Geography Carbon Cycle Case Studies

Gazprom 

• Created in 1989, put under state control in 2000
• One of the largest producers of natural gas in the world, reserves in Siberia and the Ural and Volga regions of Russia 
• Major Russian export, helping its trade balance and earnings to help the government develope the country
• There is an extensive pipeline network that moves the gas to customers 
• Mainly to Europe
• Germany imported 40 billion m^3 of natural gas inn 2013
• Ukraine also used 44.8 billion m^3 in 2011
• Political conflict and terrorism in Ukraine and Turkey have made the pipeline vunerable 
• Russia and Ukraines dispute over gas supplies in 2005 increased and was part of the territorial conflict in 2013
• The dispute reached a high point on 1 January 2006, when Russia cut off all gas supplies passing through Ukraine. 
  
• In 2014 Gazproms sales and profits declined, partly as a result of the EU ans US sanctions imposed in protest at Russias military involvement in Ukraine

Coal India Ltd

• Worlds largest coal producer, based in Kolkata
• Indias coal mining industry was nationalised in 1972/73
• 80 mining areas
• Responsible for 5.9 per cent of the worlds coal production and 80 per cent of Indias coal production
• Increased efficiency has seen a decline in workers, from 510,600 in 2002 to 352,300 in 2014, but an increase in production over the same period of time from 260.69 million tonnes to 494.24 m tonnes.
• India is the worlds thirds largest consumer of coal
• The the government gained from the US$12.9 billion revenues in 2013/14

• OPEC is an intergovenmental organisation (IGO) set up in 1960 to coordinate member countries oil policies
• In 2016 there were 14 member countries in three continents, with Saudi Arabia the most important player
• OPEC aims to create a stable income for oil-producing nations by controlling output and prices when selling to oil-consuming nations
• OPEC controls over 40 per cent of the worlds oil supply, and member countries have nationalised thier oil so that they are able to control output and apply export quotas on member countries to reduce supply if prices go too low 
• OPECs mission is to help its members, but also the whole world; between 2000 and 2020 there will be a predicted investment of US$209 billion to expand production and form closer ties with non OPEC oil and energy organisations
• Some regard OPEC as a cartel that fixes prices and dictates the rules of supply: in everyday commercial world such operations would be illegal
• Oil price has fluctuated a great deal, which suggests that OPEC does not have complete control of the world market for oil, especially during times of world recession or increased demand from emerging countries. 

• In Alberta, Canada, tar sand reserves of 166 billion barrals of oil exist in three areas covering 142,200km^2
• There is surface mining over 3.4 per cent of the area 
• Production increased from 0.1 million barrels a day in 1980 to 2.3 million in 2014 and is predicted to reach 4 million by 2030 
• It is estimated that between 1999 and 2013 US$201 billion was invested but US$4 trillion is expected to go into the Canadian econamy
• 151,000 direct jobs created 
• There will be check in air, water and human health and the Lower Athabasca Regional plan which protects air and water quality and sets land aside for conservation
• Pollution remains a concern: in 2013 8.5 per cent of Canadas greenhouse gas emissions cam from tar sands with a predicted increase to 14 per cent. 
• Plans for Carbon capture and store
• The Tailings ponds contain toxic chemicals and ahve killed migrating waterfowl, and concern remains about leakages into groundwater and rivers and effects on health of local people
• An Oil Sands Community Alliance has been set up to provide services and facilities for local people, especially First Nation (Indigenous) communities, but many regarded the US$18 million donated in 2013 by the oil buisness as too little 

• 30 years ago, 1 litre of ethanol is worth 3 times more than 1 litre of gasoline. Thus most nations don’t consider investing in biofuel.
• WHY BRAZIL? - Favourable conditions - Tradition of culturing sugarcane - Sugarcane being the most efficient raw materials for production of ethanol
• Production of 40 tonnes of sugarcane per hectare
• Using traditional breeding technique, researchers produced varieties adapted to different soil, different climate conditions, better yields, tolerance to water scarcity and pests
• PROBLEMS faced:
  
  - Waste - VINASSE – a corrosive liquid byproduct of ethanol distillation - Being dumped in rivers causing environmental damage - Bagasse – leftover sugarcane fibre

• Brazil second biggest producer of ethanol in the world (20 billion litres).
• Fuel used in 45% of Brazilian vehicles is ethanol
• Ethanol industry has created more than a million direct and indirect jobs – mainly in rural areas.
• Expansion in sugar cane cultivation may increase food prices. This would leave the poor with a harder survival.
• Although the ethanol industry has greatly increased the wealth of the sugar and alcohol sector’s industries, the poor have to be the one handling the negative impacts.
• Countries that are looking into increasing their biofuel use in order to become less dependant on petrolium based fuel

• With help from China, the brazilian state company Petrobas begain developing a deep-water oilfield discovered in 2006, with estimated reserves of 50 to 80 billion barrels
• Pilot wells began producing oil in 2010, and in 2015 production reached 885,000 barrels a day.
• The oilfield is 200-300km offshore where there seabed is at a depth of 2,000m
• Drilling conditions are therefore difficult, witht the addition of flamable gases and rock salt layers that flex
• Costs are high
• At present only 13% OF Brazils electricity is generated from fossil fuels
• Oil would help diversify its energy mixand provide greater energy security is case drought reduces hydroelectric capasity, as well as creating jobs and income from exports
• By 2016 Petrobas was US$100 billion in debt as a result of lower global oil prices, the high cost of developing the oilfield and the political corruption that resulted in job losses
• New construction activities, such as a refinary were delayed
• There are concerns about oil-related activities spoiling the environment and causing oil spills and also about the maintenance of safety equipment

• Drought events are a feature of the Amazonian climate, along with extreme flood events after exceptional rainfall.
• Since 1911-12 droughts have occured about every 10 years, but the 2005 mega-drought was followed five years later by another mega drought
• Between 1995 and 2005 less water had been available for rainforest plants, which introduced stress into the ecosystem and made the 2005 drought worse.
• in 2005 about 70 million hectares of pristine mature rainforest in south west Amazonia was damaged, amounting to 30% of the total area, with 5% severly affected.
• Half the area affected had problems for several years after 2005, despite higher rainfal, so by the 2010 drought, trees had not recovered and were even more vunrable.
• Research by UNEP and the Global Ecosystems Monitoring (GEM) network showed that during these severe droughts the trees absorbed less CO2, with photosynthesis slowing by about 10% over a 6 month period, despite growth continuing at the same rate.
• Drought affected plants may prioritise growth rates - the race to sunlight over health
• During the droughts, emmisions of co2 increased as a result of more frequent wildfires and decomposing wood as more trees died
• Using infrared gas analysis, it was estimated that the 2005 drought emitted 5 billion tonnes of co2 and the 2010 drought 8 billion tonnes - which was more than the co2 absorbed
• This is worrying as it suggests that the amazonian tropical rainforest may in the future cease to operate as a carbon sink and instead become a carbon source, accelerating global warming, climate change and futher change to the biome

• The 2014 IPCC report identified changes to the Arctic water cycle:
• The largest global increase in temp is in the Arctic, especially in winter
• Higher temperatures and evaporation rates are drying up Arctic ponds
• The greatest humidity increases are in the northern high latitudes
• The precipitation and evaporation balance will change
• Higher air temps will reduce the duration and extent of ice and snow cover and increase snow and ice ablation
• Ablation of glacial ice, such as in Greenland, will alter runoff and create more local river-ice floods
• Permafrost thawing rates will increase and that area will decrease, may be increased river discharges in winter
• Annual decline in Arctic sea-ice area will become more rapid
• TheArctic ocean could be ice free by 2037, especially as oceans warm and reduced sea ice will provide increased evaporation and snowfall
• Arctic lakes will freeze later, with earlier ice break-up and thinner ice in winter

• People in the Arctic may experience building and structure collapse as a result of permafrost thawing, and stress on wildlife may lead to food insecurity as ecosystems change and hunting areas move.
• Alaskan people people may be forced to relocate or be trapped in isolated communities by extreme weather and hazards such as avalanches or river floods
• Damaged infrastructure, drought or changing hydrology may limit freshwater supplies
• There is uncertain confidence in many predictions because climate model lacks any valid data from which to project the cascade and feedback effects in Arctic systems, as well as a coordinated network of long term measurement sites for monitoring and assessing climate change in these northern areas

• Warner seas, stronger storms and acidification are damaging coral reafs. Bleaching is predicted to become severe for half of all coral reefs by 2050, with a transition to net erosion because of reduced calcififcation and coral mortality. 
• Corals will be less effective at protecting coasts from storms and the resulting coastal erosion will affect millions of people who live near the sea, especially in developing countries that cannot afford expensive hard engineering defences
• Marine productivity is decreasing, with fewer fish larvae, which is damaging fish stocks: in the Carribean it is expected that fisheries will soon have a revenue loss, and in the Pacific Island states a 20% decline in reef fisheries by 2050 is predicted.
• Over 100 countries benefit from the tourism and recreational value of coral reefs, which is worth US$9.6 billion according to the IPCC.
• Damage to the reefs harm local econamies in small island states and developing countries
• In Viti Levu, Fiji, coral reef degredation will cause losses of US$5-14 million a year by 2050, due to fisheries, habitats and tourism. 
• In Viti Levu, Fiji, human health is being affected as warmer seawater leads to fish eating ciguatoxic algae, which poisons people when they eat the fish; numbers are expected to increase to 700 times current levels

• The 1997 Kyoto protical set CO2 emission reduction targets for industrialised nations to meet
• It was not a truly global agreement, as it omitted emerging and developing countries on the grounds that they had not created the pollution. 
• However, with the severity of climate change apparent around the world and very high emissions from emerging countries such as China and India, it was soon clearly necessary to involve everyone in solving the global problem
• In 2015 at a conferance in Paris, 195 countries promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to almost zero by 2065; countries will monitor themselves and report progress every five years
• The richer nations pledged around US$100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer countries adapt to climate change and switch away from fossil fuels
• The overall aim is to limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees c above pre-industrial levels
• There is little to force countries to meet the target, and progress reporting may not be accurate
• Perhaps only pressures from within countries, arising from severe pollution and a high risk of coastal flooding, such as China, will force governments to take action 
• Science suggests that the target is unrealistic, with 1 degree of warming being reported at the start of 2016
• In addition to the huge reduction in fossil-fuel use it will also be necessary to remove carbon from the atmosphere, which is expensive, The international Energy Agency estimates it will cost about US$16.5 trillion by 2030