To all--A new thread. A new standard for Type III Life-Cycle Impact Profile Declarations for Products, Services and Systems (LEO-SCS-002) has just been put up for public comment by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). ANSI was established during the presidency of Herbert Hoover (an engineer) and the US Congress has delegated to them responsibility for development and review of standards---and agencies, etc. are required by law to follow them. Typically standards are developed, for example, for the strength of materials but, in this case, the standard is designed to define the rules for how an entity evaluates impacts of products, services, etc. on aspects relating to sustainability (specifically resource depletion, land use ecology, human health, toxicity, climate change, etc.). Within the climate change area (see section 4 of the annex that is downloadable from the site), consideration in the present version--more areas could be done if it made sense to do--is given to global warming, Arctic warming, ocean acidification, and ocean warming. Consideration is also given to the full range of potential emissions, so not just the Kyoto set (this does include methane), but also black carbon, tropospheric ozone, etc.
Rather than evaluate the relative effects of such substances using the Global Warming Potential for 100 years as is done in the international negotiations and now, almost routinely, in considering the combined effects of various GHG emissions, the standard proposes a new metric that gets at relative importance of emissions of various substances out to 2050. This time is chosen in that this is when, roughly, global average temperature is projected to reach 2 C above preindustrial (the supposedly "dangerous" or unacceptable level per the major nations agreement). With this new, near-term metric, the importance of short-lived species increase over time (their comparative metrics for the importance of various species change with time--keeping 2050 fixed) is emphasized (so in tune with the recent UNEP assessment on methane and black carbon--although this was an effort started separately). For the different aspects of climate change, the proposal attempts to account for the location (and timing) of emissions--so black carbon in the Arctic sunlit season would be of greater importance than from a Pacific island where the ocean already absorbs most solar radiation, etc. And account can be taken also for contributing to warming that leads to the potential for release of methane from permafrost, etc. A couple of points: 1. This is all up for review, and I encourage it. I was first contacted on this a couple of years ago with some questions about the climate system, and then have looked at aspects more recently, trying to make sure the science is right. In trying to reconcile this to the GWP formulations of IPCC (which I think is essential to ensure credibility), I did find a problem with a missing conversion between ppmm and ppmv that they agree will be fixed in revision, but more eyes need to look at this very carefully. You can access the materials, etc. at http://www.leonardoacademy.org/services/standards/life-cycle.html where it also indicates how to submit comments. 2. ANSI is the official US representative to the International Standards Organization, and plans are already afoot to move this standard up for international consideration, and this apparently commonly happens and is accepted. Thus, those from around the world should be taking an early look, and commenting. 3. This is only an accounting system for what the impacts of various actions will contribute to changes in 2050. There is already an effort started to organize a voluntary registry system relating to the Arctic aspect so that comparisons for different actions can be compared and improvements recognized. It would take governments, however, to develop rules to require actions to reduce impacts, but this system at least would give an indication of potential priorities. None of this will happen, however, unless the standard gets first reviewed, is then adopted (presumably first in the US and then goes international), so what is needed now are a good set of review comments that make sure the underlying science and approach is valid and makes sense. The site explains that the review is for 60 days, so time to give it some consideration. 4. While this is presently set up as an accounting system for emissions (and so of mitigation), it is not inconceivable that it could also be used to evaluate the relative effects of various adaptation and even geoengineering steps. For example, a good bit of the black carbon in the Arctic may be coming from high-latitude forest fires--it might be that forestry management practices and/or controlled burns in the fall (when deposition likely makes little difference as soot would get covered with snow) could be used to reduce spring to mid-summer soot deposition. And limiting the release of methane by keeping the Arctic cool or other means might be accounted for. Again, just to note, it is an accounting system--and a key question for review is how adequate or inadequate it may be--so do take a look. That it focuses on the near-term (i.e., next few decades) seems to me of particular interest and importance, and is why I have tried to keep an eye on the science, hoping to be sure it is correctly and adequately done. Please do have a look and offer your thoughts. Best, Mike MacCracken -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
