Developed countries are “outsourcing” more than a third of their carbon emissions associated with products and services to other countries, according to a new study by scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science. To be meaningful, regional climate policy thus needs to take into account emissions embodied in trade, not just domestic emissions.

This map shows the flow of carbon emissions embodied in trade among the major exporting and importing countries. Net exporting countries are in blue and net importers in red. China is by far the largest exporter of carbon dioxide emissions. Arrows indicate direction and magnitude of flow; numbers are megatonnes. (Steven Davis/Carnegie Institution for Science)

The study finds that, per person, about 2.5 tons of carbon dioxide are consumed in the U.S. but produced somewhere else. The United States is both a major importer and a major exporter of emissions embodied in trade. The net result is that the U.S. outsources about 11% of total consumption-based emissions, primarily to the developing world.

Says co-author Ken Caldeira, a researcher in the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology:

Instead of looking at carbon dioxide emissions only in terms of what is released inside our borders, we also looked at the amount of carbon dioxide released during the production of the things that we consume.

Caldeira and lead author Steven Davis, also at Carnegie, used published trade data from 2004 to create a global model of the flow of products across 57 industry sectors and 113 countries or regions. By allocating carbon emissions to particular products and sources, the researchers were able to calculate the net emissions “imported” or “exported” by specific countries.

For Europeans, the figure can exceed four tons per person. In Switzerland and several other small countries, outsourced emissions exceeded the amount of carbon dioxide emitted within national borders. Most of these emissions are outsourced to developing countries, especially China.

Davis explains:

Just like the electricity that you use in your home probably causes CO2 emissions at a coal-burning power plant somewhere else, we found that the products imported by the developed countries of western Europe, Japan, and the United States cause substantial emissions in other countries, especially China. On the flip side, nearly a quarter of the emissions produced in China are ultimately exported.

Where CO2 emissions occur doesn’t matter to the climate system. Effective policy must have global scope. To the extent that constraints on developing countries’ emissions are the major impediment to effective international climate policy, allocating responsibility for some portion of these emissions to final consumers elsewhere may represent an opportunity for compromise.

The report is published online in the March 8, 2010 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The U.S. posted its biggest-ever decline in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in 2009, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). But the reductions are not expected to continue:

CO2 emissions from fossil fuels fell by an estimated 6.3 percent in 2009. Emissions from coal led the drop in 2009 CO2 emissions, falling by nearly 11 percent. Declines in energy consumption in the industrial sector (a result of the weak economy) and changes in electricity generation sources are the primary reasons for the decline in CO2 emissions (U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Growth Chart). Looking forward, projected improvements in the economy contribute to an expected 1.5-percent increase in CO2 emissions in 2010. Increased use of coal in the electric-power sector, and continued economic growth, combined with the expansion of travel-related petroleum consumption, lead to a 1.3-percent increase in CO2 emissions in 2011. However, even with increases in 2010 and 2011, projected CO2 emissions in 2011 are lower than annual emissions from 1999 through 2008.

The drop in emissions in 2009 was the biggest since data collection began in 1949. The Great Recession was primarily responsible, as U.S. real gross domestic product dropped 2.4% in 2009, in the biggest decline since 1946. Emissions dropped 5.8% in 2008.

It’s hard enough imagining the U.S. and other developed nations voluntarily sacrificing economic growth, much less embracing voluntary frugality. Can you even imagine China and India voluntarily giving up their ambitions to join the developed world? The entire world has joined in a suicide pact.

It’s beginning to look like the only thing that will save humans and other living things from the ravages of global warming is global economic collapse.

Stuart Staniford at Early Warning mines the data contained in Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (a U.S. government report we covered here) and concludes that all the work environmentalists have done to protect species and habitats is doomed to be in vain:

All the work that’s been done over the past century to preserve some wild ecosystems in national parks etc, is going to be mostly subverted.  The park may still be there, but what grows in it will, in most cases, be nothing like the thing that we were originally trying to save.

As the impacts of global warming manifest themselves over the coming century, warming temperatures and changing precipitation patterns will result in just about every landscape in the country changing radically.

Staniford’s piece exposes the flaw in the approach environmentalists took in the 70s, the approach (taken by Oregon’s statewide planning Goal 5 , for example): identify a “significant” resource, draw a line around it, and protect it from conflicting uses. Protecting a living resource requires much more than drawing a line around it.  Rather, you have to maintain the health of the ecosystem within which it is embedded.

Within a global climate system wildly disrupted by human greenhouse gas emissions, how could we possibly expect that more local ecosystems could remain unaffected?

Dr. Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of Limits to Growth, gave a talk in Davos, Switzerland in September 2009 at the World Resources Forum. Gail Tverberg at The Oil Drum has posted an “approximate” transcript.

Here’s the takeaway thought. Climate change and energy scarcity – the two greatest challenges of our time, perhaps in human history – are symptoms. The problem is physical growth, continued population expansion, continued increase in material standards of living, in a world that has finite limits.

Meadows points out the probability of the problem of physical growth being addressed is 100%. What cannot be known is whether it will be addressed voluntarily or involuntarily. Collapse – meaning that material standards of living, peace, trust in the government, and other things fall, out of control – is a possibility:

The same thing with collapse. I know that the current growth in population and in material use cannot continue–absolutely, with 100% probability, that it is going to stop. When? How? How seriously? We have no scientific way to make predictions.

The longer we wait to do social measures, like birth control, or voluntary simplicity, the more likely it will be that physical measures will cause this decline.

The Oregon Senate has approved a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.

SB 1059, which implements recommendations from 2009 Metropolitan Planning Organization Greenhouse Gas Emissions Task Force, does more than just set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in metro areas. It also directs state agencies to:

• Develop a statewide transportation strategy on greenhouse gases.
• Craft a toolkit to assist local governments and metro areas in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.
• Develop guidelines for scenario planning – used by communities across the country to consider alternative choices of land use patterns and transportation options to reduce emissions.
• Work with the Oregon University System to educate the public about the costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• Report back to the 2011 Legislature with an estimate of how much it will cost local governments to prepare and select a land use and transportation scenario that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and potential sources of funding.
• Report back to the 2013 Legislative Assembly with an assessment of how the agencies are doing on these tasks.

The bill passed out of the Senate despite unanimous opposition from Republicans, 17-13 (Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Mount Hood joining the Rs in voting “no”). The bill now goes to the House, where it will most likely come up for a vote Wednesday.

Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon Policy Director, stated in a press release:

This victory will help create healthier, sustainable communities across Oregon. And it’s a major step for giving Oregonians better transportation choices.

The press release also quotes Chris Hagerbaumer, Deputy Director of the Oregon Environmental Council:

SB 1059 is a win-win for cities and towns across Oregon. The bill will help create the tools and resources local governments need to make cost effective decisions on planning future growth while also improving air quality and reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Cities and towns of all sizes will be able to use the tools that the agencies develop.

The Task Force identified a number of additional benefits that would accrue from reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including: saving families money by reducing their transportation costs; lower public infrastructure costs; healthier lifestyles due to more opportunities to walk and bike; and greater energy security by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

UPDATE 2/25/2010: SB 1059, which would initiate steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions in transportation, is headed to the governor’s office after passing out of the House 32 to 26 Wednesday. The Rs voted against the bill as a solid block. Two Ds, Terry Beyer of Springfield and Arnie Roblan of Coos Bay, joined the Rs in opposition.

At the Royal Society in London, scientists at a conference on greenhouse gases report that levels of methane in the atmosphere, after a decade of near-zero growth, began rising in 2007 when an unprecedented heat wave in the Arctic caused a record shrinking of the sea ice and have continued to rise significantly through 2008 and 2009.

An article in the U.K. Independent includes a quotation from the presentation, titled Global atmospheric methane in 2010: budget, changes and dangers:

[G]lobally averaged atmospheric methane increased by [approximately] 7ppb (parts per billion) per year during 2007 and 2008. . . . During the first half of 2009, globally averaged atmospheric CH4 was [approximately] 7ppb greater than it was in 2008, suggesting that the increase will continue in 2009. There is the potential for increased CH4 emissions from strong positive climate feedbacks in the Arctic where there are unstable stores of carbon in permafrost . . . so the causes of these recent increases must be understood.

Global atmospheric levels of the gas now stand at about 1,790 parts per billion. They began to be measured in 1984, when they stood at about 1,630ppb.

The Independent also quotes Euan Nisbet, one of the study’s authors:

“It may just be a couple of years of high growth, and it may drop back to what it was. But there is a concern that things are beginning to change towards renewed growth from feedbacks.

Over a relatively short period, such as 20 years, methane (CH4) has a global warming potential more than 60 times as powerful as CO2, although it decays more quickly.

Many climate scientists fear that frozen Arctic tundra, like this at Sermermiut in Greenland, could be a ticking time bomb. Over thousands of years the methane has accumulated under the ground at northern latitudes all around the world. But as temperatures rise and the permafrost begins to melt, that methane could be released – with potentially catastrophic results.

Here’s a news flash from NASA: cars contribute to global warming!

Motor vehicles give off only minimal amounts of sulfates and nitrates, both pollutants that cool climate, though they produce significant amounts of pollutants that warm climate such as carbon dioxide, black carbon, and ozone.

In a paper published online on Feb. 3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nadine Unger of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and colleagues described how they used a climate model to estimate the impact of 13 sectors of the economy from 2000 to 2100.

In their analysis, motor vehicles emerged as the greatest contributor to atmospheric warming now and in the near term. Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and greenhouse gases that promote warming, while emitting few aerosols that counteract it.

Keep in mind that those cooling aerosols from electric power generation and industry (mostly from burning coal) and biomass burning (otherwise known as deforestation) fall out of the atmosphere quickly, leaving the greenhouse gases behind in the atmosphere to do their warming work for centuries to come. Says Unger:

The differences are because the impacts of greenhouse gases accumulate and intensify over time, and because they persist in the atmosphere for such long periods. In contrast, aerosols rain out after a few days and can only have a short-term impact.

Credit: NASA GISS/Unger

Unger’s model finds that in 2020 (left), transportation, household biofuels and animal husbandry will have the greatest warming impact on the climate, while the shipping, biomass burning, and industrial sectors will have a cooling impact. By 2100 (right), the model finds that the power and industrial sector will begin to contribute strongly to warming as carbon dioxide accumulates.

Here’s a simple idea that would go a long way towards saving the planet:

Cap the national driving speed limit at 34 MPH (55 KMH).

Benefits of a national slowdown would include:

• Massive reductions in oil consumption
• Immediate and significant C02 reductions
• Smaller, lighter vehicles = less materials consumption
• Instant surge in demand for high-speed rail and other public transportation
• Large drop in tire-related particulate pollution
• Plunging traffic fatality rates + reduced health industry expenses
• Constriction of suburbs & exurbs, relieving pressure on farm lands and other rural lands
• Shipping diverted from truck to rail & ship
• Demise of the “big box” model, reinvigoration of local economies and communities
• End of our road and bridge building mania

As if that’s likely to happen.

Still, our love affair with the automobile may be petering out. The Federal Highway Administration reports that vehicle miles driven in December were unchanged from December 2008:

Travel on all roads and streets changed by 0.0% (-0.1 billion vehicle miles) for December 2009 as
compared with December 2008. . . . Cumulative Travel for 2009 changed by +0.2% (6.6 billion vehicle miles).

Unfortunately, as U.S. passion fades the automobile has taken a new lover: China.

A recent post reported on scientists’ findings that Greenland’s glaciers are melting from the bottom up. Findings from another team of scientists help explain why: subtropical waters from warmer latitudes are reaching Greenland’s glaciers, driving melting and likely triggering an acceleration of ice loss.

Credit: Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

The research team, led by Fiamma Straneo, a physical oceanographer at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, found that subtropical waters are reaching Greenland’s glaciers, driving melting and likely triggering an acceleration of ice loss. Melting ice also means more fresh water in the ocean, which could flood into the North Atlantic and disrupt a global system of currents, known as the Ocean Conveyor.

Science Daily quotes Straneo:

This is the first time we’ve seen waters this warm in any of the fjords in Greenland. The subtropical waters are flowing through the fjord very quickly, so they can transport heat and drive melting at the end of the glacier.

The Greenland ice sheet’s contribution to sea level rise over the last decade has doubled due to increased melting and especially to the widespread acceleration of outlet glaciers.

The research teamconducted two extensive surveys during July and September of 2008 in Sermilik Fjord, a 100-kilometer long glacial fjord in East Greenland connecting Helheim Glacier with the Irminger Sea. In 2003 alone, Helheim Glacier retreated several kilometers and almost doubled its flow speed.  Deep inside the fjord, researchers found subtropical water as warm as 39 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius). The team also reconstructed seasonal temperatures on the shelf using data collected by 19 hooded seals tagged with satellite-linked temperature depth-recorders. The data revealed that the shelf waters warm from July to December, and that subtropical waters are present on the shelf year round.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS ) is considering listing corals as endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.  From the Federal Register:

[W]e initiate status reviews of 82 species of corals to determine if listing under the ESA is warranted.

In October 2009 NMFS received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list 83 species of coral as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The petition asserts that synergistic threats of ocean warming, ocean acidification, and other impacts affect these species and that these global habitat threats are exacerbated by local habitat threats posed by ship traffic, dredging, coastal development, pollution, and agricultural and land use practices that increase sedimentation and nutrient loading. The petition states that immediate action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations to levels that do not jeopardize these species and requests that critical habitat be designated for these corals concurrent with listing under the ESA.

A species or subspecies is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and ‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

NMFS will have to “assess conservation measures to determine whether they ameliorate a species’ extinction risk” and, once critical habitat is designated, ensure that Federal agencies do not fund, authorize or carry out any actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify that habitat.

Any area may be excluded from a critical habitat designation if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless excluding that area “will result” in extinction of the species. So economic and national security considerations could trump the science.

So much for the “immediate action” that is needed to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.

It’s nothing but Kabuki theater – highly stylized ritual rather meaningful action  or even honest discussion.

A study published in Nature Geoscience finds that submarine melting is causing Greenland’s glaciers to melt from underneath and calve off.  As the glaciers thin and become unpinned from their moorings on the sea bed, they then flow more rapidly into the sea.

Rates of submarine melting are two orders of magnitude (100 times) larger than surface melt rates. The rate of submarine melting is comparable to rates of iceberg discharge.

Here’s the abstract:

Widespread glacier acceleration has been observed in Greenland in the past few years, associated with the thinning of the lower reaches of the glaciers as they terminate in the ocean. These glaciers thin both at the surface, from warm air temperatures, and along their submerged faces in contact with warm ocean waters. Little is known about the rates of submarine melting and how they may affect glacier dynamics. Here we present measurements of ocean currents, temperature and salinity near the calving fronts of the Eqip Sermia, Kangilerngata Sermia, Sermeq Kujatdleq and Sermeq Avangnardleq glaciers in central West Greenland, as well as ice-front bathymetry and geographical positions. We calculate water-mass and heat budgets that reveal summer submarine melt rates ranging from 0.7±0.2 to 3.9±0.8 m d?¹. These rates of submarine melting are two orders of magnitude larger than surface melt rates, but comparable to rates of iceberg discharge. We conclude that ocean waters melt a considerable, but highly variable, fraction of the calving fronts of glaciers before they disintegrate into icebergs, and suggest that submarine melting must have a profound influence on grounding-line stability and ice-flow dynamics.