Tyndall˚Centre

for Climate Change Research

Sustainable approaches to climate change
A symposium organised by Norwich Research Park Science and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research John Innes Centre, Norwich, 2 July 2001

Editors: Trudie Dockerty
Jackson Environment Institute, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

and Simon Torok
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Symposium Synopsis 1

Sustainable approaches to climate change

A Symposium organised by Norwich Research Park Science and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research John Innes Centre, Norwich, 2 July 2001

Editors: Trudie Dockerty Jackson Environment Institute, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia and Simon Torok Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Tyndall Centre Symposium Synopsis 1

Welcome and Introduction
Professor Graham Bentham David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government, recently said that climate change would be the basic scientific challenge for the 21st century. The kind of science required to tackle this challenge needs to be undertaken on an inter-disciplinary basis. The Norwich Research Park is very unusual – it holds a high concentration of biological, physical, and social scientists and therefore should be well placed to be in the forefront of this research. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, headquartered at UEA, has been established to meet this challenge. This Symposium has been organised by ‘Norwich Research Park Science’ with the aim of providing a forum, for those working on and interested in this issue within the research park, to meet each other and to foster the cross-exchange of ideas.

Managing Climate Change
Dr Mike Hulme Scientific need in relation to climate change is reaching outward from its initial focus on developing means to predict climate change and evaluating impacts, towards examining what is needed to develop sustainable responses to it. These responses can take two forms: slowing the pace of climate change (mitigation) and assessing the risk and making changes to live with it (adaptation). In the US, President Bush recently commissioned a report to evaluate the scientific worth of the work undertaken by the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). This report concluded that the science is basically sound and so will go some way to counteract the oftenforwarded argument that action should be deferred because of uncertainties in the science. Responses designed to manage climate change must be based within objectives for sustainable development and global welfare. The science required to develop these responses requires an inter-disciplinary synergy, and the challenge in the work being undertaken in the Tyndall Centre is to bring the different disciplines together to get a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. We are pushing global climate systems into areas not previously experienced by humans. ‘Dangerous’ climate change still requires definition and discussion surrounding this gives the Bush administration another factor to point to in order to delay action. There is a range of possible temperature rises, and a matrix of possible responses to counteract and adjust to climate change – and some of the possibilities are the subject of many of the talks today. The range of responses to mitigate and adapt to climate change include geo-engineering, engineering, bio-engineering, social engineering and economic engineering.

2

There is a range of possible temperature rises, and a matrix of possible responses to counteract and adjust to climate change.

For example, what reductions to carbon dioxide emissions will avoid ‚dangerous’ climate change? What level of carbon sequestration is needed to achieve emissions reductions? What level of adaptive capacity is required by our communities, institutions and environment? The Tyndall Centre has to examine these possibilities and find those that make some sense as an integrated package of responses. It will do this thorough its own funds, bidding for money from other sources and by helping to influence the direction of research under the EU 6th Framework programme and others. The scale of the challenge can be illustrated in relation to emissions reductions. The Kyoto agreement requires a 5% reduction based on 1990 levels by 2010 but global emissions are set to rise over this period. The challenge is great – and greatest for the US, which will have to reduce current emissions by 30% to even meet what was agreed in Kyoto, so it will be difficult for the US to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The EU and Japan are better placed to do this without any great economic penalty. The UK objective is a 20% reduction in emissions by 2010 – to be achieved by enhancing use of renewable energy, introducing a climate change levy, introduction of de-carbonisation technologies, and energy efficiency measures. This can be achieved given the political will to do so. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is recommending a 60% reduction in emissions. This will be much more difficult to achieve and will require great co-operation. De-coupling economic growth, energy consumption and emissions is important. There is a trend towards ‘de-carbonising the energy mix’, switching to less carbon-intensive fuels, introducing biofuels, photo-voltaic cells, but we will need to go beyond this – hydrogen could become an important fuel. We need exemplars to how ‘de-carbonisation’ can be achieved at a variety of levels. Along these lines, the UEA is carrying out a scoping study to see what could be achieved as a test case for decarbonising a community. Considering my own case as an individual, by buying a dual-fuel (electric) car I have achieved a reduction in emissions of around 20%. I’ve done my bit for Kyoto! Making bigger cuts would be more difficult –

3

reducing or cutting out air travel would help but would require major changes to lifestyle and could be incompatible with my duties, indicating that a diversity of measures are needed.

The UK objective is a 20% reduction in emissions by 2010 but he Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is recommending a 60% reduction.

4

Session 1 – greenhouse gas budgets Prospects for ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide
Professor Andrew Watson What are the prospects for ocean sequestration? There are two main approaches: geoengineering (or ‘sticking the stuff in the sea’) and biological sequestration. The priority must be to reduce emissions, as this is less costly than sequestration. Around 7.5gtonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) is released into the atmosphere annually, 6gtonne from fuels and 1.5 from deforestation. There is plenty of scope for emissions reductions at least initially, but this will not provide the whole solution for meeting targets. We need to start looking at sequestration technologies now. There are three potential areas for storage – oceans, land, or geological (in used oil wells and coal mines). The prospects for land storage are quite small. The size of potential oceanic reservoirs is much larger, so there is scope for placing substantial amounts of emissions here, especially in the deep sea where it will not increase the concentration by much, and where eventually it ends up anyway. The idea of carbon sequestration is to put emissions straight into storage avoiding the atmospheric route and climate change in between. The capture of CO2 is the biggest part of the problem. The obvious way is to scrub from flue gases (post combustion) or by pre-combustion catalytic or biological conversion. The cost of capture is estimated at $30–40 per tonne. The CO2 would be transported and pumped into ocean storage as a liquid, either through pipes or released from ships, at an estimated cost of £10 per tonne, so storage costs less than the capture costs. Research is taking place to determine the best sites for storage. In shallow water the CO2 might rise, in mid water it neither sinks nor rises, but in deep water it remains there due to the higher density of the water. Deep-sea rigs could be used to pump the CO2 into place. Storage in this way could lock up CO2 for hundreds of years. There is a need for impact assessment to examine the potential biological impacts of this process: for example, CO2 can kill sea life, and there can also be effects on sea-life at midlevels. Iron fertilisation is also being examined by researchers at UEA as a means of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. They have shown that substantial plankton blooms can be caused in certain places in the oceans where a suitable nutrient composition is present by adding iron, causing a drawdown of CO2 in the ocean and extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. This has a much smaller capacity to change atmospheric CO2, but it is very cheap. The major unknown it the impact this could have on ocean environments. Like the capture method, this also has the problem of emotive resistance to the ocean being a dumping ground.

5

Q: Could you speculate on the impacts? A: For deep ocean sequestration the major impacts will be close to the site of release, causing the death of local fauna – like mining it would have to be accepted that local effects would occur. In the case of iron fertilisation the plankton blooms could prove beneficial, providing an increased food supply to other marine fauna. In times past the oceans have been higher in iron, so the impacts are unlikely to be catastrophic.

Microbial carbon fixation – a chemists view
Dr David Evans Why should we be interested in microbial carbon fixation? The issues were set out in the previous talk. Understanding the enzymes responsible for the capture and fixation of CO2 is needed to learn how these processes and be enhanced or synthesised, in the search to find means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Chemists have developed synthetic assemblies that have structures analogous to the carbonconverting and carbon-fixing parts of enzymes.

Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas today. The earliest organisms fed on carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide at volcanic and hydrothermal vents. There are enzymes today that efficiently take up CO2. Chemists have developed novel, synthetic assemblies that have structures analogous to the carbon-converting and carbon-fixing parts of these enzymes. Research is continuing to optimise the structures of these assemblies to produce new catalysts for carbon fixation.

The microbial release and consumption of gaseous nitrogen oxides
Dr David Richardson Microorganisms contribute to the nitrogen oxide (NOx) cycles by absorbing and releasing nitrogen oxide. Bacteria as a group of organisms are very diverse in activity in a number of chemical cycles – carbon, sulphur and NOx. They have flexible respiratory systems that allow them to make use of NOx or other elements for respiration with oxygen is absent. Therefore the organisms can adapt to many environments.

6

The challenge is to understand the microbiology to determine the release of NOx from a particular environment. At UEA the Nitrogen Oxide Respiration Group (NOR) is examining ‘model organisms’ e.g. Paracoccus dinitrificans which speed up the conversion nitrates into N20. Understanding the set of model organisms found together in an environment will help to understand the chemical cycles in those environments. Interdisciplinary collaboration is required to obtain an understanding of how to manage the nitrogen system. Q: You have sketched out a programme of research that could last for the next century! Is there a parallel practice/area of science that shows where the N cycle bacteria can be managed? A: By choosing two or three model organisms and understanding the action in their enzymes we should be able to rationalise the likely physiological responses – a good understanding of model organisms will help. Q: Is an understanding of the process required for the practise to be done: why not just add nitrate fertiliser rather than trying to understand the biochemical reactions? A: This would require an understanding of the complexity of the whole environment to ensure the desired result could be achieved without other problems occurring.

7

Session 2 – Reducing our dependence on fossil carbon: Part 1 Bridging the gap between research and industry
Simon Gerrard The Business Innovation Centre at UEA is examining how to engage people outside the university in our work, how to generate business outcomes from science and realise research potential. To do this requires the gap between research and industry to be bridged. The School of Environmental Sciences illustrates the potential difficulties involved. The School’s objective is based very strongly in producing high quality research and the issue is how to engage industry in a way that enhances this objective. There has traditionally been a barrier between pure and applied research, with pure research the preserve of the university and applied research being closer to the business community. To engage business in research in the environmental sciences is difficult because business often views this area as likely to have a negative or costly impact on their activities. The future research agenda has to be set through ‘strategic alliancing’. Mechanisms for achieving this include the establishment of Business Clubs to engage with businesses through open days, research consultancies and promoting links through research ambassadors as a means of increasing applied research. Other mechanisms include LINK projects, CASE studentships, student placements and the Teaching Company Scheme. Academic institutions will need to recruit ‘technology auditors’ to liase between business and research institutions to identify the commercial potential of research. Possible benefits of increasing links with business include the potential for increased wealth from commercial exploitation of research, and the creation of a two-way training experience to aid understanding on both sides through, for example, work placements or research secondments. Furthering mutual understanding is most important – business may have little idea of how research in universities operates; the key is to replace peer review and anonymity of academia with the trust and relationships of business. It may not be so important to understand the detail of the science you want to do but to understand what you want to achieve, and to see the potential for exploitation. Regarding the issue of climate change – we need better ways of communicating the science and its uncertainties. We need to change the business view of climate change from a threat to an opportunity. The global scale of solutions should be seen as a big prize. Another problem is the need to better communicate uncertainties: businesses don’t respond well when there are large perceived uncertainties. Q: Many land-based businesses do view climate change as a threat A: Environment related issues are often seen as potential infringements on the rights of business to operate – need to redress this so it can be seen as an opportunity.

8

Hydrogenase, cells and the hydrogen economy
Prof Chris Pickett In 1839, Sir William Groves invented the first fuel cell using hydrogen to produce water and electricity. In 1999 the Chicago Transit Authority demonstrated that they could use a liquid hydrogen fuel cell fairly successfully to run a small fleet of buses. To use hydrogen, platinum electro-catalysts are needed. For a conventional car this would require around a quarter of an ounce (approximately 6 grams) of platinum. The US Department of Energy aim to have 25% of all vehicles powered by hydrogen by 2010 – but there is a potential shortfall in platinum, and the price of the metal is likely to rocket upwards. What could we use instead of platinum?

In 1999 the Chicago Transit Authority demonstrated that they could use a liquid hydrogen fuel cell fairly successfully to run a small fleet of buses.

The green algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii can produce 3ml of hydrogen per litre of culture. The enzyme that carries out the conversion is an iron hydrogenase. One mole of the hydrogenase could produce enough hydrogen to fill the Graff Zeppelin in 10 minutes – but 1 mole of the substance would weigh 0.2tonnes! The hydrogenase contains iron/sulphur culture materials, which act to transfer the hydrogen out of the organism. Around 0.5 kg of this material would do the same job. We are investigating whether we can produce freestanding cluster materials to produce the same output at the hydrogenase: can we synthesise this type of molecule and use it as a catalyst to drive hydrogen production?

The green algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii can produce 3ml of hydrogen per litre of culture.

9

Q: How do you get this idea taken forward to use? A: In the electro-catalyst market the interest remains in platinum. We have to demonstrate that this method is robust and efficient in hydrogen production – but we need to protect intellectual property rights beforehand. Q: If this technology is demonstrated to be robust, what is the cost of producing this at sufficient quantity? A: It would be very cheap to make these on a massive scale.

10

Session 3 – Reducing our dependence on fossil carbon: Part 2 Value-added proteins from agricultural waste
Dr Keith Waldron The title may not at first sight seem to relate to climate change – but this is a case study in using resources more efficiently and reducing waste that is relevant to changing the attitudes of society to environmental problems. This is a study of onion waste – a low value and bulky material. Each year, 89 600 tonnes of onion waste are produced in the UK in onion processing. The processing waste comprises the dry outer skin, the top, bottom and outer fleshy layers. Our research concerns reducing this processing waste and adding value to the onion products. A flavour extraction process has been developed by distillation and heat treatment of the waste to produce an ‘onion juice’ with the flavour of fresh onions. A second product has been developed from the onion fibre that can be used either with its original flavour or with the flavour removed, for use as a thickener in food dishes. The outer brown skins are high in pectin and could also provide products. The potential for large-scale production of onion fibre has been tested in industrial scale systems. Although prospective food processors are quite widely dispersed across Great Britain whereas onion production is concentrated in East Anglia, there are sufficient processing plants in the region to suggest that it could be viable. A new Food and Health Network to be launched on 4 July 2001 to look at how these and other food wastes could be further exploited and therefore reduced. Maybe we could use some of this waste in ways to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Q: What proportion of the waste will be reduced by these processes? A: Costs of disposal are £20 tonne, so any proportion of reduction in waste would be well received. Q: Do you envisage problems with accumulation of pesticide residue in this product? A: The onions are already food grade so I don’t think this is a problem. It could be a question for the dry outer skin but less so for the fleshy inner skins, but we haven’t looked into this.

Plants as biofactories for the production of high value proteins
Dr George Lomonossoff Plants can be used as biofactories for protein production as they produce large amounts of biomass, require minimal inputs, and remain sterile (the insides of plants are generally free from pests, which is important for pharmaceutical product production). The aim of this work is to move from high technology processing to low-tech, low cost production of proteins.

11

How can proteins be extracted from plants? We can either create lines of transgenic plants for the gene of interest, or use modified plant viral genomes to introduce the gene of interest. The first, transgenic approach has the advantages that the introduced sequence is heritable and true-breeding lines of plants can be created; there is a transgene present in every cell of plant, the site of expression can be controlled by use of tissue-specific promoters, and there is no limit on size or complexity of proteins which can be expressed. The disadvantages of this approach are that the transformation or regeneration can be difficult and time-consuming, there is large variability in the properties of the resultant transgenic plants, and one often obtains only a low level of expression of the inserted gene.

Modified plant viral genomes have so far been used to extract proteins for pharmaceuticals, but could be used for other products.

The second, plant virus technique has so far been used for pharmaceuticals, but could be used for other products. Its advantages are that viruses multiply in their hosts and therefore a high level of expression is expected, genetic modification of viral genomes is straightforward and quick, infections can be easily passed to fresh plants for bulking up material, and particles are stable and have defined structure. The disadvantages are that there are limits on the size of sequence that can be inserted into a viral genome, multiple rounds of replication may lead to the accumulation of mutations within an inserted sequence, and if a vector based on a wildtype virus is used, there may be problems of containment. Before plants can be used as biofactories, considerable optimisation of the systems will be required. Equivalence between plant- and conventionally-produced proteins will need to be demonstrated.

Vegetable oils – can they replace petroleum as a source of hydrocarbons?
Dr Matthew Hills The global market for vegetable oils is 100 million tonnes. The ‘big four’ are soya, oilseed rape, palm oil and linseed. There are a number of different uses for these – in plastics, paints and other coatings, in chemical processes and as lubricants. The one relevant to climate change is the use of oils as biofuels. Vegetable oils can be produced from a large number of plant species. The oils are triacylglycerols and all have varying properties. Genetic modification work is exploring ways

12

to maximise the fatty acid contents. However, many of the plants could not presently be grown as crops as they have weed-like tendencies. Biofuel from oilseed rape can be used in modified diesel engines, and could be a useful alternative in sensitive environments. It is questionable if production would be viable: the fuel would only be competitive if oil prices reach $40 per barrel (prices are currently between $25–$30 per barrel). The maximum area currently available for oilseed rape in the UK is 500 000ha, which would produce around 500 million litres of biodiesel – compared to the current usage of 50 billion litres of diesel. A variety of oilseed rape not grown for human consumption could be used in the manufacture of a high-grade engineering nylon but the quality of the oilseed rape is not really adequate. Detergents can also be manufactured from vegetable oils. To date around one third of detergents are produced from this source. Various species are being tested for potential use as detergents, including coriander. Production of detergents in this way becomes viable when oil prices rise above $30 per barrel. Vegetable oils could play a significant role as a renewable source of hydrocarbons – but what happens when oil prices rise? There could be competition between using land for food production and bio-oil production. Q: How much area would be needed to produce nylons? A: For 8 million tonnes of Nylon it would take 5–6million hectares of a crop such as coriander. This area is equivalent to the amount of land currently under set-aside in Europe. Q: If we are serious in terms of producing bio-oil should we be growing palm oils? A: It requires lots of research to find the right crops – palm oils are confined to the tropics, so to expand production could lead to the destruction of rainforest. Therefore a diversity of crops is needed that can be grown in different regions. Q: We really need to reduce hydrocarbon use – are we not just avoiding the issue with biofuels? A: The tonnages of biofuels will be small in comparison with needs, so they could never provide a replacement.

13

Session 4 – Coping with climate change Plant response to environmental stress
Dr Phil Mullineaux What does global environmental change mean to a plant? One overriding factor is that plants cannot move (though they can disperse pollen and so on, allowing future generations to colonise suitable areas). A plant has to be tuned to its environment, and has very sophisticated means of doing this to cope with many environmental stresses. In the lab, tests are usually confined to examining responses to single stresses; testing the interaction of different stresses is difficult. Plants are highly flexible in their responses to changes in environment, both in the immediate and the long term. In the natural environment plants adapt to a particular environment to maximise reproductive fitness. This is not so for crop plants which may have lost adaptive traits. For example, the wild lettuce is very bitter which acts as a deterrent to pests but the domesticated lettuce is less bitter and has reduced defences. Crops grow in places they did not originate, and so do not have the genetic capability to cope with change in those places. There are costs associated with stress defence, such as reduced growth, yield, or reproductive fitness.

When plants are grown with competitors, the fitness costs of defences are readily seen

Photosynthesis is fundamental to the life of the planet, but is highly sensitive to a fluctuating environment. Environmental stress reduces a plant’s ability to take up carbon dioxide. Environmental change will result in positive and negative effects in terms of plant growth and productivity. Therefore predictions in terms of agriculture and natural ecosystems are difficult to call and will vary depending on species and environment. In agricultural terms, responses to global climate change can be met (given resources) by improving varieties through conventional breeding, changing agricultural practice, and using biotechnology.

14

Effects of climate change on global agriculture
Professor Martin Parry The most up-to-date estimates of climate change are a rise in mean global temperature of 2– 5ºC over the next 100 years. A warmer world will be a wetter world, with more intense rainfall in equatorial regions and a decreased rainfall in sub-tropical regions. These changes have implications for global agriculture. Many areas, such as North Africa and Southern Europe, will change from zones that are not currently moisture limited to experiencing moisture stress. 100 million people will be living under water stress by the 2080s according to research undertaken by Nigel Arnell at the University of Southampton. Crop models show that cereal yields will decrease under these climate change projections, increasing the risk of hunger, especially in Africa and the arid and sub-humid tropics. The shortfall in production is less under the IPCC’s SRES B2 scenario (intermediate economic and population growth, less rapid but more diverse technological advances) than the A2 scenario (regional economic growth, high population growth, fragmented introduction of new technologies). Fewer people would be at risk of hunger under the B2 scenario. This illustrates that it is the different economic futures and policy direction that are important to what happens in the future, as well as the need to reduce emissions. These global projections have implications for UK agriculture and have been modelled in a project undertaken for MAFF that examines the allocation of land use in 1km squares. Under climate change scenarios, much land currently under cereal production will not be required for that purpose in future, with the main growing zone shifting northwards and westwards out of East Anglia. Q: Is there anything published on the A2/B2 scenarios? A: Yes, there is an IPCC report and also the ACACIA report for Europe, available from the Jackson Environment Institute.

Visualising climate change impacts on landscapes
Dr Andrew Lovett We are aiming to illustrate what some of the changes in landscape due to climate change will look like. This is being made possible through new developments in IT – in hardware, software (especially GIS and 3D tools) and increased data availability. Much more digital data are now available on landscape features. Our project started two years ago, to describe the National Trust estate of Buscott in Oxfordshire. It didn’t focus on climate change at that time, but this is the subject of current work. Farmers were interviewed and reports consulted to develop future landscape scenarios. The information was input into a GIS, then maps and Virtual Reality models of the future landscapes were taken back to show the farmers in order to determine their willingness to participate in future landscape management. We could use the same approach to ascertain willingness to participate in mitigation processes for climate change.

15

Maps and Virtual Reality models of future landscapes shown to farmers to determine their willingness to participate in future landscape management.

The current VR model is very stylised but allows a viewer to move across or tour the landscape – at the moment we are working on ways to make this look more realistic. Reaction to the models was very positive and there was good support for the idea of ‘whole landscape planning’. We are now looking at these methods to assess climate change impacts as a way of bringing knowledge of the issue to local people.

Oxfordshire farmscape in 2000 (top) and futurescape in 2050 (bottom).

We are investigating other computerised methods, for example scene rendering programs such as Genesis II and World Construction Set, and incorporating movie panoramas and digitally altered photographs that can be accessed with the VR model over the Internet. It is increasingly possible to generate visualisations to use in impact planning contexts. The challenge is produce acceptable ways of ‘downscaling’ other model outputs (such as the UK agricultural model described by Martin Parry earlier) and to find ways to incorporate real-time interaction with the landscapes, which we are working towards for use in the new Virtual Reality suite that will be built at the University of East Anglia over the next two years.

16

Q: Is there a danger in limiting the interpretation because of what the computer is able to do? An artist can be more flexible. A: It is starting to become possible for more interaction – and important to think about what you need to put into such a visualisation and what you want out of it. Q: Isn’t there a lot of uncertainty in climate change assessment at this level? A: Yes – but several visualisations could be used to represent the range of issues. Q: Its an exciting approach – are there consistent differences in responses to the maps compared to the VR models? A: In this study some farmers preferred the maps, others liked the VR – the issue is to get more information on perception and have a complementary set of alternative visualisations: for example 2D and 3D representations on the same screen.

Research directions for planned and spontaneous adaptation to climate change
Dr Neil Adger There are several issues relating to adaptation to climate change – understanding and theorising the adaptation process (are adaptations likely to be planned or spontaneous, for example ‘wearing a lighter shirt’?); developing indicators of adaptive capacity and vulnerability; and examining justice and equity in decisions relating to planned adaptations. In the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, Working Group II attempts to classify how different sectors are likely to respond to climate change, highlighting the differences between anticipatory and reactive types of adaptation. Natural systems and farming practice are seen as reactive. The IPCC’s Second Assessment Report documents a number of studies that provide some evidence that ecosystems are responding to the climate change of the last 100 years but interestingly these studies are clustered, many undertaken in the developed nations and a large number featuring birds. Human systems may be both reactive and anticipatory. In the last five years we have been examining the vulnerability of certain coastal communities that are dependent on fisheries and agriculture on coastal plains. There have been lots of social changes in these communities in this time, and these changes have impacted on different social groups in different ways. Although the observations are specific to this particular study, they provide an insight into potential indicators of adaptive capacity. These are: material well-being; its distribution; human development and health status; geography; and social capital. The potential challenge that achieving justice and equity in decisions relating to planned adaptations will bring can be illustrated from the example of the five Atoll nations. Projections of sea-level rise associated with global warming indicate that these nation states might disappear. Within these states this knowledge could have near-term economic impacts,

17

with a breakdown in policy implementation. Global action on climate change needs to be based on the understanding that ‘just actions are those that benefit the most vulnerable individual’. If the US were to negotiate on this basis it would take a very different stance. Q: If we look back into the past is there any evidence that we are any good at planning for rather than reacting to a crisis? A: There is some evidence that some societies are better at preparing for expected climate variations than others (for example, typhoons), but this is less clear for longer-term environmental change.

Summary
Dr Mike Hulme We began this morning trying to sink CO2 into the oceans and we’ve ended by sinking five Atoll nations! Concern surrounding the issue of climate change touches many areas of life and lifestyle and will present great challenges in our thinking about developing integrated actions to mitigate climate change. Economics is quite fundamental to all the approaches we have heard about. Other issues that have come out of the discussions indicate the complex nature of climate change. We will need a diversity of responses to steer society through the forthcoming changes. Are we looking at ‘end of pipe’ technological fixes to the problem – remaining a carbon-based fuel economy – or will we intervene earlier in the process, displacing carbon? Or do we look at improvements in eco-efficiency, for example reducing wastes, reducing and altering consumption patterns? These different approaches to managing climate change demonstrate the need for integrated assessment. This is neatly illustrated by the earlier question on ‘should we be growing palm oil’, which highlights the complex costs and benefits of planting versus deforestation. Which strategies should be adopted and pursued, and can we interact with the commercial world to achieve these? It has been good to hear about the research relating to climate change going on in the Norwich Research Park. I hope that these conversations will continue.

18

Appendix 1: Programme 09.35 Welcome and introduction Professor Graham Bentham (School of Environmental Sciences, UEA) 09.40 Managing climate change – slowing the pace, anticipating the risks, or hiding under a Bush? What can research contribute? Dr Mike Hulme (Tyndall Centre, UEA) Session 1 – Greenhouse gas budgets (Chair – Professor Peter Liss, Tyndall Centre and School of Environmental Sciences, UEA) 10.00 Prospects for ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide Professor Andrew Watson (School of Environmental Sciences, UEA) 10.20 Microbial carbon fixation – a chemist's view Dr David Evans (John Innes Centre) 10.40 The microbial release and consumption of gaseous nitrogen oxide Dr David Richardson (School of Biological Sciences, UEA) Session 2 – Reducing our dependence on fossil carbon – 1 (Chair – Professor Alison Smith, John Innes Centre) 11.30 Bridging the gap between research and industry Dr Simon Gerrard (School of Environmental Sciences / Business Innovation Centre, UEA). 11.50 Hydrogenase, cells and the hydrogen economy Professor Chris Pickett (John Innes Centre) Session 3 – Reducing our dependence on fossil carbon – 2 (Chair – Professor Andrew Watkinson, Tyndall Centre and Schools of Environmental and Biological Sciences) 13.15 Value-added products from agricultural waste Dr Keith Waldron (Institute of Food Research)

13.35 Plants as biofactories for the production of high-value proteins Dr George Lomonossoff (John Innes Centre) 13.55 Vegetable oils – can they replace petroleum as a source of hydrocarbons? Dr Matthew Hills (John Innes Centre)

19

Session 4 – Coping with climate change (Chair – Professor Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, UEA) 14.45 Plant response to environmental stress Dr Phil Mullineaux (John Innes Centre) 15.05 Effects of climate change on global agriculture and local landscapes Professor Martin Parry (Jackson Environment Institute, Tyndall Centre and School of Environmental Sciences, UEA) 15.25 Visualising climate change impacts on landscapes Dr Andrew Lovett (Tyndall Centre, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA) 15.45 Research directions for planned and spontaneous adaptation to climate change Dr Neil Adger (Tyndall Centre, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA) 16.05 Summary Dr Mike Hulme (Tyndall Centre) 16.20 Wine reception and poster viewing 17.00 Close

20

Appendix 1: Poster titles 1. Towards green catalysts: lessons from nickel enzymes Matt C. Smith, J. Elaine Barclay, Sian C. Davies, David L. Hughes, Steven Longhurst, David J. Evans. Department of Biological Chemistry, John Innes Centre. 2. Introducing SOLAS: the Surface Ocean-Lower Atmosphere Study P. S. Liss, L. Bone and P. Williamson (School of Environmental Sciences, UEA); R A Duce (Texas A&M University, USA). 3. Inorganic carbon changes in two Southern Ocean iron release experiments: effects of iron, hydrography and meteorology Dorothee Bakker#, Andrew Watson#, Phil Nightingale*, Cliff Law*, Yann Bozec+, Laura Goldson#, Marie-José Messias#, Hein de Baar+, Malcolm Liddicoat*, and Ingunn Skjelvan%. #School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia. *Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, U.K. +Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, The Netherlands %University of Bergen, Norway. 4. Using satellites to monitor air pollution Martin Doyle and Stephen Dorling, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA. 5. 'Weather Quest Ltd'. A new UEA based weather forecasting service. Providing on the spot weather information from farming, aviation to tourism. Jim Bacon, Stephen Dorling, Mike Evans, Steve Western and Clive Burlton. Weather Quest Ltd, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA. 6. Developing and visualising landscape-scale scenarios of potential climate change impacts Trudie Dockerty, Martin Parry, Andrew Lovett, Gilla Sunnenberg, Katy Appleton, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA. 7. The economic implications of global climate change on agriculture in England and Wales M. L. Parry, I. Carson, M. T. J. Livermore, S. Park, R. Tranter, P. Jones, T. Rehman, J. P. Little and G. Fischer, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA. 8. A thresholds approach to climate impacts assessment: A case study for agriculture in England and Wales M. Parry, S. Park, T. Osborn, D. Viner, P. Jones, M. Rounsevell, R. Butterfield, P. Harrison, T. Wheeler, J. Shao, R. Harington, M. Arnell, T. Rehman, and J. Park, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA. 9. Climate change and world food supply M. L. Parry, C. Rosenzweig, A. Iglesias, G. Fischer, M. Livermore, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA. 10. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: a new UK research network bringing together scientists, economists, engineers and social scientists. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA.

21

11. Integrated research programmes at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA. 12. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: Who was John Tyndall? Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research School of Environmental Sciences, UEA. 13. Magnetostratigraphic correlation of marine (UK) and non-marine (USA) Triassic/Jurassic boundary successions Mark W. Hounslow+, Geoffrey Warrington$ and Paulette E. Posen* ¤ +Dept. of Geography, Lancaster University $British Geological Survey, Nottingham *School of Environmental Sciences, UEA 14. The potential impact of climate change in the Norfolk Arable Land Management Initiative (NALMI) Area over the next 30–50 years. D. Viner, A. Jordan, I. Lorenzoni and D. Favis-Mortlock, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA. 15. Conversion of environmentally-unfriendly onion waste into food ingredients. Keith W. Waldron and Andrew C. Smith, Food Materials Science, Institute of Food Research.

22

Appendix 2: Participants
Name
Adger, Neil Baker, Chris Bakker, Dorothee Barclay, Elaine Bartlett, Ian Baulcombe, David Bean, Samantha Bechtold, Ulrike Bentham, Graham Brooks, Nick

Organisation
UEA NERC UEA JIC JIC SL JIC JIC UEA UEA

School / Dept
Tyndall Centre, School of Environmental Sciences School of Environmental Sciences Biological Chemistry Health and Safety Sainsbury Laboratory Metabolic Biology Disease and Stress Biology School of Environmental Sciences CSERGE/Tyndall Centre / School of Environmental Sciences Metabolic Biology Centre Management Board Disease and Stress Biology Plant Bioscience Ltd Biological Chemistry Department Plant Bioscience Ltd School of Environmental Sciences School of Biological Sciences CSERGE / School of Environmental Sciences CSERGE / School of Environmental Sciences Cell and Developmental Biology School of Chemical Sciences British Trust For Ornithology

Email address
n.adger@uea.ac.uk

D. Bakker@uea.ac.uk elaine.barclay@bbsrc.ac.uk ian.bartlett@bbsrc.ac.uk david.balucombe@bbsrc.ac.uk samantha.bean@bbsrc.ac.uk ulrike.bechtold@bbsrc.ac.uk g.bentham@uea.ac.uk n.p.j.brooks@reading.ac.uk

Butler, Tom Casey, Rod Casado, Carolina Charles, Rufus Chauvin, Anne-Laure Chojecki, Jan Chuck, Adele Cooke, Paul Cooper, Philip

JIC JIC JIC PBL JIC PBL UEA UEA UEA

thomas.butler@bbsrc.ac.uk rod.casey@bbsrc.ac.uk carolina.casado@bbsrc.ac.uk rufus@plantbioscience.com anne-laure.chauvin@bbsrc.ac.uk ajsc@plantbioscience.com a.chuck@uea.ac.uk p.cooke@uea.ac.uk philip.cooper@uea.ac.uk

Cornell, Sarah Corsar, Julia Cottey, Alan Crick, Humphrey Cui, Zhen Dessai, Suraje Rauto Domoney, Claire Evans, David Field, Ben Field, Rob Fontes, Eliana Francis, Amanda Fu, Xiangdong

UEA JIC UEA

S.Cornell@uea.ac.uk corsar@bbsrc.ac.uk A. Cottey@uea.ac.uk

JIC UEA JIC JIC JIC UEA JIC JIC JIC

Biological Chemistry School of Environmental Sciences Metabolic Biology Biological Chemistry Metabolic Biology School of Chemical Sciences Crop Biology Biological Chemistry Cell and Developmental Biology

zhen.cui@bbsrc.ac.uk s.dessai@uea.ac.uk claire.domoney@bbsrc.ac.uk david.evans@bbsrc.ac.uk ben.field@bbsrc.ac.uk r.a.field@uea.ac.uk eliana.fontes@bbsrc.ac.uk amanda.francis@bbsrc.ac.uk xiangdong.fu@bbsrc.ac.uk

23

Garrood, Jacqueline Gerrard, Simon

JIC UEA

Disease and Stress Biology School of Environmental Sciences / Business Innovation Centre School of Biological Sciences Cell and Developmental Biology CSERGE / School of Environmental Sciences School of Environmental Sciences Plant Bioscience Ltd Metabolic Biology Metabolic Biology Metabolic Biology Biological Chemistry Tyndall Centre, School of Environmental Sciences Biological Chemistry Biological Chemistry Food Materials Science Tyndall Centre, School of Environmental Sciences Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences Biological Chemistry School of Environmental Sciences

jacqueline.broadhed@bbsrc.ac.uk s.gerrard@uea.ac.uk

Gill, Jenny Hadfield, James Hamann, Ralph Handoh, Itsuki Hick, Alastair Hill, Lionel Hills, Matthew Hobbs, Doug Hughes, David Hulme, Mike Ibrahim, Saad Jansen, Marcel Jenkins, John Jones, Elaine Jones, Phil

UEA JIC UEA UEA PBL JIC JIC JIC JIC UEA JIC JIC IFR UEA UEA

j.gill@uea.ac.uk james.hadfield@bbsrc.ac.uk r.hamann@uea.ac.uk I.Handoh@uea.ac.uk alastair@plantbioscience.com lionel.hill@bbsrc.ac.uk matthew.hills@bbsrc.ac.uk douglas.hobbs@bbsrc.ac.uk david.hughes@bbsrc.ac.uk m.hulme@uea.ac.uk saad.ibrahim@bbsrc.ac.uk marcel.jansen@bbsrc.ac.uk john.jenkins@bbsrc.ac.uk e.l.jones@uea p.jones@uea.ac.uk

Jourdan, Fabrice Kadner, Susanne

JIC UEA

fabrice.jourdan@bbsrc.ac.uk S.Kadner@uea.ac.uk

Kim, Joy Aeree King, Kati Lefevre, Nathalie Leyland, Nicola Liss, Peter Lomonossoff, George Lorenzoni, Irene Lovett, Andrew Marca, Alina McCallum, Don Mellon, Fred

UEA JIC UEA JIC UEA JIC UEA UEA UEA JIC IFR

School of Environmental Sciences Cell and Developmental Biology School of Environmental Sciences Disease and Stress Biology School of Environmental Sciences Disease and Stress Biology School of Environmental Sciences Tyndall Centre, School of Environmental Sciences School of Environmental Sciences Metabolic Biology Food Materials Science

a.kim@uea.ac.uk kathryn.king@bbsrc.ac.uk n.lefevre@uea.ac.uk nicola.leyland@bbsrc.ac.uk p.liss@uea.ac.uk george.lomonossoff@bbsrc.ac.uk I.lorenzoni@uea.ac.uk a.lovett@uea.ac.uk a.marca@uea.ac.uk don.mccallum@bbsrc.ac.uk fred.mellon@bbsrc.ac.uk

24

Miyajiri, Hiromitsu Montague, Nicholas Mullineaux, Phil Nicholson-Cole, Sophie Nicholson, Liz Nield, Paul Niggeweg, Ricarda Norman, Alex O'Dell, Mike O'Reilly, Martin Olias, Raquel Osbourn, Rupert Ozawa, Leticia Pallister, Mary Park, Sarah

UEA JIC JIC

School of Development Studies Disease and Stress Biology Disease and Stress Biology

H.Miyajiri@uea.ac.uk nicholas.montague@bbsrc.ac.uk phil.mullineaux@bbsrc.ac.uk

UEA JIC JIC JIC JIC JIC JIC JIC PBL UEA UEA UEA

School of Environmental Sciences Molecular Biotechnology Unit Metabolic Biology Cell and Developmental Biology Disease and Stress Biology Metabolic Biology Metabolic Biology Plant Bioscience Ltd School of Environmental Sciences Communications Jackson Environment Institute, School of Environmental Sciences Jackson Environment Institute, School of Environmental Sciences Biological Chemistry School of Environmental Sciences School of Environmental Sciences

s.nicholson-cole@uea.ac.uk liz.nicholson@bbsrc.ac.uk paul.nield@bbsrc.ac.uk ricarda.niggeweg@bbsrc.ac.uk alexandra.norman@bbsrc.ac.uk michael.odell@bbsrc.ac.uk olias@bbsrc.ac.uk rupert@plantbioscience.com L.Ozawa@uea.ac.uk m.pallister@uea.ac.uk s.park-dwyer@uea.ac.uk

Parry, Martin

UEA

PARRYML@aol.com

Pickett, Chris Pollard, Sue Posen, Paulette

JIC UEA UEA

chris.pickett@bbsrc.ac.uk Jacques.Pollard@uea.ac.uk P.Posen@uea.ac.uk

Pruvost, Jacques Prynne, Mark Rawsthorne, Steve Razavet, Matthieu Reid, Brian Richards, Guy

UEA JIC JIC John Innes Centre UEA BBSRC

School of Environmental Sciences Molecular Biotechnology Unit Metabolic Biology Biological Chemistry Department School of Environmental Sciences

j.pruvost@uea.ac.uk mark.prynne@bbsrc.ac.uk steve.rawsthorne@bbsrc.ac.uk razavet@bbsrc.ac.uk b.reid@uea.ac.uk

Richardson, David Salter, Pamela Sanders, Roger Schofield, Karin

UEA

School of Biological Sciences NRP Benefactor Biological Chemistry Plant Bioscience Ltd

d.richardson@uea.ac.uk

JIC PBL

roger.sanders@bbsrc.ac.uk karin@plantbioscience.com

25

Schuster, Ute Simmons, Helen Smith, Alison Smith, Andrew Smith, Matthew Smith, Phil

UEA UEA JIC IFR JIC JIC

School of Environmental Sciences Science Starter Programme Metabolic Biology Food Materials Science Biological Chemistry Disease and Stress Biology

U.Schuster@uea.ac.uk WafflycatHCS@aol.com alison.smith@bbsrc.ac.uk andrew.smith@bbsrc.ac.uk matthew.smith@bbsrc.ac.uk phil.smith@bbsrc.ac.uk

Steinke, Michael Stokes, Kate Sutherland, Bill Teck, Rod Tomlinson, Kim Torok, Simon Udo, Utip Viner, David Verhoeven, Tamara Volpetti, Vito Wadley, Martin Waldron, Keith Walton, Nick Watkinson, Andrew Watson, Andrew Webley, Michael Williamson, Phil Wilson, Tony

UEA UEA UEA UEA JIC UEA JIC UEA JIC JIC UEA IFR IFR UEA UEA UEA UEA JIC

School of Environmental Sciences School of Environmental Sciences School of Biological Sciences School of Environmental Sciences Metabolic Biology Tyndall Centre, School of Environmental Sciences Biological Chemistry Department Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences Metabolic Biology Department School of Environmental Sciences Food Materials Science Food Safety Science Schools of Biological and Environmental Sciences School of Environmental Sciences School of Chemistry School of Environmental Sciences Disease and Stress Biology

M.Steinke@uea.ac.uk Katherine.Stokes@uea.ac.uk w.sutherland@uea.ac.uk R.Teck@uea.ac.uk kim.tomlinson@bbsrc.ac.uk s.torok@uea.ac.uk Utip.Udo@bbsrc.ac.uk d.viner@uea.ac.uk tamara.verhoeven@bbsrc.ac.uk vito.volpetti@bbsrc.ac.uk m.wadley@uea.ac.uk keith.waldron@bbsrc.ac.uk nicholas.walton@bbsrc.ac.uk a.watkinson@uea.ac.uk a.watson@uea.ac.uk Michael.Webley@uea.ac.uk P.Williamson@uea.ac.uk anthony.wilson@bbsrc.ac.uk

26

Appendix 1: Conference Organising Committee Steering group: Belinda Clarke, Simon Torok, Mike Hulme, Alison Smith, Chris Pickett Conference assistance: Helen Simmons, Vernon Clarke, Kingsley Avenell, Jennifer English

27

The inter-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated research into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the development of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decisionmakers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UK climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborative research effort. Research at the Tyndall Centre is organised into four research themes that collectively contribute to all aspects of the climate change issue: Integrative Frameworks; Decarbonising Modern Society; Managing Regular and Irregular Climate Change; and Sustainable Coastal Zone Development. All thematic fields address a clear problem posed to society by climate change, and will generate results to guide the strategic development of climate change mitigation and adaptation policies at local, national and global scales. The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring about climate variations. In addition, he was committed to improving the quality of science education and knowledge. The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions: University of East Anglia UMIST Southampton Oceanography Centre University of Southampton University of Cambridge Centre for Ecology and Hydrology SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex) Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds) Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University) Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) The Centre is core funded by the following organisations: Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site (www.tyndall.ac.uk) or contact: External Communications Manager Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3906; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901 Email: tyndall@uea.ac.uk