Author Archives: Rebecca Saari

About Rebecca Saari

I am a PhD Candidate in the Engineering Systems Division at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I’m affiliated with MIT’s Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, as well as the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. I am studying the air quality co-benefits of energy and climate change policies using integrated models of economy and atmosphere.

Personal Reflection: So…. (from Rebecca)

Leave a reply

by: Rebecca Saari

Sitting in my desk in Cambridge, MA, folks around me ask, “How was Geneva?” Even through the fog of jetlag, it’s clear it was an amazing, unique experience. If I had to sum it up, it was so very:

So Swiss

Both in and out of the convention center, we enjoyed the alpenhorn, yodeling, Heidi, chocolate, bakeries, fashion, fondue, history, and everything in miniature.

So Cosmopolitan

On the first day, before plenary began, I remember scoping out the placards of the 140 countries in attendance. I even got to meet some of the faces behind those placards, sharing a joke with folks from Qatar, Russia, Switzerland, and the US, finding fellow Canadians, and enjoying the hospitality of the other NGOs. It was humbling practicing my French, especially around the UN interpreters, with their impressive skill, energy, and personal flair.

So Intellectual

I really enjoyed hopping through museums and historical buildings in Switzerland, hearing how to make the most of my time here in Cambridge, and getting reintroduced to poetry and literature by a group of MIT scientists and engineers.

So Romantic

If you can develop a “meeting crush”, then I fell hard in Geneva. I watched with admiration, as, in multiple languages and throughout all hours of the day, the chairs and co-chairs helmed a conversation that was variously plodding, meandering, or maddening with unerring grace, clarity, wit, and authority. Plus, Chair Fernando Lugris can tango.

http://www.iisd.ca/mercury/inc5/17jan.html. Co-chair talks to delegates from India.

http://www.iisd.ca/mercury/inc4/29jun.html Fernando does the tango.

So Popular

Being involved in public outreach was a first. This is definitely the first time I’ve ended up in candid photos taken by journalists… in the snow, with a goat, you name it.

It was fun connecting with other folks interested in mercury, and watching our blog garner some interest. Some posts were more popular than others. Pop culture, health, animals, cool trivia? Yes. My overly technical opuses? Less so. It was a good lesson in communicating complex topics. I hope I’ve learned it; if my number of twitter followers stays in the low double digits permanently, that would be sad.

So Scientific

Science came up in surprising ways during the talks, whether it pertained to chemical compounds, units of measurement, control technology, or emissions estimation. It was interesting to hear the engineers and lawyers trade interpretations of the text – these are definitely distinct skills.

So Educational

Before we arrived in Geneva, we took a course on global environmental science and policy offered by the MIT Engineering Systems Division. In it, we played a few negotiation simulations. Our experience with the games made it exciting to watch the real delegates break into informal groups; it seemed like we were watching the real work of the meeting, and it was just like when we played the simulations in class. If you want to see what I mean, the mercury game is available online.

http://www.iisd.ca/mercury/inc5/17jan.html

That’s all from me! Thanks for reading.

Emissions and Releases in the Final Agreement

Leave a reply

By: Rebecca Saari and Leah Stokes

Before the negotiations began, we wrote this post summarizing the key issues negotiators were considering for mercury emissions to air and releases to land and water. It was clear that the delegates had much to resolve. What did countries finally decide, and what does it mean? We’ll cover these questions in this post.

Countries addressed how mercury enters the environment by identifying “relevant sources” for emissions in Annex F. The text specifically identifies coal-fired plants and boilers, non-ferrous metal mining activities, waste incineration, and cement production, as sources for mercury emissions that need to be controlled. Oil and gas, facilities where mercury added products are manufactured, and manganese production, which were all included in the draft Annex F at the beginning of the week, were excluded from the final agreement.

Conversely, sources to land and water are not specified in the treaty text. Instead, it is left to Parties to identify these sources within 3 years of the Convention’s entry into force, with the help of the Conference of the Parties. In other words, this decision was left for future rounds of negotiation.

Parties must also create an inventory of their emissions and releases within 5 years the Convention’s entry into force. This is quite a long time. On the one hand, inventories can take a while. Consider that the US Environmental Protection Agency takes three years to issue updates of its National Emissions Inventory of common air contaminants. Still, many countries have been working on inventorying their mercury emissions and releases for many years, in parallel to the negotiations, so, for many countries, a five year period is quite lenient. Many countries have already completed or begun their inventories, and those who haven’t can use the UNEP Toolkit. This inventory is a critical tool for identifying sources and tracking progress. In fact, measuring emissions may be a key way that the treaty changes state behavior over time, by making emissions and releases more visible.

There’s a difference between how the treaty addresses new and existing emission sources. For new sources, parties must apply Best Available Techniques (BAT) and/or Best Environmental Practices (BEP) within five years. To manage existing sources, parties can choose between applying goals, emissions limits, BAT/BEP, multi-pollutant control options, and other measures that reduce emissions. For existing sources, measures must be applied within 10 years for existing sources of air emissions. There isn’t a corresponding deadline for action on releases, though an optional plan of action may be submitted within 4 years.

As discussed above, there are differences in the treatment of emissions to air versus releases to land and water. However, mercury mobilization, whether to the air or water, will have an equivalent fate in the long run, as explained by Helen Amos. Also, our earlier post pointed out that stricter control of air emissions might create perverse incentives to transfer mercury to the water, where it bioaccumulates in seafood and gets into our diets. The relative importance of releases vs. emissions is also an area of ongoing scientific research.

With the adoption of these articles, Parties have made some meaningful progress in policing how mercury enters our environment. The true test of the treaty’s significance and strength will come in the years to follow, as guidance is crafted and implemented. Ultimately, the treaty will need to not only control emissions and releases, but reduce them. In other words, this treaty is just the end of step one.

What to Expect from INC5 Day 4–Wednesday, January 16

Co-Benefits of Mercury Emissions Reduction

5 Replies

Finding the silver lining in reducing quicksilver

By: Rebecca Saari

As a PhD Candidate researching air pollution, I have enjoyed following the treaty discussions, particularly those focusing on emissions and releases. At MIT, I study the many social and environmental gains from reducing air pollution. Often, targeting reductions of a single pollutant – like mercury – can simultaneously serve to reduce other pollutants as a side-benefit. Finding and quantifying such “co-benefits” is my passion. (My other passions include skiing and chocolate, so it does not hurt that the negotiations are in Switzerland.)

Reducing mercury emissions

: Nanticoke, coal-fired thermal generating station in Ontario, Canada, with a total capacity of 3,920 MW, was once the largest coal plant in North America. It will no longer burn coal, by the end of 2013 (Photo by Ontario Power Generation).

If the treaty creates new action to reduce mercury emissions, it can realize gains that go far beyond the direct impacts of mercury alone. Controlling mercury from coal-fired combustion, the second-largest air emissions source, can be achieved with measures that also control other pollutants. In particular, reducing mercury emissions to air can also reduce emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

All of these pollutants have significant human health impacts. Estimates of global worldwide deaths due to fine particulate matter exceed 1 million per year. Beijing is currently experiencing extreme levels of fine particulate matter. Countries can use the opportunity presented by this treaty to make progress towards multiple goals in protecting human health and the environment.

Reducing mercury emissions from coal would go a long way towards diminishing the global transport of mercury pollution. Nearly one quarter of all mercury emissions to air arise from the combustion of coal in utility, industrial, and residential boilers.

Many ways to reduce mercury and other pollutants

: There are numerous ways to address mercury emissions, which have various co-benefits.

There are many ways to reduce mercury emissions from coal across the entire combustion process, from start to finish, including pre-treating coal, improving process efficiency, and using post-combustion technologies.

Before coal is burned, several actions can reduce mercury, sulfur compounds, and particulate emissions. There are several different types of coal, and they vary in the amount of pollutants they contain. Coal switching and coal blending can allow mercury emissions to be captured more easily. This is a low-tech, potentially low-cost form of mercury reduction. Coal can also be pre-treated through a variety of processes, including washing, beneficiation, and the application of additives. Depending on the type of cleaning and variety of coal, washing alone can remove about 10-80% of the mercury content in coal before combustion takes place.

We can also improve the efficiency of coal plants through operations and maintenance (O&M) measures that lower the emissions intensity of coal-related pollutants including mercury and greenhouse gases, and potentially lead to more sustainable and cost-effective use of fossil fuels. Various O&M measures are effective options. Typically, these approaches target improved combustion efficiency, improved flue-gas ventilation, and reduced leakage and fouling.

Once coal combustion is complete, mercury can be captured using conventional methods designed for other pollutants. Specifically, wet sulfur scrubbers (a.k.a. wet flue gas desulfurization), particulate capture (including fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators), and NOx controls (i.e. selective catalytic reduction) can aid in mercury removal. Depending on the type of coal and configuration of equipment, more than 90% reduction of mercury can be achieved. For additional mercury removal, mercury-specific sorbent injection can be added to the process.

Looking to the future, multi-pollutant control technologies, which aim to reduce key pollutants simultaneously, may gain in popularity. Several systems already exist, at various stages of development, demonstration and commercialization. The mercury treaty has the potential to sow the seeds for broad protection of human health and the environment, beyond the gains due to mercury alone.

Interested in learning more? Three great resources are the UNEP’s “Process Optimization Guidance”, the International Energy Agency Clean Coal Centre and Pacyna et al. There is also an interactive companion to UNEP POG called iPOG, a tool you can use to learn about options, and estimate your facility’s mercury reduction potential.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Oct
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30