IPCC Predicts Heat Waves and More: Environmentalists May Find New Ammunition in Its Latest Report

Saturday, November 19, 2011 5:34 AM EST

By Amrutha Gayathri

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on Friday the current version of its climate report predicting extreme weather events such as heat waves, heavy rains, and droughts.

The "IPCC SREX Summary for Policymakers" report -- calling upon governments and businesses to step up infrastructure modifications to control climate change -- may become new ammunition for U.S. Democrats and environmentalists in their ongoing battle against conservative Republicans and others who deny global warming is partially the result of human activity.

"It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century on the global scale," according to the IPCC report. "It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, or heat waves, will increase over most land areas."

In certain scenarios, the report noted "a 1-in-20-year hottest day is likely to become a 1-in-2-year event by the end of the 21st century in most regions, except in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, where it is likely to become a 1-in-5-year event." It also pointed out, "It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe."

Meanwhile, "There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas, due to reduced precipitation and/or increased evapotranspiration," the report stated.
The report also indicated there is at least a two-thirds chance that humans can be held responsible for the planet's rising temperatures and other extreme weather events.

Environmentalists have pointed to a number of natural disasters that have plagued this year, causing damages of $1 billion or more, to reinforce their claims.

However, the IPCC has a history of being criticized, both about the specific content of its reports and about the methods undertaken to produce the reports. Some scientists have voiced their skepticism about humans being held responsible for climate change, which, they argue, has been a cyclic process at work even before mammals appeared on the face of the earth.

How (Some) Deforestation Might Slow Warming

Posted by Bryan Walsh Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Deforestation is a major cause of climate change, responsible for perhaps 15% (PDF) of the world's overall greenhouse gas pollution. That's because trees sequester carbon, and when those trees are cut down or burned, they release that carbon back into atmosphere. And as we lose trees, we lose a valuable carbon sink—each year the Amazonian rainforest locks in an estimated 1.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide, without which we'd be living in a much hotter and less pleasant planet.

So: keep trees standing or even expand existing forests, and you can help stave off climate change. Right? Well, as it so often turns out in climate science, the reality on the ground is much more complicated. A new paper published in the November 17 Nature argues that deforestation actually has a net cooling effect when it's carried out in the northern latitudes, largely because the open land left after a clearcut reflects sunlight, while dark forested ground tends to absorb solar energy.

Here's Xuhui Lee, a meteorologist at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and the lead author of the study:

If you cut trees in the boreal region, north of 45 degrees latitude, you have a net cooling effect. You release carbon into the atmosphere by cutting down trees, but you increase the albedo effect—the reflection of sunlight.

The albedo effect is something you probably learned about in junior high science, and it's something you can feel for yourself every time you go out in the hot sun in dark clothing. Usually when I'm writing about the albedo effect it's to explain how the planet might be warming faster—as the Arctic ice cap melts, white snow that reflects sunlight is replaced by dark ocean that absorbs the energy, speeding warming.

But the opposite seems to be true on deforestation, at least at the high latitudes. The Nature researchers found that surface temperatures in open areas were cooler largely because white snow cover reflected the sunlight back into space, while forested areas absorbed that energy. And at night, open land cooled faster than forests, which forced warm air on the ground higher into the atmosphere.

On the whole, the study authors found that temperature decreased by an average of 1.5 F in pen land north of the 45 degrees latitude, around the state of Minnesota. But as they looked further south, that cooling effect diminished, in part because forests in equatorial regions tend to hold more carbon—and therefore release more carbon when they're cut down or burned. (Less extreme latitudes are also less likely to have snow-covered ground.)

So the Nature researchers found that south of 35 degrees latitude, deforestation had a net warming effect.

This isn't the first article to find that deforestation might actually help cool the climate. A 2007 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that global-scale deforestation would result in a net cooling, as the changes in albedo and evaporation would overwhelm the impact of all that carbon being released into the atmosphere. But that doesn't mean we should go about chopping down every tree we can—on the whole, preserving tropical forests and even adding more trees in the equatorial latitudes will be beneficial for the climate, not to mention the biodiversity that depends on rainforests. But large-scale reforestation or afforestation projects in the north may not be the best idea, as Lee says:

People are debating whether afforestation is a good idea in high latitudes. If you plant trees you sequester carbon, which is a benefit to the climate system. At the same time, if you plant trees you warm the landscape because trees are darker compared to other vegetation types. So they absorb solar radiation.

The study is another reminder of just how devilishly complicated the climate system really is.

Bryan Walsh is a senior writer at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @bryanrwalsh. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME

Read more: http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/11/16/how-some-deforestation-might-slow-warming/#ixzz1eLftRv8P

Study confirms biogenic emissions result in no net carbon release

By Lisa Gibson | November 10, 2011
Biomass Power and Thermal
308 2nd Avenue North, Suite 304
Grand Forks, ND 58203
(701)746-8385

A new study with multiple co-authors, including researchers from the U.S. Forest Service, found that energy produced from forest biomass merely returns recently absorbed carbon to the atmosphere, and essentially results in no net release of carbon, provided overall forest inventories are stable or increasing.

The report, “Managing Forests Because Carbon Matters: Integrating Energy, Products, and Land Management Policy,” summarizes the most recent science regarding forests and carbon accounting, biomass use and forest carbon offsets. The authors, researchers from the U.S. Forest Service as well as several universities, natural resource and environmental organizations, hope their findings will lead to better policies, based on their findings.

"This work should help policymakers reconsider the critical impact forests have on our daily lives and the potential they have to solve problems that confront our nation," said Bob Malmsheimer, lead author of the report and a professor at State University of New York (Syracuse) College of Environmental Science and Forestry. "We believe our science-based findings should lead toward positive reforms that encourage investment in this vital renewable resource."

Those findings also include: sustainably managed forests can provide carbon storage and substitution advantages while delivering a wide range of environmental and social benefits that include biomass resources and jobs; forest products used in place of energy-intensive materials such as concrete, metals and plastics reduce carbon emissions and provide biomass residuals that can be substituted for fossil fuels to produce energy; and forest biomass-based energy uses far less of the carbon stored in the Earth than fossil fuels do, thereby reducing the flow of fossil-fuel based carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

"Perhaps this report will inspire fresh efforts to find management strategies that folks can agree on," said Jeremy Fried, co-author and Forest Service scientist. "The forest inventory and analysis data collected by the Forest Service on all forested lands in the U.S. provided the data necessary to explore how forests can be managed to provide climate benefits. Full life-cycle analyses of U.S. forests show that the best opportunity for these forests to provide even more climate benefits requires a combination of factors. Those factors are: sustainably managed forests, a healthy market for long-lived forest products, and renewable energy generated from forest and mill residues."
  

 

 

 

How Europe's CO2 Cap and Trade Means Georgia Jobs

Burning biomass from Georgia pines is one way European power companies are meeting greenhouse gas reduction goals

By Tiffany Stecker and ClimateWire  | Monday, October 31, 2011

 

BIOMASS TO BURN: Efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions in Europe have led to booming demand for Georgia's trees as fuel. Image: TheSussman / Wikimedia Commons

WAYCROSS, Ga.—Pawn shops, diners, churches and pine trees. Hundreds of thousands of pine trees.

This is the view from U.S. Route 85, which runs from the coast across the Southern ridge of Georgia. In recent years, though, something else has sprouted up: billboards advertising upcoming wood pellet plants. They carry the promise of steady jobs in a recession-racked economy.

In 2008, then-Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue called this region the "bioenergy corridor of the nation." To date, 13 wood pellet plants have opened throughout the southeastern United States. Twelve more are in the planning stage.

While the local pulp and paper industry has been on the wane for years, the demand for wood pellets has recently shot up. These are the result of a process that turns wood chips into pencil-sized cylinders that are chopped up into roughly inch-long pieces.

The resulting product is lighter, drier, more compact and easier to transport than chips or sawdust -- a better option for shipping to Europe, where the demand for them has been created by the European Union's renewable energy mandates. It stems from a 2003 law setting up the E.U. Emissions Trading System and a 2009 renewable energy directive that called for E.U. member states to collectively generate 20 percent of energy from clean energy sources by 2020.

For power plants that burn coal, the quickest way to lower emissions, meet renewable energy goals and get emissions trading benefits is to burn a rising percentage of wood pellets along with the coal. As a result, demand for wood energy in Europe is set to soar by 44 percent in the next decade, according to forests research group RISI.

Waycross, one of the gateways to the Okefenokee swamp, became the home of Georgia Biomass LLC in May. It is the largest wood pellet factory in North America and, arguably, the world. Owned by European utility RWE Energy, the company is ramping up to export up to 750,000 metric tons of wood pellets per year to generate electricity in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Boom times in an American 'wood basket'
"We looked at many sites," said Sam Kang, chief financial officer and chief operating officer of Georgia Biomass, from the company's headquarters in Savannah, Ga. The location in Waycross won out with "a combination of wanting to be in a very good wood basket, with good logistical connections, at the lowest cost possible."

Kang's wood-paneled office overlooks the Port of Savannah, where approximately 5,700 tons of pellets arrive by rail from Waycross every three days. They are stored in two giant domes, are loaded on barges and cross the Atlantic to a biomass-burning plant in Tilbury, England, and a coal-biomass co-firing plant in the Netherlands. About half of the cross-Atlantic pellet trade goes to the Dutch, whose renewable energy goal for 2020 is 14.5 percent.

The European stamp is apparent at Georgia Biomass's plant in Waycross, the red, yellow and black German flag waving alongside the stars and stripes and Georgia's state flag. Kang estimates his export market to lie between $150 million and $200 million annually.

But the European Union -- the entity responsible for helping the success of pellets to date -- is becoming increasingly wary of biomass's green claims. Last month, the European Environment Agency's Scientific Committee, which advises the European Commission, issued a stern opinion on the current assumption that biomass is a zero-emission energy source: It's simply not true.

In the EEA analysis, the competition for land that biomass creates, as well as the lost opportunity of maintaining trees that absorb carbon dioxide, creates an even larger footprint. The EEA seeks to correct an "accounting error" that has, according to the agency, given carte blanche to polluters.

"The opinion was motivated by concerns over correct [greenhouse gas] accounting in current E.U. and international biomass energy policies," said Helmut Haberl, a member of the EEA and one of the authors of the opinion. "Of course we hope that [the European Union] will adopt correct and comprehensive [greenhouse gas] accounting rules."

Green groups worry about 'carbon debt'
Joule for joule, both burning wood and burning coal for energy expel similar levels of carbon dioxide. Woody biomass's low-carbon credentials lie in carbon sequestration. The emissions released in the atmosphere are, over the course of several years, reabsorbed by the world's forests through photosynthesis. In theory, at least, this natural recycling system is much cleaner than burning coal, a fossil fuel that releases CO2 that has been stored in the ground for millions of years.

The lingering debate over burning pellets centers around what is known as the carbon debt -- the delayed sequestration of carbon emissions, thanks to the continuous planting of new trees. Taken into account, the carbon debt allows for biomass to be an efficient source of renewable energy. Once the debt is repaid, emissions reductions could reach up to 91 percent compared to coal, according to a University of Toronto study.

The rate of reabsorption varies according to what is burned, what is grown and the accounting in between. A recent study from the University of Ontario found that in the long term, electricity generation from pellets reduces overall emissions relative to coal. But the recoup of carbon losses was delayed by 16 to 38 years, depending on whether the source of biomass was whole trees, sawmill leftovers or other wood residues.

The EEA's concerns are not new. The burning of biomass for energy has stoked the fires of environmentalists on both sides of the Atlantic for years.

"Over the life cycle, if you leave off smokestack emissions, the equivalent is even worse than coal," asserted Janet Pritchard, director of the Climate and Forests program for ClientEarth, one of several European organizations that have long fought for the European Commission to reconsider the allowance it gives biomass.

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), an environmental advocacy group for the region, has also voiced its concerns. While not "anti-biomass," the group is keeping a close eye on the boom.

"If it expands too much, there's going to be tons of carbon implications," said David Carr​, national forest project leader for SELC. Like ClientEarth is doing in Europe, SELC is looking to set standards for low-carbon biomass in nearby North Carolina -- the only state in the region with a renewable energy mandate.

Catching up with Canada and Scandinavia
To Kang of Georgia Biomass, the EEA opinion is a concern, but one that can be refuted.

"We're not cutting down tropical rainforest; it's a crop," he said. "We monitor all those things, and we have to counterbalance them with our own arguments."

Last year, more than 11 million metric tons of wood pellets was consumed in Europe, a 7 percent rise from the previous year. In the past decade, Canada has been the leader in wood pellet production, with the first U.S. pellet plants only joining in around 2008.

But since then, the Southeast has been catching up, fast.

Canada's 33 pellet plants are expected to export 2 million metric tons of pellets this year, according to a report by the U.N. Economic Council for Europe. By the end of the year, the Southeast will be pushing out pellets at a rate of 2.9 million metric tons per year. That production is likely to increase to 4.6 million -- a nearly 60 percent jump -- in the next two years, according to Forisk Forest Consulting. Georgia Biomass alone will produce half of Canada's pellet output from last year.

Biomass is one of the most attractive forms of renewable power on the continent. The infrastructure is far less expensive than for solar panels or wind turbines, there is no dependence on weather conditions, and plant retrofits from coal to pellets are relatively simple.

While Scandinavia has supported much of Europe's wood market to date, recent reports indicate that continent's own forests will soon be unable to keep up. According to a European Commission report, wood resources in Europe could peak by as early as 2015.

Georgia's forests, on the contrary, have more than enough to go around, says the biomass industry. For every cubic foot of wood harvested, there is 28 cubic feet of wood in live trees, according to studies by the state's Forestry Commission. The annual regrowth adds another 1.9 million cubic feet.

"At the end of the day, the supply outstrips the demand, clearly," Kang said. On the drive from Savannah to Waycross, "you see rows clearly growing as crops. It is part of the Georgia economy."

Darren Wolfgang, a forest ecologist with Georgia ForestWatch, is skeptical. The industry has grown at such a speed in less than four years that sustainability might lose out to business interests. "We're worried it's going to create a beast that won't be able to be fed," he said.

Obeying an expanding set of rules
The EEA sets out two rules for biomass to fit the clean energy mold. It must be sourced from "additional carbon" -- leftover sawdust, agricultural waste, manure, wastewater or other residues that would simply decompose if not used for energy.

Or it must be grown so that the land and plants take up more carbon dioxide than in a scenario where the land is devoid of a biomass culture. If a farmer grows switch grass on degraded land, where no other conventional crop can be grown, it would satisfy the definition of additional carbon.

Many of the proposed pellet plants have said they will rely on paper mill waste, timber leftovers and other residual matter. But for Georgia Biomass and Biomass Energy -- a Bumpass, Va. operation that expects to export nearly 350,000 pellets to Europe in the next three years -- that source is regarded as being too iffy.

"You're fairly exposed if you depend on a residual market," said Jacob Blondin, general manager for Biomass Energy. "You're hoping that other people can perform in their business practices." Contamination from a foreign feedstock is also an issue, as are the potentially long distances -- and carbon footprint -- needed to reach the residual wood.

The only way to guarantee a contract with plants, added Blondin, was to use whole logs. Although there may be a surplus of trees in Georgia, ensuring a sustainable, easily renewable source may not be enough under growing scrutiny.

"It may, of course, still be a renewable source of energy," said the EEA's Haberl. "So renewable must not be equated with CO2-free."

In the fiber basket of Georgia, alternatives are puzzling. In a region where more than 90 percent of forests are privately owned, not harvesting the Southeast's forests is not an option many will consider.

"It probably isn't [carbon-neutral]," said Robert Jackson, faculty director at Duke University​'s Center on Global Change. "But in my view, it's better than coal."

Concerns about clear-cutting
Nevertheless, the risk of clear-cutting is real if pellet prices continue to rise, said Jackson. While several certification schemes exist, private forest owners are not required to adhere to sustainability rules.

"What we don't want is for our forests to be clear-cut for wood pellets," said Jackson, who is also a landowner in the Southeast. "Unless there are safeguards in Europe, there nothing to prevent me or my neighbors from cutting down our own land."

By the end of the year, the European Commission is required to report on sustainability requirements for solid and gas biomass, with a possible decision to revise the reporting criteria under the Emissions Trading System.

Just what the commission will propose is unknown, but Cezary Lewanowicz, a spokesman for the commission, suggested that the wood pellet business won't stop anytime soon. "Under the Renewable Energy Directive, biomass is a renewable energy source," he said. "This will stay unchanged."

Jeroen Brouwers​ is a spokesman for Essent, another subsidiary of RWE that burns Waycross pellets in a 35 percent mix with coal in a 1250-megawatt plant in Netherlands. Essent hopes to boost its mix to 50 percent pellets and plans to open a bigger co-firing plant in 2013.

International discussions around the issue are important, he noted, and "you cannot bank on one kind of sustainable biomass." But he is confident that his pellets will continue to meet sustainability requirements.

"It doesn't conflict with the food chain; there was already existing forestry; they already provided land for planting new trees," he added. "When you use a fuel, you have to be sure that it's sustainably produced."

The future of the business seems robust. Just weeks after the EEA opinion, the Dutch oil and gas exchange APX-ENDEX announced it would launch a pellet-trading market. The futures price for pellets hovers just under €130 per metric ton. Today, the spot price for a ton of pellets lies between €270 and €290 per metric ton.

On the streets of Waycross, there isn't much concern about the carbon debt. What the pellet jobs are doing is paying off financial debts. From the beat cop in nearby Hoboken, Ga., to the train conductor in Okefenokee Swamp Park, people are excited about the pellet industry.

"It gave us jobs; people are buying the timber," said conductor Bill Smith. "It's a good thing for the economy and surrounding communities."

Forest Service Report Documents Environmental Benefits of Wood as a Green Building Material

Agriculture Secretary Vilsack urges US builders to prioritize wood in green buildings

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29, 2011 – The findings of a new U.S. Forest Service study indicate that wood should factor as a primary building material in green building, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced today.

The authors of Science Supporting the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Using Wood and Wood Products in Green Building Construction reviewed the scientific literature and found that using wood in building products yields fewer greenhouse gases than using other common materials.

"This study confirms what many environmental scientists have been saying for years," said Vilsack. "Wood should be a major component of American building and energy design. The use of wood provides substantial environmental benefits, provides incentives for private landowners to maintain forest land, and provides a critical source of jobs in rural America."

The Forest Service report also points out that greater use of life cycle analysis in building codes and standards would improve the scientific underpinning of building codes and standards and thereby benefit the environment. A combination of scientific advancement in the areas of life cycle analysis and the development of new technologies for improved and extended wood utilization are needed to continue to advance wood as a green construction material. Sustainability of forest products can be verified using any credible third-party rating system, such as Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Forest Stewardship Council or American Tree Farm System certification.

"The argument that somehow non-wood construction materials are ultimately better for carbon emissions than wood products is not supported by our research," said David Cleaves, the U.S. Forest Service Climate Change Advisor. "Trees removed in an environmentally responsible way allow forests to continue to sequester carbon through new forest growth. Wood products continue to benefit the environment by storing carbon long after the building has been constructed."

The use of forest products in the United States currently supports more than one million direct jobs, particularly in rural areas, and contributes more than $100 billion to the country's gross domestic product.

"In the Rockies alone, we have hundreds of thousands of dead trees killed by bark beetles that could find their way into the building supply chain for all types of buildings," said Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. "Taking a harder look at wood as a green building source could reduce the damages posed by future fires, maintain overall forest health and provide much-needed jobs in local communities."

The U.S. Forest Service report identifies several areas where peer-reviewed science can contribute to sustainable green building design and decisions. These recommendations address the following needs for use of wood as a green building material:

• Information on environmental impacts across the lifecycle of wood and alternative construction materials needs to be updated and revised;
• Green buildings codes and standards should include adequate provisions to recognize the benefit of a lifecycle environmental analysis to guide selection of building materials; and
• A lack of educational, technology transfer, and demonstration projects hinder the acceptance of wood as a green building material.

Research recently initiated by the wood products industry in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory will enable greater use and valuation of smaller diameter trees and insect and disease-killed trees. Research on new products and technologies has been initiated including improved cross-lamination techniques and the increased use of nanotechnology.

These developments are especially important amidst a changing climate because forest managers will need to increasingly thin densely forested areas in the coming years to reduce the impacts from longer and more severe wildfire seasons. Continued research of wood-based products and technologies will contribute to more environmentally responsible building materials and increased energy efficiency.

The mission of the U.S. Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. Recreational activities on our lands contribute $14.5 billion annually to the U.S. economy. The agency manages 193 million acres of public land, provides assistance to state and private landowners, and maintains the largest forestry research organization in the world.

To view the full Green Building report please click here.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (Voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).