Life on earth is
based on carbon. Carbon atoms form four
bonds with other atoms, making possible numerous possibilities for complex
molecules that make up plants and animals.
The more carbon the better, right!
So, why is there such a fuss about carbon in the environment?
Carbon moves freely through our environment in a sophisticated cycle. Twin carbon atoms or carbon dioxide cycle
from land to the atmosphere to the ocean and back again as animals respire,
plants grow and organic matter ultimately decomposes. The cycle has created carbon sinks or
reservoirs: soil and fresh water on
land, the atmosphere, marine biota in oceans, and fossil fuels in sediments.
Humans have disrupted the cycle by unleashing unprecedented amounts of
carbon dioxide through the combustion of oil and gas from the sediment
reservoir and releasing it into the atmospheric reservoir. The normal processes of photosynthesis,
respiration and decomposition have not kept up.
To make matters worse, deforestation has reduced the number of plants
that take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen as they grow. In 2017, according to the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration atmospheric carbon dioxide was 409 million parts
per million - higher than at any point in the past 800,000
years.
For perspective
investors can take a look at the level of atmospheric CO2 in the year they were
born and then calculate the percentage increase to the last full-year measure
in 2017. (There has been a 7% increase
just since this weblog was started and the author is facing a whopping 90%
lifetime increase.)
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE IN YEAR YOU
WERE BORN
|
|||||||
Year
|
CO2
|
|
Year
|
CO2
|
|
Year
|
CO2
|
1958
|
317.45
|
|
1978
|
337.69
|
|
1998
|
368.66
|
1959
|
217.72
|
|
1979
|
338.96
|
|
1999
|
370.99
|
1960
|
319.02
|
|
1980
|
340.93
|
|
2000
|
371.81
|
1961
|
319.48
|
|
1981
|
342.54
|
|
2001
|
373.37
|
1962
|
320.63
|
|
1982
|
343.97
|
|
2002
|
375.02
|
1963
|
321.39
|
|
1983
|
345.25
|
|
2003
|
377.73
|
1964
|
na
|
|
1984
|
na
|
|
2004
|
380.35
|
1965
|
322.13
|
|
1985
|
348.33
|
|
2005
|
382.29
|
1966
|
324.42
|
|
1986
|
349.77
|
|
2006
|
384.61
|
1967
|
325.02
|
|
1987
|
351.31
|
|
2007
|
386.50
|
1968
|
328.13
|
|
1988
|
353.69
|
|
2008
|
387.21
|
1969
|
327.78
|
|
1989
|
355.64
|
|
2009
|
389.55
|
1970
|
329.72
|
|
1990
|
356.32
|
|
2010
|
392.46
|
1971
|
331.50
|
|
1991
|
358.66
|
|
2011
|
393.25
|
1972
|
332.65
|
|
1992
|
359.09
|
|
2012
|
396.18
|
1973
|
333.17
|
|
1993
|
359.57
|
|
2013
|
398.41
|
1974
|
334.64
|
|
1994
|
361.23
|
|
2014
|
401.38
|
1975
|
333.17
|
|
1995
|
363.30
|
|
2015
|
403.28
|
1976
|
334.64
|
|
1996
|
364.57
|
|
2016
|
407.42
|
1977
|
336.13
|
|
1997
|
366.35
|
|
2017
|
409.01
|
|
|||||||
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
|
|||||||
|
For those with a
lot more candles on their birthday cake or those with long term perspective,
the NOAA provides data all the way back to the mid-1800s. In 1850, atmospheric carbon was 30% less than
today. CO2 levels were rising even then
but at a fairly languid pace about 2% to 3% every twenty-five years. Perhaps this was as a consequence of a
building population, deforestation and the advent of steam power. In the 1950s the pace of growth in
atmospheric CO2 increased, which is most often linked to the proliferation of
fossil fuel combustion in transport and industrial engines.
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE
|
||||||||
Year
|
CO2
|
|
Year
|
CO2
|
|
Year
|
CO2
|
|
1850
|
285.2
|
|
1925
|
302.3
|
+6.9 in 25 yrs
|
2000
|
369.6
|
+37.7 in 25 yrs
|
1875
|
288.6
|
+3.4 in 25 yrs
|
1950
|
311.3
|
+9.0 in 25 yrs
|
2005
|
379.5
|
+9.9 in 5 yrs
|
1900
|
295.7
|
+7.1 in 25 yrs
|
1975
|
331.9
|
+20.9 in 25 yrs
|
2010
|
389.2
|
+9.7 in 5 yrs
|
|
||||||||
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
|
||||||||
|
This stroll
through CO2 levels is not just for giggles.
Since carbon dioxide is the most important gas in the atmosphere for
controlling temperature, rising CO2 level means rising Earth temperatures. The consequences are severe: extended deserts, rising sea levels from
melting polar caps, volatile and unpredictable weather patterns. For Earth’s creatures it means loss of
habitat, disrupted reproductive cycles and shifting competition for food.
Humans are not going to come out of this unscathed. Crop yields could be at risk, water supplies
depleted, infrastructure threatened, and vast region rendered uninhabitable.
Humans could use
a good carbon sink and it is not too late to ‘sink capital’ into a project or
two. Manmade carbon sinks or reservoirs
are not unheard of. Carbon sinks can be
created in underground formations by sequestering carbon emissions from power
plants for industrial facilities and channeling it into the formation. This is something like accelerating the
collection of CO2 in the sediment reservoir.
In early 2018,
the U.S. Congress expanded eligibility for a tax credit called 45Q for fossil
fuel producers that capture or reuse CO2 releases. Now owners of the sequestration equipment can
share in the tax credit. The change is
likely to encourage industrial equipment suppliers to jump on the sequestration
wagon. NRG Energy (NRG:
NYSE) is a likely beneficiary with its commercial
scale post-combustion equipment. NRG has
already teamed up with JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration with a proof of
concept project in at NRG’s power plant near Houston, Texas. The plan is to capture CO2 from flue gas at
the plant.
Someone even
floated the idea of ‘artificial trees’ with chemically treated leaves to soak
up CO2 at a faster pace than regular leaves.
As goofy as the idea might seem, it might be worth exploration. About half of all CO2 is taken up from the
atmosphere by photosynthesis in plants.
That is why deforestation leads to a dramatic increase in atmospheric
CO2 levels. Researchers at Columbia University’s Earth Institute have designed
an artificial tree that could collect as much as one tone of carbon from the
air each day for roughly the cost of a car.
Even if
artificial trees are deemed impractical, reforestation efforts and the
preservation of grown trees is likely to have a significant impact on CO2. The Eden Reforestation Projects promote
reforestation of forest systems by hiring local workers to plant and tend
trees. Eden has projects in Nepal,
Madagascar and Haiti. In the U.S., the Nature Conservancy promotes the Plant a Billion Trees
project. It is a
worthwhile effort given that about 50% of the U.S. water supply is filtered by
forests. This is not news. With the Organic Administration Act of 1897
the U.S. Congress provided for the establishment of national forests to secure
water flows and prevent erosion.
Photosynthesis is
at work in the oceans as well as on land.
Microscopic aquatic organisms call phytoplankton near the ocean surface
pull CO2 from the atmosphere. Since they
are the bottom of the ocean food chain, phytoplankton is soon consumed by fish that
move the CO2 down into the ocean depths.
If the next fish is not eaten it dies and sinks with its CO2 cache to
the ocean floor.
This is called
the ocean’s biological pump. Scientists
have experimented with iron on the ocean’s surface to stimulate the growth of
phytoplankton. In 2017, Oceaneos
Environmental Solutions of Vancouver has sought permits
from the Chilean government to release up to ten metric tons of iron particles
off the coast of Chile. The permits have
not been granted out of concern Oceanos is trying to boost fishing rather than
restore the ocean pump.
Carbon capture
and sequestration is the most mature of the carbon sink technologies. Otherwise investment opportunities are mostly
confined to research and development projects.
Given the dire consequences of excess atmospheric CO2, it seems like
investors need to think of these early stage investments as an insurance premium
against catastrophic loss.
Neither the author of the Small Cap Strategist web
log, Crystal Equity Research nor its affiliates have a beneficial interest in
the companies mentioned herein.
1 comment:
For those investors with an interest in the environment, bitcoin would not be among the best options. The maintenance of servers needed for blockchain networks requires massive amounts of electricity, much of which must be sources from environmentally damaging fossil fuels.
Post a Comment