Time to gas up?

On Thursday February 24^th2022, Russian troops marched over the Ukrainian border. On that same day there was 69 million m³ of Russian gas flowing, through Ukraine, to Europe. For a long time, the European Union (EU) has been importing a big share of its gas demand from Russia. In 2021, the EU imported 155 billion m³ of natural gas from Russia, accounting for around 45% of the overall gas imports and close to 40% of its total gas consumption (see the figure below). While the EU has declared an “economic war” against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, it is still sending billions of euros to Gazprom (the Russian state-owned gas company) to ensure a continuation of the gas supply. The fact that gas can be used as a geopolitical weapon by Russia has become abundantly clear in these last few weeks. Therefore, both the EU and the International Energy Agency (IEA) have created elaborate plans to decrease, and preferably stop, the dependence on Russian gas. The plans include switching to renewable energy alternatives, increasing imports from other countries and drastic demand reductions. However, even if all these measures are successfully implemented, there is still a significant gap of 100 billion m³ that would need to be filled up by Russian gas – unless Europe is willing to divert to measures such as restarting coal fired power plants to meet our energy demand.

*Share of EU natural gas imports from Russia*

The Netherlands possesses the largest gas field of Europe in Groningen (see the map below). In the past, the Groningen gas field was very important for the European energy market; up until 2013 the field supplied more than 10% of the European gas market. However, following local earthquakes in 2003, 2012 and 2018, strong public opposition to the gas field emerged. Upon which, the Dutch government decided that the gas production from Groningen needed to be capped and eventually stopped. Consequently, the gas extraction of the field was forced to lower significantly after 2018 and was expected stop by 2030. In 2020, it was decided that in a year with regular temperatures no more gas from Groningen would be needed by 2022. As a consequence of these measures, there was a switch in Europe’s gas consumption from Dutch gas to imported Russian gas. However, as Europe was shaken by the Russian invasion of Ukraine – is it time to restart the gas production from Groningen? Reopening the Groningen gas field could hit two birds with one stone by decreasing the reliance on Russian gas, which has proven ever more important, and supporting climate ambitions, such as lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Considering this, what could the Groningen gas field do for Europe? Of course, the Netherlands is not Russia, but with a gas production of 80 billion m³ in 2013, it can be seen as a potential half Russia. Taking into account the drastic measures that would need to be implemented to reduce Russian dependence it might not be so strange to consider opening the gas field again. Is it time to gas up?

The people of Groningen think so, 83% are currently in favour of opening the gas fields to thwart Putin and stop the imports of Russian gas. Personally, I also believe it is a good idea. Using Groningen gas will not only assist in decreasing the EU dependence on Russian gas but will also support climate mitigation efforts and thus create a win-win. It is likely that the EU will continue to need gas for many more years. In the EU climate plans, natural gas is regarded as a ‘transition fuel’ in the energy transition towards renewable energy sources. Which means that the demand for natural gas is expected to rise in the coming decade. While it is of utmost importance to stop using natural gas to combat climate change, it is hypocritical to continue to consume gas while not wanting to produce it, since that does not mean that less CO₂ molecules will end up in the atmosphere. On the contrary, imported gas from Russia is a lot worse for our climate than Dutch local gas. Dutch gas is won without additional methane emissions and does not need to be imported from far. This results in the fact that Russian gas has a CO₂-equivalent of 31.8 megatons higher than Groningen gas. For comparison, this is about the same amount as all the emissions from transport in the Netherlands. CE Delft has calculated that for every 10 billion m³ of natural gas that was imported from Russia instead of produced in Groningen, an extra 5.3 megatons of CO₂-equivalent would be added to the atmosphere. Evidently, it is better to consume Groningen gas in Europe than Russian gas when you want to combat climate change.

On top of that, due to the current high gas prices, the gas in Groningen is now worth more than ever. The Groningen gas field still contains 500 billion m³of gas. Let’s say that we would extract 40 billion m³ from Groningen this year, at the current gas price of around 215€ per megawatt hour, this would result in revenues of 84 billion euros. Despite the fact that these revenues are not realistic because the gas prices will go down once the gas field opens, the revenues will still be absurdly high. It is logical that a share of this money will go to those in Groningen who will experience losses due to the gas winning, for example in property damage due to seismic activity. However, this still means that there is a lot of money that can be spend elsewhere. A good way to use it would be in a climate fund, like they do in Norway. The money in the climate fund can be spend on research and development of projects that will enable a faster halt to the gas demand and support the climate ambitions.

Last week, the Dutch government released a statement that increasing the production of the Groningen gas field will only be a means of last resort, if there would be an energy crisis in Europe. The Dutch minister of Climate and Energy also expressed that he is not in favour of reopening the gas fields. To me this feels illogical – why would we continue to be dependent on Russia for gas that is more harmful to the climate? I suggest that the Groningen gas field is reopened to support the European geopolitical efforts to be independent from Russian gas while simultaneously lowering the impact of gas consumption on the climate. Time to gas up!

Peatlands – the Earth’s under-appreciated carbon storage

What is it?

So, peatlands. What’s so special about peatlands? Well, there’s a lot to know about peatlands and their role in our Earth systems. Peatlands are one of the most valuable ecosystems on Earth. They play an incredibly imporant role in climatic and ecosystems and can be found in almost all countries in the world, as can be seen on the following map.

A book by Rydin and Jeglum covers everything you would need to know about peatlands. Some of the basics of peatlands: they are a type of wetland defined by an accumulation of organic matter suspended in its decomposition due to lack of oxygen and waterlogged conditions, they house a multitude of insects, animals, and microorganisms, and they can provide material – peat – which can be harvested and used as fuel or for horticulture. What to gather from that information? They are an essential carbon storage, important ecosystems for biodiversity, and often transformed and exploited for human use. They are a type of wetland which is often overexploited, drained, converted for agriculture, burned, harvested for horticulture and used for fuel, with 15% of peatlands already having been drained. While this issue has been known for a long time, this fact is not apparent in current policies.

How does this relate to climate change?

As established above, peatlands are incredibly important ecosystems mainly due to their carbon storage capacities and biodiversity. As shown in the following graph from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), draining these important ecosystems releases greenhouse gases, decreases biodiversity, leads to land degradation and more environmental issues, as peatlands play an essential role in the global climate and local ecosystems.

Peatlands may store ~644 Gt of Carbon or 21% of the global total soil organic Carbon stock of ~3000 Gt. So, draining of these areas will allow decomposition and through that, the emission of CO2 and N2O.

Research has also shown peatland’s climate change mitigation potential, the importance of their rich biodiversity (both in soil and aboveground), their role in regulating the water cycle, and their protection from water erosion (in the case of grasslands and wood- pastures). These essential roles of peatlands show why it is so important to protect these ecosystems.

Rewetting peatlands is also a method that can be used to regain some of these benefits and can solve the issues occurring from draining them, like emissions, higher flooding risks and eventual loss of productive land. This doesn’t have to mean a loss of agricultural land, as paludiculture (agriculture in wetlands) can serve as a low-emission land use alternative.

Rewetting might not be as straight-forward as it sounds though, as according to an assessment of two rewetted peatlands it “may be a balancing act between biodiversity or climate benefits”. So, while rewetting is an important tool, can bring back peatland benefits and is probably necessary in drained areas, the protection of existing peatlands is just as, if not more important.

Why is a paradigm shift necessary?

Currently, many peatlands are drained or exploited, as this is how humans see value in them. This is because of long-standing habits and traditions, but also because of governmental incentives. Focusing on the European Union (EU), awareness and some steps have been taken, but the necessary changes they are supposedly aware of are not reflected in direct policy action.

Research for the AGRI Committee of the European Parliament shows recommendations of the protection of peatlands and demonstrates that the EU is aware of the issue, listing the reasons the protection of peatlands is vital and stating paludiculture as an alternative, when done right.

In 2018, the European Commission agreed on key legislation that would account for emissions from land use, land use change and forestry. This still does not show protection of peatlands, but rather a very indirect measure taken to try to limit emissions from the above mentioned factor in general.

A publication from the German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) and the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt für Naturschutz) brings to light some of the issues in the current paradigm, which are not reflective of the awareness that should be present. The EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) principles and payments support high emission drainage-based agriculture, through high subsidies. Yet, climate-smart rewetting and paludiculture loose CAP payments.

Energy fuels from paludiculture could be a more sustainable form of biofuels derived from rewetted peatlands. These also have extremely limited economic support. This alternative could replace biomass which is grown on peatlands unsustainably for renewable energy.

So, although the EU seems to have received relevant recommendations, gained awareness and taken very indirect steps, larger-scale protection of peatlands and support of paludiculture are necessary to protect these essential ecosystems.

Some upcoming peatland movements

If you want to get involved in making this change or doing your part, there are several movements and campaigns that are involved in advocating for this peatland paradigm shift. RE-PEAT is a relatively new movement (with some AUC students involved) encouraging a paradigm shift through story-telling, connecting and encouraging dialogue and through political advocacy. Friends of the Earth has fought to protect peatlands since 1996. And PeatFree April and For Peat’s Sake are campaigns that are fighting for the removal of peat from horticulture.

What we can answer to “CCS sceptics”

As you might have read about it, Carbon capture & storage technology (CCS) is gaining increased popularity every day. Especially in countries that are looking to cut their overall C02 emissions, such as The Netherlands. The science that lies behind this technology is very complex, but the idea itself is quite simple. The idea is that specific Industries emitting important amounts of CO2 are connected to a pipeline that transports their emissions into an empty gas chamber deep under the ground. According to The Global status on CCS 2018: “as much as 450 Mt of CO2 could be captured, utilised and stored globally with a commercial incentive as low as US$40 per tonne of CO2”. Furthermore, “400 million tonnes of CO2 emissions could be prevented annually in Europe by 2030” (Linde, 2020), which shows the huge potential that CCS technology has in reducing CO2 emissions efficiently.

The-basic-principle-for-Carbon-Capture-and-Storage-CCS — A basic view on how CCS operates

CCS has been and still is at the centre of the debate in within our society. When looking on the internet, I found an article that criticises CCS technology on different aspects, which I assume are the most popular critics addressed at CCS. In fact, CCS projects are directly supported by the Dutch government, as they aim at reducing emissions by 49% in 2030, compared to 1990 levels (Nederlandse Klimaatakkoord, 2019). Yet, people are questioning the legitimacy and safety of CCS technology. How can we respond to such criticism in order to build a stronger image of CCS? I will give you my perception on this topic while taking the question above into account.

I will start by explaining what the reoccurring arguments of “CCS sceptics” are (still based on this article) and what we can answer to that.

The risk related to CCS is often highlighted by sceptics. In fact, some are unsure that CCS will have the impact that it should theoretically have on reducing CO2 emissions. That is because of the fact that there are not many high scale CCS projects active yet. Furthermore, CCS projects often take years in order to be constructed, therefore it would be unreasonable to construct them everywhere.

Personally, I think that a fair way to tackle the uncertainty that lies behind CCS technology is by actually developing more CCS projects across a country. In that way, we would gather exact data on the overall impact of CCS, which will be used to optimize it, because there is surely still room for improvement. Regarding the construction time of CCS, it will decrease more and more as we work on finding better components to build it. Yes, time may be a handicap, but not a reason to not implement such a project. Regarding the Dutch government, if they want to cut their emissions by 49% in 2030, they should rightfully consider CCS a very viable option to reduce CO2 emissions efficiently.

Second, criticism was aimed at the overall weight of CCS within our energy transition model. Some people say that if the government focuses the majority of its resources in CCS, there will not be much support for any smaller and perhaps simpler technologies that could potentially substitute a CCS project. I saw that the Dutch climate agreement responded to this issue; it is written that CCS will only be funded as a last resort for CO2 abatement, leaving room for other smaller technologies of CO2 abatement that might require less funding and overall implementation time (Nederlandse Klimaatakkoord, 2019). I personally find it a good compromise for both sides of the debate, because it seems that the Dutch government did take critics into consideration and worked on making a policy that would still give a chance to smaller projects to take place.

More broadly, CCS can surely store CO2, but such technology is more efficient if it can also produce carriers, while covering the CO2 emissions that are related to the making on the product. That product is: Blue hydrogen. In fact, Hydrogen is massively used as a carrier gas in our economy, but production of hydrogen also releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage is now being implemented, in China, and now also in The Netherlands, in Rotterdam to be precise (Global status on CCS, 2018). CCUS will not only capture CO2, but it will also produce hydrogen, with very low CO2 emissions associated. For me, these ameliorations of CCS technology contribute at solidifying the image of CCS, which reduces the overall scepticism that is related to it.

Moreover, blue hydrogen would be another product that will be able to compete economically with the actual conventional ways of producing Hydrogen in commercial quantities. Often known as “grey hydrogen” there are high CO2 emissions related to its production. “Green hydrogen” on the other hand, is also promising for the future, as it is made from renewable energy, but that us not related to CSS or CCUS. Moreover, The CCUS field is still relatively new, but advancements are being made every day: an exciting future lies ahead of it.

Hydrogen-production — These are the three different processes used to make hydrogen. Brown Hydrogen is also known as grey hydrogen.

I have responded to some critics that were addressed at CCS projects and policy-makers. I think that these critics are mainly based on technicalities, which can be improved in the future. Therefore, both CCS and CCUS have a promising future, while technological advancements aim at making it more safe, cost and time efficient . I will personally keep an eye on the development of Blue hydrogen CCS and CCUS; hopefully, we will see a net CO2 reduction related to the work of CCS and CCUS as soon as possible.

Double Trouble: Corona & Climate, how do they relate?

Double Trouble?

How Corona leads to climate debate postponement, changes in our mentalities and circular economies.

This and more is discussed in the podcast with Tomas ter Reehorst and Mathilde Wuite on how the current crisis affects another.

Tune in, comment and stay safe!

Link to Doughnut economy article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/08/amsterdam-doughnut-model-mend-post-coronavirus-economy?fbclid=IwAR1l6GNVbMZzXdf0PKyFBOfjBz00W4dCOzalJXO6D1s0YF6cq9yjmnHejqE

Link to documentary:
https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/lees/artikelen/2020/amsterdam-donutstad-interview.html

Music:

“That’s Life” (Copyright). 1966. Written by: Dean Kay, Kelly Gordon. Vocals by: Frank Sinatra. Produced by: Jimmy Bowen. Label: Reprise.

References:

Ambrose, J. & Harvey, F. (2020, April 1). Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow postponed until 2021. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/01/uk-likely-to-postpone-cop26-un-climate-talks-glasgow-coronavirus

Bijlo, E. (2020, April 6). De economie groen stimuleren, kunnen we het daar al over hebben?. Trouw. https://www.trouw.nl/duurzaamheid-natuur/de-economie-groen-stimuleren-kunnen-we-het-daar-al-over-hebben~b92158e9/

Crist, M. (2020, March 27). What the Coronavirus Means for Climate Change. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-climate-change.html

Dutch News (2020, March 27). Cabinet delays climate change plans, corona measures cut air pollution. Dutch News. https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/03/cabinet-delays-climate-change-plans-corona-measures-cut-air-pollution/

Duursma, M. (2020, April 2). Tweede Kamer stemt in met ticketbelasting. NRC. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/04/02/vliegtaks-tweede-kamer-stemt-in-met-ticketbelasting-a3995667

Figueres, C. (2020, March 24). 5 Lessons From Coronavirus That Will Help Us Tackle Climate Change. Time. https://time.com/5808809/coronavirus-climate-action/

Slingerland, S. (2020, March 26). SUSTAINABILITY AND THE CLIMATE AFTER CORONA. Clingendael Institute. https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/sustainability-and-climate-after-corona

Watts, J. (2020, March 10). Coronavirus could cause fall in global CO2 emissions. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/10/coronavirus-could-cause-fall-in-global-co2-emissions

Image:

ANP / Het Parool. (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/zo-ziet-een-verlaten-amsterdam-er-vanuit-de-lucht-uit~b9b3f08f/?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Wait a Second…. You’re Telling Me That Global WARMING May Be Making our Winters COLDER? Please Explain.

Introduction

While I have been educated in English for most of my life, and even my iPhone settings are completely in English, I have always preferred reading the news in Dutch. As I was scrolling through NU.nl on a particularly cold Saturday morning, an interesting article named “Freezing cold in March: ‘we can expect these kind of periods more often’” (roughly translated), caught my attention. While the article does state that the future winters will know more (cold) extremes due to the melting of the Arctic, it lacked an explanation of why/how this occurs. Out of curiosity I continued to further investigate the topic with one question in mind, is our cold bitter winter season in the Netherlands ultimately caused by global warming?

Initially I hoped some other Dutch media source had shown an interest in the cold weekend as well. Unfortunately, only RTL news had published a video to show that it was 21 degrees 13 years ago, which was “newsworthy” due to the freezing temperatures experienced on the same day in 2018. How insightful. Naturally this post caused some climate skeptics to question global warming on twitter. If it was 21 degrees thirteen years ago and freezing today, global warming must be in reverse, right?

Just because we still experience cold episodes does not mean the climate isn’t warming. And for those of you who still misconceive a cold day as an excuse that global warming does not exist, feel free to read one of the many articles explaining the difference between weather and climate. Nevertheless, as this blog post will show, global warming may be able to explain both the cold and warm days we are experiencing.

Fast Warming Arctic

Figure 1 Arctic Feedback Loops (Carana 2014)

It is no secret that human induced climate change is gradually warming our planet. NASA as well as many other research institutes, have indicated that notably the poles are warming much faster compared to the rest of the world. The American Meteorological Society states that sea ice loss is one of the main drivers warming the Arctic via the ice-albedo feedback (figure 1: feedback loop #1). Albedo refers to the reflectivity of a surface. A high albedo indicates that more energy is reflected back to space, while a low albedo indicates that more energy is absorbed by earth. Ice has a higher albedo compared to open ocean, therefore, when ice melts more energy is absorbed and temperatures increase. However, data indicates that there is a greater warming in the winter compared to summer, which NASA attributes to energy transportation. However, NASA does highlight that further research is required to understand this energy transportation, which is a common conclusion in climate sciences.

Additionally, WFF notes that the Arctic’s permafrost (frozen soil) contains a significant amount of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. As the Arctic continues to melt, this methane is released from the soil, leading to additional warming. This is referred to as the Arctic permafrost feedback loop (figure 1: feedback loop #2), and is one of the many means by which the warming Arctic affects the global energy budget.

Warm Arctic –Cold Continent

The Warm Arctic – Cold Continent Hypothesis, a notion that fast warming Arctic causes the displacement of cold air to lower latitudes is, according to Cohen et al., increasingly being discussed within the scientific community. It is a rather controversial topic considering that warming has dominated the global temperature trends over the past decades. However, in winter, cooling trends have been observed across Eurasia and the eastern United States, while the Arctic rapidly warms.

In order to comprehend the relationship between the warm Arctic and the cold winter episodes, it is important to understand the polar vortex. According to the New York Times, the polar vortex is a low-pressure system that rests over the North and South Pole. The boundary between the northern hemisphere vortex and the mid-latitudes is known as the polar jet stream, a fast counter clockwise moving wind. When the polar vortex is well defined (figure 2; stable polar vortex), it ensures that the cold air in the Arctic is well-contained. However, occasionally, the polar vortex weakens, which allows the cold air to escape to lower latitudes (figure 2; wavy polar vortex). This can be compared to opening and closing a freezer. When the freezer is closed there is no interaction between the temperature inside the freezer and the room temperature outside the freezer. When the freezer is opened cold air escapes from the freezer allowing warm air to come in, hence the room temperature decreases while the temperature in the freezer increases. However, when I leave my freezer open it starts to frantically beep causing me to close it, while a weakening in the polar vortex does not have such a warning system and can last weeks. Speculations have indicated that the strength of the polar vortex depends on the temperature gradients between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes. Due to the fact that the Arctic is warming much faster compared to anywhere else on earth, the temperature gradients is decreasing. This causes the jet stream to meander, weakening the vortex, moving cold air south and warm air north.

A very recent article published in Nature does note that “correlation does not mean causation”. Research concerning this phenomena is still in its early stages, hence, as long as this debate continues, this hypothesis is yet to be crowned as a theory.

Sudden Stratospheric Warming

It is plausible to presume that weakening of the polar vortex caused the extreme cold spell that hit Europe mid-February till early March. While this is definitely not a wrong assumption, the polar vortex did not just weaken, it actually split! A unique event known as Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) was responsible for the split (and ultimately our ice skating adventures). SSW is defined by the The Irish Meteorological Service as a rapid increase in temperature in the stratosphere. The SSW is triggered by a disruption of the normal westerly flow due to natural weather patterns, or a disturbance in the lower atmosphere. This disturbance can lead to the wobbling of the jet stream as discussed earlier. If the “wobbles” break (like waves on a beach) they can be strong enough to significantly weaken or even reverse the westerlies to easterlies! The reverse causes the air in the stratosphere to collapse and warm due to adiabatic compression.

gif — Animation 1: wind patterns at 10 hPa 01/02/2018 (Earth 2018)

27-02-2018 wind — Animation 2: wind patterns at 10 hPa 27/02/2018 (Earth 2018)

27-02-2018 — Animation3: surface temperature 27/02/2018 (Earth 2018)

The 3 animations clearly represent what happened during the cold spell in February 2018. The animations were obtained from the data visualizer Earth, an interactive platform that allows you to observe the winds of the polar vortex in great detail at different times across different altitudes. Animation 1 shows the wind patterns at 10 hPa on the 1^st of February before the polar vortex split. Animation 2 shows the wind patterns at 10 hPa on the 27^th of February, clearly showing how the westerlies have shifted to easterlies. Animation 3 demonstrates the surface temperature on the 27^th of February, confirming that higher latitudes were indeed warmer compared to most of Europe! I highly recommend you to play around with Earth between the 1^st and 27^th of February, it is pretty amazing to see the polar vortex split! You may also want to check out 250 hPa to see the polar jet in action.

Of course the question remains whether SSW events will become more frequent due to global warming. While, a recent paper published in the Journal of Climate does insinuate that this may be the case, they do so very cautiously as such an idea is even more uncertain compared to the Warm Arctic –Cold Continent hypothesis.

Conclusion

Now you can go home for Easter and impress your family with stories about the polar vortex that NU.nl lacked to mention. I speculate that NU.nl did not provide more detail about why the warming Arctic will cause more chilly periods in the mid-latitudes because the topic is still poorly understood. Yet they weren’t afraid to make one final bold statement in their conclusion; within the next 8 years weather reporter Piet Paulusma expects an elfstedentocht (eleven city tour, a Dutch ice-skating competition). Fun fact about the Netherlands; whenever “cold” weather is discussed by the Dutch, the term “elfstedentocht” has to be coined. Therefore, I too feel obligated to make a final statement about the future of the elfstedentocht.

Being born mid-February 1997, I have never experienced an elfstedentocht. If these extreme cold periods caused by a warm Arctic are similar to the one we experienced in February, the intense cold wind will hinder ice formation (let’s not pretend like the ice we skated on last month wasn’t shady). While there were fifteen elfstedentochten in 20^th century in total, the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI) expect only about four in the 21^st century. Bottom line is: I wouldn’t count on this Warm Arctic – Cold Continent phenomenon to make an elfstedentocht happen. The fact is, the average temperature in 2018 will likely be another record breaking year despite our cold winter. Sorry to disappoint, but we have to continue to take a long hard look as ourselves in the mirror in order to change our habits and keep our elfstedentocht dreams alive.

GroenLinks wins in Amsterdam, but will all ‘green’ plans also reach the city agenda?

With 1 out of 5 votes, the green party celebrates its victory in the municipality elections of Amsterdam. However, it might still be hard for them to make the capital of the Netherlands more sustainable. Can they count on their political colleagues, such as the progressive liberals and the animal-friendly party, to put their specific environmental plans on the agenda of the city council? Continue reading “GroenLinks wins in Amsterdam, but will all ‘green’ plans also reach the city agenda?” →