Picture
What a busy and exciting day at COP 18! After waking up at the crack of dawn, literally, we headed towards the nearest five star hotels that offered a shuttle to the Qatar National Convention Center (QNCC).  The bus ride really made me appreciate the fact that I didn’t have to drive. If you think American drivers are rude and crazy you have never been to Doha. Drivers wait until the last possible moment to merge and when they do its less of a merge and more of a you better stop because I’m cutting you off either way. Our bus was inches away from an accident about every ten seconds. And the congestion from 1.4 million citizens getting around with a practically nonexistent mass transit system was enough to give the calmest of drivers road rage.  After a half hour of constantly expecting to be involved in a terrible accident we finally reached the massive QNCC.

The front of the Qatar National Center
                There was a lot going on in the convention center and it was a bit overwhelming, but we checked the schedules and figured out what panel discussions and talks we wanted to attend. First on the agenda for this busy Monday was a YOUNGO meeting. YOUNGO is the UNFCCC’s youth non-government organization, or NGO, constituency made up from youth members from all around the world. It was interesting seeing international youth get together for a common cause, but the meeting was abruptly halted shortly after it started by the fire alarm. After being forced all the way to the end of the convention center, past multiple fire exits, to the last set of doors we waited outside for a couple of minutes until they let us back inside. Apparently there was no fire so someone must have pulled the alarm or there was a technical glitch. Back at the YOUNGO meeting we soon realized that we were more interested in the adult side of the COP and took our leave. 
Outside during the fire drill
                We headed towards one of the exposition halls that contained booths from both government organizations and NGOs. There was a lot of interesting information on display and I took as many free pamphlets that I could. When it was time for the panel discussions and talks to start we walked to another huge expo hall that housed the United States pavilion for a discussion about the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting System. It’s interesting that while most of the other countries were discussing limiting greenhouse gas emissions, our government is only concerned about quantifying them for now. 

                At this point our group of bloggers split up to divide and conquer this COP. With so many things taking place simultaneously we thought it would be best to experience as much as possible. I headed off to a discussion focusing on the European Union’s roadmap to 2050 and its system of emission credit trading. In Europe there is a continental trading market where industries can buy and sell credits to emit greenhouse gases. For each credit sold people in developing countries plant trees or do other things to offset the industrial emissions. It is a good idea but has a major flaw. The system was installed a few years before the financial crisis and when it hit industries stopped producing as much and as a result did not use up the emission credits allocated to them. This has led to a large surplus of emission credits that is keeping their price low. Without a high carbon price there is little incentive for companies to invest in technology and infrastructure that would decrease their carbon footprint significantly. Emission levels are going down but are projected to only decrease by 40% by 2050 instead of the goal of 85-90% that was proposed when the market was created. It is a step in the right direction however and is a much better policy than the US’s which is non-existent. 
The giant spider statue in the QNCC 
               The next panel I attended was on the topic that I am very interested in, carbon capture and storage, or CCS. This panel was specifically on the CCS efforts taking place in the GCC, Gulf Cooperation Council, so it was mainly focused on CCS technologies that benefit the oil industry. A number of representatives from Persian Gulf states described their country’s work with CCS. The main purpose for CCS in this region is for enhanced oil recovery, EOR. Basically conventional means of drilling only remove around 30% of the oil in field. To increase this yield oil companies can pump CO2 down into the reserve and it will push out much of the remaining oil. The idea is the CO2 will remain in the underground fields where it will not contribute to environmental greenhouse gas levels. The problem is the process of capturing CO2, transporting it to the wells, and the infrastructure needed for all of these processes is fairly expensive and the oil companies are not desperate enough to invest as their oil reserves are not at the level where they need to invest. The one country with the exception is Oman where oil production is declining due to difficulties extracting the remaining oil reserves. However recently industries in other GCC states, realizing the importance that this technology could play in combating climate change, have begun building up CCS infrastructure even though it is not yet financially needed yet. It is good to hear that not everyone in industry is solely driven by the almighty dollar. 

                The rest of the day was spent at a number of other discussions including one on women involvement in combating climate change and two presentations at NASA’s hyperwall, for more information on the hyperwall check out Parker’s blog and Marla’s blog. After such a busy day I am exhausted but definitely looking forward to more discussions and panels tomorrow. 
Kiersten
12/3/2012 03:26:21 am

It's not a surprise that the US only wants to quantify the emissions. It's nice to hear, however, that your first day was successful! Can't wait to read your perspective throughout your experience.

Reply
joshua
12/3/2012 08:25:01 am

Hi uncle John. Hope you are having fun!

Reply
David Millard
12/3/2012 09:11:58 pm

I've heard about the Carbon Capture and Storage technique a few months ago. The only issue I have with that, is the fact that we won't reduce our output of carbon dioxide if we know we can just put it underground and not worry about it. It is a good short term plan, but when we run out of places to put all of the excess carbon we will be back to where we started. Also, What happens if the gas pocket starts to leak or if it collapses in on itself, those were the two main issue I saw with the system.

Reply
Mom & Dad
12/3/2012 09:13:55 pm

You can't imagine how proud we are of you. CCS people at EMRE are reading you Blog. Keep up the good work.

Reply
Cooper Lando
12/4/2012 03:06:35 am

Hello John, I am in Mrs. Foy's ninth period class and I have a few questions for you: How is the culture of Qatar different from that of the US and what is your viewpoint on this whole climate change dilemma?

Reply
Ryan Dunn
12/4/2012 05:50:39 am

42 years until the end of oil. http://www.worldometers.info

We need to be less dependent of it. Check out these innovations:
Masdar City - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City
The Plant - http://www.plantchicago.com/how-does-the-plant-work/
Polyface Farm - http://blog.ted.com/2008/02/07/michael_pollan/

Im sure there is more. Humanity as a whole needs to realize that it is possible to survive forever, but we need to act fast and take large scale inspiration from these examples.

Reply
Jessica Morrow
12/4/2012 07:12:31 am

you are right, that spider is kind of creepy!

Reply
The Seidorf Family
12/4/2012 09:11:24 am

So proud of you JP!

Reply
Anthony Treglia
12/4/2012 10:25:04 am

Its great to see how people in our generation or coming together and collaborating ideas on how to stop global climate change. After watching the conference, I learned that your focus is on clean and renewable energy and i was wondering what are the different types of renewable energy used in the United States and what other types are there in the world that the U.S. does not use

Reply
Kate Penrod
12/4/2012 11:58:19 am

I find the idea of Carbon "credits" very odd. It is such a financial way of looking at climate change, and being so involved with science, I have issues wrapping my brain around it. I honestly find it a bit appalling that it has come to a point where regulation of GHG emissions has required a credit system. I do certainly feel that it is a helpful system, and despite the surplus, it was a brilliant idea, I just find it to be a very unique way of tackling the problem. It's really interesting for me to see how others view the issues affiliated with global climate change, as compared to the way that not only I see them, but also compared to the way that the scientific community as a whole sees them. I've always been interested in the more political standpoint, and it seems that this idea kind of crosses over from scientific to political. Definitely unique!

Reply
Joey Orlando
12/5/2012 12:45:40 am

I remember the same experience in reference to the foreign drivers when I recently traveled to the Dominican Republic. They have little to no traffic laws or enforcement by police. But somehow accidents don't tend to happen that often in these places. But in reference to the emission credits, it sounds like an excellent idea in theory, it keeps the economy stimulated in Europe and potentially cuts down on greenhouse gas emission, while devleoping nations also benefit with the planting of new trees or other things to offset the emission output. Sad to hear that it has yet to be a successful program though.

Reply
12/5/2012 01:00:34 pm

I was thinking about the carbon credits, since there are several American people who drive larger vehicles than what they really need, would it not be beneficial if the government were to incorporate a similar policy with people and vehicles to help to decrease the amount of carbon that is placed into the atmosphere, and also to help to encourage people to use transit systems than their personal vehicles?

Reply
Douglas Weichert
12/5/2012 11:58:12 pm

It really struck me when you said that emission levels are only expected to decrease by 40% as opposed to the previously stated 85-90%. This seems very low, and it took me by surprise. I wonder how much the U.S. not instilling any policies on emissions control had an effect on this number. I'm curious as to how much this number would change if the U.S. finally put some laws into place. Does the U.S. alone contribute to that much pollution, and would instilling laws and regulations here put the percent where it was first speculated?

Reply
Coleman Wheeler
12/6/2012 04:51:50 am

Hey John i'm with Mrs. Foys class, and i was just wondering is there room for improvement on technology like solar, wind and hydro energy?

Reply
Chealsa Mooney
12/8/2012 05:12:16 am

I went to one of the skype meetings last week and I heard you talking about the Carbon Capture and Storage technique and I thought that idea was really interesting. I think that if we would be able to remove oil as well as put the CO2 into the ground it could be a win-win for everybody. The only problem would be, like Dave said, is what would happen if the CO2 starts to leak? Then that would be a even bigger problem to deal with in the future.

Reply



Leave a Reply.