carbon on steroids: the untold story of methane, climate
TRANSCRIPT
Carbon on Steroids: The Untold Story of Methane, Climate,
and Health
Kirk R. Smith, PhD, MPH Professor of Global Environmental Health
University of California, Berkeley Nobel Laureate 2007 At the
0.02% level
California Air Resources Board Sacramento
November 10, 2008
Carbon dioxide is important
Do not think otherwise
The Methane Story: CH4
Five subplots: • Methane and global warming • Methane and global health • Methane and the health of the poor • Methane and global equity • Methane and history
What I am not speaking about
Particular methane reduction possibilities in California
Potential for runaway methane emissions as positive feedback in global warming
l
l
II
1Almosphe,riiie:
Greenhous1e 1gas iaoncentratiiions
~---'--~:_:_~:_:_:_~~t---'~W·we~n~t_nm 1anufacturi:ng
Mlethane Landfills. Rice,
Live!stock
Wa.st1e manage1m1en1 Fo,ssil r,ecov,i?..J~~
ltO F,ert'il'izer Pl,ant1ed IN-fixers
Comlbus.ti:on Fmgurei SPM.·1
A.nthr1opog1enic .sour,c,es
coi Fo,ssi l fue~s
Ill ! Land use 1change
10000 50D oIPCC 2.007 Time ( or 2mos)
0 1CEAN WATER
FRESH! · WATER
ME: HY
Only one-third of emissions from natural sources
1790
1 7 ,8 0 1.-----..__,
1770
1760
2004 2005
lobal llly Av,eraged
2006 2007
Emissions expected to grow at ~1.5% per year until 2030 – similar to CO2
Halocarbons
HFCs
GO
NOx
NIMVOC
Sulfate (d;rect)
Surface a lbedo (land use:)
-0.5
. Cs. HC Cs. halons
- 03,(T)
I
Black carbon (snollV i;i/bedo)
- Contraills
-So llar
0 .5 Radiative F,o rcin
Blaclk carbon
Organic ca bon
Mineral dust
Aerosols
Land use
S.ola1r irradiiance
1
Warming in 2005 from emissions since 1750
Methane more than half of total from CO2
IPCC, 2007
1. Methane and Global Warming A much more powerful greenhouse gas (GHG)than CO2 Partly due to its direct effect, but also because it creates ozone (O3), another powerful GHG Nearly 100 times more per ton than CO2 at anyone time (73x from direct effects) Eventually turns to 2.75 times as much CO2 by mass Methane has thus contributed a significant amountto global warming, more than half that of CO2 But has a much shorter atmospheric lifetimecompared to CO2
Math of GHG Decay (AR4) • CO2 goes into four compartments:
– 19% of total with a lifetime* of 1.2 years – 34% at 18.5 y – 26% at 173 y – 21% with a lifetime of “many thousand
years” • Methane has a 12 y lifetime,
– but contributes to ozone, a GHG – and eventually oxidizes to CO2
*Lifetime refers to the time to reach 1/e (37%) of the original amount
Natural CO2 and CH4 Depletion - first 10 years
Fraction remaining of
2008 emissions
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Carbon Dioxide Methane
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Natural CO2 and CH4 Depeletion - 100 years
Fraction Remaining
of Gas Emitted in
2008
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
2008 2028 2048 2068 2088 2108
Relative Warming from CO2 and CH4 emitted in 2008
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
2008 2028 2048 2068 2088 2108
Pattern of Future
Warming from Equal
Emissions (t of CO2; t of CH4)
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Not equal warming per year until 2075 (67 years)
Not equal total warming until AD 7430 (5422 years)
Actually two types of methane
Biogenic methane (ruminants, biomass combustion, landfills, etc.) – the CO2 it creates is renewable, i.e., does not add to atmospheric load of CO2
Fossil methane (natural gas, coal mines, fossil fuel combustion) – the CO2 it creates does add to the load
Livestock 30%
Coal mining
6%
Biomass burn 3%
Fossil fuel burn 1%
Waste water
9%
Landfills 12%
Rice 10%
Manure 4%
Oi/gas 18%
Other ag 7%
Global Anthropogenic Methane Emissions ~2005 Total ~ 305 million tons
Expected to grow at ~1.5% per year USEPA, 2006
~47 kg/cap Fossil methane ~25%
R elative Warming of Methane and C O 2
from E mis s ions in 2008
08
28
48
68 8
08
80 20 20 0 0 212 2 2
Future Warming of Fossil Methane and CO 2 from Equal Emissions in 2008
100
F uture Annual
10Warming from O ne
Ton of E ach P ollutant 1
R eleas ed in 2008
Warming from C O2
Warming from Methane
Includes CO2 produced by the methane
0.1
Warmin g Contributio n of Tot al -2008 Emiss io n s of M eth an e Compared t o Tot al CO2 Emiss io n s
Fraction 0 -8 0 -+---------~ ::---------------1 o f CO2
Warn1ing fron1 O · 6 O -+-------------~ ~ --------1
Methane
0.40
0.20
0 . 0 0 ----..------,...--------.------,-------.-----.----..--------.------.------t
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Global methane releases in 2008 create 84% of the warming over the next 20 years as the CO2 released in 2008
How can we compare projects to reduce different GHGs?
Why not just take all future warming into account? This would mean that no effort would go into avoidingemissions of the shorter lived GHGs, such as methane,because CO2 has such a long lifetime. It would result in spending most money to protect peoplethousands of years into the future and ignoring the needs ofourselves and our children. Thus, the IPCC established in 1996, official GlobalWarming Potentials (GWPs), which are weighting factorsto compare the impact of different GHGs GWPs are built into the Kyoto Protocol, the CleanDevelopment Mechanism, and nearly all nationalinventories and reduction plans, including those forCalifornia.
Methane and Time The current official GWPs are based on 100-year time horizons
Methane is 21 x CO2 by weight (25 in AR4) Equivalent to ~0.75% discount rate
For making decisions on how to spend resources when impacts are upon us, <1% is too low. The other GWP published by IPCC, has a 20-year time horizon
Methane is 72 x CO2 by weight Equivalent to ~ 8% discount rate More compatible with financial investments
International health investments use a 3% discount rate, which would be a GWP of ~48
W
Relative Warming from CO2 and CH4 emitted in 2008
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
2008 2028 2048 2068 2088 2108
Pattern of Future
arming fromEqual
Emissions(t of CO2;t of CH4)
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Relative Warming from CO2 and CH4 emitted in 2008 (one ton of each)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2008 2028 2048 2068 2088 2108
Carbon Dioxide Methane
20 years – 72x
100 years – 25x
Methane GWPs and Discount Rates
90 80 70 60
Equivalent 50 GWP 40
30 20 10 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5
25
39 48
55 61
66 70 73 76 78 Official GWP of 21 ~0.75% discount rate
At GWP=25, ~1% DR
Annual Discount Rate -%
Methane GWPs and Time Horizons
120
100
80 Equivalent
60GWP 40
20
0
A GWP of 48 (3% discount rate) ~ 40-year time horizon
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time Horizon - Years
Integrated Radiahve· Forcing for Year 2000 G llobal Emissions (Weighted by 100-yr and 20-yr time holiizons)
Long-liv,ed greenhouse gases
I
O rganic carbon ( FF)
I ,so I
I
Cloud albedo _J I
I
Long-liv,ed greenhouse ,g1ases
I I
Organ~c carbon (FIF)
so
6 .. FCs I
' - HCFCs
I
00, NMV~C + NOx} I
Black carbon ( FF),
Short-lrirved gases I . I
I I
Aerosolls and ae·rosol precursors
i=~ --ti _ SIF6 PIFCs + H FCs
LHCFCs .
I co, NMVO~ + NO,._}
I
Bila.ck carbon ( FF),
Sliort-lirved gases I I I
Aero.soils and ae•rosoll pr,ecuirsors
-11 0 1 2 r1
3 I nt,e 11rat,ed radiative ford n
100-y horizon
Time perspective makes a difference
20-y horizon
IPCC, 2007
Methane #1: Summary A much more powerful greenhouse gas (GHG) than CO2 Partly due to its direct effect, but also because it createsozone (O3), another powerful GHG Nearly 100 times more per ton than CO2 at any one time Eventually turns to 2.75 times as much CO2 by mass Methane has thus contributed a significant amount toglobal warming, But has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime compared toCO2 Thus, changes in emission rates will have a much fasterimpact to lower warming than changes in CO2 emissions But there is also more variability in the system
2. Methane and Global Health
Increases of wide-scale tropospheric (ground-level) ozone is becoming a major world problem A significant health-damaging pollutant Damaging to ecosystems and agriculture Methane emissions are the main cause Reduction of methane emissions, therefore, will help protect health worldwide immediately
l
Methane as a Global Ozone Precursor
Urban Global hν hν
O3 O3
OHHO2
NO NO2
NMVOCs, CO
OHHO2
NO NO2
NMVOCs, CO, CH4
Livestock 30%
Coal mining
6%
Biomass burn 3%
Fossil fue burn 1%
Waste water
9%
Landfills 12%
Rice 10%
Manure 4%
Oi/gas 18%
Other ag 7%
Backgroun1d Ozone is Gro · _ ing , ..
I I
! J
/ - . ' . . ,. ,..
J/ ' ' : . ' ' ' .... . . . : . .
' .,. ..... ......... -........ •~·-::--~-:
.... .... .....
a ""T"'- --r"""T""""T"""""T"""~ ........... ----........... ---.--...._-
I 3~1ll 1890 ]Sil 19:3i j 9'Slll l!I 1'9!iil0
QZ]on 1e trend at Europ 1ean mountain sites, 1870-·1990 (Mar1enco et all., 1994).
o !PIC 41■ ).f[Dl n) (191P. ) (]S9(l ,g•~
alt ZulPJiii... ,jJ!l(l(l 1111)
(1,77
• IIIM: pt · · i;-g m] (1~71-~ )
,o Amt■ (i: ill)
{h9SM3)
,IL , 1ilaJ l°H J f1_'SOO ill) l l'!llll)
■ .f•nt:fn-ijnih ()IWI (lm) -
• r te 'Ila 1t1mli (JOOl! mJ ( I If'+ IS@}
, .. and Will 1Continue to Grow!
Histor'ic 1and future incre 1ases 'in !background o.zo1ne ar1e due 1mainly to incre1asedl m1ethane and N1Ox emissions (Wang et al, 1998; Prather et al. , ,2003) .
20 :25 30 35
03 cha1nge (pplb
Mauzerall 2007
• ·1 _ _
C,os,t-saving r,eductions
<$,110 J ton
c ,02 eq1.
AlI identified reductions
North America ■ Annex Ill I World
.20%of
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Me1hane reduction potential (Mton CH4 yr"1)
W,es! ,& Fiore 2005 ._
1Me•·•tiha~n1e•·•r-e_·.duc-t,'1· ,o·· n- p-,o·· te•·•n-t1·1 ,a--~-1fr,o·m:1 IEA·:-·:_(2-•-- -' 10 1.0·•3::)· t ·,,o-·•- , r · c.o,a~I ,_0 • 1 '1·1 1a._n·1,d· -g·,•· a-s----.. . . ' . . . . - . - .. I . . . . I . . ) . ' ·.. . . . · . ' .I ·. . . . : -- .
,o_-p•.e·rat1·1'0•·ns'. --· ·w--a-s.. -1·,,e·w -,-a,·-te•·•r a.-n,d. la~n- d·· 1f,"'1 llls·• m- ,a,··x·-- ·1'1 m- um- t,e·- -c .h ·
- 1n·-'1·1 ,c•a-- lly----- __ I _, _ _ , _ . __ __ , _ I __ _ _ _ ,, I _ - I _ I __ - _ _
feasible in 2i010.
9a°N
6CfN
3CfN
- - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - r -
_______ , ____ .,
60°S
90°S, 180° 12ffW
.. J • • - • • • • • • • •
60°W 6CfE 112ffE
Effect of a reduction of 20% (~61 MT) in global methane emissions on tropospheric ozone
West et al., PNAS, 2006
60°W 6CfE 12CPE
Per million population
Reduction in ozone mortality from 20% reduction in methane emissions
West et al, PNAS, 2006
Methane #2: Summary
• Methane is precursor to tropospheric (ground level) ozone
• Tropospheric ozone rising around the world • Significant impact on natural ecosystems and
agriculture • WHO and other agencies lowering ozone
standards/guidelines because of newevidence on mortality and continued evidenceof morbidity
• Standards suggested by health protection are now at the top end of regional levels in someparts of the world, e.g., Europe
• Nowhere to hide
L
\ \
\
\_
"New renewable energysources"
2.2%
World Energy – 2001 OilNatural Gas
"Modern" Biomass
Other
1.4% Renewables
0.8%
Traditional Biomass
9.3%
35.1%21.7%
Nuclear 6.9%
Coal Hydro 22.6%2.3%
Population: 6.102 billion Total energy use: 10.2 Gtoe Per capita energy consumption: 1.67 toe
World Energy Assessment, 2004
3. Methane and the health of the poor
Recovered wood products from previous years
2,B
M.micipal solid & industrial waste
Agrofuels
Municipal by-products
Solid municipal biomass
Traditional solid rcoal, Straw, etc.)
35
M:idem solid
Losses (Refinery ,Transport,
Transfonnation)
DIii
I ~I Data are expressed in &ajoule (E.J) -,
IPCC 2007, WGIII
i1onal Household Soli'd F1uel Use, 20,00
c;&"!II!:.?;:- - -2111111, -
- • ' ~r ·
'.,, . . ..
~___, <20% D 20% - 40% - 40% - so% - 60% - so% - >80%
~ Household solid fuel use known
1.:.:,_:·'.· :· :;·:·.~-:_·._JI No data ~>~·:· ;;-·::·:~ - - - -'-
National Household Use of Biomass and Coal in 2000
Greenhouse warming commitment per meal for typical wood-fired cookstove in China
CO2 Carbon: 403 g
Methane Carbon:
3.8 g
Other GHG Carbon Carbon Monoxide: 38 g Hydrocarbons: 6.3 g
Nitrous Oxide 0.018 g
Wood: 1.0 kg
454 g Carbon Plus PM2.5 and Black Carbon
403 g 86 g 131 g 69 g
4.7 g
Global warming commitments of each of the gases as CO2 equivalents
Zhang, et al., 2000
INDIA
Percentage o,f Bio.fuel user llouseholds
1111 75-100
~ 50-74
Unknown,
C,
Percent of Households Using Biomass Fuels
Nearly 2 million tons methane per year of the ~ 305 Mt total global human emissions
Smith, et al. 2000
2001 Census
Wood: 1 kg 15.3 MJ
Traditional Stove15% moisture
Energy flows in a well-operating traditional wood-fired cookstove
A Toxic Waste Factory!!
Typical biomass cookstoves convert 6-20% of the fuel carbon to toxic substances
Into Pot 2.8 MJ 18%
In PIC 1.2 MJ
8%
Waste Heat 11.3 MJ
74%
Source: Smith,PIC = products of incomplete combustion = CO, HC, C, etc. et al., 2000
Toxic Pollutants in Biomass Fuel Smoke from Simple (poor) Combustion
• Small particles, CO, NO2 • Hydrocarbons
Plus methane – 25+ saturated hydrocarbons such as n-hexane – 40+ unsaturated hydrocarbons such as 1,3 butadiene – 28+ mono-aromatics such as benzene & styrene – 20+ polycyclic aromatics such as benzo(α)pyrene
• Oxygenated organics – 20+ aldehydes including formaldehyde & acrolein – 25+ alcohols and acids such as methanol – 33+ phenols such as catechol & cresol – Many quinones such as hydroquinone Naeher, et al. – Semi-quinone-type and other radicals 2007
• Chlorinated organics such as methylene chloride and dioxin
Diseases for which we have epidemiological studies showing a link to household biomass use
ALRI/ Pneumonia (meningitis)
Low birth weight
Asthma?
Early infant death?
Birth defects?
Cognitive Impairment?
Chronic obstructive lung disease
Tuberculosis
Blindness (cataracts, trachoma)
Cancer? (lung, NP, cervical, aero-digestive)
Heart disease?
LJ LJ
\ - - - -~ - - ~ - - - ~ ~ -
-- -t - -
-~ ~ -
t -
~ -
-
-
-
Glo
bal B
urd
en
of D
isease fro
m T
op
10 Risk F
actors
plu
s s
ele
cte
d o
the
r risk
fac
tors
Un
de
rwe
igh
t
Un
safe
sex
Blo
od
pre
ssure
To
ba
cco
Alco
ho
l
Un
safe
wa
ter/sa
nita
tion
Ch
ild clu
ster va
ccina
tion
*
Ch
ole
stero
l
La
ck of M
ala
ria co
ntro
l*
Ind
oo
r smo
ke fro
m so
lid fu
els
Ove
rwe
igh
t
Occu
pa
tion
al h
aza
rad
s (5 kin
ds)
Ro
ad
traffic a
ccide
nts*
Ph
ysical in
activity
Le
ad
(Pb
) po
llutio
n
Urb
an
ou
tdo
or a
ir po
llutio
n
Clim
ate
cha
ng
e
Smith et al.
4.9 million prem
aturedeaths/y
1.6 million prem
ature deaths/y tw
o-thirds from A
RI in children
0.15 million prem
ature deaths/y
2005 (based on 0
%
2%
4
%
6%
8
%1
0%
W
HO
data) P
ercent o
f All D
AL
Ys in
2000
Indian Burden of Disease from Top 10 Risk Factors and Selected Other Risk Factors
Underweight
Unsafe water/sanitation-E*
Indoor smoke-E
Unsafe sex
Iron deficiency
Tobacco
Blood pressure
Child cluster Vaccination
Cholesterol
Road traffic accidents
Zn Deficiency
Low fruit & veg
Occupational (5 kinds)-E
Lead (Pb)-E
Climate change-E
Urban outdoor air-E
World Health 0%Reports – 2001, 2002
Other environmental risk factors
420,000 deaths/year
2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
Percent of All DALYs in 2000
$ur:ly Odd~ Ratio (r@nc!Qlil) 'Weig~ OQ~~ RfttiQ (nmdQITI) or rub-eeilegory 96<:;.; Cl % M¼Cl
01 ~tv~n Studie:;: Smllh(2007)a S. S:3 L 18 10 . 88 , 1.5,8,]
Smitti(::2007)b ---- 5 . 13 l..35 l l..05 , 1. 73] Suntafal (~5% Cl) • ll. 2 6 l. 29 Ll. 06 , l. S ;! ]
Test tor heter-ogen.ay: Cl'lt' = o . .;8, di = 1 (I'= 0.49) , • = 0%
Tes! ror overall eflect: r = 2.61$ (P = o .01)
02 Cotiart ~ uclles Arms1ron~ 199,1 )a 2 . 81l 0 . 51l ro . . :rn, 1 . 2.2 ] ~ rmskan~1991 )IJ 3 . 6;s l. 9'0 l O. ~6 , ~ - 715 ]
Ca~ell(1 989) :3 _v; :! . 8,0 l l.29', 6 _ 08 ]
Ei:urti(2001 ) 3 . 86 2 . 33 ll . :23, ,t . 40) Jin(t 99J) s. 15;91 0. 80 [ 0 . 62 , L09 ]
Par1dey(1 989)a 4. 3.4 2.45 1 L 4 3 , 4.1·9J Pendey(1 989)b ► l . 52 4,0 . E>S 19 . 79, 168 . ?SJ
<:ltOI~ (95% Cl) • 2:$.11 z. 12: l L O~ , "I . ZS ]
Test 'o.r heterogen.e.liy: Crli' = 54.07, d1 = 6 (P < 0.00 1), I'= 88.9'% Test tiilr (Werall eflect Z = 2.11 (P = 0 .OJ)
03 C~e:-Cootm1 Sllldies A,;i.;i(1 OOS) 3 . ::17 l . ZQl ro .E-s , 2 . 21 1 a~or(20D1) ---- 4. 4.9 2 .Sl l l. 51 , 4 . 17 1 Collinr,s 1 990) -- 4. 85 2. 16 [ L 40, 3.33] De Frenci,.00(1003) 2 . !S S . 23 l.l . '.1 2: , u . n 1 fon~e.,c~(1 996) 4. 68 1. 14 l 0 . ?1 , 1 . 82: ]
Jatinsor.;19912)a 3 . 15 o. 8:1) 10.36, 1. 781 KO$!l()Vi;!(1082) l . g,~ 4 . '1'7 l l . ,<14, U: . 74.]
Kumatl 2004) 2 . 4.5 $.87 I L 42., 10. S'? ] Mallalar118bas(2002) 3 . 53 3 . 97 12 . 00, 1. 88] Mort is(1S90) 2. Ill 4 .BS [ J__ '7 i , U-~Cl l otle~sey('199S) z. 5;9 z. ss 1.0 . 98, S . S'li] Robin(1 996)a 2 . 95 l . ~I) ro. ,o, a: . 28] \11ictor ( 93 )a, 4.09 J. . 10 [ 0. 61., 1 .£)'8 ]
V\favset200-t) Z . 9'0 1. 39 l 0 . 58 , 3 . :3,0] VVesley(1 996) l . 87 l . JS [ 0 . :39, f . 63]
Suntolal (95% Cl) .. d.8 . lS L 9 7 l l..4 7 , 2 . 1os1 1 Test wr heterogen.eliy: C = 32.7.2, d1 = 14 (P = 0.0 , ), I'' = 57 .2% Test fiilr "'mall ef lect; Z. = 4.5'3 (IP < 0 .00001 )
04 Cross-sectlooal stud~s Mishrs.(2003) 3 . 83 2 . 20 l l . 16, 4 . l ·SJ Mi!hi' 1!!1(2D05) .S. 11:7 L !i,8 [ L 28 , 1.:eis·1 lt\kt 11mann(21D08) s.n L 29 11. 02 , l.S.31
SUbtalsl (95% Cli) • 1S. 'i8 l . 'i9 fl.:i:l , .1.SS J THI fo,r Mtiero~n- ,y;. Chi' ,. 3.19, di " 2 (P ,. 0.20) , " 37.3% Tesi or overall ettect: Z. = 3.74 (IP = 0 .0002)
Totl.!II (QS"lo Cl) • 0 0. 0 0 J.. 7 8 l L •4 S , 2. J. B l Test or heterogen.eiy: Chi' = 101.74, d1 = 26 (P .: 0. 001 ), I' = 74 :4% Te~ fiilr civeraH et iect: l = 5.61 (f;) < 0 .00001 )
~~-~
0.1 02 0.5 2 5 10
lrx:re!!~(;!~k; Oecre!l.g,e(j r~~
Child Pneumonia -indoor air pollution
New Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Dherani et al. Bull WHO, 2008
Chinese household rural energy:
A Chinese Hybrid Gasifier Stove Winner of National Stove Contest
Efficiency 2x traditional stoves; Emissions 10-15x less: Low health risk and essentially no greenhouse emissions
Compared to Coal Stove
17% to 41% fuel efficiency 0.12 to 0.02 CO/CO2 1.6 to 0.26 g PM/kg fuel
18 W blower
•
Global Waming Per Meal
l eveL01MP
Health and Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Biomass Stove Options
ug/m3 Coal
1200 1000
800 600 400 200
0 1 10 100 1000
Biomass Gasifier StoveBiogas
Stove
grams-CO2-eq
Smith & Haigler, 2008 Global Warming Commitment per Meal
1 ,000
10
1
100
II 11111 1 ,000
II 11111 10,000
I I I II I 100,000
I I II II I 1 ,000,000
U_S_ Solar PV
I I 1111 I I I I I 11111
110 ,000 ,000 100,000,000
Health Cost Effectiveness (Int$/DALY)
Smith & Haigler, 2008
1 ,000
U_S_ Solar PV
China: Household coal to propane/LPG stoves U_S_ Hybrid vehicles
100
U _s _ Nuclear
10
tC02e offset
• DALYs avoided
China: Househ Id coal to biomass gasi:fii.er stoves
1
100 1 ,000 10,000 100,000 1 ,000,000 110 ,000 ,000 100,000,000
Health Cost Effectiveness (Int$/DALY)
Current Cost-effective Region In China
Smith & Haigler, 2008
Rural Energy is Linked to Three Major SectorsPaying for Rural Energy Development
Economic Development
Once global and national markets pick up their portions, local market can pay remainder
DR ~40%
National MDG Health
“Market”
1-3x $GDP/capita per DALY saved (WHO/IBRD, etc. recommendation) DR ~3%
Global Climate Market
$ per ton-carbon (world carbon market) – DR <1%
High-efficiency low-emissions rural energy technology is too expensive for local markets
Technology
Methane #3: Summary
• Methane is one of the constituents of products of incomplete combustion (PIC)from fuel combustion
• PIC are responsible for much burden of disease in the world’s poorest populations
• Controlling this PIC has a double benefit: health and climate
• Can potentially be done economically –low hanging fruit for both
4. Methane and Global Equity
• We have seen how methane’s health impacts, direct, indirect, and associated, mostly affect the poor
• What about methane emissions: how are they distributed?
Halocarbons
HFCs
Surface a lbedo (land use:)
-0.5
- Contraills
- So llar
0 .5 Radiative F,o rc in
Organi,c ca bon
Mineral dust
Aerosols
Land use
S.ola1r irradiiance
1
How much allocated to each living person from both GHGs --- our natural debts?
Warming in 2005 from emissions since 1750
More than half due to methane
IPCC, 2007
..c -
Nat
iona
l Nat
ural
Deb
ts:
Cum
ulat
ive
CO
2 em
issi
ons,
dep
lete
d by
nat
ural
pro
cess
es
Rat
io o
f lar
gest
to s
mal
lest
em
ittin
gco
untri
es ~
500
x
This
kin
d of
cal
cula
tion,
how
ever
is b
ased
onl
y on
CO
2 em
issi
ons
from
foss
il fu
els
and
cem
ent:
Pat
z JA
, Gib
bs H
K, F
oley
JA
, Rog
ers
JV, S
mith
KR
, 200
7, C
limat
ech
ange
and
glo
bal h
ealth
: Qua
ntify
ing
a gr
owin
g et
hica
l cris
is,
Eco
Hea
lth 4
(4):
397–
405,
200
7.
Distribution of Global Natural Debt Among Top 10 Nations CO2 only in 2005
LUC USA 20% 21%
CHINA 8%
Other 26%
RUSSIA 6%
GERMANY 4%
FRANCE JAPAN
Brazil: 0.8% 2% CANADA
UKRAINE 2% 2%
UK 3% INDIA
4%
2%
Smith and Rogers,Nb. Land-use change emissions not are parsed out by country in preparation
USA Anthropogenic Methane Emissions ~2005 Total ~ 25 million tons
Fossil fuel burn
2% Manure
8%
Rice 1%
Waste water 7%
Oi/gas 24%
Livestock 22%
Landfills 25%
Coal mining 11%
~83 kg/cap ~8% of world
USEPA 2006
Methane Emissions from India in 2005 26.1 Mt (9% of world)
24 kg/cap
http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/econ-inv/international.html
Chinese Methane Emissions in 2005 41 MT = 13% of world
31 kg/capita
Oi/gas, 1% Waste
Coal water, 13% mining, 16%
Landfills, 5%
Solid fuel combustion,
6% Rice, 26%
Livestock, Manure, 3% 30%
USEPA, 2006
Distribution of Global Natural Debts in Top 10 Nations CH4 and CO2 in 2005
[compared to CO2 alone; note decrease for USA, increase for China, and large increases for India and Brazil]
Other 33.2%
CHINA 10.9%
USA 17.1%
LUC 12.9%
RUSSIA 6.2%
INDIA 5.5%
GERMANY 3.3%
BRAZIL 2.4%
JAPAN 2.6%
CANADA 1.6%
UK 2.1%
UKRAINE 2.1% Smith and Rogers,
in preparationNb. National fossil fuel/cement emissions only for CO2, land-use change emissions are not parsed out by country
33%
19%
17%
17%
78%
KAZAKHSTAN
GERMANY
BELGIUM
UK
BRAZIL
Percent
52%
23%
30%
44%
19%
35%
44%
50%
72%
82%
71%
79%
69%
74%
92%
CO2 CH4
10 largest LDCs ~55% of world pop
methane
Ratio of largest to smallest emitters considering both CO2 and methane
Smith and Rogers, In preparation
RUSSIA
~ 40x
International Natural Debt Per Capita
Tons CO2 - eq
-
AUSTRALIA
USA
CANADA
UKRAINE
CZECH REPUBLIC
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
MEXICO
CHINA
INDONESIA
VIET NAM
INDIA
PAKISTAN
PHILIPPINES
NIGERIA
BANGLADESH
5. A Different Historical Framework
• Agrarian societies have been contributing to incipient climate change for several millennia.
• Reversing what would have been a natural decline in CO2 and methane in this period
• Excess GHGs are not just a feature of industrialization, although the rate has risen dramatically after the industrial revolution
NI. GRE THOIJ · -ND O YE.
D'epm'linumt of E.f'llin:inmema1 Scie,f'lres. Vmvei;ri~• afYl1ginia. Charlottesville.. '.4. ? .• U.S.A. E-mail: Jdc vi1ginia.ed~
Princeton U Press, 2006
§ 700 .
(a
290
280
270
260
250
24l0
10.,000
0 bserrv.edl CH4 trelilld
\
5.ocm Yearrs Ago
.
Olbserrved 00,2 1rnnd •
0
10.000 5.000 Yearrs Ago
n ms on 1· .a) 1. ·"4 and I b n ,ol);sen d tr mfts 1 • Bhm · ·r m: • l
40ppl'll1I
0
7
·- ~·- AllilJhTopo I ' liLC h11,r
000
l ocal ep idemlcs
egIonal epidemics
ndemics
290 CO2
(p m)
280
N. hem. *C
,0
.2 Solar
Year AO 140() 1600 1800
+0.1
-----t- 0 W/rn?
- -0.1
-0.2
ii . - I I
0
Vo~canirr" V/m2
-5 -
1 00 1200 1400 1600 Year .AD
·' EsUntarled m 11 n rth •. m h •. misph r temp r tu ,ch, d t : LJ, .· l ' den1i sand . ,· s; i,
n in Figllir · 7)· . v,
1800
19 1 i\D , Mann t f chai.11g . s , t Taiy] r
. '· .fl Ul H rn ta].,
Ruddiman, 2003
0 --1--iiiiiiilllllllliillllllllli-•
00
Ruddiman 2003
Carbon dioxide is important
However, …
Laws of Carbon-thermodynamics
I. Keep all fossil and forest carbon out ofthe atmosphere
II. If you cannot do so, the least-damagingform to release is carbon dioxide because all other forms are worse for climate and health.
III. Even renewable (non-fossil) carbon isdamaging for climate and health if notreleased as carbon dioxide.
Sulfate (d;rect)
Surface a lbedo (land use:)
-0.5
I
Black carbon (snollV i;i/bedo)
- Contraills
-So lla r
0 .5 Radiative F,o rcin
M ineral dust
Aerosols
Land use
S.ola1r irradiiance
1
Warming in 2005 from emissions since 1750
A large part from PIC: products of incomplete combustion
IPCC, 2007
Ranking of Carbon Emissions: The Pharmaceutical Index
• Carbon dioxide is noxious if fossil or forest derived, but benign if from renewable sources
• Products of incomplete combustion (PIC) such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are likeCO2 on caffeine – several times worse
• Methane from any source (fossil, biologic, or incomplete combustion) is like CO2 on steroids – dozens of times worse.
• Black carbon in particles from incomplete combustion is like CO2 on crack – hundreds of times worse.
Conclusion on Methane • Methane emissions are more important than current
official weighting factors indicate because of its largeeffect over the next generation
• May well increase in “value”, perhaps during the post-Kyoto deliberations now starting
• Developing countries have a bigger role • Methane is emitted as part of the poor combustion
process of solid fuels, which also produce muchhealth-damaging pollution
• Contributes directly to global tropospheric ozone levels
• Improving this combustion offers substantial GHG as well as health benefits in a cost-effective manner
• Ways to control are quite different from CO2 • And may be easier in the short term
Methane – bottom lines?
• Way to reduce warming in the next generation is to put more attention onmethane (and other shorter lived GHGs)
• Once the heat enters Earth’s systems, it does not matter where it came from
• For some impacts, the rate of warming is asimportant as the total amount
• Only way to slow the rate is to immediately reduce methane emissions (and other short-lived GH pollutants)
• While working to stop CO2 in the long run
Carbon dioxide is still important
But, do you know your methane footprint?
California Methane Emissions 2004 – 1.2 MT
34.8 kg/capita 0.4% of world Coal
Oil & Gas Waste Water <0.1%
11% 11%
Biomass Combustion 1%
Enteric Fermentation 28%
Manure 2% 24%
CARB, 2008Prepared by J. Rogersfrom CARB data
Rice
Other Ag 1%
Landfill 22%
Publications and presentations available at
http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/
Thank you