop stub-ble is often burned following harvestand pasture grassland is burned toremove unpalatable old growth. For-est fires can be started by lightningstrike; however 30% originate fromrunaway agricultural fires.

Each year an average areaof 8.2 million hectares ofRussia is burnt. Many wouldremember the catastrophicRussian wildfires of summer2010, initiated by a pro-longed drought and extremetemperatures. Again in Mayand June 2012 hundreds ofwild fires burned eastern

Russia and the Far East, mostly initi-ated by agricultural and deforestationfires. Following the collapse of theUSSR, burning to remove crop stubblebecame far more common, and thehuge mitigation potential has beendiscussed by many so will not be ad-dressed here.

Grassland fire mitigation potentialHowever, grassland fires (responsible

for 18% of Arctic black and brown car-bon) have received little attention.Australian experience has shown thattiming of pasture fires (burning earlyin the dry season rather than late) canreduce emissions by as much as 52%,leading to the Carbon Farming Initia-tive, which will compensate Australiancattle and sheep farmers for changingtheir burning practices.

Pasture fire is also very effective insuppressing woody forest re-growth.A dramatic example of this was givenin a 2011 paper in Nature that found51% of the African continent wouldrevert to woodland and forest if thecontinual pasture burning wasstopped. Other studies have proposedthis radical change in land use as thelowest cost, large scale global mitiga-tion option, as the world’s pasturesreverted to their original forest cover,soaking up carbon in the trees andsoil. Clearly, stubble burning andgrassland fires must be a prime targetfor mitigation.

GRASSLAND FIRES AND ARCTIC WARMINGBY GERARD WEDDERBURN BISSHOP


Climate Alert

Aircraft emissions can influence Arc-tic climate in one of two ways. Theproducts of emission can directlywarm the Arctic, or they can warm airin other regions that is then trans-ported to the Arctic. Carbon-dioxideand water vapor comprise the largestproducts emitted in jet plumes. Theeffects are not negligible: aviationaccounts for about 2% of anthropo-genic carbon dioxide emitted glob-ally. As a result of the long atmos-pheric residence times of carbon-dioxide, the long-term effects on theArctic would be the same no matterwhere the aircraft is located. Watervapor is a greenhouse gas, and emis-sions in both the troposphere andstratosphere contribute to warmingthe surface. In addition, stratosphericconcentrations of water vapor cancontribute to ozone destruction. Athigh latitudes where the height of thetropopause is lower, flights can spenda longer time in the stratospherewhile cruising. The stratosphere doesnot exhibit the weather of the tropo-sphere in all its manifestations, sopollutants last longer there. Howeverozone in the Arctic stratosphere doesnot simply stay there until destroyed.Instead there is a net downwardtransport to the troposphere. There-fore, while surface ozone concentra-tions usually have a larger effect onsurface climate, high altitude(especially stratospheric) emissions ofozone precursors can initiate a morelong-lasting effect.

However, the above account does-n’t acknowledge the complexity ofozone formation. Airline flight con-tributes to ozone formation by emit-ting nitrogen oxides. Aircraft enginesalso produce carbon-monoxide to asimilar extent as nitrogen oxides; thistoo is an ozone precursor. However

the emissions of carbon-monoxidefrom natural and anthropogenicsources are much more abundantthan for nitrogen oxides. Thereforeairline emission of nitrogen oxide isits primary influence on the rate ofozone formation. Ground-level ozoneis more sensitive to nitrogen oxideemissions when these occur at alti-tudes where jet aircrafts fly. This isbecause nitrogen oxides at theseheights persist longer in the atmos-phere, being immune to rapid deposi-tion to the ground via precipitationand being less susceptible to dissolu-tion in water to form nitric acid.

In the Arctic, these effects can bemore severe. So aircraft emissions ofnitrogen oxides can significantly af-fect ground level ozone. In addition,aircraft emit black carbon aerosol,which absorbs sunlight and therebywarms the atmospheric layer whereit is found. Because of the high alti-tude at which this is emitted, aircraftemissions of black carbon can betransported long distances -- so theeffect doesn’t come from Arctic over-flights alone. One study has esti-mated that global aircraft emissionscontribute to about 10- 20% of highaltitude black carbon found in theArctic troposphere.

Therefore mitigating nitric oxideemissions by Arctic over-flights, to-gether with practical measures toreduce aircraft emissions of blackcarbon, nitrogen oxides, and carbon-dioxide and water vapor can contrib-ute to moderating Arctic warming.Global passenger traffic has been es-timated to have risen 5.3% each yearbetween 2000 and 2007. There is noreason to expect such trends toabate. Large growth in flights dedi-cated to freight traffic is also likely.No single action will reduce Arctic

forcing from airlines, and a range ofsolutions is required. Possible solu-tions range from avoiding airline travelwhere possible, technological solu-tions to improve energy efficiency offlight and emissions intensity of jetfuel, logistic innovations in air trafficcontrol that reduce the time spenttaxiing or airborne, and altering thecomposition of flights towards largerones to improve the efficiency of fueluse for transporting masses long dis-tances. Serious efforts in these differ-ent areas are already being developed.

Reducing Arctic over-flight mightalso be part of the solution. In a paperexamining the effects of such rerout-ing, Mark Jacobson and co-authorsreport a 32.1% rise in the number ofover-flights between 2004 and 2010,to over 50,000 over-flights in 2010.Rerouting such flights to avoid the Arc-tic would have different effects: re-routed flights would have to traverselonger paths to reach their destina-tions, so total emissions would behigher. However, Arctic region emis-sions of short-lived forcers could beavoided. The study of Jacobson andcolleagues suggests that global surfacetemperature rise would be slightlymoderated by reducing Arctic over-flight. The main reason for this is thathigher precipitation around the newroutes would decrease the time spentby most aircraft pollutants in the at-mosphere, as they would be washedout more quickly. Numerical estimatesof such effects are likely to be uncer-tain. However, as long as aircraft pol-lutants contribute to Arctic warming,re-routing a large fraction of flights toavoid the Arctic can be a part of ef-forts to slow Arctic climate change.This could also have the additionalbenefit of moderating concentrationsof water vapor in the Arctic strato-sphere, and thereby reduce strato-spheric ozone depletion in the Arctic.

ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE AVIATION SECTORBY CHANELLE MAYER

Volume 23, No. 1


Climate Alert

In 1969, the Humble Oil Companymodified an oil tanker into a 1,000foot-long ice-breaker that then sailedfrom New York City to Alaska’s Prud-hoe Bay and back via the NorthwestPassage. While the trip was a success,the company abandoned its plan fora fleet of mammoth icebreakers, inpart because the icy voyage wasdeemed too risky. Today, however,shipping routes through the Arcticare becoming increasingly popular asthe ice disappears.

With the ships come concentratedblack carbon emissions to the vulner-able region, where they deposit onsnow and ice to accelerate melting. Itis estimated that shipping emissionsof black carbon in the Arctic maydouble or triple over the global rateby 2050. Cost-effective technologiesto reduce marine black carbon andother emissions are therefore espe-cially critical for climate mitigation.

International shipping is responsiblefor 2.7% of global carbon dioxideemissions, roughly equal to 870 mil-lion metric tons per year. The Inter-national Maritime Organization(IMO) estimates that shipping emis-sions will increase by a factor of twoto three by 2050 under business asusual conditions. Black carbon emis-sions from shipping, are currentlyestimated to be between 71,000 and160,000 metric tons per year, ap-proximately 1-2% percent of globalblack carbon.

The nations of the Arctic Council,which currently account for 90% ofArctic shipping activities, have be-come proactive in addressing the po-tential impact of shipping in the re-gion. Norway, Sweden and theUnited States submitted a documentto the IMO in 2010 that laid out po-tential approaches to reduce black

carbon emissions in the Arctic.A 2011 agreement among the 170

member nations of the IMO presentsmassive implications for the entireshipping sector and, by extension,the Arctic. The newly-establishedEnergy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)will set energy efficiency standardsfor all large ships constructed begin-ning in 2015. The EEDI will initiallyrequire 10% efficiency improvementsover the 1999-2009 baseline, scalingup to 20% in 2020 and 30% in 2025.

The EEDI represents the first majorglobal and legally binding effort tocontrol emissions from an entire sec-tor, and should help to overcomemany of the economic barriers toincreasing marine efficiency, namelythat ship owners typically charter outtheir vessels to ship operators. Op-erators are responsible for fuel andother operating costs, leaving ownerslittle incentive to invest in more effi-cient technologies.

If implemented on schedule, theEEDI is estimated to save $52 billionin fuel and 263 million tons of CO2per year (over business as usual) by2030. However, any country canchoose to delay the requirements byup to four years. In conjunction withthe EEDI, the IMO also establishedthe Ship Energy Efficiency Manage-ment Plan (SEEMP), which will re-quire that all ships have an opera-tions plan to optimize energy effi-ciency, but does little to approve orenforce such plans.

Apart from the EEDI, speed reduc-tion remains one of the greatest op-portunities to decrease emissionsand fuel use from all ships. A 10%speed reduction would decrease fuelconsumption 15-19%, while a 20%speed reduction would decrease con-sumption 36-39%. Slower speeds

would not necessarily impact a ship’sport-to-port travel time, becausemany ships sit offshore upon arrivalfor one or more days waiting for spaceto open up in port. Slower transoce-anic speeds could reduce port conges-tion and, with proper traffic control orbooking systems, allow ships to pullstraight into port.

Shore-based power allows a dockedship plug in to the local grid to run itsauxiliary systems rather than idle itsengine for the duration in port. Bothship and port must have the properinfrastructure, and both sides must actfor either to see a return on its invest-ment. Emission reduction technologiesthat ships can adopt independentlyinclude waste heat recovery systemsfor their engines, upgrades to the pro-peller and the autopilot system, andair lubrication systems that pumpcompressed air across the hull to re-duce friction between the boat andthe water.

Several technologies are available tospecifically reduce shipping emissionsof black carbon and other particulatematter (PM). Diesel particulate filters(DPFs) placed in the ship’s exhauststream can scrub out black carbonemissions by 70-90%. Slide valves canalso inexpensively reduce PM emis-sions by approximately 25%, and wa-ter-in-fuel emulsification (WiFE) on-demand systems for ships can reducePM emissions 25-50% at relatively low-cost. Additionally, WiFE systems canpair with slide valves for further PMreductions, and both technologies alsoprovide large NOx emissions savings.

Shipping efficiency technologies arepoised to become much more preva-lent due to the IMO’s strong actionson energy efficiency and increasingpressure to protect the Arctic fromshipping impacts.

IMPROVEMENTS IN SHIPPING EFFICIENCYBY JOHN-MICHAEL CROSS, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY STUDY INSTITUTE


Climate Alert

The Oil and Gas Industry inthe Arctic region is fast becom-ing a serious concern both forenvironmental and economicalreasons. Over the past century,rapid temperature increases inthe Arctic region have initiatedsignificant reductions in bothland and sea ice, with 2012 set-ting a new record for minimumsummer sea ice. The‘convenient’ melting of this icehas seen the once inhospitableArctic environment becomemuch more accessible for theextraction of fossil fuels duringa time when global energy se-curity is crucial.

The US Geological Survey esti-mates that the Arctic may behome to 30% of the planet'sundiscovered natural gas re-serves and 13% of its undiscoveredoil, which may equate to around 1669Trillion cubic feet of natural gas and90 billion barrels of crude oil, with anestimated economic value at thewells of $3.3 Trillion and $9 Trillionrespectively.

The economic war for resources inthe Arctic is being led by Shell (RDS/A), which has already spent $4.5 bil-lion since 2005 preparing to explorefor oil off Alaska’s north coast. Cono-coPhillips (COP), Statoil Asa (STL), andExxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) also haveagreements to explore the Arcticfields, in addition to plans from BP Plc(BP/), Imperial Oil Ltd. (IMO), ChevronCorp. (CVX) and others to explore theregion.

However, new resources of fossilfuels in this region will have funda-mental consequences for the fragileecosystems which flourish in the Arc-tic, both directly through leakage and

spills, and indirectly through habitatmodifications, as a result of a warmerclimate associated with emissionsreleased in the oil and gas process.

There are many mechanisms inwhich GHG emissions are releasedduring the process of oil and gas ex-traction. This includes the Explorationand Production process, the Trans-p o r t a t i o n , R e f i n i n g a n dDelivery phases, as well as the finalConsumption of the fuel. Carbon Di-oxide (CO2) is released during mostphases of extraction from the wells tothe consumer, due to combustionemissions from fuel used to powerthe equipment and transportationemissions from trucks and shipping.

In addition, short-lived climateforcers are also a product of oil andgas extraction, which are potentiallymore significant for the Arctic overthe short-term than CO2 emissions.

The fundamental concern is meth-

ane (CH4), which is largely re-leased into the atmospherethrough fugitive emissions fromrock fracturing, equipmentleaks, flaring and from compres-sor stations. The implications ofthis are severe, since methane issome 20-25 times more efficientthan CO2 at trapping heat in theatmosphere. Furthermore, dur-ing the primary and secondaryproduction phases, nitrous ox-ide (N2O) and hydrocarbon Vola-tile Organic Compounds (VOCs)are emitted from the dehydra-tor equipment and wastewaterdisposal. Although relatively lesssignificant as an emissionsource, when released, hydro-carbon VOCs indirectly contrib-ute to the tropospheric ozoneload, as well as assist in prolong-

ing the life of CH4 in the atmosphere,therefore enhancing GHG warming.

In recent years, the US has seen asurge in natural gas productionthrough a process known as hydraulicfracturing, which is aimed at reducingcoal consumption as an energy sourceand therefore reducing CO2 emissions.However, new research from the Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration (NOAA) suggests thatnatural gas may not be as clean as firstthought, due to a 3-4% loss of the gas,and therefore CO2 and CH4 to the at-mosphere.

Evidently, the planned explorationfor oil and gas reserves in the Arcticwill have profound effects on the localclimate, which has already seen a win-ter temperature increase of 3-4°C (5-7°F) since 1960. Consequently, the oiland gas industries need to enforcerigorous risk management strategies inorder to minimise the effects on boththe Arctic environment and climate ifthey are to persist with exploration.

OIL AND GAS IN THE ARCTIC – A FUEL FOR CLIMATE WARMINGBY CHARLES FFOULKES

Volume 23, No. 1

Phases during the Oil and Gas production process which areassociated with the release of dangerous emissions.

American Petroleum Institute


Climate Alert

Flaring and venting of natural gasoften occur as part of the oil and gasproduction process, as well as inmetal and chemical industries. Flar-ing is the burning of natural gas in anopen flame and venting is direct re-lease of natural gas into the atmos-phere.

The Canadian Centre for EnergyInformation details potential reasonsfor flaring and venting, which include:volumes of solution gas from crudeoil wells that are too small or remoteto justify infrastructure such as pipe-lines and processing facilities; tosafely dispose of gas during inci-dences or “upsets” in drilling, pro-duction, processing, or pipelining; toestablish flow rates and gas composi-tion at wells; to dispose of naturalgas that has been contaminated withmud, fluids, or acids; and to disposeof gas containing H2S.

While there may be safety reasonsfor these practices, it is common forgases to be flared or vented simply asa way to dispose of unwanted naturalgas released during crude oil extrac-tion or in the gas refining process.These activities waste substantialamounts of natural gas that couldotherwise be used as energy. In fact,the World Bank estimates that theannual volume of natural gas being

flared and vented worldwide eachyear is about 110 billion cubic meters(about 3% of all gas marketed in theworld), enough to provide naturalgas for the annual consumption ofCentral and South America or that ofGermany and Italy. NOAA estimatesthat these figures are even higher,with flaring in the oil industry wast-ing 150-170 billion cubic meters ofgas each year, which equates to 5%of global natural gas production andat least $40 billion in natural gassales.

In addition, flaring and venting emitcarbon dioxide, methane, and othergases that contribute to global warm-ing. In venting, methane is releaseddirectly into the atmosphere. Ventedgases can also include other hydro-carbons, water vapor, and carbondioxide. Flaring mainly producescarbon dioxide and water as wasteproducts of combustion; however,combustion is often incompletewhich can result in emissions of car-bon monoxide, nitrous oxide, un-burned hydrocarbons, particulatematter (including soot or black car-bon), and VOCs. The EPA estimatesthat properly-operated flares achieve98% combustion efficiency and thathydrocarbon and CO emissions areless than 2% of hydrocarbons in thegas stream. While these emissionsare small compared to CO2 emis-sions, methane is a potent green-house gas with a global warming po-tential about 23x greater than carbondioxide on a 100-year time horizonand 56-72x greater on a 20-year timehorizon.

It has been estimated that develop-ing countries account for over 85% ofgas flaring and venting, with interna-tional reduction efforts focused on

countries such as Nigeria, Iraq, andIran. This has been attributed, atleast in part, to lack of clear opera-tional processes and regulatoryframework.

In the context of global greenhousegas emissions, emissions from vent-ing and flaring represent 4% of an-thropogenic methane emissions. EPAestimates global methane emissionsfrom the oil and gas industriesequivalent to 1,354 million metrictons of CO2 in 2010, which translatesto roughly 20% of global methaneemissions (18% and 2%, respec-tively). This figure includes lossesthroughout the production processfrom leaking equipment, transmis-sion, storage, and gas distributionlines.

In 2002, the World Bank createdthe Global Gas Flaring ReductionPublic-Private Partnership, and coun-tries responsible for 70% of flaringemissions have signed on as part-ners. The partnership emphasizeslegal, regulatory, and financial envi-ronments to encourage use of natu-ral gas, including carbon markets.This and program also promotes bestpractices in industry.

In a stakeholder consultation withNorway, the World Bank recom-mended international gas marketsand reinjection as major solutions toflaring emissions. Specific actionsrecommended were: increased lique-fied natural gas exports, regionalpipelines, gas-to-liquid technology(e.g. synthetic diesel), regulation, andsmall-scale use for liquefied petro-leum gas and distributed power. Inthe United States, the EPA’s NaturalGas STAR program was created toencourage natural gas and oil compa-nies to reduce methane emissions.

EMISSIONS FROM FLARING AND VENTINGBY LAUREN SMITH

Offshore flaring operation (Photo: Elvidge, 2007)


Climate Alert

The Arctic Climate Action Registry(ACAR) is dedicated to mitigatinggreenhouse gases and emissions thatdirectly affect the Arctic region. TheArctic is at particular risk to warmingtemperatures due to reductions insnow cover and sea ice. The loss ofthese valuable cooling and albedoeffects has amplified regional warm-ing in the Arctic. In addition to anincreased rate of regional warming,Arctic climate change has set intomotion feedback loops that have po-tentially devastating implications forthe entire planet.

ACAR’s mitigation efforts revolvearound reducing emissions of threemajor contributors to Arctic warming– black carbon, tropospheric ozone,and methane. These short-lived pol-lutants are significant drivers of cli-mate change, and also contribute toboth human and agricultural healthproblems. ACAR seeks to stimulateprojects with immediate plans to re-duce these emissions.

ACAR is currently focused on a vari-ety of activities: a project registry inwhich companies and other entitiescan register their projects aimed atreducing the targeted emissions; theapplication of life cycle assessment(LCA) to determine an Arctic ClimateImpact Profile; and participation byindividuals, agencies, institution, andcompanies in the Arctic Climate Pro-tection Network, which will help pub-licize a commitment to reversing Arc-tic warming; and outreach and edu-cation for businesses, schools, andthe interested public.

The initial executive director ofACAR is John Topping, President ofthe Climate Institute. Steering Com-mittee members include three mem-bers from outside the US, LuisRoberto Acosta of Mexico , Execu-

tive Vice President of the ClimateInstitute; Senator Heherson Alvarez ,Climate Change Commissioner fromthe Philippines; and Peter Globen-sky, Principal Consultant, BASA, andformer CEO, Canadian Council ofMinisters of the Environment . USbased members are Daniel Wildcat,founder of the American IndianAlaska Native Climate Change Work-ing group and a professor at HaskellIndian Nations University; RobertCorell, Chair of the Arctic ClimateImpact Assessment; Michael Mac-Cracken, Chief Scientist at the Cli-mate Institute; Linda Schade, Execu-tive Director of the Black Carbon Re-duction Council; Stephen Leather-man, Director of the Laboratory forCoastal Research at Florida Interna-tional University; Gary Dodge, Direc-tor of Science and Certification at theForest Stewardship Council of theUnited States; Charles Bayless, a for-mer utility CEO and board chairmanof the North American Energy Alli-ance ; Robert Engelman, President ofthe Worldwatch Institute; SteveApfelbaum , President, Applied Eco-logical Services; Tim Warman, VicePresident for Climate and Energy ofthe National Wildlife Federation;Stanley Rhodes, president of Scien-tific Certification Systems; John Noel,President of the Southern Alliance forClean Energy; Carol Werner, Execu-tive Director of the Environmentaland Energy Study Institute; ConnNugent, President of the Heinz Cen-ter; Ata Qureshi , who coordinatedthe first major climate change coun-try studies in Asia; and Paul Bartlett,an environmental scientist expert inpollutant transport. In anticipationof the broadening of ACAR’s cover-age well past the US, efforts are un-derway to recruit Steering Commit-

tee members in Canada, Russia,Greenland and Scandinavia.

Charles Ffoulkes, who received anM. Sc. from University of Exeter andis serving as Graduate Research Fel-low at the Climate Institute’s Cen-ter for Environmental LeadershipTraining (CELT), has been coordinat-ing activities of a team of 21 VirtualFellows and Interns working in sup-port of ACAR. He has worked withLauren Smith, Editor -in -Chief of Cli-mate Alert, to produce this ArcticSpecial Issue of Climate Alert. Chris-topher Phillipp, an Emmy winningfilm producer, who is leading newmedia education efforts for the Cli-mate Institute, is preparing a shortfilm on climate change and the Arcticfocused on reduction of short- livedclimate forcers. He has created awebsite, http://gamelab.info/ to em-power CELT members and others tomaster play and even design problemsolving games. Several CELT partici-pants including Ma Ko Quah Jones,Anda Zhang and Xiaomimg He atDartmouth and Devin Routh at YaleSchool of Forestry and EnvironmentalStudies are collaborating to producea problem solving game focused onArctic climate mitigation. MeanwhileACAR has benefited from work ofLinda Schade, Executive Director ofBlack Carbon Reduction Council, andLinda Brown, Senior Vice President ofScientific Certification Systems inhelping develop a work plan. Work-ing in collaboration with Climate In-stitute Chief Scientist Michael Mac-Cracken, Ashwin Kumar, who re-cently earned his PhD at CarnegieMellon University, is seeking to de-velop an agenda of research issueswhich will enable ACAR to optimizeeffectiveness of its investments inreducing radiative forcing affectingthe Arctic.

ARCTIC CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRYBY ALISON SINGER

Founded in 1986, the Climate Institute was the first non-profit organizationestablished primarily to address climate change issues. Working with an extensive

network of experts, the Institute has served as a bridge between the scientificcommunity and policy-makers and has become a respected facilitator of dialogue tomove the world toward more effective cooperation on climate change responses.

The Climate Institute’s mission is to …

CATALYZE innovative and practical policy solutions toward climate stabilization and educate the generalpublic of the gravity of climate change impacts.

ENHANCE the resilience of humanity and natural systems to respond to global climate change impactsespecially among vulnerable groups (e.g. Native American tribes and Small Islands).

WORK internationally as a bridge between policy-makers, scientists and environmental institutions.

900 17th Street NWSuite 700

Washington DC 20006Phone : (202) 552-4723

Fax : (202) 737-6410Email : [email protected]

http://www.climate.org

ON THE COVER:

Top: Seawall built for erosion in the village of Kivalina, AK.Photo by Bretwood Higman, Erin McKittrick, Ground Truth Trekking.

Bottom, Left: Melt ponds on the surface of Arctic sea ice. Photo: NASA/Kathryn Hansen.

Bottom, Center: Black carbon deposits on snow. Photo: NILU, Norwegian Institute for Air Research.

Bottom, Right: Greenland ice sheet surface melt in 2012.Photo: Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI/NASA GSFC, and Jesse Allen, NASA Earth Observatory.

CLIMATECLIMATECLIMATE INSTITUTEINSTITUTEINSTITUTE

Climate AlertAlertPublished periodicallyPublished periodically

by the Climate Instituteby the Climate Institute© 2012© 2012

ISSN 1071ISSN 1071 ––32713271

Sir Crispin Tickell, ChairmanSir Crispin Tickell, ChairmanJohn C. Topping, PresidentJohn C. Topping, President

Lauren Smith, EditorLauren Smith, Editor--inin--ChiefChiefCharles Ffoulkes, Assistant EditorCharles Ffoulkes, Assistant Editor

The Climate Institute is a nonThe Climate Institute is a non--profit,profit,501 (c)(3) charitable, educational organization.501 (c)(3) charitable, educational organization.

It receives financial support fromIt receives financial support fromgovernment agencies, foundations,government agencies, foundations,

corporations and associations, environmentalcorporations and associations, environmentaland research organizations, and individuals.and research organizations, and individuals.

climate alertclimate.org/archive/publications/climate alerts/sept-2012.pdfaction has been provided...

Documents