Potential Energy

A Technical Solution to Monitoring China's CO2

A network of monitoring stations and satellites could overcome objections to inspections.

Kevin Bullis 12/18/2009

  • 8 Comments

There may be a technological solution to one of the trickiest issues at the Copenhagen climate change talks--verifying that nations are adhering to the limits on emissions that they agree to when those nations don't want international inspectors snooping around their factories and power plants and ports.

Earlier this week Chinese negotiators balked at any kind of international monitoring of its emissions levels, according to multiple news sources, although they've since backed off this absolutist stance. In his address at the talks today, President Obama expressed what seemed like frustration at the resistance of some countries to verification. "I don't know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments. That doesn't make sense."

But there may be a way around the concerns of the Chinese and others about verifying emissions. An ideal monitoring scenario would include equipment at power plants and factories, and close tracking of fossil fuel distribution. But if a country objects to monitoring within its borders, it would still be possible to monitor its emissions from outside. A network of ground-based greenhouse gas monitoring stations, weather balloons and satellites could make it possible to accurately monitor the emissions of a country as small France or Germany--without the need for invasive inspections, says Ronald Prinn, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT. It would cost billions, but without it, it could be hard to know if a treaty is actually bringing down emissions as planned.

Such a network would build on an existing set of ground monitoring stations around the world that sample greenhouse gas concentrations at a relatively high frequency. While some monitoring stations only collect information on a weekly basis, they can measure concentrations 20 to 30 times a day--enough to keep up with shifting winds that change where the gases are coming from. Paired with detailed monitoring of air circulation from weather monitoring stations and sophisticated computer models of air circulation, it would be possible to get a good idea of where emissions are coming from.

Right now, however, there aren't nearly enough greenhouse gas monitoring stations. At best, the estimates these stations produce only work for large areas and come with a large error range of plus or minus 20 to 30 percent. There are only 11 high frequency stations. "We need 10 to 100 times more," says Prinn.

It will also be important to have more weather monitoring stations, especially in places such as Africa, which have very few currently. And measurements should be paired with observations from satellites. Satellites can measure carbon dioxide concentrations closer to the sources, and they monitor the entire column of air beneath them, unlike ground-based monitors, which only sample from the lower part of the atmosphere called the boundary layer. A satellite designed to monitor carbon dioxide levels crashed into the sea earlier this year during a failed launch. Prinn says another should be launched.

The combination of satellite measurements and a network of weather and greenhouse gas stations could make it possible to monitor countries as small as France or Germany, he says, with an accuracy of plus or minus 5 percent. It would work, even if a country such as China wouldn't allow any greenhouse monitoring stations within the country--as long as the neighboring countries do.

"This is what is going to be needed," Prinn says. "But we're nowhere near it now."

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

abarrera

1 Comment

  • 787 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2009

Monitoring CO2 from abroad

It will be very hard to realize the idea of monitoring outside of the borders "if a country objects to monitoring within its borders, it would still be possible to monitor its emissions from outside." Simply, you would put ground stations and ballon stations to monitor China where? South Korea? Japan? Perhaps Mongolia? or the China's south bordering countries? If they allow such stations, they implicitly will have to allow China to monitor them, and that could be not only on CO2 emissions. South Korea will likely to monitor US´s emissions, and the US will have to agree to that, too, and so on. And using satellites, they will have to be out of China space borders, and even then they will be in other countries' space. And if you put them in the Pacific Ocean, you will end violating treaties pertaining the use of space of this region. It is a difficult manner to do so. Now, if the pollution enters South Korea, or Japan space, then, if you are capable to separate emissions from their respective source, then you may have a way to monitor, but even then if too much complicated, and finally, who is going to pay for it? It is not a dead end, but more a political issue than a scientific one, unfortunately.

Reply

hdginzo

14 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/21/2009

Re: Monitoring CO2 from abroad

I fully agree with these comments. Monitoring China's emissions is basically a political problem, which solution is beyond a technical fix.

Reply

Kevin Bullis

178 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/21/2009

Re: Monitoring CO2 from abroad

It depends upon what the objection is, doesn't it? If the objection is to having people physically coming into the country to check out factories (or install monitoring equipment, etc.),  then this is a technical fix. It would allow monitoring without that kind of invasive action. In this case, there would be no reason for China to be mad at Japan for installing these things.

If the objection is more basic, an objection to not being trusted, for example, that's a political problem--and a rather odd one.

Reply

devassocx

110 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/21/2009

monitoring CO2

Apparently you haven't heard that the
debate is now over and CO2 isn't a problem.

China has a pollution problem and you don't
have to measure it. You can see it and feel it with your eyes. That is the problem that China
needs to address.

Reply

skingw

31 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/21/2009

It's not a technological problem

Before any monitoring of developing countries, a calculation of total net emissions from Industrial Revolution by developed counties is necessary. Thus, responsbilities of developed countries could be measured, and duties could be fullfilled by an international tax on C02.

Only starting from here, developing countries can start accepting anything else. A chinese worker, or an Indian farmer, can then possibly understand why they have to wear a little gadget to monitor CO2 for every toll or every rice they make. After all, they never have a chance to use a Hummer in all their life.

Reply

ka5s

59 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/21/2009

Passive sensing from space

It's been noted that CO2 lasing occurs in the mostly CO2 Martian upper atmosphere.  It's just possible that instances of CO2 lasing might occur in places over sources on Earth, and that a detector looking for scintillation on these wavelengths might monitor relative CO2 levels above them.

Reply

Thucydides

35 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/21/2009

A Technical Solution to Monitoring China's CO2

Considering how the CRU and other "Climate Change" groups manipulated data from weather stations, cherry picked data and dumped stations that didn't support the "Global Warming" scenario (including huge numbers from Russia), what makes you think a political regime won't do the same with CO2 monitoring stations?

Frankly, after seeing the data, peer review process and computer models for "climate change" studies being so badly corrupted as to be useless, the better path would be to jail the fraudsters and restart climate studies with a clean sheet of paper, open archiving of raw data and complete and open publishing of methodologies. Maybe then we will gain a true understanding of the cycles and systems that underlay global climate. When we gain a true understanding, then maybe we can think about what steps (if any) we can take to intervene in the global climate process. 

Reply

Advertisement

carlhage

84 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/21/2009

Just track fossil carbon extraction

Of all the complex accounting systems proposed for CO2 consumption, it boggles my mind with the complexity of it all. It's pretty easy to track extraction of coal, oil, and gas-- it's already done for tax and market analysis reasons. Sequestration is almost nonexistent, and can be easily added into the equation. Consumption of fuel not derived from coal, oil, or gas is renewable, and aside from land-use changes, does not need to be measured.

If you are talking about NOx, particulates, mercury, etc., then air monitoring makes sense. Otherwise, what really matters is how much stored fossil carbon is released into the air, and that comes from digging it up. Just count that!

For land use changes (e.g. deforestation), satellite monitoring would seem to be really useful. In fact, measuring atmospheric CO2 would be useful in calibrating models of GHG impacts from land use changes, since these are much harder to quantify than highly measured activity like drilling and extraction.

To reduce future emissions,the approach we are taking (worldwide) seems to be for countries to make promises, but if you ask me what matters most is the economics of it all-- does the tax and subsidy system in place make extraction and consumption of fossil fuels economically attractive or renewable fuels or conservation attractive? Rather than worry about quotas (the Soviet centrally planned approach) and promises from specific countries, it would be more effective if each country had the economic tweak via taxes to make fossil fuel consumption a little more expensive and via incentives or tax refunds, renewable fuel and conservation cheaper.

To me, the economic incentives or disincentives of fossil fuel consumption is more important than quotas and promises. Complex verification and accounting systems are not needed. Historically, we have subsidized fossil fuel consumption, in the name of economic growth. We need to change that mindset.

Sorry for the political diatribe, but I've felt frustrated by current events as reported above. It seems like there are many clean-tech solutions available, but have to swim upstream on legacy economic subsidies and grandfathered exceptions to regulation.

Reply

Bio

Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Subscribe to the Potential Energy RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement