The time is fast approaching when we will have to acknowledge that scientist’s projections of the rate at which climate change is impacting the environment is simply too conservative. It may be that the rate of climate change is faster or the impacts are greater. Or both.

I mentioned the fast rate of Antarctic ice melt and its impact on sea level in a previous blog. Now the British Antarctic Survey    reports the faster-than-expected impact of warming on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, a 16,000 sq. km  area of ice (the size of Northern Ireland) on the western side of the long tendril known as the Antarctic Peninsula, approximately 1000 kms south of South America. Image courtesy British Antarctic Survey

While monitoring satellite images of the shelf, glaciologist Ted Scambos, of the University of Colorado noticed a 41 km x 2.5 km (25.5 by 1.5 miles) iceberg had broken away from the Wilkins Ice Shelf at the end of February 2008. He alerted the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) team who investigated the ice shelf first hand.

The BAS reports that the edge of the shelf proceeded to crumble and disintegrate in a pattern that has become characteristic of climate-caused ice shelf retreats throughout the northern Peninsula, leaving a sky-blue patch spreading across the ocean surface compose of hundreds of large blocks of exposed old glacier ice.

By 8 March 2008, the ice shelf had lost just over 570 km2  (220 sq. miles), and the patch of disintegrated Antarctic ice had spread over 1400km2. As of mid-March, only a narrow 6km (3.7 miles)wide thread of shelf ice between two small islands that support part of the shelf was protecting several thousand kilometres of potential further break-up.

Scambos said that it’s not just  ice breaking off the shelf, but rather massive sections shattering, and that if the thread of ice collapses, half of the ice shelf could be lost within a few years.

In 1993, Professor David Vaughan of the BAS predicted that the Wilkins Ice Shelf would likely disappear within 30 years if climate change continued at the same rate as in 1993.

There’s now a good chance the Wilkins Ice Shelf will dissappear long before 2023, which will come as no surprise for those who are following closely the recent evidence of the impact of climate change. This discovery follows the recent UNEP report that the world’s glaciers are continuing to melt away. Data from 30 reference glaciers in nine mountain ranges show that between the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 the average rate of melting and thinning has more than doubled.

Professor Vaughan said: “Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened. I didn’t expect to see things happen this quickly. The ice shelf is hanging by a thread – we’ll know in the next few days or weeks what its fate will be.

“Climate warming in the Antarctic Peninsula has pushed the limit of viability for ice shelves further south – setting some of them that used to be stable on a course of retreat and eventual loss. The Wilkins breakout won’t have any effect on sea-level because it is floating already, but it is another indication of the impact that climate change is having on the region.”

Ice shelves float in the sea and already displace water volume. When they break up and melt, they do not raise sea level. However, ice shelves restrain the flow of glaciers behind them from sliding into the sea. When the ice shelves disintegrate, glaciers can slide quicker towards the sea, melt and raise the sea level. The collapse of ice shelves can therefore precede a faster rise in sea level. Melting sheets also increase feedback in the climate system by reducing the reflectivity of that part of the earth’s surface, enabling sunlight to be converted to ocean heat which in turn accelerates melting of the floating ice.

Fortunately, few glaciers flow into Wilkins Ice Sheet, but if the trend continues and other sheets are affected, sea levels will eventually be impacted.

The Antarctic has warmed at three times the global average – and, along with Alaska,  faster than any other region on the planet – over the past half century and six Antarctic ice shelves have already disappeared over recent decades, including  Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Wordie, Muller, Jones and the 3,250 sq. km, 220 metres thick  Larsen B Ice Shelf, which fell apart   over several months in 2002 –  720 billion tonnes of ice gone. Again, an unexpected event.

Science magazine  reported that the Ross and Ronne ice shelves may be instrumental in retaining the glaciers behind them and that if those two shelves were to collapse, the entire land-based western ice sheet could flow into the ocean, with the potential to raise sea levels by 5 metres. 

And still we keep pumping out more and more greenhouse gases and argue over what action to take, when the solutions are already available.

For more Antarctic images see Polar View

Note: Ice sheet – is the huge mass of ice, up to 4 km thick, that covers Antarctica’s bedrock. It flows from the centre of the continent towards the coast where it feeds ice shelves.

Ice shelf – is the floating extension of the grounded ice sheet. It is composed of freshwater ice that originally fell as snow, either in situ or inland and brought to the ice shelf by glaciers. As they are already floating any disintegration (like Larsen B) will have no impact on sea level. Sea level will rise only if the ice held back by the ice shelf flows into the sea. By Christo Norden-Powers            © 2008 Spandah

The recent ‘Red Book’ briefing by Australian Treasury  to the new Rudd government highlighted the need for a major transformation of the economy if Australia is to effectively deal with climate change.

In the report, obtained by Channel 7 under an FOI application, climate change was described as ‘the single most pressing environmental, economic and social challenge’ facing Australia.

Treasury stated that an effective national response to climate change ‘will entail a major transformation of the economy’ and that ‘If stated emissions reduction objectives are to be achieved, the energy profile of the economy will have to be fundamentally changed, with market-based incentives needing to play a leading role.’

The current 16 year economic boom in Australia is likely to continue for another 2 years according to the Red Book briefing, largely fueled by the rapid growth of China and India and their demand for resources, of which Australia has plenty.

Shift from fossil fuel economy

So what is ‘a major transformation of the economy’ and a ‘fundamental change’ to the nation’s energy profile.

Bottom line is that Australia (and the rest of the world) must substantially reduce its dependence on, and use of, fossil fuel products such as coal, oil and gas, or we will be running enormous, and effectively permanent, risks to the future of  the national economy arising from the impact of climate change.

Fossil fuels have been relatively cheap sources of power for hundreds of years. Our modern way of life, and the global economy, has literally been constructed around the use of fossil fuels. Almost every product and service provided in developed countries is reliant on fossil fuels.  GDP of developed (wealthiest) countries is closely related to their GHG emissions.

Fossil fuels were created by natural processes over hundreds of millions of years, and we are effectively burning it all a million times faster -  over a few hundred years.  That’s like winning the lottery and blowing it all in a few seconds.  We are pumping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the earth’s biosphere at a rate faster than at any time in the earth’s known history, and certainly in human history. That will almost certainly result in faster and more intense climate change than humans, and probably the planet, have experienced before, and may be beyond our ability to adapt.

Coal fired power

But how does a country such as Australia change its energy paradigm?
One of the obvious areas for change is in the use of coal for generating electricity. Coal fired power represents a significant proportion of Australia’s GHG emissions.
Coal is plentiful and relatively cheap – provided the ‘collateral damage’ to the environment and to the future economy is externalised, i.e. not  taken into account in the financials of the emitter or the end user, and provided the industry is subsidised by the government/taxpayer.

By externalising collateral costs of emissions, emitters (and consumers) avoid paying for the damage caused by their activities. Essentially, we pass the cost on to Mother Nature and to governments. We expect the natural processes of the planet’s systems to absorb and correct any imbalance that we create. Some consequences are paid for by governments, such as health system costs and remediation of ecosystems.
Basically, we are running up a substantial debt to the earth’s biosphere and sooner or later the debt will be called in, by way of perturbation of the climate system which could cause a  substantial impact on our economies and lifestyle, unless we do something soon to stop the current trend.

Subsidies

If the current subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are removed and the coal-sourced energy was saddled with the real cost of carbon, coal-fired power generation would hardly be competitive with renewable energy.

For instance, Government subsidies (read ‘taxpayer support’) have been propping up the fossil fuel industries (oil, coal, gas) in Australia to the tune of between $7 billion and $10 billion a year depending on which source is quoting the figures.  Remove the subsidies and you’ll soon see that the fossil fuel industries are a lot less profitable without the subsidies.  By contrast, the Australian government spent only $232 million for renewables and energy efficiency, and $750 million for alternative fuels during 2005/2006.
Without the subsidies they would have to increase prices or efficiency.  In today’s circumstances that may be useful, as it would lower consumer purchases and reduce the energy used per unit of production.

Add in a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme that has serious teeth and fossil fuels will be far less sustainable economically, making renewable energy sources more economically viable.

Australia is the 4th largest repository of coal deposits and the biggest exporter of coal. Sooner or later, coal exports from Australia and into other countries will be penalised or discouraged as nations reduce their emissions and reliance on fossil fuels in an attempt to avert dangerous climate change.

Moral issue

Knowing what we know now about the impact of GHGs and the risks that we face on a global scale as a result of climate change, there is also a moral question of whether Australia should continue to export coal to China and other countries in the knowledge that the coal will ultimately produce huge amounts of GHGs as China builds a coal-fueled power station each week through to 2020 – another 600 power stations – as it rushes headlong towards a ‘higher’ standard of living.

Australia cannot afford to wait until the coal market collapses. That collapse may take 10 years or 20 years. China won’t need coal forever – it has 200 years of coal buried on it’s own turf.

Australia must act quickly to create the renewable energy capacity that will not only deliver jobs and growth, but will also enable the country to wean itself from fossil fuel energy.

Australia has the innovative capability and the wealth to do that. It could be well on the way to that outcome within 20 years with a smidgen of political will.

How?

Australia is blessed with plentiful supplies of 5 natural sources of renewable energy: wind, solar, waves, currents and geothermal.

If the fossil fuel subsidies are phased out  over the next 12 years and the funds are diverted to building renewable energy capacity,  all major cities in Australia could be obtaining most of their electricity from renewable sources. Base load needs could be accommodated by having some gas fired power stations, which can be brought online quickly when renewable sources are less productive, e.g. a windless, cloudy day. 
If an additional $10Bn per annum (additional to the subsidy diversion) were to be invested by the government into renewables over the next 20 years and private and corporate investment was encouraged by clear policies, Australia would be well on the way to a 60% reduction in GHG emissions.

It seems that the US Congress is thinking the same way. Recently, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, sent a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in relation to his pending visit to the Middle East. Part of the letter reads:

“The House of Representatives has again passed legislation to significantly expand our renewable American energy industry in a fiscally responsible way, paid for by ending taxpayer subsidies to the five largest oil companies which are earning record profits. This legislation is pending in the Senate. These subsidies cannot be condoned at today’s historically high oil prices. When oil was just $55 a barrel–half the current price–the President said that such subsidies could no longer be justified. We agree and hope he will actively support this legislation to direct our energy dollars from subsidies for oil companies to development of alternatives to increase our energy independence and improve our national security.”

It was worth a try, but Ms Pelosi may have to wait until the next President is elected to get any movement on that initiative.

By Christo Norden-Powers  ©2008 Spandah

The Australian Government has released a timetable for the introduction of emissions trading.
The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, announced the following target dates last week:

• March to June 2008: preliminary consultations on technical issues with industry and non-government groups
• July 2008: public release of a Green Paper on emissions trading design, drawing on preliminary consultations
• December 2008: public release of exposure draft legislation
• March – Mid 2009: Bill considered by Parliament
• 2009: Consultation on emissions trading regulations
• 3rd quarter 2009: Act enters into force, regulator established
• 2010: Emissions Trading Scheme will commence.

The detailed timetable is available here.
The Minister emphasised the Government’s intention to consult widely with community on the design and implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The current work of the Garnaut Climate Change Review will be one of several key inputs to the design of the ETS. The Garnaut Review team released a discussion paper on the design of an Australian ETS on 20 March; the paper is available here . Submissions on the paper will be received until 18 April.