Subscribe To
This Site

Human Induced Global Climate Change

Where are we now with climate change and CO₂?
In simple terms the graph below shows the situation regarding human induced climate change. It is is not rocket science! There is a 'safe' level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) that is best if not breached. Then there is the actual level of atmospheric CO₂, which is thought to be on an upward trajectory (the red line), as a direct result of human activity.

Are we to the left of the crossover point, or the right?

This is an important question. If we are to the left and the red line has not yet passed through the safe level on its way up, our global task is to minimise or better, totally avoid future emissions, so that the trajectory begins to move downwards (as the the blue line on the graph does). Most likely we will need to use a vast array of technologies to achieve this outcome.

On the other hand, if we are to the right of the intersection an altogether different discussion must urgently be held. At this point the problem is entirely a biological problem, not a technological one. It can only be solved biologically, and utterly different management actions must be invoked across Australia.

This is the climate discussion that is not yet being seriously held, perhaps because many deeply held beliefs must first change.

Left of the mark - minimising future emissions
If, globally, we are to the left of the crossover point then technological solutions can be implemented that will reduce future emissions. They will not address existing loadings of CO₂, however the blue line should then kick in, and if we have been quick enough, the trajectory will remain below the danger line.

The bath-tap effect
The above situation holds true so long as we remember the bath-tap effect. Put in simple language, if a bath or any other container is close to full, it will continue to fill even as the tap is being closed. bath tub The response of the tap is not instant, and completing the task of closing the tap must happen before the overflow point is reached. It seems that in the case of global climate change, the lead time between beginning to close the tap and stopping the rising problem will be many years. Time may not be on our side, because unlike a bath, there is no drain-hole into which we can direct the overflow.

Can we do any harm at all if we decide that the risk of human induced climate change is real, and respond now to the 'clear and present danger' to all life as we know it?

If it exists, human induced climate change seems to be the cumulative result of:

Fossil fuel combustion

Aerosol use

Agricultural activities (cropping and livestock)

Forestry practises

Based on the evidence I have seen, I take the threat seriously and assess that human induced global climate change already exists, and that if we confront it we can overcome it. As a result all people on the planet - both now and in the future - will be tangibly better off because we will end up with healthier air, water, land, seas, and food.

I see resolution of this threat as a very big opportunity for Australian farmers and corporate land managers if they are prepared to adopt and sustain regenerative farming practises. If they aren't, the entire fight will be lost. Farmers are the front line of climate defence.

What's happening now
My understanding is very basic, but the description will suffice for now. Fossil fuel combustion is releasing enormous amounts of carbon dioxide (CO₂) into the atmosphere - in particular into the ozone layer. Following complex chemical interactions on earth and up there, the most likely outcome is global warming. It seems: 'For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' applies to this situation.

Scientists are not yet sure what the opposite reaction is, but we should expect one to occur. Given the complex nature of the problem, I expect we cannot accurately predict the scale or direction of situations human induced climate change will unleash.

Both fossil fuel combustion and other aerosols are placing microscopic particulates into the atmosphere. The effect of these particulates is to reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere. The evidence is that up to 30% less sunlight is now striking the earth's surface than just 50 years ago. This is a phenomenon known as global dimming, as this BBC 'Horizons' transcript shows. Global dimming is thought likely to lead to global cooling. Apparently it is not possible for global warming and global cooling to offset each other. One will prevail and neither is preferable!

Past agricultural activities in both cropping and livestock have undoubtedly led to massive releases of CO₂ as carbon originally held in the soil and vegetation has been disturbed by ploughing, chemicals, burning, and overgrazing of plants. Burning (fire) is one of the main contributers to CO₂ release, and of course has been carried out in Australia on a wide scale since soon after human settlement.

Of particular concern to me is the notion that all animals are tarred with the same brush - that they are all part of the human induced global climate change problem. Animals are in the gun because they produce methane as they digest their food.

Scientist believe methane is 20 times more damaging to the ozone layer than CO₂. There is now considerable evidence that methane changes its action in subtle ways as it is released. Several years ago there was an attempt in New Zealand - the so called 'fart tax' - to tax all farm animals, based on the fact that they produce methane. In fact, grass eating animals are necessary for the maintenance of healthy grasslands.

Forestry practises have released large amounts of carbon over the last 150 or more years. Today prescribed burning by authorities and regular unprescribed burns by land-holders and others produce one of the major pollutants we have in Australia. In recent years the Mac Planck Institute has discovered that methyl bromide is produced by grassland fires, and this material is up to 40 times more destructive to ozone than is CO₂.

What to change
In order to remove the danger we must change many things. These will require personal leadership and committment by all of us, and for us all to be making sound decisions that are supported by visionary government policies. It is these policies that are in short supply right now. I hope I may contribute some worthwhile perspectives in setting those new policies, which must be aimed at creating conditions that encourage the solution.

Technological solutions that we might use to prevent the overflow are not without their own problems. Ideas that are now widely under consideration include several largely unproven technologies - such as burning micro-fined coal and geo-sequestration of CO₂ as it is emitted at the pollution source, such as power stations. Both concepts, if ever practical, will require substantial retro-fitting to existing facilities or, most likely, the construction of many new facilities. In either case it won't happen for a while yet, so there will be a significant time lag before emissions begin to decline. The bath-tap effect at work.

Potentially hazardous energy substitution using nuclear technologies are again under serious consideration, this time with vigorous government support. Regardless of whether or not we resolve the moral dilemma that must emerge if our generation hands forward to future generations the risk and liability for disposing of present day waste (which must occur as no safe long-term nuclear waste technology exists now or the foreseeable future), there will also be a significant delay before this form of energy substantially reduces future CO₂ emissions.

So called 'clean' or 'green' energy substitutions - such as wind and/or solar farms - are also gaining some support. These appear likely to come on-line in a substantial way earlier than other technologies. They also appear to leave a relatively low environmental footprint compared to fossil and nuclear energy programs.

Other technological actions that can assist overcome climate change include the massive redesign of the entire energy distribution infrastructure, and the complete redesign of buildings (eg development of solar passive structures that require less - or even zero - energy input, and therefore will demand less energy output from centralised power generation facilities). These can be happening right now, and should have been happening for years already. Governments of all persuasions should have been leading these activities.

If we are Right of the mark - getting previous emissions back below the line
Not one of the technologies listed above can neutralise even a single tonne of the unwanted CO₂ already in the atmosphere!! It is an entirely different problem, and removing this CO₂ requires a different, old fashioned solution, called plants.

A biological problem - and immediate opportunity
Any excess CO₂ we may have placed in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels was originally plant material. Millions of years ago nature buried that material and over time converted it to coal, oil, or gas. Now we have released it to become the foundation of climate change. We must now put the genie back in the bottle.

Those prehistoric plants each grew large through the photosynthetic process, the very process that still drives and sustains all life on our planet today. It is what feeds us.
During this amazing, sunlight powered chemical process here is what happens: six molecules of water plus six molecules of atmospheric carbon dioxide are transformed within the plant to become one molecule of sugar and six molecules of oxygen.

We use the oxygen to breathe (3 minutes without oxygen and you may already be dead - it's important for life). The sugars (in fact carbohydrates) are the building blocks of the food we and all other animals eat. After three weeks without food you may well be dead - so the photosynthetic process is very important for the entire cycle of life!

All plants are carbon converters
Our federal and state governments know that plants are important, yet the Kyoto Accord, which specifically recognises the importance of trees in sequestering CO₂ from the atmosphere has not been ratified by our federal government. State and territory governments have tentatively leapt into the smallest possible climate change pool, known as forests. As shown below, planatation timber and forests are piffling in their capacity to sequester carbon and reduce climate change effects when compared to our rangelands.

Forests cover 164 million hectares or 21.5% of Australia (Australian Bureau Of Statistics - ABS - Publication 4613.0, 31 July, 2003). Of this area, ABS happily informs us, less than 1% is plantation timber. That means that even if Kyoto were ratified, just 0.2% or 15,240,000 hectares of Australia's land area (762,000,000 hectares) could ever realistically be considered a true, actively growing and therefore carbon sequestering carbon sink.

Just 0.2% or 15,240,000 hectares of Australia's land area (762,000,000 hectares) could ever realistically be considered a true, actively growing and therefore carbon sequestering carbon sink.

Grasslands and rangelands are massive carbon sinks!
Carbon is the major component of all vegetation, and indeed, all life forms. In her paper Soil and Carbon Credits, renowned Australian soil-carbon expert Dr. Christine Jones reveals that over the last 150 years up to 80% of the carbon once contained in our soils has been lost to the atmosphere, due to improper land management practices. Dr Jones identified that in healthy condition soils contain around twice as much carbon as the atmosphere, and almost three times as much carbon as in the vegetation.

Soil is by far the most available carbon sink over which we have immediate control. It is the natural home of carbon. In Australia we can immediately stimulate low cost regenerative management techniques in our rangelands and grasslands, which represent some 442,000,000 hectares or 58% of our land mass. The impact on rural communities will be dramatic, beneficial and rapid if, as a nation we focus on carbon sequestration into soils.

In healthy condition soils contain around twice as much carbon as the atmosphere, and almost three times as much carbon as in the vegetation.

Is this all practical?
Yes. It is! Our clients regularly achieve an increase in soil organic matter of more than 1% in a very short time - just a few years. They focus their energy on soil carbon because the benefits flow to them in the form of decreased costs as they eliminate unnecessary costs, increased yields, and substantially increased profitability. As a side benefit they discover that water quality and pasture availability are vastly improved.

How do we know when there is more carbon in the soil?
The tell tale signs are:

more vegetation
an increase in biodiversity
improved water quality and supply
more profitable land managers

Go from CLIMATE to METHANE Go from CLIMATE to Home Page

footer for climate page