Working group reports WG1-WG12
- Hira Almas
- Nov 11, 2024
- 74 min read
WG 1. Fifth Mayday C4 Event
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA) Saturday September 21, 2024 Working Group 1 (WG 1) : How to create and invest in a Green business. Co-Chairs: Barbara Horspool & Rupert Meadows. Others: George Weston (CEO, BA Foods); Hugo Spowers (Founder & CEO, Riversimple).
This was the only WG that failed to reach a consensus. Perhaps this was inevitable, but it was also a great pity as the four people involved all brought considerable experience and expertise to the table. They drew up a series of recommendations designed to make businesses more sustainable.
RRJ’s view was that the recommendations did not go far enough. They were appropriate for creating and investing in a sustainable business, within the constraints of a free market, with profit as the priority, but that they were inadequate for the creation of a steady state economy, which must be the ultimate goal if we are to live within planetary resources. RRJ suggested an addendum to the report by WG1, but the ensuing debate revealed a fault line within WG1, with two members refusing to sign up to the new document, and two more unhappy about the process. A further attempt was made to produce a consensus report with just three members participating, but again it failed to address the essential problem which is the Companies Act of 2006 which reads as follows (Section 172): ‘Directors are legally required to promote the success of the company’.
The term ‘success’ is not defined, but guidance supplied by the now-defunct Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) equates success with the ‘long-term increases in value’. In other words, success is defined in purely monetary terms.
RRJ had discussed this issue in his book, The Gilgamesh Gene Revisited in 2021, so this was not a new concept as the following quotation demonstrates:
‘Directors are also required to ‘have regard’ to a list of factors which includes environmental impacts, but the term ‘have regard’ is a far weaker legal requirement than other possible terms such as ‘prioritise’. As the late Polly Higgins has pointed out in her book, Eradicating Ecocide, the net result is that whenever there appears to be a conflict of interest between the financial health of a company and protecting public health or the environment, profit trumps the planet every time. There is no possibility of persuading or forcing Boards of Directors to act responsibly until this Act is repealed and replaced with a legally-binding UN mandate to prohibit damage to ecosystems’
It should be added that there is even less chance of persuading the managing boards of oil companies, where executive pay is often linked to maximising profits from fossil fuels, as demonstrated by BPs repeated failures to go “Beyond Petroleum”.
The problem was addressed in an email from RRJ sent on Oct 4, 2024 to the remaining members of WG4:
Who says that it’s not the job of Government to dictate business models? Is not the Companies Act doing precisely that?
And since it’s being slavishly followed by corporations who actually hide behind it as an excuse for not addressing environmental issues Then it either needs to be repealed or amended
Or am I missing something here?
This prompted further debate amongst the 3 remaining members of WG1, who drew up an agreed position which included the phrase “prioritising profit over utility”. RRJ objected to
the ambiguous nature of the term “utility”; which was then clarified by Hugo Spowers as follows:
Dear Robin,
I think we are disagreeing here for no better reason than we haven't agreed on what we mean by various terms. I am covering various objections in your recent emails! For better or worse, this is what I mean by:
1. Business model. This is the strategy that a company adopts, what is is offering and what it charges for. This is enormously important because it dictates where profits come from. If I sell cars (in the conventional way), I make more money from obsolescence (market can absorb more cars) and high running costs (average markup of 1500% on spare parts). This means I focus on lowest possible unit cost, to be competitive and maximise margin, with no thought for anything that really matters. This applies to the sale of most manufactured goods. However, it is a company decision not a matter of legislation and nothing to do with the Companies Act.
2. The expression of 'Utility' is a mainstay of economics and I think is widely understood. In the case of cars, it is mobility, the service of getting about in a personal freedom machine, as opposed to the physical asset, the car. We can use the word 'services' if you prefer but it is not the correct term and it means something else – the service sector.
3. Profit should not be a dirty word but I quite understand why it is currently. Maximising profit if your profit comes from consuming resources and is maximised by externalising all sorts of cost on society is obviously bad – but that is a consequence of a 'business model' that rewards the wrong thing. Most of our large and troublesome corporates are structured in such ways. We have no hope of shifting the private sector from profit maximisation any time soon, so the quickest route to sustainable outcomes is to develop and encourage (as recommended by WG 1) business models that profit from maximising the economic utility for minimal use of resources and energy, locking up finite resources on the balance sheet so that revenue gradually decouples from virgin material extraction.
4. Circular Economy. This is designed to do the above – make more money from doing the right thing than business as usual makes from doing the wrong thing. There is nothing wrong about profit in that instance. And circularising is a necessary but not sufficient condition for sustainability. But it's a good way of harnessing the undoubted vigour of the private sector to help us out of this mess.
However, I do believe that Circular Economy is a misnomer, and it has led to a few problems, because it is really a business model.
– An Economy is an aggregation of the activity, for example, of a nation; it can be a smaller or larger region but it is not a company. We live in a Growth based economy, and economists see growth as a measure of health, and I agree that we need to aspire to a Steady State economy if we are to live sustainably – it's logically the only way we can be sustainably. Herman Daly is the most serious proponent of a Steady State economy and he unfortunately sees the Circular Economy as a threat to his work, an excuse for a Growth based economy to continue, slowing down the decline of capital. But the circular economy supports rather than challenges the Steady State economy and I am sure he sees it as a threat simply because it is called an 'economy'.
– We are choosing to adopt a Circular business model, and I think it should be seen as that. We need to move from linear to circular business models for companies and from a growth-based to a steady-state economy.
Hope this is helpful, Hugo.
The final consensus document (excluding George Weston) read as follows: Introduction
It is the responsibility of governments and industries to work together to tackle the rising threat of climate change. Much work has already been done to mitigate this, through innovation and change to practices. A major problem in achieving sustainable outcomes is that corporations are required by law to prioritise the success of a company for the benefit of its shareholders (in UK law, but similar elsewhere), and traditional business models make more profit by maximising consumption rather than utility. Whilst there is also a duty to have regard to other interests, the primacy of success for shareholders means that environmental issues rarely take priority in board-room deliberations, and currently corporations can legally take actions for profit that harm the environment. It is not however within the remit of the government to dictate business models so, while industry’s interests remain misaligned with sustainable outcomes, a legal requirement to prioritise company success for the benefit of its shareholders is a barrier to solving our sustainability challenges, and climate change in particular. The following are recommendations that governments can introduce that will further align business behaviour with delivering a more sustainable, equitable future for all.
Recommendations
1. Create a staggered timeline to mandatory climate reporting for all listed and large companies, to include scope 3, as well as Scope 1 & 2 emissions.
2. It should be mandatory that all businesses listed on the UKSE and similar exchanges worldwide have a climate strategy and also report on progress against climate targets.
3. Boards must identify ESG priorities and report on them annually in line with their financial reports. They must critically link executive compensation to the ESG priorities and achieved results (This could be rewarded on a sliding scale).
4. Government legislation to identify and tax the highest carbon emissions from raw materials (ie polyester). This would by-pass the loopholes in the proposed Fast fashion taxation scheme in France.
5. Government funding to be increasingly directed to Green business start-ups and subsidies for any activities that have a negative impact on the climate, such as fossil fuel extraction, should cease.
6. Explore other governance and business models more likely to drive solutions to climate change. Established businesses are set in their ways. Circularity offers a solution to this dilemma: for example, retaining manufactured goods, such as cars and washing machines, on the balance sheet, internalising all operating costs and offering the use of the product as a service. Pricing is thus based on lifetime cost rather than build cost and reflects the utility provided, turning the drivers of business from obsolescence and high maintenance costs to longevity and low maintenance costs.
7. Governments to create a long-term strategy to phase out badly behaving environmental organisations, letting old businesses die if they won’t or can’t adapt and change.
8. Governments to work on a cross-party basis to create sustainable plans that can exist beyond electoral cycles. Green strategies to be multi-year or decadal processes.
9. Allocation of public-sector funds to be scrutinised by multiple stakeholders (academics included) rather than incumbent industry leaders whose constraints prevent them making the changes that need to be made.
10. Government to design educational systems to encourage the very best minds into Green businesses. Variation in academic fees to secure the very best minds.
11. Use the tax regime to encourage Green innovation.
12. Government to offer a loan guarantee scheme for circular businesses to support the transition to circularity (as long term revenue streams require interim asset finance) until circular business models are proven and the finance sector has developed appropriate expertise and financial products.
Addendum
By way of clarification, the Working Group has focussed on measures that can be implemented in timescales appropriate to addressing the issue of climate change. As covered in the introduction, there is a fiduciary responsibility to prioritise success for shareholders. In practice, the liquidity offered by stock markets together with the failure of markets to internalise long term costs, creates a short term assessment of that success. This is a potential impediment to achieving progress on long term issues such as climate change.
However, measures can be implemented unilaterally by businesses that require no such legislative change. One example, mentioned in the introduction with an example in Point 6, is that companies can develop business models that align profit with sustainable outcomes.
A second example is that companies can choose to implement multi-stakeholder governance. By issuing equal voting shares to multiple stakeholders, including investors, the company is legally bound to promote the interests of these shareholders, complying with the fiduciary responsibility to shareholders whilst balancing profit against all the other benefit streams that society seeks.
WG 2 Fifth Mayday C4 Event
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA) Saturday September 21, 2024
Working Group 2: How to control global popula5ons
Co-Chairs: DR Robin Sto= (UKHACC) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (Founder Help Rescue the Planet; Organiser Mayday C4 Events) Others: Dr B Chandramohan (Ins5tute Commonwealth Studies); Abhiir Bhalla (CHEC); Geraint Davies.
This WG report was authored by Dr Robin Sto7, founder of the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change. Ben Stallworthy (PopulaGon Ma7ers); Robert A7enborough, Dolapo Fasawe (LASEPA) & Prof Ma7hew Connolly (CSER) all failed or declined to contribute.
Discussion
It is nonsensical to consider popula0on without discussing consump0on. We use Carbon emissions as a surrogate measure of consump0on, but recognise that even if we reached net-zero carbon emissions using renewable energy, the con0nuing resource use would s0ll be unsustainable.
First let us consider popula0on.
Contrary to the pessimis0c assump0ons of the 1950’s, fer0lity rates are now plumme0ng on all con0nents except for Africa. So, although the global fer0lity rate of 2.3 is s0ll above replacement, (the commonly agreed replacement number of births to achieve an ul0mately steady popula0on is an average of 2.1 children per child bearing woman), the UN predicts the Global fer0lity rate will be below 2.1 by 2030, falling to 1.8 by 2050 and 1.6 by 2100.
Because of the increasing life span which accompanies a fall in fer0lity rates, it takes around 30 years for popula0on numbers to stabilise when annual death rates will equal the annual live birth rates. Thus, there is a strong likelihood that global popula0on will peak at around 9 billion in 2060 and decline thereaUer.
The decline in fer0lity results from one simple phenomenon: giving women agency, through educa0on to a secondary level, access to family planning, equal par0cipa0on in the work force plus the poli0cal process, and reduced infant mortality. The greater the agency the lower the fer0lity--and the fer0lity rate barely shiUs, even when there is substan0al inducement for women to have more children. This indicates that a woman’s choice to have fewer children is a long-term decision that is resistant to exhorta0ons and blandishments by religious leaders. Thus, in the rela0vely near future we will have a declining popula0on, and the dominant issue will then become one of consump0on.
The current global fer0lity rate of 2.3 disguises an unprecedented division between Africa plus the Arab countries and the rest of the world , as the most recent 2024 fer0lity rates below illustrate.
Table 1.
Below Replacement rate of 2.1. Above Replacement rate
Asia - 1.90.
Africa- 4.1
Australia -1.70
Europe -1.46. Arab Countries- 3.1 La0n America (+ Caribbean) -1.80
North America -1.75
Russia -1.49
South America -2.02
This geographic divide will have major consequences with Africa and the Middle East needing to provide for a young popula0on, whilst the rest of the world will need to provide for an ageing popula0on.
Let us now return to industrial emissions of Carbon dioxide which we are using as a surrogate for consump0on.
We recognise that the country data does not reflect the extent to which countries import goods made elsewhere, and the data does not include other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Crucially emissions data does not take into account past industrial ac0vity. Currently the global average CO2 emissions per capita is 4.8 tonnes per annum (This excludes interna0onal travel, non-industrial CO2 emissions from agriculture etc as well as other GHGs).
To have even a 50% chance of keeping temperatures below 2 degrees C, we will need to reduce per capita emissions of industrial CO2 to below 2.5 tons per annum by 2050 As for popula0on, these average emission figures conceal a significant divide: It is clear that the African countries with highest fer0lity rates are also those with the smallest carbon footprint. This does not apply to the Middle East where the useage of oil and gas creates some of the highest per capita territorial emissions anywhere in the world (Qatar’s is the highest in the world at 35 tonnes CO2 per capita per annum; Consump0on-based data are added in brackets, but are from 2021). One can only assume that having a wealth bonanza has persuaded the popula0on that conspicuous consump0on is something to be admired: hence Dubai, the shopping capital of the world. Of course this has to be allied with an educa0on system that persuades gullible youngsters that they don’t need to worry about the environmental consequences of their profligate life-style.
Table 2.
Annual CO2 emissions per capita. PopulaAon
Highest: QATAR 35.0 (27) 2.9 million
Australia. 15.0 (13). 20 million
Russia 13.1 (9) 145 million
North America 11.0 (17) 600 million
China 8.9 (7.0) 1.4 billion
European Union 5.5 (8) 450 million
India 2.7 1.4 billion
South America 2.5 442 million
Brazil 2.2 210 million
Indonesia 2.1 275 million
Africa 0.9 1.3 billion
Lowest: DRC 0.03 99 million
CO2 emissions reflect energy use, and increasing energy use reflects increasing resource consump0on and ever-increasing GDP.
Globally since 1965 emissions have increased by 200%, and GDP by 160%. Meat consump0on has increased by 300%, fish catch by 360%, cereal yield by 170%, and
freshwater use by 100%. . The popula0on increase over the same 0me has been from 3.3 billion to 8.1 billion. This is the defini0on of unsustainable.
The lesson to be learnt here is that even if we switch to renewable energy, present life styles would consume resources in an unsustainable way.
Whilst we already have non-coercive means to reach a sustainable and then declining popula0on, there is no precedent for a society voluntarily constraining consump0on. What then are the implica0ons for policy?
Recommenda5ons
1. A major effort is needed to give greater agency to women in Africa and the Arab world, enabling all women to have access to secondary educa0on and access to family planning. This will then translate into equal access to the work place and poli0cal process. Whilst carbon emissions and consump0on are not presently problems in Africa, a reduc0on in popula0on is essen0al so women can play a full part in guiding humanity to a sustainable future
2. The cost of providing secondary educa0on for all according to UNESCO is 20 billion dollars per year. Access to contracep0on for all those in low emijng countriesis es0mated at around 10 billion dollars per year. The UN should make these funds available as a maker of the utmost urgency.
3. A major push for renewable energy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions for the high emikers, and a provision of non-fossil fuel energy for the low emikers. The best mechanism for achieving this reduc0on is the Global Carbon Incen0ve Fund, a financial instrument for achieving Contrac0on and Convergence as laid out at COP 3 (See WG 9A)
4. The UN needs to persuade its member states that reducing CO2 emissions on its own is not enough. Growing an economy by using increasing resources in a finite world is a mathema0cal impossibility. We must move to a steady state economy. This is an economy with stable resource used within ecological limits. Achieving a steady-state economy requires a range of policies and prac0ces, including sejng limits on resource extrac0on, implemen0ng strict environmental regula0ons, promo0ng sustainable consump0on and produc0on pakerns, and inves0ng in renewable energy and green technologies. Addi0onally, it may involve re-thinking taxa0on policies, such as taxing pollu0on on an incremental scale so that the high users end up paying more per unit of energy, whilst also subsidising sustainable prac0ces. Policies that encourage equitable distribu0on of wealth and access to essen0al services are also fundamental to ensure a fair transi0on to a steady-state economy. The UN needs to address these issues, and create Trea0es that will see them implemented.
5. The only countries close to a steady-state economy are Cuba, Columbia, Romania and South Africa, all of which have arrived there fortuitously rather than inten0onally. To achieve a steady-state economy, let alone a de-growth one, we need to recognise the impossibility of pursuing our present course, and commiked leadership to achieve the change. This is where the Commonwealth and the UN have a vital role to play
6. Constraining consump0on in 0mes of difficulty in the past has only been achieved by ra0oning, and it’s likely that some form of ra0oning, perhaps best called en0tlement, will have a role to play in achieving a steady state economy. The UN needs to take the lead in deciding how an “en0tlement system can be developed and applied.
WG3 BetterEconomicModels
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA)
Saturday September 21, 2024
Working Group 3: A better economic model
Co-Chairs: Prof Steve Keen (UCL); Ann Pettifor (Director Prime Economics); Others: Josh Ryan-Collins (UCL); William Hynes (World Bank); Oliver Betts (Faculty of Actuaries).
Introduction
Existing economics models of climate change—known as “Integrated Assessment Models” or IAMs—have predicted relatively minor economic damages from global warming. The latest version of William Nordhaus’s DICE, for example, claims that “damages are estimated to be 3.1% of output at 3°C warming”, and that this combination of temperature increase, and economic damages, will occur by 2100, if the Paris Accord is fully implemented (Barrage and Nordhaus 2024, p. 3 & Fig. 3, p. 6). Since Nordhaus assumes temperatures have already risen by 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels, this is a prediction that a further 1.5°C of warming will reduce the annual rate of economic growth between 2025 and 2100 by 0.03% per year. Given that global economic growth is approximately 3% per year, this is a prediction that global warming will have a trivial impact on economic growth.
These predictions are wildly at variance with the scientific literature on climate change, in which, for example, Xu and Ramanathan describe 3°C of warming as “catastrophic” (Xu and Ramanathan 2017, p. 10315). It is highly likely that existing economic models of climate change have led to political and financial authorities dramatically underestimating the dangers that climate change poses to citizens and financial institutions (Keen 2023)
This divergence between the predictions of economists and scientists have arisen because of the deficiencies in the existing economic models of climate change. These models:
• Consider the impact of temperature increases only, and ignore the impact of global warming on precipitation, when much of the damage from climate change results from changes in precipitation;
• Have damage estimates are based on past economic & climate data. But this data is irrelevant to climate change, since:
o Much of current GDP results from trade, in which hot and cold countries can exchange commodities unique to each other. But a future Hot Earth cannot trade with current Cold Earth; and
o Data from 1960-2017 does not include tipping points, but many will be triggered if temperatures rise from 1.5°C to 3°C above pre-industrial levels. Tipping points will cause structural change that makes historic temperature and GDP data irrelevant.
• Assume that capital (machines and factories) are not damaged by climate change;
• Do not include energy as an input to production, when CO2 generated by extracting energy from fossil fuels is the cause of global warming;
• Treat population as an exogenous input, and thus assume that global warming will have no impact on population;
• Assume that only weather-exposed industries will be afected by climate change; and • Assume the economy tends to equilibrium, even in the presence of climate change.
Recommendations
None of the existing economic models is fit for purpose. They must be replaced by new models which:
• Must use “Global Circulation models” (GCMs) developed by scientists, rather than having their own amateur climate models as current IAMs do, to predict the change in climate—including precipitation as well as temperature rise—resulting from economic activity;
• Must include the role of energy and raw materials in production, which current IAMs ignore;
• Must not assume equilibrium outcomes. Equilibrium, if it occurs, should be an output of the models rather than an assumption made by them;
• Must state their predictions in terms of impacts upon the rate of economic growth, rather than comparing two hypothetical numbers (future GDP with and without global warming) as current models do;
• Must not rule out potential catastrophic outcomes, as current models do; • Must include how climate change mitigation and management can be financed, which current models ignore;
• Must include the role of the State, whereas current IAMs assume that change will occur only through market mechanisms;
• Must consider non-market distribution mechanisms—such as those that were used during WWII (rationing, etc.)—in the event that climate change causes catastrophic collapses in essential foodstufs, as some GCMs predict. Society will not survive climate change if the poor do not survive climate change.
References
Barrage, Lint, and William Nordhaus. 2024. 'Policies, projections, and the social cost of carbon: Results from the DICE-2023 model', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 121: e2312030121-e21.
Keen, Steve. 2023. "Loading the DICE against pension funds: Flawed economic thinking
on climate has put your pension at risk " In. London: Carbon Tracker.
Xu, Y., and V. Ramanathan. 2017. 'Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114: 10315-23.
WG 4 Fifth Mayday C4 Event
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA) Saturday September 21, 2024
Working Group 4: What can journalists do be8er?
Co-Chairs: Paul Atherton (Freelance) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (Founder Help Rescue the Planet; Organiser Mayday C4 Events)
Others: Jonathan Leake (Energy Correspondent Sunday Telegraph); Fred Pearce (Columbia Edu); Jon Fuller; Dr Chandramohan (InsQtute Commonwealth Studies) and various others.
IntroducQon
Journalists and the media have struggled with global warming. One obvious problem is that climate change can become immensely complex once you get involved in the scien:fic detail, and most journalists, and most editors are trained in the humani:es. And whilst they might be brilliant at English, History or Philosophy, they are playing a different instrument when it comes to climate science. For example, they oDen confuse carbon emissions and CO2 emissions. Or they use different defini:ons of net-zero and fail to detail whether they are talking about CO2 net-zero, GHG net-zero, or all-species net-zero which is the only one that is consistent with the Paris Agreement. It has to be said that they are not alone in this. Even the UNFCCC gets confused over its defini:ons of net-zero. Even so the basic facts are now clear: global warming is serious, man-made, rapidly gePng worse and will soon reach the stage where it will hit irreversible climate :pping points (CTPs) that will make the whole process irreversible. Current projec:ons show that we will breach the Paris limit of 1.5C of warming in 5 years :me (2029).
The BBC have been par:cularly hapless in their coverage of climate change. For many years they treated it as a fringe issue, of concern only to the tree-hugging brigade. Failing completely to dis:nguish bogus theory from scien:fic fact, they commonly interviewed climate change deniers whenever the IPCC produced a new report on the ravages of global warming. Typically, the Today programme on Radio 4 would interview Nigel Lawson, the former Chancellor and an avowed free-marketeer, who launched his execrable organisa:on the Global Warming Policy Founda:on as a pre-emp:ve strike against the Copenhagen Summit of 2009, and accused climate scien:sts of fraud (ClimateGate). On BBC Radio and TV, Lawson would pon:ficate endlessly on the science of climate change, even though he had no scien:fic creden:als of any sort.
The media also seem to treat high earners with undue deference, and seldom challenge CEOs of banks or fossil fuel companies on the fact that they are destroying the planet. Banks have lent the fossil fuel industry (FFI) $6.9 trillion dollars since the Paris Agreement of 2015. The worst offender is JP Morgan, who, in 2023, loaned the FFI $42 billion. In Europe, Barclays is the worst offender having loaned the FFI £75 billion since the Paris Agreement. Many customers are deser:ng these banks in large numbers, but the exodus would become a stampede if the media began to challenge the CEOs of banks, hedge funds and other groups with a vested interest in promo:ng the fossil fuel economy.
In the US, a survey carried out by Leigh-Dickinson University showed that viewers of Fox News knew less about world affairs than people who watched no news at all. Meanwhile GB News seems to have been set up in the UK to perform a similar function to Fox News in the US, which consistently undermined climate scientists, and awarded undue prominence to climate sceptics and deniers.
The fossil fuel industry is not required to carry the costs of dumping its waste products into the atmosphere. Air pollu:on contributes 30% of the $7 trillion dollars in subsidies received annually by the FFI according to the IMF. Taking their cue from the tobacco industry, fossil fuel interests have lobbied lawmakers and frustrated the enactment of climate mi:ga:on policies. Between 2000 and 2015, fossil fuel companies spent 2 billion dollars lobbying the US Senate. Between 1990 and 2020, five major US oil companies spent 3.6 billion dollars just on adver:sing. This expenditure is separate from dark money used to fund libertarian think tanks, or campaign dona:ons. The FFI has even infiltrated academia as outlined by DeSmog in a scathing cri:que of academic ins:tu:ons and their tacky rela:onship with the fossil fuel interests (How Oil and Gas Companies infiltrate Higher Educa:on to maintain influence; Sept 7, 2024). Firms such as ExxonMobil are now using SLAPP injunc:ons to prevent shareholders puPng forward climate-friendly resolu:ons. The global warming debate has been hijacked by climate change deniers who exploit uncertain:es in the science, and formulate ex cathedra statements that are seldom challenged by scien:fically illiterate presenters. Denial of global warming has become a ‘cause celebre’ for populist poli:cians, par:cularly in the US and Brazil. The clamour of vested interests has drowned out the voices of truth and reason.
When scien:fic issues are controversial, then well-func:oning democracies operate as follows: Scien:st seek the truth. Journalists should report the truth, without fear or favour. They should not patronise their readership or the wider public by withholding important informa:on in case it makes the public anxious, something that the BBC does repeatedly. Poli:cians should respond appropriately in order to protect the health and well-being of this, or beler yet, future genera:ons. If no ac:on is forthcoming, then campaigners apply pressure, by crea:ng an environment which makes it easier for poli:cians to take the right decisions. If the poli:cians are in thrall to vested interests, as happened repeatedly with the Conserva:ve Government in the UK, and the Republican party in the US, then voters can remove those poli:cians at the next elec:on.
One problem is that the media oDen rely on ins:tu:ons for briefings and quotes, and it has to be said that ins:tu:ons are not always very forthcoming. Ins:tu:ons, whether they operate at the global level, (UN and mul:na:onals), at the regional/coali:on level (eg the Commonwealth), at na:on-state or subna:onal level, or at University and academic ins:tu:on level, are all bound by codes and constraints such as a formal posi:ons, previous policy statements, organisa:onal limita:ons or funding. In addi:on, when it comes to speaking about climate change publicly, ins:tu:ons such as the IPCC and the Royal Society have a problem. Their deep scien:fic knowledge of global warming does not necessarily translate into public pronouncements, let alone public advocacy. This leaves the field wide open for scep:cal views, as happened repeatedly with Nigel Lawson and his climate-denying organisa:on, the Global Warming Policy Founda:on.
Second, the media must take a large share of the responsibility for failing to warn the public about the dangers of unchecked global warming. This cri:cism is par:cularly true of the
BBC, that seems to have sacrificed truth for balance where climate change is concerned, and appears to be more worried about complaints than the survival of the human race.
The Fossil fuel industry, responsible for air pollu:on, climate change, ocean acidifica:on and plas:cs, are extremely reluctant to take part in any public debate that they do not control. They prefer to meet ministers in secret behind closed doors; or they finance hedge funds such as Quadrature that donated £4 million to the Labour Party and end up with a Quadrature representa:ve (Rachel Kyte) on the Labour party’s climate policy commilee.
Civil society organisa:ons (CSOs) play a key role in mobilising opinions, narra:ves and climate ac:on around global warming. If Democracy rests upon the ability of individuals to make their voices heard above the clamour of vested interests (as enunciated to Harold Evans by RRJ in April 1983 aDer HMG conceded the case for lead-free petrol), then these C4 events are an example of democracy in ac:on.
RecommendaEons
1. We recommend that scien:fic and environmental correspondents receive regular scien:fic updates, and that they undergo Con:nuous Professional Development (CPD), with formal assessments on an annual basis.
2. We recommend that ins:tu:ons such as the BBC employ recognised experts in climate science and the environment to advise senior editors about the reality of climate change and the threats to ecosystems posed by climate change, chemicals, and over-popula:on etc.
3. We recommend that journalists are far less deferen:al towards the rich and famous, and recognise that the richest 1% of people on the planet have the same carbon footprint as the poorest 50%.
4. We recommend that Ofgem is far more robust in its role: to protect the public from falsehoods.
5. We recommend that media channels and print media employ tac:cs such as those used by Stephen Sacker on “Hard Talk” programme on the BBC. People who are destroying the planet need to be put on the spot, and forced to account for their eco-criminality.
6. We recommend that the BBC and other broadcas:ng services make it their priority to report the truth; and not worry so much about complaints.
7. Journalists in many fascist countries are hounded and some:me killed for repor:ng the truth about environmental destruc:on and industrial pollu:on. We recommend that the full protec:on of interna:onal law is used to protect these courageous individuals, that the law of ecocide is used to prosecute the perpetrators including governments, and that the journalists’ families are compensated generously in the event of a killing.
WG 5 Fifth Mayday C4 Event
Venue The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA)
Saturday September 21, 2024
Working Group 5.
Transport Fuels for the Future: H2 versus LNG
Co-Chairs: Hugo Spowers (Founder & CEO of RiverSimple). Dr Robin Russell-
Jones (Founder Help Rescue the Planet; Organiser Mayday C4 Events)
Other members of WG 5: Prof Bill McGuire (UCL); Neale Smither (BP); Prof
Tom Wigley (NCAR); Nawaz Haq (ZESTA); Madadh Maclaine (Founder ZESTA)
IntroducEon
Claims by the Fossil Fuel Industry (FFI) that LNG is a “clean” fuel are disingenuous. It is cleaner than bunker fuel, or coal, or even diesel, because it produces less parCculates when burnt. But from a climate change perspecCve, LNG is significantly worse than burning coal for the following reasons: A. If upstream losses of methane during the exploraCon, extracCon, storage and distribuCon of natural gas exceed 2.0%, then gas loses its fuel-efficiency “climate” advantage over coal (1). This 2011 study was comparing high-sulphur coal with natural gas, so some allowance needs to be made for the fact that coal is now either low sulphur or has flue gas desulphurisaCon fiRed. So, a figure of 2.5% would seem appropriate.
B. Fracked gas is associated with higher fugiCve emissions than natural gas with losses of 6% or greater recorded by satellites over shale fields in North America. More accurate and higher resoluCon data are required, which should soon be provided by MethSat.
C. Liquefying gas is an energy intensive process that adds 50% to the carbon footprint of the product. Hence fracked gas from North America is already 2-3 Cmes worse than coal from a climate change perspecCve. When liquefied and transported across the AtlanCc, it is 4-5 Cmes worse than burning coal from a climate change perspecCve. In other words, the promoCon of LNG as the “fuel of the future” for transport is a scam (See FT LeRers June 12, 2024: Ref 2) D. A very recent study by Robert Howarth confirms that LNG is worse than coal from a climate change perspecCve (3). More than 125 climate, environmental and health scienCsts wrote to the Biden administraCon in September 2024 to defend Howarth’s research and urge a conCnuaCon of the pause on LNG exports (Guardian Oct 4, 2024: “Exported gas produces far worse emissions than coal, major study finds”)..
Ammonia is being promoted as an alternaCve to LNG, parCcularly for shipping as it can be liquefied. The global manufacture of ammonia totals 183 million
metric tonnes, and is used mainly for ferCliser, where it is a source of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide, (N2O) as well as secondary parCculates. Currently ammonia (NH3) is manufactured by the Haber-Bosch process in which nitrogen (N2) reacts with 3 molecules of hydrogen (H2) under pressure and moderate heat to generate ammonia: N2 + 3H2 = 2 NH3. However, this is an energy intensive process: it is necessary to manufacture hydrogen first, which may or may not be achieved with a green electricity supply. But even if it is green hydrogen, the Haber-Bosch reacCon requires heat and pressure. So, ammonia should be regarded as a less aRracCve choice as a transport fuel than hydrogen.
RecommendaEons
1. The use of LNG is incompaCble with the Paris Agreement, and should be heavily taxed.
2. No more permissions should be granted for gas drilling licenses anywhere
3. No permission should be granted for LNG terminals or any other infrastructure related to the sale and distribuCon of LNG
4. The use of Hydrogen as a transport fuel is compaCble with the Paris Agreement and should be promoted.
5. Hydrogen can be burnt in an Internal CombusCon Engine, or uClised in a hydrogen fuel cell. In general terms the use of hydrogen fuel cells is more fuel-efficient than combusCon and should be promoted.
6. LegislaCon should encourage the promoCon and sale of hydrogen fuelled vehicles for all forms of transport: planes, trains, ships and automobiles.
7. The hydrogen to be used does not maRer greatly during the iniCal stages. However, as Cme passes, grey and blue hydrogen should be replaced by green and pink hydrogen.
8. Pink hydrogen is generated by nuclear reactors. We recommend that a network of small modular reactors (SMR’s) manufacturing hydrogen be established globally on remote islands (for safety reasons) so that ships can collect and distribute compressed hydrogen.
9. Hydrogen, not ammonia, should be viewed as the fuel for the future.
References
1. Wigley TML. Coal to gas: the influence of methane leakage Clima;c Change 108, 601- 608, 2011 (Published Aug 26).
2. Russell-Jones R. FT LeKers June 12, 2024: “Let’s debunk the myths about LNG as clean energy”.
3. Howarth R. The greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States. Energy Science & Engineering, Oct 3 2024.
WG 6. Copy of Solutions for environmental impact of bitcoin and computers - MayDay C5 (2)
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA)
Saturday September 21, 2024
Working Group 6: How to reduce the carbon footprint of Bitcoin and computers: Co-chairs: Billy Richards (CEO Changeblock Global) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (HRTP).
Others: Lily Russell-Jones (Senior Financial Journalist Times/ST); Josh de Vos (CryptoCompare); Charles Hayter (Chair; CryptoCompare).
Introduction
Using the internet, mobile phones, generative AI projects such as Chat GPT, and cryptocurrencies has become interwoven into the fabric of everyday life for billions of people worldwide.
However, the volume of data being captured, stored and accessed presents significant environmental challenges. The World Economic Forum puts it as follows: “Rising amounts of data require ever higher computational power, which will, in turn, raise electricity demand both in data centres and across communication infrastructure such as telecom and data networks.”1 In order for the growth of these activities to be consistent with existing climate commitments, industry and governments will need to ensure sustainable electricity is used to power them.
However, the rising power demands of large data centers could slow down the transition away from fossil fuels. In 2020 the crypto mining company Greenidge Generation Holdings bought a disused coal power plant in New York, converted it to a gas plant and used the electricity generated to power thousands of bitcoin mining machines. Three Mile Island, a power plant in Pennsylvania, US, which was the site of a nuclear accident in 1979, is being re-opened to service data-centres for the tech company Microsoft. Tech giants such as Amazon, Google and Microsoft control two thirds of cloud and computing services globally while Meta and OpenAI compete in the provision of software.
OpenAI is actually backed financially and operationally by Microsoft, whilst Anthropic is backed by Amazon.
Unfortunately the tech firms sometimes seem more interested in downplaying their energy demand, and pretending that AI holds the answer to climate change. A recent publication by the RSA (Issue 3, 2024), devoted to climate change, featured the following question on its front cover: “Will AI help solve the climate emergency”. The answer to the question posed in “No”. AI is just a tool that consumes vast quantities of energy (and water to keep the supercomputers from over-heating). AI is a cause of global heating; and not really a solution, let alone “The Solution”.
1 Stark, J; Valkhof, B; Kemene, E. (2024) “Data volume is soaring. Here’s how the ICT sector can sustainably handle the surge“, World Economic Forum, online, accessed: 20 September 2024. [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/05/data-growth-drives-ict-energy-innovation/]
The scale of the challenge
The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects electricity consumption from data centres, artificial intelligence and the cryptocurrency sector to double by 2026. In its latest electricity forecast it said that globally these activities consumed an estimated 460 terawatt-hours in 2022, accounting for about 2% of total global electricity consumption, and this could rise to 1,000 terawatt hours in 2026. That’s equivalent to the amount of electricity consumed in Japan.2 A Bloomberg investigation found that data centres could be consuming 1,300 TWh by 2035, an energy consumption equivalent to India’s current demand.
According to the IEA in 2022 cryptocurrencies consumed about 110 Terawatt-hours of electricity, accounting for 0.4% of the global annual electricity demand. Bitcoin, the world’s most popular cryptocurrency, is responsible for the vast majority of the energy used by the sector.3 The Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, a project by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, estimates that bitcoin uses about 140TWh of electricity per year. More than entire countries such as Pakistan or Ukraine.4
Source: https://navitassemi.com/the-state-of-ai-global-energy-consumption-from-data centers-is-forecast-to-break-1-petawatt-hour-by-2026-how-is-the-semiconductor-industry responding/
Possible solutions
2 International Energy Agency, “Electricity 2024: Analysis and forecast to 2026,” online, accessed: 20 September 2024. [https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-2024]
3 Ibid.
4 Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, accessed 20 September 2024. [https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/comparisons]
● Regulation
○ Increased renewable power adoption
○ Use of carbon credits and pricing
○ Encourage shift to energy efficient consensus methods for cryptocurrencies ○ Taxation of electricity use by crypto-miners and data centers.
○ Tax breaks and incentives to companies adopting sustainable practices ● Efficiency
○ Optimize algorithms such as AI models to be more environmentally friendly ○ Improve cooling technology and hardware efficiency
○ Establish industry wide energy efficiency standards and certifications to encourage best practice
○ Improved compression techniques to reduce energy consumption and storage needs
● Awareness
○ Greater transparency in energy audits.
○ Companies to base net zero targets around “location based” emissions. ○ Benchmarking
○ Public awareness campaign to make users understand the environmental impact of using the internet/ AI projects/ investing in crypto.
Public awareness and transparency
Between 3.5 billion and 8 billion Google searches are made per day, according to industry estimates. A Google search uses about 0.0003 kWh of electricity and a ChatGPT query needs nearly 10 times as much electricity, according to the financial services company Goldman Sachs.5 Few users would consider the environmental impact when using a search engine or AI tool online and a public awareness campaign could help to shift opinion and behaviour.
Emission reporting
Ensuring the public and governments have access to reliable emissions data from companies is key to this. Analysis by The Guardian found that between 2020 and 2022 the real emissions from the company-owned data centres of Google, Microsoft, Meta and Apple, four of the world’s largest tech companies, were about 660 per cent higher than officially reported.6
Companies can purchase renewable energy certificates from suppliers which allow them to claim the energy they have used comes from renewable sources such as wind and solar. RECs allow companies to state zero emissions in their annual report for any electricity usage which is matched by a certificate. However, the renewable energy they have purchased
5 Goldman Sachs. (2024). “AI is poised to drive 160% increase in data center power demand” accessed: 20 September 2024, [https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-drive 160-increase-in-power-demand]
6 O’Brien, I. (2024). “Data center emissions probably 662% higher than big tech claims. Can it keep up the ruse?” The Guardian, online. accessed: 20 September 2024,
does not actually have to be used by the firm’s facilities. For example, a company could purchase a renewable energy certificate for electricity generated by a grid in Texas in December and use it to offset emissions from a California facility in January. This means the company can use electricity derived from fossil fuels, but claim zero emissions because they’ve purchased an REC.
Companies usually base their net zero targets on “market based” emissions which include RECs and offsets. Emission figures which exclude these are known as “location-based” emissions.
Regulation
Governments could place requirements on firms to base their net zero targets on location based emission calculations. This would mean companies would have to focus on reducing their electricity usage rather than buying RECs to meet their emission reduction targets. This could have a positive impact on business behaviour. For example, it could encourage companies to focus more on energy efficiency and drive companies to lobby governments to expand the amount of renewable energy in the grid to allow them to meet their emissions targets.
One of the biggest challenges is ensuring that there is international coordination on a regulatory regime for firms and crypto-projects.
For example, in June 2021 China outlawed crypto mining and trading, citing concerns about the environment as well as financial stability. In the same year bitcoin miners in Kazakhstan were cut off from the main energy supply because of the threat of rolling blackouts. Sweden has banned bitcoin mining. Many miners have simply moved their equipment to jurisdictions where laws are more favourable and the majority of mining firms are now US-based.
Changing the bitcoin protocol
Bitcoin’s energy usage is tied to a process called “mining.” Technically, scrapping bitcoin’s mining process is possible. The currency’s energy consumption is tied to the proof-of-work system it uses to secure the network, prevent hacks and verify transactions taking place on
the blockchain, a kind of digital ledger. In the proof-of-work system, powerful computers compete to solve a single maths problem. When the problem is solved, this creates new bitcoins which are added to the ledger. The more “miners” join the network, the harder the maths problems become and the more energy is required to solve them. This means that bitcoin’s energy consumption escalates over time.It has to be said that there is no utility to these events, and no gain to society. It is consuming energy for no purpose other than increasing the value to the “miner” (purchaser).
Ethereum, the world’s second largest cryptocurrency behind bitcoin, underwent an upgrade known as “the merge” in September 2022, which brought an end to the highly energy intensive mining process used to create new ether.
The upgrade is estimated to have reduced Ethereum’s energy consumption by 99.9 per cent.
Through the merge, Ethereum transitioned to a proof-of-stake system. Instead of multiple computers expending large amounts of energy as they compete to solve maths problems, a handful of computers are selected to verify transactions and secure the network. Validators have to lock up at least 32 ETH in a digital vault to take part. Their ETH can be taken away if they do not follow the rules.
However, there would be huge challenges to making this solution work for bitcoin. No organisation exists to oversee bitcoin. Instead, any change to the code base has to be approved by 95 per cent of miners, many of whom believe that proof-of-stake is not a fit replacement for proof-of-work. Miners who have spent large amounts on mining equipment have no financial incentive to transition away from the proof-of-work system.
In a 2018 paper researchers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology summarised this problem as follows: “Miners, who have a large influence on the development of Bitcoin, are not interested in removing the algorithm, which is central to their own business.”
Researchers at UN University estimate that 67% of the energy used to mine bitcoin in 2020- 21 came from fossil fuels with 45% from coal, 21% from natural gas, 16% from hydropower, 9% from nuclear, 2% from wind and 5% from solar energy.7 The report said that in addition
to a substantial carbon footprint, global Bitcoin mining activities have significant water and land footprints.
Billy Richards from Changeblock said: “We need to move more users over to cryptocurrencies which use proof-of-stake. It’s an education issue. People need to understand that buying Bitcoin is orders of magnitude worse for the environment than buying other types of cryptocurrency.”
In 2018 researchers estimated that 17 megajoules (MJ) of energy are required to generate one US dollar’s worth of Bitcoin, compared to about 5 MJ of energy to produce one US dollar’s worth of crude oil. This means that on a per dollar basis Bitcoin mining was over three times more energy intensive than extracting Crude oil.8
Taxation
The International Monetary Fund has recommended taxing electricity used by crypto miners and data centres to try and curb emissions.
It said a tax of $0.047 per kilowatt hour would be enough to get the crypto mining industry to curb its emissions in line with global goals.9 It said the tax would need to be $0.089 to
7 Chamanara, S, Madani, K. (2023). “The Hidden Environmental Cost of Cryptocurrency: How Bitcoin Mining Impacts Climate, Water and Land,” United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, Hamilton, Canada, accessed: 20 September 2024 [https://inweh.unu.edu/] 8 Krause, M. J., & Tolaymat, T. (2018). Quantification of energy and carbon costs for mining cryptocurrencies. Nature Sustainability, 1(11), 711–718. Link to study
9 Hebous, S. Vernon-Lin, N. International Monetary Fund, (2024), “Carbon Emissions from AI and Crypto Are Surging and Tax Policy Can Help,” accessed: 20 September 2024. [https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/08/15/carbon-emissions-from-ai-and-crypto-are-surging and-tax-policy-can-help]
account for the impact of air pollution on local health. It estimates this tax could raise $5.2 billion globally each year.
For data centres it recommends a tax on electricity usage of $0.032 per kilowatt hour, or $0.052 including air pollution costs. This could raise as much as $18 billion per year.
Taxation would make crypto mining less profitable. This could mean companies which have less efficient mining equipment are less able to compete with could lead to more consolidation and reduce the number of companies mining for bitcoin. This solution would rely on cross border consolidation.
Conclusion
New technologies can lead to huge improvements in our quality of life. Search engines such as Google mean people all over the world have real time information at their fingertips and AI is likely to transform the way we work.
The challenge facing governments and industry is to ensure that these advancements don’t come at the expense of the environment and existing emission reduction targets. Government intervention through regulation and taxation is crucial to make sure companies curb their emissions and should be our first priority. A tax on the electricity used by crypto miners and data centers, as suggested by the IMF, would encourage companies to make their practices more energy efficient and could curb emissions. Robust emission reporting standards for companies will make sure policymakers and consumers have access to accurate and transparent information. We think that requiring companies to align their net zero targets with “on location” emissions could also encourage the drive towards greater energy efficiency.
A public awareness campaign about the energy consumption of data centers, internet search engines, AI models and cryptocurrency could influence consumer behaviour. However, it can be difficult to source reliable and up to date figures on the energy intensity of these activities so greater transparency from companies will be required.
WG 7 Fifth Mayday C4 Event
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA) Saturday September 21, 2024
Working Group 7: How to reduce the carbon footprint of cement, concrete & steel (Held Remotely)
Co-Chairs: Kevin Robinson BSc CEng & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (HRTP) Other members of WG 7 were contacted by LinkedIn but never responded: eg Kelly Becker (MD Schneider LLP) & Jonathan Davies (Tata Steel). Others were added when the topic was discussed at the conference. Geraint Davies & Hugo Spowers.
Introduction.
The manufacture of cement and concrete produces between 5 to 7% of industrial CO2 emissions globally. Cement is made by heating limestone and clay to around 1500C in a cement kiln. Producing cement generates CO2 as part of the chemical process. Thus, through combustion (calcination), Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is reduced to CaO (quick-lime) giving off CO2 in the process. Concrete is made by mixing cement, water, rock and sand in the correct proportions. The concrete carries on curing for many years. Heating the kiln produces similar amounts of CO2 as the chemical reaction, if it is achieved by burning fossil fuels. On this basis, each kg of concrete releases 0.93 kg of CO2.
The manufacture of steel produces around 8% of industrial CO2 emissions globally. There are two basic methods of manufacturing steel.
Method 1 A blast furnace, heated by fossil fuels, converts Iron ore to steel. Method 2 is an electric arc furnace.
Method 1 is labour intensive, and CO2 emissions in Method 1 are considerable higher than in Method 2. They can be reduced by improving the efficiency of the blast furnace. For example, by maximising the iron content of the input ore with scrap iron, and increasing the use of pulverised coal, and biomass in the fuel source.
Although these techniques will go some way to reducing CO2 emissions, they are Rnkering at the edges. CO2 emissions could theoreRcally be reduced further by carbon capture and storage (CCS), but CCS is only viable if used with a totally green electricity supply. Electric arc furnaces uRlise recycled steel. They cannot process iron ore, so countries such as the UK will not be able to manufacture steel from scratch. Instead, they will need to import steel slabs produced elsewhere in the world (mainly China).
Recommendations: Cement and Concrete
1. Use green electricity to power manufacturing.
2. Employ two types of waste heat recovery: High temperature heat for direct process requirements and low temperature for district heating. This works best when the factory is close to the district.
3. Carbon capture could be employed using the waste heat from the manufacturing process. This is easier to do than carbon capture with a coal-fired power station, but it is not a viable option until we have a totally green electricity supply. 4. Recycle used concrete as clinker.
5. Use specific clinker additives to reduce the percentage of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2 in the final product.
6. Use specific clinker compounds which absorb CO2 in the kiln and reduce the amount emitted.
7. Positive results have been found when CO2 gas has been pumped through the fluid concrete prior to curing. The concrete has absorbed the CO2 and locked it into the concrete. Therefore, introduce carbonisation of concrete in curing.
8. Cement pricing. This has to balance the costs of green energy vs fossil fuels, the modernisation of the manufacturing plants, and the acquisition of specific clinker additives. Clays which have attractive properties may have to be transported long distances in comparison to locally found clays.
9. Legislation and subsidies should be introduced by Government to drive decarbonisation of cement and concrete manufacture.
10.We recommend recycling of concrete on a global scale, so that the producRon of cement should gradually lessen and ulRmately require no new cement to be produced from raw materials.
RecommendaYons: Steel
1. We recommend the eventual closure of all blast furnaces and switching to electric arc furnaces.
2. LegislaRon and subsidies should be introduced by governments to accelerate the switch from blast to electric arc furnaces.
3. Electric arc furnaces should use scrap metal and employ green hydrogen in the process. This provides full decarbonisaRon of the steel making process. The technology is available at compeRRve cost.
4. We recommend recycling of steel on a global scale, so that the producRon of steel slabs should gradually lessen and ulRmately require no new steel to be produced from raw materials.
Reference: h^ps://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our insights/decarbonizaRon-challenge-for-steel
WG 8 Fifth Mayday C4 Event
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA) Saturday September 21, 2024
Working Group 8: The role of institutions in promoting effective action on climate change. Co-Chairs: Gonzalo Alvarez (United Nations Association: Chair, Climate and Oceans) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (HRTP). Others: Jon Fuller; Dr Chandramohan (Institute Commonwealth Studies); Titus Alexander (Democracy Matters).
Introduction
It is abundantly clear that the ambition of the Rio summit, to stabilise the level of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere at a level that would “prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system” has not been realised. Furthermore the 28 COP events have conspicuously failed to control the remorseless upward trend in annual GHG emissions. More CO2 has been emitted since 1990, the base-line year for the Kyoto Protocol, than in all years previous, going all the way back to 1750.
One can argue over the reasons for this failure, but the need for unanimity, and the non binding nature of any resolution have both played a large part. The UN needs to quickly develop a strategy to deal with these twin issues, as we will breach the Paris limit of 1.5C of warming in 2029.
We feel that systemic change is now required, and that the UN processes need to be radically overhauled, whilst still adhering to the four founding principles of the UN, and the fifth principle (e) added in 1972:
a. A culture of peace
b. Human and State Security
c. Human development
d. Health
e. Sustainable development, the green economy and international environmental governance
We also note that the five permanent members of the Security Council stem from the UN Charter of 1945, and happen to be the five nuclear states at that time. This arrangement is in need of reform. Three climate-related risks have been identified by the IPCC as representing a threat to global security:
a. Water security; (particularly where a river runs through territories or nation states that are not cooperating).
b. Food Security.
c. Air Pollution.
The UNFCCC have recommended that nations develop climate resilience by becoming self sufficient in food and water. In some situations, climate resilience will require a restructuring of society; particularly for coastal communities that get flooded, or for small island states that may be submerged by rising sea-levels (Currently increasing at 3.5mm per annum, and likely to accelerate). The purpose of the UN General assembly is therefore to
pass resolutions that promote mitigation, adaptation and climate resilience as recommended in numerous IPCC reports.
Similar resolutions have been adopted by the Commonwealth, and the Head of the Commonwealth, King Charles, as well as the Commonwealth Secretariat are both based in the UK, and this provides the UK with a unique opportunity to promote not only action on global warming, but also provide a lead on the GCIF proposal, and the Sunrise Scenario (See WG 9A).
There are two further threats to the survival of humanity that have not been addressed either by the IPCC, nor the UNFCCC; and that is the precipitous decline in plankton and sperm counts which has occurred since the sixties and is continuing at around 1% per annum. The conference discussions identified microplastics saturated with Forever Chemicals (particularly fluorinated compounds such as PFAS & PFOS) as the most likely culprits, though the chemicals involved are likely to be different in the two situations. A secondary factor may be black carbon particulates saturated with biologically dangerous compounds such as PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic hydrocarbons) which are present in the marine Surface Micro-Layer (SML) and also penetrate human tissue. Apportioning the relative effect of these two classes of compound might be extremely difficult, and in any event, we don't have the luxury of time and further research as this should have been started 30 years ago when the GESAMP report was issued. If plankton numbers fall to zero then we will all asphyxiate; and if sperm counts continue to fall then this also represents an existential threat to the survival not only of humans, but of many other mammalian species. Offhand it is difficult to think of two more pressing and urgent health issues to confront humanity.
Although the UNFCCC has failed to control GHGs, legally-binding treaties and judgements are coming to its aid. The High Seas Treaty is binding on nation states that choose to ratify the treaty in their national parliaments. The judgement by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in favour of the Swiss Grannies has massive implications for the member states belonging to the Council of Europe. (This includes all of the EU-27 as well as the UK and Russia).
The Court instructed the Swiss Government to comply with the Paris Agreement of keeping global mean temperature (GMT) below 1.5C of warming. This judgement could generate a huge number of lawsuits in any of the 46 countries affected by the ECHR judgement. At the same time the International Court of Human Justice is beginning to hear cases brought by NGOs, including a case against 5 senior UK politicians, and a criminal prosecution by Bloom Association versus the French oil giant Total. The Rome statute on Environmental Law has now been ratified in 130 countries, so further cases against Fossil Fuel interests can be expected, and also against banks such as Barclays who have lent the FFI £75 billion since the Paris Agreement, demonstrating that they were or are knowingly aiding and abetting the destruction of ecosystems that sustain life on our planet.
A summary of current cases is given as an addendum to this report
One further advantage for the UNFCCC process is that countries cannot resile from their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). They have to be updated every 5 years, (which seems an inordinately long time), but they cannot offer a smaller NDC; so, the process ratchets up a nation’s commitments. Unfortunately, some countries, including Russia, have yet to produce any NDC proposals.
Recommendations.
1. A representative from the UN Environmental Programme, the WHO and from the IMO should all have permanent seats on the UN Security Council.
2. The UN General assembly should authorise the UNFCCC to implement the GCIF proposal and related financial instruments as set out in the conference briefing document: “Hiatus in the Greenhouse. Has the IPCC helped or hindered?”
3. The UNFCCC should persuade the big 6 emitters, or failing that the big 10 emitters to form a Coalition of the Willing (As set out in WGs 9A & 9B).
4. The Commonwealth should adopt the GCIF proposal and related financial instruments
5. The Commonwealth should implement the Sunrise Scenario as set out in WG 9A. 6. Countries should either encourage and fund citizens or bring legal challenges themselves against the fossil fuel industry.
7. Replace current legal obligations on Company Directors with a legally-binding UN mandate prohibiting damage to ecosystems.
8. The enforcement of the Border Carbon Adjustment Tax (BCAT) should be the responsibility of the UN Security Council (See WG 9B).
9. The UN should establish an International Carbon Monitoring Agency (ICMA) to verify emission data from individual countries, analogous to the International Atomic Energy Authority.
10. The IPCC should concentrate its efforts on producing special reports on scientific issues where knowledge is evolving or needed. eg Plastic pollution in the SML. Rising methane concentrations etc
11. WHO should examine urgently the phenomenon of male infertility and falling sperm counts , and extend the studies to other mammalian species
12. The IPCC should concentrate its efforts on producing special reports on scientific issues where knowledge is evolving or needed. eg Plastic pollution in the SML. Rising methane concentrations etc
13. WHO should examine urgently the phenomenon of male infertility and falling sperm counts, and extend the studies to other mammalian species
Addendum to WG8.
(Provided by Jon Fuller)
The legislation
Two UK criminal cases are now at the International criminal Court and depend upon the provisions in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 25 (individual responsibility), Article 30 (direct intent & oblique intent) and Article 75 (payment of reparations) are all relevant: -
The cases
Here are some of the cases being considered by the ICC: -
UKYCC/SCS against BP Plc (click on this: The Submission The Long Story : -
The CGAN case against 5 senior UK politicians (the names are redacted in this version): - https://climatecriminals.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/4.1.220921_Police_Dossier-of evidence_REDACTED_criminal-investigation-and-charges_crimes-against-humanity-and genocide-.pdf
CGAN has also developed a case against one media organisation - The Telegraph Media Group Ltd. This touches on the incitement provisions in the legislation. The 2,559 items of supporting evidence, are available on a memory stick. See: -
Here is the Bloom Association background information on its case against Total Energies: - https://www.bloomassociation.org/en/ngos-and-climate-change-victims-file-criminal-case against-totalenergies-board-of-directors-and-shareholders/
Here is the website used by Bloom, Alliance Santé Planétair and Nuestro Futero: - https://www.totalcriminal.org/
"Cease and Desist":
Greta Thunberg issued a “cease and desist” notice over a year ago, backed up by a petition signed by over 1 million people. Avaaz (the petition people) is considering joining an international call for the use of the criminal law in every jurisdiction
Reparations: The one thing hardly any young people know.
COP21 is predicated on the notion that the world will overshoot the 1.5C threshold target (in fact current temperature trends indicate that this will happen in 2029). Between the year 2050 and 2100, the younger generation must pay a vast bill to remove enough carbon from the atmosphere to stabilise temperatures at that threshold by 2100. In fact, data presented in the supporting documentation for this conference (Hiatus in the Greenhouse by Russell Jones and Wigley) indicates that we won’t get back to 1.5C until 2150 at the earliest (See Fig 1). The IPCC has undertaken very considerable work on modelling the carbon budgets to reach that goal, but they have underestimated the severity of the problem, and the difficulty in getting back to 1.5C, because they have failed to include aerosols in their net zero assessments. In the UK, where CGAN is based, there is virtually no youth understanding that the young have been signed up to pay this bill. The young have no idea that 'deal' was agreed on their behalf and they have no idea of the cost. Very few environmental NGOs discuss it.
The debts that are often discussed are the cost of 'adaptation' and 'loss and damage compensation'. I am not aware of any civil litigation cases that factor in carbon removal costs. I asked at the conference that people carefully consider the vast cost of carbon removal, because it should become a crucial part of the reparations sought under Article 75 of the Rome Statute. We need the key climate criminals to pay this now, because the bill
may be too great for the young to pay between 2050 and 2100. Reparations could be sought from the Fossil Fuel Industry (FFI), but also from the banks that have knowingly lent the FFI $6.9 trillion since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015.
Here is a peer reviewed article on the potential cost - $535 Trillion: -
https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/08/climate-inaction-will-make-our-kids-pay hundreds-of-trillions-of-dollars/
Remind ourselves of the implications of failure.
This peer reviewed research is not definitive, although it is based upon the research found in 180 other papers. The research suggests around 1 billion people will be killed at 2C of global heating: -
The James Hansen (et al) 8C to 10C paper is the subject of considerable scientific discussion but, if correct, represents an existential threat to virtually all human life: - https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha09020b.html
The gravity of the threat we face warrants a dynamic shift in the way climate campaigners seek to tackle the key polluters. Which is the reason why these Mayday C4 events exist (Ed).
WG 9A Final Fifth Mayday C4 Event
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA) Saturday September 21, 2024
Working Group 9A. The GCIF Proposal
Co-Chairs: Titus Alexander (Democracy MaDers) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (Organiser Mayday C4 Events; Founder HRTP) PLUS two IPCC members who wish to remain anonymous Others: Prof Raghuram RAJAN (Chicago Business School & Former Chief Economist IMF); Prof Steve Keen (UCL); Geraint Davies.
Recommenda*ons
1. The idea of a redistribu1ve carbon tax, whereby high emi;ng countries pay a carbon levy into a fund that is then redistributed to low-emi;ng countries, was first suggested in 2019 by Prof Raghuram RAJAN in the FT. Subsequently the idea was picked up and renamed the Global Carbon Incen1ve Fund (GCIF) by Dr Robin Russell Jones through ar1cles on the CEN (Conserva1ve Environment Network) website, the Guardian and ORF, The Observer Research Founda1on in India. The basis of the levy and benefit calcula1on was changed from a produc1on to a consump1on-based system. We recommend that the GCIF proposal is presented to CHOGM & COP this year for ra1fica1on in 2025.
2. The GCIF proposal deals with industrial emissions of CO2 only, and the average global emissions of industrial CO2 per capita is 4.8 tonnes per annum. Countries with per capita emissions above 4.8 will pay into a UN-administered Fund that will redistribute the funds to low-emi;ng countries. We recommend suppor1ng this proposal as the best financial instrument for achieving Contrac1on and Convergence which was itself regarded as the most equitable solu1on to climate change at COP 3 in 1995.
3. The calcula1on is based on the difference between the global average of 4.8 tonnes of CO2 per capita and the per capita figure for the country in ques1on; mul1plied by the popula1on of that country; 1mes whatever sum is placed on a tonne of CO2. In view of the dire situa1on in which we now find ourselves (we are on course to breach 1.5C of warming in 2029), we recommend an ini1al price of $60 per tonne of CO2 doubling every 2 years un1l decarbonisa1on is achieved.
4. On this basis the US would pay roughly $240 bn per annum, whilst India would receive roughly the same amount. We recommend that the scheme is trialled by high and low-emi;ng countries (The Sunrise Scenario) in order to road-test the proposal, and iron out any wrinkles in the system. Suitable high-emi;ng countries could be Sweden, Iceland and Switzerland. Low-emi;ng “partners” could be Samoa, Namibia or Barbados. These are examples only
5. The GCIF proposal covers industrial emissions of Carbon dioxide only. Separate funds are required for industrial methane, (The Global Methane Incen1ve Fund or GMIF), and non-industrial emission of CO2 (AFOLU & Transport). These are covered by GOATIF, which stands for the Global Ozone Agriculture Transport Incen1ve Fund. In addi1on there needs to be a fourth Incen1ve Fund, GABCIF: The Global Aerosols and Black Carbon Incen1ve Fund. We recommend that the UNFCCC adopts these proposals ASAP and establishes task forces to study how these schemes will work in prac1ce.
1.Raghuram Rajan, “A fair and equitable way to tax carbon,” Financial Times, December 17, 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/96782e84-2028-11ea-b8a1-584213ee7b2b. 2. Russell-Jones R, “The case for a global carbon tax,” Conservative Environment network, July 13, 2020, https://www.cen.uk.com/our-blog/2020/7/13/the-case-for-a- carbon-tax. 3.Russell-Jones R. “Will the COP 26 climate conference be a national embarrassment for the UK?” Guardian, September 7, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2020/sep/07/cop26- climate-conference-britain-un-glasgow.
4. Russell-Jones R (2021) The Global Carbon Incen:ve Fund as a response to the climate crisis. Observer Research Founda:on: Issue No. 488
5.Lall S, Rajan R, Schoder C. A Global Incen:ve Scheme to Reduce Carbon Emissions. World bank(Development Economics). Policy Research Working paper 10759.
6. Russell-Jones R & Wigley T. Hiatus in the Greenhouse. Has the IPCC helped or hindered? Available as a booklet at the C4 Events (Under Review Oxford Open Climate Change)
WG 10A Fifth Mayday C4 Event_SB_EN
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA) Saturday September 21, 2024
WG 10 A: How to implement the GMIF, GOATIF & GABCIF proposals (Reducing agriculture and transport’s carbon footprint)
Subgroup A. Reducing methane emissions.
Co-Chairs: Dr Joshua Dean (University of Bristol), Prof. Euan Nisbet (Royal Holloway). Others: Dr Semra Bakkaloglu (Imperial College London); Dr Robin Russell-Jones (Founder HRTP).
(GMIF equals all industrial methane emissions. GOATIF includes all other GHG emissions plus secondary GHGs such as ozone, minus GCIF & GMIF. GABCIF is aerosols and black carbon).
IntroducWon
Methane is the second most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas a2er carbon dioxide. Over 60% of methane emissions can be directly a>ributed to human ac?vity such as agriculture, fossil fuel extrac?on and waste. Recently, the fossil fuel industry has worked to reduce methane emissions, which represents a poten?al loss of revenue since methane is the main component of natural gas. Although it is urgent that fossil fuel emissions should be reduced further, it is important that other anthropogenic emissions are also tackled. These are primarily from agriculture and waste. There are many opportuni?es to reduce emissions from agriculture. These include cuFng emissions from manure and biowaste, from biomass burning, and encouraging dietary changes to reduce consump?on. Methane emissions from waste, which are growing rapidly around large popula?on concentra?ons in Africa, South and East Asia and South America, are rela?vely easy to mi?gate and present obvious targets for reduc?on.
Emissions from many natural methane sources, par?cularly tropical and boreal wetlands maybe increasing rapidly. Other emissions, such as from Arc?c methane sources, may also increase drama?cally in the future, with major poten?al posi?ve climate feedbacks. As it is largely imprac?cal to reduce natural emissions, efforts to reduce human-driven methane emissions are increasingly urgent.
Because methane is naturally oxidised in the atmosphere, it has a life?me in the atmosphere of about a decade, depending on defini?on. Thus, significant reduc?ons in anthropogenic methane emissions will lead to a rela?vely quick reduc?on in radia?ve forcing, on a decadal ?meline. This posi?ve outcome would represent a quick climate “win” which could contribute to an air of posi?vity in addressing climate change, something sorely needed right now since there is a lot of doom and gloom understandably surrounding the state of current climate change.
RecommendaWons
1. The UN should draw up detailed plans as to how the GMIF proposal will operate in prac?ce. This will not be easy as there is considerable uncertainty as to the exact source of the current methane increases. However, the simplest solu?on to this dilemma is to concentrate on anthropogenic source of methane (fugi?ve methane releases from fracking are a par?cularly easy target and are currently poorly controlled and monitored in many countries).
2. In addi?on, landfill emissions should be included as these are rela?vely easy to correct. In both instances a global average will need to be calculated, and those above the global average will pay into a UN administered fund (The GMIF); whilst those below the global average (per capita) will receive monied according to the popula?on of that country, ?mes the levy placed on a tonne of methane (Say $1000).
3. A similar calcula?on needs to be undertaken for other non-industrial sources of methane such as ca>le. This will require a considerable amount of detailed work by the UNFCCC, and reinforces the case for an Interna?onal Carbon Monitoring Agency where Carbon is taken to mean all GHGs.
4. Landfills, par?cularly in the African tropics and in South Asia, are large methane emi>ers. Many landfills are s?ll simply open to the atmosphere – simple fixes such as covering landfill with soil would drama?cally reduce methane emissions. In the longer term, more sophis?cated landfill design would be required to further reduce landfill emissions, but simple coverage with soil would already make a big difference. This would have the added benefit of improving air pollu?on and public health. Furthermore, a gas collec?on system should be installed at all landfill sites to capture landfill gas and u?lise it for energy produc?on through combined heat and power (CHP) engines.
5. Reduce methane emissions from waste more broadly. This includes reducing food waste and agricultural waste. Avoiding large manure ponds which are large methane emi>ers, and instead allowing biowaste to decay in the presence of oxygen which will promote microbial oxida?on. The diversion of biodegradable wastes to anaerobic diges?on can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfill. U?lising anaerobic digestors to convert biowaste into renewable natural gas (biogas and biomethane) for energy genera?on is another posi?ve alterna?ve, provided leaks from biodigesters are rigorously controlled.
6. Increase the number of independent measurements of methane emissions – independent of industry-led accoun?ng exercises. Ground based methane measurements, aerial (UAV based technologies, such as drone) and tower-based atmospheric observa?ons are increasingly affordable, available and rela?vely simple to manage. This would allow many countries to have simple systems for monitoring for methane leaks, which can then be quickly iden?fied and fixed rela?vely easily. Satellite measurements can be combined with ground-based and airborne measurements to enhance the accuracy and detail of emission es?mates.
7. Reduce biomass burning and deliberate fire emissions. This also has environmental, public health and property risk benefits. Incomplete burning releases both methane and many other air pollutants, so reducing burning not only reduces methane emissions but also widespread health-damaging pollu?on, especially in tropical
Africa and South Asia. In par?cular, crop waste burning should be eliminated as it is largely unnecessary and is a poten?ally large source of methane emissions. 8. Avoid reopening old coal and natural gas power plants to power new technologies such as cryptocurrencies and AI data centres. Require new energy hungry technologies to establish wholly greenhouse-zero energy sources before they are developed.
Further Reading
1. Nisbet, E.G., Fisher, R.E., Lowry, D., France, J.L., Allen, G., Bakkaloglu, S., Broderick, T.J., Cain, M., Coleman, M., Fernandez, J. and Forster, G., 2020. Methane mi?ga?on: methods to reduce emissions, on the path to the Paris agreement. Reviews of Geophysics, 58(1), p.e2019RG000675.
2. UN Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coali?on, 2021. Global Methane Assessment Benefits and Costs of Mi?ga?ng Methane Emissions, accessed at
h>ps://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/cita?ons/20210015658/downloads/GFaluvegiUNEPGlobMe thaneAssessReprint.pdf .
3. R B Jackson et al 2024 Human ac?vi?es now fuel two-thirds of global methane emissions. Environ. Res. Le>. 19 101002
WG 10B Fifth Mayday C4 Event
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA) Saturday September 21, 2024
WG 10: How to implement the GMIF, GOATIF & GABCIF proposals (Reducing agriculture and transport’s carbon footprint)
Subgroup B. Transport Emissions.
Co-Chairs: Nawaz Haq & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (HRTP). Others: Prof Tom Wigley (NCAR); Gonzalo Alvarez (Chair UN AssociaOon Climate and Oceans); Trudi Seneviratne (Sec Royal College Psych); Jonathan Ramsay FRCS.
(GMIF equals all industrial methane emissions. GOATIF includes all other GHG emissions plus secondary GHGs such as ozone, minus GCIF & GMIF. GABCIF is aerosols and black carbon).
IntroducIon
This is a complex subgroup of WG10 as it contains not only primary GHGs, but NOx and par@culates from transport, as well as tropospheric ozone a secondary transport pollutant which is also a GHG. Agriculture overlaps in many respects as it is also a source of NOx and par@culates, but here the par@culates are secondary par@culates formed aFer the release of ammonia from nitrogen-based fer@liser. It is conven@onal prac@ce to assume that all par@culates are similar in terms of their biological effects, and health impacts, but there is growing evidence that par@culates from different sources have different biological effects. Nanopar@cles, for example are poten@ally the most dangerous biologically, but are not rou@nely measured: firstly, because it is simpler to measure PM2.5; and secondly because nanopar@cles rapidly aggregate into larger par@culates. So, pregnant women or children directly inhaling traffic fumes, par@cularly from diesel exhausts, may suffer far greater health effects than children in the countryside inhaling secondary par@culates. Although nanopar@cles are not measured, in London and some other ci@es which have gone down the diesel route, 80% of NO2 comes from diesel exhausts, and NO2 levels are therefore a good surrogate for nanopar@cle exposure.
A second problem is that traffic exhausts contain thousands of biologically dangerous chemical compounds, whereas secondary par@culates are less saturated with carcinogenic compounds such as PAHs. In the US, PAHs have been linked with anxiety, depression and ADHD in children, but no one in the UK or elsewhere has yet inves@gated the current epidemic of mental health disorders amongst Bri@sh children, and the decision by the EU in the nine@es to encourage the sale of diesel cars on the wholly spurious grounds that it would benefit climate change. It is therefore par@cularly unfortunate that Rishi Sunak pushed back the date by which no new diesel vehicles could be sold in the UK from 2030 to 2035.
A further complexity is that the decline in plankton popula@ons (50% since 1958 globally) has been a`ributed in part to contamina@on of the marine Surface Micro-Layer (SML) by black carbon par@cles coming mainly from diesel (70% in Europe); and microplas@cs (mainly from tyres and brakes on heavier cars) saturated with lipophilic Forever chemicals (PFAS, PFOS & others). Toxic emissions need to be penalised whilst countries that have cleaned up their air quality or provide clean air should be rewarded.
Finally, a word about diesel traps for removing par@culates from diesel emissions, which may also be needed on the new genera@on of petrol-driven vehicles Gasoline Direct Injec@on or
GDIs. Research by Transport and Environment has demonstrated that diesel par@culate traps do not work as adver@sed as they are heated every 300 miles to “de-coke” the filter which results in clouds of par@culates being released into the environment. These releases are not measured in the standard vehicle tes@ng regimen making a mockery of the EU cer@fica@on scheme. Manufacturers of GDIs are trying to avoid the fihng of par@culate traps relying instead on manipula@ng the tes@ng regimen. We have of course been here before with VW and other car manufacturers and their cheat devices, for which car companies were heavily fined, with VW reps in the US going to jail. During the late eigh@es, the organiser of these C4 Events wrote to the Chief Scien@fic Advisor to the Cabinet, Sir John Fairclough to warn of the dangers to human health of going down the diesel route. Amongst other concerns RRJ pointed out that diesel exhaust was 100 @mes more potent than exhaust emissions from a car fi`ed with a cataly@c convertor and running on unleaded petrol (Ames tes@ng by the Swedish Transporta@on Board). This was 25 years before the IARC finally conceded that diesel exhaust is carcinogenic. Fairclough circulated departments in Whitehall with these concerns; but the response by HMG, the EU and car manufacturers was to go down the diesel route anyway, assuming wrongly that the answer was diesel par@culate traps. This should be regarded as one of the worst public health decisions ever taken by any government anywhere. And of course, it was done on totally erroneous grounds of mi@ga@ng climate change; erroneous because the civil servants and their scien@fic advisors failed to appreciate that diesel produces black carbon par@cles which exert a greenhouse effect, and which contribute to the decline in plankton numbers seen globally. Since plankton are the biggest carbon store on the planet, it is undeniable that the quickest way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is to restore plankton popula@ons back to normal as the resul@ng carbon absorbed will be far more effec@ve than tree-plan@ng, where the benefits are measured in decades, not months.
Black carbon is important as it exerts a greenhouse effect opposite to that of sulphate aerosols (which cool the planet). Specifically, it can reduce the albedo of the cryosphere (snow and ice) and lead to increased heat absorp@on in the oceans. On land, black carbon come from a range of sources including power genera@on, heavy industry, transporta@on. In order to capture all black carbon contributors, we propose that countries that are above the global average for black carbon and par@culate emissions pay a levy based on their total consump@on of petroleum products, on a per capita basis. We would recommend that the levy for diesel and dirty marine fuels are 10 @mes the rate for gasoline.
Already there is sufficient evidence to show that black carbon and par@culates have a nega@ve impact on the environment. Whilst it may be short-lived in the atmosphere, it may for example, be stored in oceans for a long @me with las@ng effects. Ac@on must be taken on the basis of the ‘precau@onary principle’ as the consequences of inac@on are so serious. Furthermore, any delay will result in the fossil fuel industry and other bad actors downplaying the environmental damage in order to keep selling their life-threatening products.
With regards to shipping, discussions around carbon taxes have been under discussion at the Interna@onal Mari@me Organiza@on (IMO) for some @me, based on the climate impact of shipping. The thinking here is to raise capital to spur the uptake of ‘zero’ or ‘near zero’ carbon fuels and technologies. It should be noted, however, that many countries, par@cularly developing countries, have concerns around the economic impact, food security and other poli@cal reasons, and have objected to such taxes as being unjust.
For clarity, the redistribu@ve system that we are proposing in rela@on to GCIF and other financial instruments is not an alterna@ve to the above-men@oned tax. We are seeking to directly penalise the high emi`ers of black carbon and par@culates, and reward those who produce amounts lower than the global average (per capita).
To implement redistribu@ve taxes for GOATIF and GABCIF as they relate to transport, the diesel popula@on of a country is mul@plied by the average miles travelled per annum. A global average is then calculated. Countries above the global average will pay an annual levy into a UN administered fund that equates to the difference between their diesel cars x miles travelled per annum and the global average, mul@plied by $10 US dollars. Avia@on and shipping are not included in territorial emission es@mates. A mechanism needs to be found urgently for including these and appor@oning the emissions to countries using a consump@on-based System.
RecommendaIons.
1. The UN should draw up detailed plans as to how GOATIF and GABCIF will operate in practice, using black carbon, particulates and aerosols as the bench-marks
2. Encourage drivers to walk or cycle, par@cularly for short journeys. 3. Introduce pedestrian-only areas in towns and ci@es
4. Install cycle networks for bicycles and for electric bikes and scooters 5. Encourage use of public transport; if necessary, by subsidising fares 6. Introduce Clean Air Zones and penalise diesel vehicles by introducing a toxicity
charge (As has been done successfully by Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London). 7. Introduce increased parking charges for high-pollu@ng vehicles, par@cularly SUVs which generate microplas@cs from the tyre degrada@on on heavier vehicles 8. Reduce conges@on by use of variable speed limits
9. Get rid of speed bumps
10. Iden@fy and fine high-pollu@ng vehicles at the road-side
11. Display air quality readings in public loca@ons
12. Give priority to air quality in planning applica@ons, and promote microgenera@on projects.
13. Increase Vehicle Excise Duty on diesel vehicles
14. Increase tax on diesel and phase out subsidies for Red Diesel
15. Phase out Transport Refrigerated Units (TRUs) and ban them from city centres 16. Restore the 2030 date for the phase-out of all new petrol and diesel driven vehicles in the UK Make this date universal (The EUs phase out date is 2035 which is too late) 17. Introduce tes@ng regimen for new cars that reflect real-world driving condi@ons 18. Ensure that the annual MOT includes NOx and small par@culates in emissions tests, par@cularly for GDIs.
19. Make it illegal for garages to circumvent pollu@on control technology, for example by removing par@culate filters or catalysts.
20. Incen@vise the introduc@on of clean fuels such as hydrogen.
21. Make sure that the contribu@on of renewables to electricity genera@on is increased in line with climate change commitments
22. Ensure that the new WHO annual limit for PM2.5 (of 5 microg/m3) is implemented from 2030, and not 2040 as stated in the Government’s Environment Bill.
23. Avia@on accounts for 6-7% of global warming, and shipping accounts for 3-4%, but interna@onal avia@on and mari@me opera@ons are not captured in a country’s territorial emissions. The UN needs to appor@on avia@on and marine emissions to individual countries using a consump@on-based system.
24. Airlines and their business-compromised governing body, needs to recognise that biofuels are not the answer to transport going forward. They should promote hydrogen
25. Airline operators need to stop pretending that their businesses are sustainable through the use of carbon offsets. Plan@ng trees in Africa does nothing to reduce the global warming impact of avia@on (6-7% globally).
26. VAT should be levied on airline fuel at the highest rate possible. The operators, and passengers, have got away with this tax-payer funded subsidy for far too long. 27. There should be a frequent flyer levy so that the most profligate users pay more per mile than the occasional user.
28. Selling @ckets at less than cost should be prohibited. This should discourage the idio@c craze of organising hen par@es and stag weekends in east European countries. 29. Airports are major sources of local air pollu@on, not just related to the traffic conges@on that they cause. At Heathrow, for example, diesel generators are used extensively to power planes on the tarmac. Sustainable alterna@ves are available. The airport authori@es should provide these, and oblige operators to use them. 30. Shipping ports are also major sources of local air pollu@on. Again, diesel generators are oFen used to power ships that are in harbour. Port authori@es should provide clean alterna@ves, and ensure that they are used.
31. Ships are permi`ed to use higher sulphur fuels when away from the coastlines of Europe and North America (The legal limit for the sulphur content of mari@me fuels is 0.5% globally versus 0.1% near to port). However, filthier fuels such as bunker fuel can s@ll be burnt provided that the ship has fi`ed desulphurisa@on equipment (DSE). In prac@ce however the DSE is some@mes turned off, or, more frequently, the captured sulphur is simply @pped into the ocean. The IMO needs to urgently ban all mari@me fuels with a sulphur content > 0.5%.
Further Reading (Refs 2 & 3 were made available at the Conference)
1 Russell-Jones R, Walter C, Kelly F, Holgate S. Air Pollu@on: the public health challenge of our @me. Ramphal Ins@tute Policy Brief: Vol 2, No 2, Jan 27, 2021.
2 Russell-Jones R Wigley TML. Hiatus in the Greenhouse. Has the IPCC helped or hindered?
3 Russell-Jones R. Hazards to Health in the Greenhouse. Why is global warming so intractable?
WG 11 Revised Fifth Mayday C4 Event
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA)
Saturday September 21, 2024
Working Group 11: The Global Ecosystem Incentive Fund –Terrestrial (GEIF-T) Co-Chairs: Ulrich Loening. (Centre for Human Ecology, Edinburgh) & Alistair Gould (Chair; Carbon Free Group); John D Liu (Founder; Ecosystem Restoration Camps Movement / Ecosystem Ambassador, Commonland Foundation), Edmond Rube (Director, Carbon Free
Group).
"Restoration needs to be the central intention of human civilisation.
The value of ecological function is vastly higher than the value of things. If we make restoration the basis of a living economy we will be aligning human understanding with the miracle of life. That is in everyone's interests”
John D Liu
Introduction
A. The critical importance of soils within the planet's ecological systems and the role of soils in drawing down CO2 The Ocean is by far the biggest store and sequester of atmospheric carbon. Land, as 1/3rd of the cover of Earth, is smaller, but very significant. On land, soil holds the largest store. More carbon is bound in soil than in all life above ground, including all fauna and flora. The soil that all terrestrial life depends on is being destroyed by current farming practices and
deforestation. The result .is more carbon emission than absorption, leading to greater climate impacts and reduced food security. This situation can be easily reversed and must be.
B. Actions that can be undertaken in restoring soils
Soil could grow forever, and fix carbon continuously with no limits. Applied worldwide, this constitutes the largest biological carbon sink on land.
There are a wide range of land management practices and specific interventions that can demonstrably draw down significant amounts of CO2, in turn providing sustainable crop yields from agricultural systems. Currently agriculture is responsible for significant GHG emissions and could become a carbon sequestration activity if suitably developed. There are many methods to bring this about, under the various names of organic farming, agro-ecology, permaculture, and others. They have in common that soil is allowed to grow. In so doing, many other benefits accrue, including better health for crops, improved human nutrition (and therefore health), restoration of biodiversity, minimisation of flooding and resilience to drought. To significantly accelerate CO2 drawdown and the restoration of soil, improvers can be applied to soils; in particular ‘biochar’ a modern development of ancient controlled burning of dry agricultural and forestry waste (Green waste must not be used as this produces copious amounts of methane. In addition to burying carbon, the resulting carbon-rich material is then added to the soil, sequestering 3 kgs of CO2 (atomic weight 44) for each kg of carbon (biochar) buried (Atomic weight 12). The buried biochar improves plant nutrition, reducing needs for irrigation, fertilisers and
pesticides etc. Additionally, it can regenerate degraded farmland and improve crop yields
C. Placing appropriate value on the restoration of healthy soils. The GEIF-T is designed to promote sustainable farming practices, but also to incentivise countries to protect, maintain and restore their terrestrial carbon sinks. It should encourage the development of values-based, localised, intergenerational restoration initiatives within recipient countries that should draw down CO2 in swift and measurable ways. These local initiatives can then in turn demonstrate approaches and technologies to the donor countries to assist in their soil restoration activities there.
D. The role of fungi in the healthy functioning of soil should be protected; chemical inputs degrade the ability of fungi to absorb an estimated one third (13 GigaTonnes) of the annual fossil fuel generated CO2 and the potential to increase this sink could be significantly enhanced.
E. Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) is an important potential carbon sink in areas with olivine or basalt rock. CO2 dissolves in water to form carbonic acid. When a suitable type of rock is crushed and spread on the land, carbonic acid dissolves the rock forming carbonates and thus removes CO2 from the atmospheric carbon cycle. It also retains nutrients in the soil and can be used in conjunction with biochar.
F. In political terms it is important to have a redistributive system whereby the “bad guys” pay the “good guys”. In terms of the GEIF-T, good guys are countries that have NOT cut down their indigenous forests, a far more important policy than planting trees. We also need to reward countries that have left other carbon sinks intact eg peat bogs; tropical wetlands etc. Bad guys are those countries that have done the opposite. Obviously, this overlaps with NDCs. But NDCs only apply to anthropogenic activities: eg abandoning logging or planting trees. But in reality leaving virgin forests and land intact are far more important measures than the NDC activities. So the GEIF-T is designed to reward countries such as Russia with vast areas of untouched forest. It is designed to penalise countries such as Brazil that have taken a cavalier attitude to the Amazonian rain forest. Perhaps the most glaring example of a “bad guy” and a “good guy” would be Haiti and the Dominican Republic which occupy the same Caribbean island of Hispaniola, but which have had totally different approaches to forest management.
Recommendations
There are several technical interventions that can assist soil restoration and CO2 sequestration, which are supported by numerous pilot projects. Governments and businesses should encourage the development of a) perennial crops.
b) no-till farming with mulches, not herbicides (the latter kill soil fauna as well as weeds). c) appropriate farming practices that allow crops to grow with a “natural” nutritional resistance to pests and disease organisms.
d) the use of biochar
e) Conserving and encouraging the planting of traditional and indigenous crops to provide resilience, diversity and cultural continuity.
f) Exploit enhanced rock weathering where suitable rocks exist
In addition, the UN should draw up detailed plans as to how the GEIF-Terrestrial will operate in practice. It requires a “good guy” to team up with a “bad guy” and develop a method of penalising and rewarding different approaches to forest management etc. as exemplified, for example, by the Caribbean island of Hispaniola, where the Haitians have cut down virtually all their trees, whilst the Dominican Republic has preserved theirs. The ultimate aim is to incentivise countries such as Russia to preserve its forests and other terrestrial carbon sinks.
.
Final WG12A
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA)
Saturday September 21, 2024
WG 12. How to implement the GEIF- Marine ecosystems proposal, (and deal with plasNcs in the Oceans).
A. Marine Carbon Sinks. Madadh Maclaine (ZESTA) & Nawaz Haq
Others: Jonathan Ramsay FRCS. Gonzalo Alvarez (Chair UN AssociaNon: Climate & Oceans); Nathan Robinson (Oceanographer/TV).
ntroduc)on:
Oceans, and water-based plants, generate 70% of the oxygen we need. The oceans are also the Earth’s largest ‘carbon sink’ absorbing around 30% of all carbon dioxide emissions, and captures more than 90% of excess heat.
The ocean also holds 60 Fmes more carbon than the atmosphere, and a recent study showed that plankton drive processes that capture twice as much carbon as scienFsts previously thought [1,2].
Rising temperatures produce more water vapour, and water vapour is actually the most important gas from a global warming perspecFve accounFng for approximately 70% of heaFng (GHGs account for the other 30%), thus raising the prospect of a posiFve feedback loop. Adding to this, recent reports show that a warming climate could turn ocean mixotrophic microbes, making up much of marine plankton, from carbon sinks to carbon emiRers, adding to the problem of global warming [3].
The ocean is under criFcal threat from various from a variety of pollutants resulFng in reduced phytoplankton, crucial in our ‘biological pump’ processes, and in forming the ‘Sea Surface Micro Layer’ (SML).
The SML is the boundary interface between the atmosphere and ocean, covering about 70% of the Earth's surface. It's only one to a thousand microns thick, and has physicochemical and biological properFes that are disFnct from the underlying water column.
The SML is an oil surfactant skin, produced by marine organisms (primarily phytoplankton), that can slow down the rate of evaporaFon and gas transfer of not only water, but CO2 by as much as 50% [4- 8].
Zooplankton also inhabit the SML, and are equally vulnerable to toxic insults, in some cases more so, as they ingest black carbon, micro- and nano-parFcles saturated with “Forever” chemicals. When plankton die, they fall to the ocean floor sequestering the carbon in their shells. Thus, the ocean floor is the biggest carbon store on Earth. Zooplankton are also essenFal for phytoplankton health, and form the basis of the marine food chain.
Water vapour pressure is not only determined by the marine SML, but also by atmospheric temperature change, light, terrestrial ecology, and water chemistry. The SML is also responsible for aerosol producFon, a hugely important process as aerosols nucleate water vapor to form clouds [4,6,7]. Without aerosols (which also come from the SML), clouds will not form, or certainly not in the amounts required to cool the Earth. Therefore, with a combinaFon of rising atmospheric temperatures and a depleFng SML, which has a detrimental impact on aerosol producFon, we
expect to see raised humidity levels with less water vapor able to nucleate to form clouds further adding to the posiFve feedback loop [9].
Phytoplankton populaFons have declined by 50% since the late 1950’s, and conFnue to decline at 1% per annum. NASA recently reported 65% less plankton producFvity over 20 years in the Gulf of Maine (10). Previous NASA studies showed 1% per annum plankton loss between 1998-2012 [10,11]. A significant amount of terrestrial wildlife, around 70%, including marine organisms have disappeared [12]. Worryingly, a recent study showed that reduced phytoplankton levels (by 16- 26%), reduces the carrying capacity for fish between 38-55% [13]. Crucially, the ocean’s very significant oxygen producFon for Earth will be severely affected by falling phytoplankton, disrupFng the process of photosynthesis (14).
One study showed that increased water temperatures by 6% by 2100 under the RCP8.5 ‘business as usual’, which some scienFsts believe could happen, oxygen producFon could stop (REF ???). Other reports suggest figures of over 3% [REFS ???]. Whilst these figures are based on current pathway and lower ocean temperature esFmates can be predicted based on other emissions scenarios, we also must consider current climate and temperature forecasts have not accounted for the warming impact of aerosols (primarily from fossil fuels) as these have decreased, and will conFnue to decrease, with clean air iniFaFves [15]. The combinaFon of increasing water vapor pressure, rising humidity due to temperature increases and currently unfactored SML and plankton depleFon create an ominous mulFfactorial assault on climate stability.
The risk of ocean deoxygenaFon is significant (16). The declining phytoplankton populaFon (at c.1% per annum) is alarming many experts who claim that we may lose the SML over the next two decades under a “Business as Usual” scenario (RCP 8.5). This could lead to a Doomsday scenario whereby global warming would conFnue to worsen even if we manged to stabilise the concentraFon of GHGs in the atmosphere.
The main polluFon threats to the ocean and the SML come largely from plasFcs, down to micro and nano-parFcles, black carbon (BC) parFculates, and toxic ‘forever-chemicals’ that can be concentrated compared with the underlying water column up to 500 Fmes by the minute plasFc parFcles found in the SML (See WG 12B). This Working Group (WG 12A) considers only black carbon and parFculates from the incomplete combusFon of fossil fuels, both on land at sea.
Shipping, despite contribuFng around 3% of greenhouses gases, is parFcularly significant as it is responsible for around 20% of global black carbon and parFculates coming from incomplete combusFon of low-grade fossil fuels. Because of this, and because shipping is not necessarily included in NDCs, we have formulated recommendaFons specifically for this sector.
Recent studies across the world show the potenFally detrimental impact of black carbon in the ocean (17-19). In one study in the Southern Ocean, researchers found that organic carbon producFon captures roughly 3 billion tons of carbon per year, which is equivalent to about one quarter of total human emissions, while parFculate inorganic carbon producFon (including black carbon) diminishes CO2 uptake by about 270 million tons per year [17].
Another report shows [18] black carbon ‘influencing cloud forma1on and rainfall pa3erns, plus reducing the albedo of the cryosphere when deposited on ice and snow, with a resul1ng increase in melt rates. The atmospheric life1me of black carbon ranges from a few days to one month, and eventually deposits on the surface of lands and oceans. In addi1on to the direct deposi1on on the surface of the ocean, large amounts of black carbon deposited on land are washed out by rainfall and transported by rivers, hence ul1mately ending up in the ocean.
The es1mated total flux of black carbon to the ocean via atmospheric deposi1on and fluvial transport is equivalent to the es1mated emission rate. Considering that most black carbon ends up in the ocean, it is important to understand how this material impacts marine systems. Because black carbon par1cles are highly porous and surface-ac1ve, with a high density, they can absorb dissolved compounds, increase aggrega1on processes and ballast sinking par1culate organic ma3er. Because they bring nutrients and contaminants to the surface ocean, and modify the structuring of the environment at the microscale, black carbon may alter phyto- and bacterio-plankton composi1on and ac1vity. As a result, black carbon may alter the efficiency of the biological carbon pump, and lead to either a posi1ve or a nega1ve feedback on the atmospheric concentra1on of CO2.
In addi1on, black carbon can absorb contaminants either when burnt, or in seawater and then, either introduce them into the food chain, hence affec1ng food security, or export them to the seafloor, hence cleansing the water column. In order to determine the actual impacts of black carbon, it is necessary to obtain accurate emission and deposi1on rates. At present, there are s1ll large uncertain1es related to the magnitude of the impact of atmospheric black carbon due to difficul1es in obtaining accurate emission inventories.
It is also necessary to understand how Black Carbon interacts with biological/chemical/physical marine processes. Owing to its short residence 1me in the atmosphere, atmospheric black carbon is currently considered a short-lived climate/health forcer. In contrast, because black carbon in the ocean can last for millennia, and its impacts on carbon cycling in the ocean can have long-las1ng feedbacks on climate and marine biogeochemistry, marine black carbon may act as a long-lived climate/ecosystem forcer’.
Ocean acidificaFon
Around 30% of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are absorbed by oceans, resulFng in ocean acidificaFon causing a decrease in the ocean water pH levels. Ocean acidificaFon has increased rapidly causing pH to drop by approximately 40% since the pre-industrial era (19). Further decreases in pH are projected in the future. Between 1985 and 2021, seawater pH has decreased by 15% from 8.11 to 8.05, with a projected further decline, of between 0.15 and 0.5pH units by 2100 (depending on the emission scenario) [18,19]. IPCC RCP 8.5 (“Business as Usual” Scenario) predicts a global PH of 7.95 by 2045, which will result in a shil in marine micro-organisms away from key carbonate-based species and diatoms, resulFng in marine eco-system collapse. This in turn would lead to the loss of most seals, birds, whales, fish, and food supply for 3 billion people [8, 20].
Studies show deposiFon of black carbon aerosols at the surface of the ocean can decrease the pH in seawater providing another source to ocean acidificaFon [18]. Data from experiments with reference material and black carbon aerosols suggest that black carbon strongly absorbs organic carbon and microorganisms. Black carbon also seems to change bacterial community composiFon, thus affecFng microbe-invertebrate interacFons. Further studies are needed.
Finally, there is evidence that black carbon and atmospheric brown clouds (ABCs) will overall enhance global warming and the frequency of forest fires and dust storms and will contribute to ocean acidificaFon. Overall, there is strong evidence that black carbon is a strong forcing factor for the microbial food web and microbe-mediated biogeochemical cycles. Due to the prospected increase of black carbon emissions in the years to come, the role of black carbon for microbial processes will likely become even more prominent.
Before making recommendaFons, it is worth quoFng from a recent blog by Leen Gorissen, the founder of Centre4NI:
A study published in the scien0fic journal Nature, es0mates that without radical transforma0on, ocean ecosystems will collapse this decade. The researchers es0mate that abrupt food web collapse will begin before 2030 in the tropical oceans and spread to the tropical forests and higher la0tudes by 2050 (Trisos et al. 2020). The impact of such collapse will be all-encompassing, endangering the majority of life on Earth. And while most of us s0ll believe such a scenario is inconceivable —primarily because we fail to understand the features of living systems, like interconnectedness and interdependency and because of a host of subconscious cogni0ve biases that taint our perspec0ve— there is no shortage of scien0fic evidence underpinning the outlook that Earth’s life-suppor0ng systems are collapsing (Steffen et al. 2015, Bologna & Aquino 2020, Heleno et al. 2020, Linn et al. 2022, Ripple et al. 2022, Penn & Deutsch 2022, IPCC 2022 report and many others).
RecommendaNons
The aim of our recommendaFons is to idenFfy good actors and bad actors in the field of marine polluFon. Black carbon and parFculate polluFon are covered in 10B (TransportaFon). Here we target the producers of marine polluFon in the form of Forever chemicals (PFAS & PFOS) plus other chemicals such as Bisphenol A that contaminate the marine Surface Micro-Layer (SML) but do not degrade.
1. Countries with above average producFon of Forever chemicals will be penalised, and those with producFon figures below the global average (on a per capita basis) will be rewarded. Hopefully the beneficiaries will direct the monies towards the regeneraFon of nature and biodiversity with a parFcular focus on the oceans, marine ecosystems and habitats such as mangroves and coral reefs.
2. The UN should draw up detailed plans as to how the GEIF- Marine will operate in practice. 3. We recommend that the IPCC undertake an urgent review of all factors affec=ng ocean health with specific recogni=on of the role that the marine SML has on global climate change. This must be the subject of IPCC Special reports so that policy makers are informed and can take =mely ac=on. Con=nuing studies are required urgently to monitor rapid changes in ocean composi=on and health, and their impact on climate.
References
[1] Tiny plankton drive processes in the ocean that capture twice as much carbon as scientists thought Published: May 21, 2020 Author: Ken Buesseler, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution hBps://theconversaEon.com/Eny-plankton-drive-processes-in-the-ocean that-capture-twice-as-much-carbon-as-scienEsts-thought-136599
[2] Oceans absorb 30% of our emissions, driven by a huge carbon pump. Tiny marine animals are key to working out its climate impacts Published: June 15, 2023 Authors: Tyler Rohr, Lecturer in Southern Ocean Biogeochemical Modelling, IMAS, University of Tasmania, Anthony Richardson, Professor, The University of Queensland, Elizabeth Shadwick, Team Leader, Oceans & Atmosphere, CSIRO https://theconversation.com/oceans-absorb-30-of-our-emissions-driven-by-a-huge-carbon pump-tiny-marine-animals-are-key-to-working-out-its-climate-impacts-207219
[3] BriFsh Ecological Society, Research ArFcle
Mixotrophic microbes create carbon tipping points under warming Authors: Daniel J. Wieczynski, Holly V. Moeller, Jean P. Gibert First published: 31 May 2023
[4] ArFcle Nature Geoscience volume 11, pages 492–496 (2018)
Published: 28 May 2018 Reduced air–sea CO2 exchange in the Atlantic Ocean due to biological surfactants Authors: Ryan Pereira, Ian Ashton, Bita Sabbaghzadeh, Jamie D. Shutler, Robert C. Upstill-Goddard hRps://www.nature.com/arFcles/s41561-018-0136-2
(5) hRps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/28/invisible-scum-on-sea-cuts-co2- exchange-with-air-by-up-to
50#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20warmer%20the%20ocean%20surface%20gets%2C%20the,an%20eve n%20greater%20reducFon%20in%20gas%20exchange.
[6] An assessment of the effect of sea surface surfactant on global atmosphere-ocean CO2 flux Wu-ting Tsai, Kon-Kee Liu First published: 26 April 2003
[7] Progress in Oceanography Volume 109, February 2013, Pages 104-116
Sea surface microlayers: A unified physicochemical and biological perspective of the air–ocean interface Authors: Michael Cunliffe, Anja Engel, Sanja Frka, Blaženka Gašparović, Carlos Guitart, J Colin Murrell, Matthew Salter, Christian Stolle, Robert Upstill-Goddard, Oliver Wurl et al https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2012.08.004
[8] FronFers in Marine Science The Ocean's Vital Skin: Toward an Integrated Understanding of the Sea Surface Microlayer Published May 2017
Authors: Anja Engel, Hermann W. Bange, Michael Cunliffe, Susannah M. Burrows, Gernot Friedrichs, Luisa Galgani, Hartmut Herrmann, Norbert Hertkorn, MarFn Johnson, Peter S. Liss, Patricia K. Quinn, Markus Schartau, Alexander Soloviev, ChrisFan Stolle, Robert C. UpsFll-Goddard, Manuela van Pinxteren, Birthe Zäncker
[9] Climate DisrupYon Caused by a Decline in Marine Biodiversity and PolluYon Published October 2022 Authors: Howard Dryden and Diane Duncan a a Clean Water Wave CIC, The GOES Project, Roslin InnovaFon Centre, Edinburgh University, Easter Bush Campus, Edinburgh DOI: 10.9734/IJECC/2022/v12i111392
[10] NASA Earth Observatory Phytoplankton Productivity Down in Gulf of Maine Published June 2022 hRps://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/149915/phytoplankton-producFvity down-in-gulf-of-maine
[11] Global Biogeochemical Cycles NASA: Study shows oceanic phytoplankton declines in Northern Hemisphere Published September 2023
hRps://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-shows-oceanic-phytoplankton-declines-in northern-hemisphere/
[12] Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) Living Planet Report 2022
[13] Nature Communications Article
Steeper size spectra with decreasing phytoplankton biomass indicate strong trophic amplification and future fish declines. Angus Atkinson, Axel G. Rossberg, Ursula Gaedke, Gary Sprules, Ryan F. Heneghan, Stratos Batziakas, Maria Grigoratou, Elaine Fileman, Katrin Schmidt & Constantin Frangoulis hBps://www.nature.com/arEcles/s41467-023-44406-5
[14] NOAA Research Published April 2023
Tiny organisms in the Southern Ocean play an outsized role in moderating Earth’s climate https://research.noaa.gov/2023/04/26/one-of-the-planets-most-important-carbon-sinks-is revealing-its-secrets/
[15] Columbia University
Global warming in the pipeline Authors: James E Hansen, Makiko Sato, Leon Simons, Larissa S Nazarenko, Isabelle Sangha, Pushker Kharecha, James C Zachos, Karina von Schuckmann, Norman G
Loeb, Matthew B Osman et al
Oxford Open Climate Change, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2023, kgad008,
[16] University of Leicester Research shows global warming disaster could suffocate life on planet Earth December 2015
hLps://le.ac.uk/news/2015/december/research-shows-global-warming-disaster-could suffocate-life-on-planet-earth
[17] French Na=onal Research Ins=tute for Sustainable Development
IRN SOOT-SEA : Impact of black carbon in South East Asia Updated December 2022 hLps://en.ird.fr/node/8287
[18] Advances in Environmental Research. Volume 25 (pp.1-37) Black Carbon and Microorganisms in Aquatic Systems Published: January 2012 Author: Markus Weinbauer
[19] European Environmental Agency Ocean AcidificaYon Report May 2024 hRps://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/ocean-acidificaFon
[20] Centre for Natural Intelligence The oceans are the engine of Earth’s life-support system and they are in grave danger PerspecFve publicaFon 2023 Author: Gorissen L
hRps://www.centre4ni.com/post/the-oceans-are-the-engine-of-earth-s-life-support-system-and they-are-in-grave-danger
[21] European Environment Agency European Sea Surface Temperature Published June 2023 hRps://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/european-sea-surface-temperature
[22] NaFonal Oceanography Centre
New report predicts UK oceans to warm by more than three degrees by 2100 Posted: 29 March 2023 https://noc.ac.uk/news/new-report-predicts-uk-oceans-warm-more-three-degrees-2100
WG 12B (Final)Fifth Mayday C4 Event
Venue: The Royal Society of Arts Manufacturing & Commerce (RSA) Saturday September 21, 2024
Working Group 12. How to implement the GEIF- Marine ecosystems proposal, (and deal with plasMcs in the Oceans).
Subgroup 12B. How to deal with plasMcs in the Oceans. Co-Chairs: Evelyn Barth (Truth about Plas=cs) & Bob Hogben (Chair: Truth about Plas=cs). Others: Gonzalo Alvarez (Chair UN Associa=on: Climate & Oceans); Jonathan Ramsay FRCS; Robin Russell-Jones (Organiser Mayday C4 Events & Founder HRTP), David Gomez (Director Ramphal Ins=tute); Abhiir Bhalla (Youth Rep CHEC); Madadh Maclaine (ZESTA); Alistair Gould (Chair: Carbon Free Group); Edmond Rube (Carbon Free Group).
Introduc=on
Unlike other WGs, the looming catastrophe to planetary and human health posed by plas9c pollu9on is so serious and so imminent that it was decided to produce a detailed analysis of the problem that was authored ini9ally by Evelyn Barth from Truth About Plas9cs (TAP), and then modified by RRJ, Bob Hogben and others. However, this report is a C4 document, not a TAP document. The analysis below contains proposals for taxing plas9cs at source. This is separate, and does not replace the need for a redistribu9ve system whereby “bad actors” pay a levy into a UN-administered fund called the Global Ecosystem Incen9ve Fund-Marine; whilst “good actors” will receive financial rewards. This was detailed in 12A with Forever chemicals being the yards9ck. “Countries with above average produc4on of Forever chemicals will be penalised, and those with produc4on figures below the global average (on a per capita basis) will be rewarded. Hopefully the beneficiaries will direct the monies towards the regenera4on of nature and biodiversity with a par4cular focus on the oceans, marine ecosystems and habitats such as mangroves and coral reefs.”
The same principle applied to 12B, except that the measure on which the levy is to be based is the discharge of microplas9cs into the ocean. It is hoped that the beneficiaries will again use the monies towards regenera9on schemes within the marine environment.
With regard to the “eco-taxes” suggested below; these should be seen as a means for a country to raise the monies needed to pay any levy imposed on that country by the UN-administered fund.
We recommend that the UN draw up detailed plans as to how the GEIF-Marine proposal will operate in relation to reducing plastic pollution of the oceans as a matter of the utmost urgency.
Report Overview
Plastics are rapidly contributing to the climate crisis, accelerating biodiversity loss, worsening a global health emergency stemming from toxic pollution affecting all species, and creating social justice challenges.
Our current predicament is not coincidental. For decades, the plastic and fossil fuel industries have deliberately funded campaigns to disseminate misinformation and delay substantial action. They have propagated the idea that recycling—an ambiguous concept dependent on future technologies—will solve the plastic crisis. This narrative has instilled a widespread yet unfounded belief among governments, businesses, and individuals that the plastic pollution problem is soluble if only it were recycled. Unfortunately, there is no scientific backing for this belief; with current technology, we can only downcycle plastic. Ultimately, once produced, plastic is destined to become toxic waste or uncontrollable pollution—there are no alternative outcomes over time.
The only real solution lies in drastically cutting global plastic production, and ensuring that it does not find its way into humans and our oceans. The Global Plastics Treaty will be finalised this year in Busan (South Korea), but will only limit production, not discharge,
However, even stopping plastic production today may not be sufficient to protect human health and marine ecosystems, as we still have to deal with the existing 'toxic debt'. Plastics will continue to break down in our environment, leading to on-going and increasing toxicity. If we have not yet exceeded critical limits, then we are likely nearing critical health limits for many species.
Furthermore, plastic pollution threatens the natural ecological networks that cycle and sequester carbon. Given that the natural carbon cycle is significantly larger than human-induced carbon emissions, this disruption could impact the global carbon balance.
People, animals, and ecosystems have never faced such high and swiftly rising levels of toxic contamination in air, water, and food. There are evident gaps in our comprehension of this issue. The world must recognize the urgent need to bridge these gaps in knowledge so we can take effective measures to manage the consequences. The connection between low sperm counts and plastic usage most likely involves endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as phthalates and BPA. These substances can disrupt hormones, particularly testosterone, which is crucial for sperm production. Research indicates that exposure to phthalates and BPA can diminish sperm concentration, motility, and morphology, as well as inducing DNA damage (Refs: Public Lecture by Richard Sharpe, British Fertility Society 2018; also Levine H et al. Temporal trends in sperm counts: a systematic review and meta regression analysis. Human Reproduction Update, 2017). However low sperm counts is just one of many health effects that are likely to be associated with long-lasting fluorinated compounds such as PFAS and PFOS. More research is needed, but remedial measures are needed now.
Table 1. Sources of marine Plastic pollution.
It should be noted that tyres (and brakes) account for 9% of oceanic pollu4on. Microplas4cs entering the oceans accounts for 11% of oceanic pollu4on, and coa4ngs on ships hulls another 16%. Tyres and brakes therefore represent 9/25 or 36% of microplas4cs. Heavier vehicles generate far more microplas4cs through wear and tear than lighter vehicles, so SUVs and even EVs are a problem. It should be noted that hydrogen fuel-cell cars are considerably lighter, and the use of regenera4ve braking can significantly reduce the release of microplas4cs.
(NB. The above figures do not include microplas4cs from offshore wind-farms which have only recently been iden4fied as a problem (See WG 14)
20-30% comes from the global fishing industry and fleets, which number over a
million vessels. 16% (around 1.9 million tons annually) is attributed to protective coatings on ship hulls.
These coatings are lost during voyages and maintenance activities like blast
cleaning and repainting. 9% comes from vehicle tyres and brakes. The particles are already small, so they enter marine environments more easily, posing significant
environmental risks. 20-35% comes from synthetic clothing. Most fibers are
released during washing, and while filtration is possible, it raises practical issues:
who would maintain the filters, and how would 20-30% stems from packaging and other plastic products.
70-80% of marine plastics originate from land based sources, primarily carried by rivers, while the rest comes directly from marine activities.
We handle the waste?
Comments