6. The Carbon Cycle - revolutionary industry

The picture so far....
describes the biological aspects of the carbon cycle. To recap, on the right hand side of the cycle, respiration in living cells releases the energy locked up in the carbon based molecules in a regulated and measured way. One byproduct is generally CO2, in turn produced in modest, measured quantities. There is a corresponding powerful chemical process which uses carbon and generates heat and carbon dioxide. In nature it generally takes place in an uncontrolled and fairly destructive fashion in the form of forest and heathland fires. If their scale is large enough they do have a short term impact on the atmosphere both from the smoke they cause and also the CO2 they generate. The counterbalancing forces do allow balance to return eventually. However, it is Man's continuing use of fire on a massive scale which is having a lasting and worrying effect on the biosphere. This takes two main forms: deliberate deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. Both are important but it is the latter which is of greatest relevance to this stage in our investigation of the delicate biosphere which relies on a well-balanced carbon cycle.

The Industrial Economy
The quite extraordinary arising of the industrial economy over the last two centuries in the West and its spread to the East represents the biggest threat to the balance. In very general terms it would be true to say that the nineteenth century played host to the coal-fired industrial revolution and the twentieth supplemented coal with oil and natural gas. The inconceivably large amounts of CO2this produces, in comparison to the small regulated quantities needed to sustain biological life is pushing the carbon cycle out of balance - hence the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is not only rising but accelerating - this indicates that natural counterbalancing mechanisms are not working. The challenge for the 21st century is to bring control to the increasing CO2 levels and deal with the consequences of this increase in CO2 from our past and current actions and lifestyles.

Returning to the diagram, the additional arrow on the right hand side represents these new man-made chemical combustion processes which use fossil fuels to generate the goods, services and energy we demand. It also can include the energy required to fire the conversion of limestone to quicklime to make cement for the construction industry and its by product, carbon dioxide. The key point about the diagram is that there is no complementary arrow on the left hand side.

All the biosphere has to counteract these increased emissions are two factors of limited effectiveness.

1. The first of these is increased activity on the left hand side of the cycle. It has been shown in the USA (Duke Forest Experiment) that plants can grow more quickly in the presence of higher concentrations of CO2 and thereby 'fix' more carbon. However this does not remain fixed for all that long and is likely to end up being decomposed or digested by other organisms in the biosphere. For example a conifer tree in a remote forest may grow for fifty years locking much of the carbon it fixes. However it will die and fall to the ground where it will be digested as food by insects, fungi and microorganisms which will expel the carbon as CO2 and methane.
2. The second is natural sequestration enabled by organisms using carbon to produce skeletons containing calcium carbonate. Most typically this will be marine organisms with exoskeletons or shells. For example a mollusc builds a large shell over its lifespan and despite eventually dying or getting eaten the shell will remain chemically intact and will sink to the sea bed with its load of carbon. The carbon therein effectively has been removed from the biosphere - this is sequestration.

The next post looks more closely at the implications of digging up fossil fuels from the subterranean layer.

Read more!

2. A brief history - through my eyes.

This is a sporadic history....
of the last two years which started considering 'global warming' at quite a challenging time. There seemed little consensus on whether there was even a problem.
On the one hand, those who believed there was looked like amateur doom mongers and many scientists were sceptical and dismissive. On the other hand, politicians at all levels of government were 'going green' but this was not in specific response to global warming which, at that stage, was a relatively new thing. It was more a result of a vociferous and longstanding general environmental lobby.

The initial step.....
was quite daunting. I could not answer simple questions like:

• what do we mean by a global climate?
• what do we mean by it changing?
• how could we measure any such change?

I needed help. I was very fortunate in having many acquaintances who could provide some pointers and we happened to be on a week long philosophical retreat together in May 2006. Most of what will follow in subsequent blogs will still be based upon those initial discussions and suggested lines of enquiry. The most compelling outcome of this was that Man had to stop digging up fossil fuels - not before they ran out - but before we seriously disturbed the small and delicate levels of CO2 and other more powerful greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Even my O-level understanding of the carbon cycle made this clear to us. This did not appear to be clearly enunciated in the world at the time. You will hear a lot more from me on the difference between 'emissions' and 'extraction' (also described as 'stop digging') in later posts. This is a most unpalatable message to the economic world and therefore probably impossible, which continued to niggle for me. Some recent ideas of ours have suggested a new angle on this, which I'll be posting up in due course.

And subsequently....
as time has gone by, the disciplines listed on the left hand side of the slide have needed to be employed.

First early conclusion....
well, if there is a man-made problem, then there sure is no effective global leadership on it. Everyone's opinion is as god(sic) as the next. In June 2006 I confronted a 'Friends of the Earth' rep on my doorstep on whether they had a consolidated view on what the truth of the matter was. In the end he resorted to saying that as long as we all do something, it's better than nothing - I was shocked. I immediately visited their web-site and then felt very sorry for the guy - there was no definition of the problem, let alone a coherent response. I also concluded that my early curiosity was not going to be easily satisfied and I had better carry on.

Second conclusion....
By August 2006, I had blagged my way into speaking on Climate Change to a group of amateur economists from across the globe on a similar retreat, to the one I was on in May. I hastily put together a presentation and laced it with pictures of polar bears, melting icebergs and ice retreat. Whilst some of the ideas were reasonable to the audience I got marmolised for using 'factoids' and having a very blinkered understanding of deforestation in Africa and Brazil. I concluded that I had to be far more careful to work from original thought and research each point as best I could. This was an important lesson to learn, for which I remain grateful, as I do to all the people I pepper questions at.

The more recent history....
Al Gore's film (and book, which I bought the day after), "An Inconvenient Truth", Sarah and I saw early, before most of our friends in Autumn of 2006. I was struck by the persuasiveness of his brilliant displays and oratory and thought that this was a powerful force for good.
On getting the book I was disappointed by the paucity of ideas about how to solve the problems so beautifully depicted. Less than 10% of the pages at the back of the book were devoted to a mish mash of ideas, very much like the aforementioned Friends of the Earth. Sorry, Mr Gore, but the other 90% has done a great job in waking up the world to the problem.

James Lovelock and Gaia....
In January 2007 we heard James Lovelock being questioned by Claire Gilbert, and old acquaintance and leading thinker in the Church of England, in St Paul's Cathedral. My main memory of that occasion was his reluctant acceptance that nuclear power was a large part of the solution, being the lesser of two evils. I was both depressed and excited. A partial solution, at best, from a combination of a wise man and the Church - was this the best they could come up with?

More confusion....
Channel 4's programme in Spring 2007 which persuaded a large number of my associates that the crisis was not man-made and therefore was little effect from moderating our behaviour on the planet. Note to ed: I must watch my DVD of this.

Stern words....
for the world from Sir Nicholas Stern in his Stern Review in Summer 2007. He basically gave credence to the widening view that climate change (CC from now onwards) was inevitable and would have large scale consequences, but that if we acted now its cost to the global economy seemed quite palatable in comparison to the predictions of even quite optimistic models.

Next speaking occasion....
was lined up for August 2007 in London. I had to hedge my bets on whether Al Gore was right and C4 were wrong by ignoring the question and stating in my advertising that 'irrespective of whether it was a man-made phenomenon or not was there not an opportunity for mankind?' That, along with the 'Kyoto Protocol' being effectively dead meant there was merit in starting to look at what might both make mankind happier and make it less ignorant of the effect of its excesses. The 'stop digging' message also seemed to be quite a good wake up call for the audience.

A sagacious science teacher in the American mid-west....
in October 2007 solved the "is it; isn't it" debate for me and many others, as to whether climate change is the result of man-made action or not. He put a 'global risk management hat' on and quickly concluded that the only reasonable course was to stop debating whether the cause of CC was Man or not and to act decisively to mitigate its effects. This was the best use of a 'Boston Matrix' I had ever seen. You'll find his arguments beautifully explained at http://www.wonderingmind42.com/. I will be devoting a post on this shortly.

Still no real solutions though....
despite the Bali roadmap and Al Gore receiving his Nobel Prize in December 2007. Our work on the framework was developing it further and it is around Feb 2008 that some of the disciplines on the left hand side of the screen started to become important. That's about it for now on this post.

I do look forward to your comments.

Oh - and those curious icons across the top of the slide? - there is one of those for each big topic to follow in subsequent posts.

And so to my next post, which will be shorter, I promise...............................................

Read more!