Research seeks to determine how much extra carbon dioxide can trees absorb to reduce greenhouse emissions

The doubts expressed about this experiment are absurd. They pretend that we don't know what plants use CO2 for. But we know that perfectly well. They use it to build up theirown structure. They turn it into wood etc. So they will STORE in their own tissues the extra CO2 that they take in

The University of Oxford has erected towers in an old oak forest and then bathed the 175-year-old trees with carbon dioxide to mirror what CO2 levels will be like in 2050.

When they measured the amount of photosynthesis that was occurring, it had increased by 30 per cent.

Trees absorb CO2 and give out oxygen, so their ability to manage rising CO2 levels is critical to human survival on a warming planet.

According to Professor Rob MacKenzie, it is a promising result, founding Director of Birmingham Institute of Forest Research (BIFoR).

"We are sure now that the old trees are responding to future carbon dioxide levels."

"How the entire forest ecosystem responds is a much bigger question."

The research was carried out at the Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) facility of the Birmingham Institute of Forest Research (BIFoR), and together with a similar project run by the Western Sydney University, they are the world's two largest experiments looking at the effect of climate change on nature.

Australian researcher Professor David Ellsworth thinks the results are significant. "The temperate zone is where a lot of the CO2 occurs, up in the northern hemisphere, and we need to know the trajectory of the uptake into the future to know what's going to happen with atmospheric CO2."

"They could be really important sinks for the CO2 into the future or perhaps they're already saturated; they take up more, but they don't store more."

When a similar experiment was conducted on a red gum forest in Australia in 2019, the trees photosynthesised just 20 per cent more CO2, so the UK result surprised Professor Ellsworth.

"That's quite a bit higher than our eucalyptus forests, and that was quite a surprise."

"Our eucalyptus trees have very high rates of photosynthesis … but they don't end up storing very much of that, so the CO2 goes back out into the atmosphere.

Researchers in the UK are now looking at the leaves, wood, roots, and soil in their old oak forest to find out where the extra carbon captured ends up and for how long it stays locked up.

"The CO2 being taken up by the trees is a good thing, but if it is taken up by the trees, metabolised internally and then shot back out to the atmosphere, then there really isn't any net storage or net savings of CO2 in that system," Professor Ellsworth said.

Other results from the UK experiment show that the increase in photosynthesis was greatest in strong sunlight.

The overall balance of key nutrient elements carbon and nitrogen did not change in the leaves, and keeping the carbon to nitrogen ratio constant suggests that the old trees have found ways of redirecting their elements or found ways of bringing more nitrogen in from the soil to balance the carbon they are gaining from the air.

The research will help governments work on how to respond to climate change and how to manage the existing forests.

"Old trees account for the vast majority of the land base in Australia, so we need to understand how much are they taking up now, how much are they going to take up in the future.

"Not only are they taking up CO2 in the present day, but if we cut them down, something happens with all the carbon that's been bound up in them, and we don't want that to go back up in the atmosphere."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-10-10/oak-trees-soak-up-extra-carbon-emissions/100527448

*********************************************

California Energy Decision Rewards Poor Planning

California’s grid is vulnerable, and high temperatures this past summer have clearly demonstrated its weaknesses. Between brownouts and calls on citizens to voluntarily reduce their use of electricity during peak demand, the fragility of the states’ power supply was clear.

State governments are far more involved in their states’ electricity markets than they should be, and none shows the folly of centralized control more than California.

California’s convoluted workaround for its power supply woes takes the form of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) decision that would allow the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to use power intended for other states in an emergency.

The ruling changes tariff rules for CAISO and allows it to block energy destined for other states from crossing its border and then repurchase this power for its own uses in a grid emergency.

One source that would be impacted by this is hydroelectric power from Oregon that has already been purchased by Arizona, and for which the state has transmission agreements with CAISO.

This decision could have serious consequences for grid reliability in other parts of the West because the power that comes through California can no longer be counted on in a situation where there is high energy demand.

This means that states that use energy transmitted through California can no longer count on that capacity in planning for peak load. Because it can no longer be counted on in a crisis, this capacity can no longer be factored into calculations for worst-case scenarios.

The same conditions, namely major heat waves, that would cause California to keep back this energy for its own use would be those in which Arizona needed it the most. Instead of allowing energy to be bought and sold in a fair and open market, California is struggling to secure scarce power that has already been bought for itself. This situation provides a great lesson against state governments messing around with energy markets.

While the tariff changes were still under consideration, utilities from Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon filed petitions requesting that FERC reject the provisions that would allow CAISO to prioritize California load over transmission to other states, even when that power has already been purchased by the receiving state. To be clear, this is energy that is not generated in California, and for which CAISO already has transmission agreements in place.

The Arizona utilities said in their response to the proposal that it, “unfairly prioritizes transmission service for CAISO over transmission service used for the export of power and wheel-through of power to other utilities across the western United States and thus improperly jeopardizes the Arizona Utilities’ ability to serve their load with firm purchases that they have already made.”

On June 25th, FERC accepted CAISO’s tariff revisions, officially granting it the ability to intercept power destined for other states in an emergency.

The Arizona Corporation Commission was understandably chagrined by the FERC decision, Chairwoman Lea Márquez Peterson said in a press release: “This decision is problematic for many Western states, including Arizona.”

She went on to emphasize the disparity in energy planning between the two states.

“Our electric utilities did the right thing and planned ahead, securing pre-negotiated contracts with utilities in the Pacific Northwest to ensure that critical hydropower would be available to Arizonans when it would be needed the most which would be delivered across transmission lines through the state of California.”

CAISO is supposed to provide “open” and “fair” access to its transmission services, treating power destined for other states the same way that it treats native load. While the FERC decision claims that this change in tariff rules does not impede this, it is clear that this decision treats transmission to other states unfairly in relation to its treatment of native load.

This decision will have major repercussions for Western states as they can no longer rely on power transmitted through California not being intercepted on its way to purchasing utilities.

https://catalyst.independent.org/2021/10/01/california-poor-planning/

******************************************

Reasons that people ditch electric vehicles show 'revolution' will be slow and rocky

For over a decade, policy and industry have tried to make electric vehicles more widely available and get people to buy them. Previous research on how to do this has largely focused on examining early adopters of plug-in electric vehicles and surveying urban residents' stated preferences for these vehicles.

Until recently, no one had asked what would make those who adopted electric vehicles decide to switch back to a conventional gasoline vehicle. A new study does just that, reflecting that the same factors that led people to adopt electric vehicles leads drivers to ditch them if their experiences with those factors are negative.

Bradley Lane, associate professor of public affairs & administration at the University of Kansas, wrote a research review in the journal Nature Energy of a study conducted by Scott Hardman and Gil Tal of the University of California Davis that examined the factors that lead people to ditch electric vehicles. The study found that in a survey of a few thousand California residents who were early adopters of either battery-powered electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids, about 20% switched back to gas vehicles.

For his part, Lane—an expert in transportation policy, travel behavior and planning issues in urban transportation—sifted through what the findings might mean for the future of electric vehicles themselves. Lane's own work has examined attitudes toward autonomous vehicles and interest in electric vehicles.

"About one-fifth of people who adopted electric vehicles ditched them. That seems like a lot to me," Lane said, "especially given that these were the people most likely and most incentivized to adopt them. Of course, you could also argue that 80 of people kept their EV or got a new one. But interestingly, the same things that predicted if people adopted them, if they were dissatisfied with those things, they abandoned their EV.

"There's a real user experience factor at play here."

Two factors predicted whether people would abandon both battery and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Users were dissatisfied with the convenience of battery charging, and they relied on them for their primary mode of transportation. Previous research has shown that people who have adopted the vehicles thought they would be able to charge them conveniently and wanted the vehicle as their primary mode of transportation, often to save money on gas. Otherwise, there were differences in reasons for discontinuance among battery-powered vs. hybrid electric vehicles.

Owners who abandoned their battery-powered EVs reported they were most likely dissatisfied with home charging capability, especially with the ability to rapidly charge at home. Plug-in owners reported they were dissatisfied with the charging costs or that they were not saving as much on fuel costs as they thought they would. They also reported dissatisfaction with their perception of charging access or that there were not as many charging stations available as they thought there would be. Demographically, homes with people who ditched either type were more likely to be smaller and younger, with fewer vehicles, lower incomes and fewer men living in them.

"My hunch is that people who ditched battery electric vehicles are not classic first adopters. What we sometimes think of as the typical American household with multiple vehicles and thought an EV would save them money, and it just didn't do it enough for them," Lane said. "That sends signals that these might continue to have a rocky time diffusing into the population without continued improvements in cost and charging access, particularly for multi-family housing structures."

Another major indicator of the findings is that negative experiences were very influential, perhaps more so than positive experiences. Lane emphasized that the findings cannot be extrapolated for the entire United States, as all respondents were from California, which is the state with the most incentives for electric vehicle ownership, a wealthy population, bad urban air pollution and the highest gas prices in the nation. This makes their residents the most likely to adopt the vehicles in the U.S., so the fact that nearly 20% of respondents in the most favorable environment for EVs switched back to conventional gasoline vehicles indicates these vehicles will not take over American roadways in the near future, even if more locations become as favorable as California.

Further research could also explore why people keep the vehicles or get a new one, he added.

Electric vehicles are widely viewed in transportation research circles as one of three revolutions in transportation, along with autonomous vehicles and shared mobility. The findings lend weight to the school of thought that these revolutions will not happen overnight.

"Hardman and Tal's study instead gives strong evidence that initial adoption does not necessarily mean a permanent switch and that the three revolutions of transportation may well look more like revolutions often do—rocky, drawn out and with lots of starts and stops before there is lasting change," Lane wrote

https://techxplore.com/news/2021-10-people-ditch-electric-vehicles-revolution.html

*********************************************

International farm subsidies the next target in Australian plan on carbon

Clever. If other countries in the developed world accuse Australia of not doing enough carbon reduction, Australia can embarrass them by pointing to an area where they could do much more. The upshot could be an informal agreement not to criticize one-another's CO2 emissions

Australia will back a push to slash farm subsidies overseas worth $740 billion a year in the hope of achieving deeper cuts to carbon emissions at the upcoming United Nations climate summit, declaring the payments encourage waste and hurt the environment.

The federal government is joining other big countries in vowing to tackle the subsidies after UN agencies said the spending could balloon to $2.5 trillion and undermine the Paris target to cut greenhouse emissions by 2030.

The campaign promises benefits for Australian farmers who suffer from their competitors being paid mammoth subsidies in the European Union and the United States, helping Prime Minister Scott Morrison seek a climate deal with the Nationals as soon as next week.

The Australian position, put by Trade Minister Dan Tehan in talks in Europe on Friday, joins calls from Brazil and Indonesia for cuts to subsidies that offer the biggest payments to farmers in wealthy countries and do the most harm to those in the developing world.

Mr Tehan raised the issue with US climate envoy John Kerry in a step toward getting the US, EU and the World Trade Organisation to acknowledge the problem and put it on the agenda at the climate summit that begins in Glasgow on November 1.

“If countries are serious about addressing climate change they have to address all aspects of reducing emissions,” Mr Tehan said in an interview.

“We cannot leave an issue untouched when it ultimately accounts for 25 per cent of emission reduction. “We’re looking at this and other countries need to do the same.”

Mr Tehan spoke to US trade representative Katherine Tai, European Commission Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis and World Trade Organisation Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala about setting up a climate group to pursue the issue in trade talks after the Glasgow summit.

Australian governments have long opposed the scale of the US and EU subsidies on the grounds they punish food producers elsewhere, but the climate talks build a stronger case to unwind decades of payments that encourage over-production.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation and other UN agencies estimated last month the subsidies cost $US540 billion ($740 billion) this year and would rise to $US1.8 trillion ($2.5 trillion) by 2030, hurting efforts on climate change.

“These are inefficient, distort food prices, hurt people’s health, degrade the environment, and are often inequitable,” they said.

The EU is promising to reform its subsidies as part of its action on climate change, given agriculture accounts for about 10 per cent of EU emissions.

Agriculture accounts for about 13 per cent of Australian emissions but has been a big source of carbon reductions since 2005, leading Nationals deputy leader and Agriculture Minister David Littleproud to warn that the sector cannot do as much “heavy lifting” in the future.

Mr Tehan acknowledged the campaign on farm subsidies meant Australia would have to accept concerns about fossil fuel subsidies from other countries when Mr Morrison and the federal government are being accused of doing too little to cut emissions.

“If questions are going to be asked about fossil fuel subsidies, which they are, then what we need to be saying is: OK, if we need to take action against fossil fuel subsidies – and the Australian government acknowledges that this is an area that there needs to have action on – then why not do the same on agricultural subsidies?” he said.

The Trade Minister also noted this in remarks to an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development meeting on the “green economy” in Paris on Thursday, attended by Mr Kerry, before heading to a meeting of G20 trade ministers in Rome.

The value of the fossil fuel help is forecast to be much more than the farm assistance, the International Monetary Fund estimating last month fossil fuel subsidies are worth about $US6 trillion a year, with 70 per cent made up of “undercharging” for environmental costs.

Mr Tehan expects to raise the subsidy campaign with his Indonesian counterpart, Muhammad Lutfi, in the G20 talks in Rome in the belief developing nations also want the issue on the agenda in Glasgow.

“What this would do is enable developing countries, and countries like Australia, to be able to transition in a way which would help us set ambitious targets when it comes to emission reduction,” he said.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/international-farm-subsidies-the-next-target-in-australian-plan-on-carbon-20211008-p58ygx.html

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************