Cannabis: an environmentally and economically viable method for climate change mitigation.

 

Author

Marc R Deeley

 

Degree

MEnvS

 

Year

2000

                                               University of Strathclyde

                            Graduate School of Environmental Studies

 

                                       Thesis

Dedicated to

 

 Maree, Ryan, Doug and every generation - present and future.

 

 

 

Abstract

 

 

This thesis examines the problem of global climate change, taking as its starting point the recommendations of both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992). It is argued that an approach which directly addresses the (scientific) causes of climate change via the application of biology and chemistry – termed an  ‘environmental approach’ in this thesis – is better placed than conventional regulatory instruments (i.e. a carbon tax) to fulfil the objectives of the (1992) Convention. Moreover, it is argued that an environmental approach/method has the potential to address other (related) areas of environmental concern, such as the use of chemicals in agriculture. In addition, because such an approach would not entail the predominately negative economic effects of conventional regulatory instruments such as ‘carbon taxation’ it has the potential to be universally inclusive (through choice), extending global participation in the UNFCCC. An environmental approach is therefore elaborated upon which centres on the specific use of Cannabis (in particular, the Sativa L. sub-species) as a multipurpose source of biomass and industrial feedstock for energy, agricultural and commodity applications. It is argued that the unique physiological and chemical characteristics of Cannabis make it ideally suited for such applications within the overall objective of climate change mitigation by addressing directly our industrial reliance on fossil fuels and several of the key land-use/management and consumption related causes of climate change. It is concluded that Cannabis cultivation and the industrial utilisation of this crop would be environmentally and economically beneficial as a method for addressing the problem of global climate change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

Introduction                                                                                                    p5 

 

Chapter one: Climate Change and Mitigation Options

    1.0 Climate Change                                                                                      p8

    1.1 Policy: an introduction                                                                             p10

    1.2 Market based and regulatory mechanisms                                               p12

         1.2.0 Regulatory instruments

         1.2.1 International Carbon Taxes

         1.2.2 Tradable Carbon Quotas

    1.3 Environmental approach                                                              p16

 

Chapter two: Cannabis

    2.0 Cannabis: an introduction                                                                        p21

    2.1 Physiology                                                                                              p22

    2.2 Cannabis and Climate change                                                                  p28

    2.3 Economic productivity of Cannabis                                                         p30

         2.3.0 Seed

         2.3.1 Stem

         2.3.2 Bast fibre (primary and secondary)

         2.3.3 Woody core

    2.4 Modern Uses for Cannabis                                                                     p34

    2.5 Summary                                                                                                p35

 

Chapter three: Climate change mitigation potential

    3.0 Introduction                                                                                            p36

    3.1 Land-use                                                                                                p36

    3.2 Land availability                                                                          p38

    3.3 Integration of Cannabis and sustainable agriculture                                   p40

    3.4 Cannabis: energy crop for climate change mitigation                                 p42

          3.4.0 Global implications

          3.4.1 Global scenario: 2025 and beyond

    3.5 Commercial applications                                                             p48

          3.5.0 Energy and transport

          3.5.1 Organic farming

 

Chapter four: Conclusion

    4.0 An environmentally viable method for climate change mitigation?  P51

4.1  An economically viable method for climate change mitigation?      P56

4.2  Logistics                                                                                     p60

4.3  Cannabis: industrial raw material for the 21^st Century?                             p62

    5.0 References                                                                                             p65

 

Introduction

 

Global climate change is arguably the most severe problem that the World faces today. Our climate influences every aspect of life on this planet from our ability to produce food and therefore our future development, to the distribution of biomes and the level of biodiversity that exists in the world – much of which remains scientifically unclassified or unknown. The degree to which climate change effects our lives must not be taken lightly. Take for example the increase in extreme weather conditions around the World producing devastating droughts in some regions, flooding in others and a generally greater propensity for cyclones, tornadoes and hurricanes due to increased oceanic temperatures. Many of us will be fortunate enough to never experience the destructive forces of nature but if we continue to upset natures various equilibrium these events could become the norm for majority of the world’s population. Creating in addition to severe ecological problems many – equally dangerous – socio-political situations such as disputes over water resources and in the creation of ‘environmental refugees’.

 

However, as this thesis will explore, the present situation is not completely negative in so far as we have both the time and resources to avoid the worst apocalyptic scenarios. In addition, positive intervention in one area (i.e. climate change mitigation) may have positive ecological implications for others – depending on the adopted course of action. For instance, given that human development depends to a great extent on our general (environmental) well being it is in our best interest to make our development (environmentally) sustainable. This philosophy does not hold that human beings should make ‘irrational’ sacrifices in order to preserve the environment. It does say, however, that we should take into consideration the long-term environmental impact of our actions. In doing so we could ensure equilibrium between human activities and our planet that allows and indeed enhances future human development.

 

 

 

This forms the fundamental basis for environmental or ‘green’ philosophy since its inception in the 1960’s with Rachel Carson’s emotive – yet scientific – observation that the use of chemical pesticides/herbicides – then heralded as a technological cornerstone of the ‘green revolution’ – such as DDT, would eventually result in a ‘Silent Spring’ (1962). The philosophy, however, is best associated with J.E Lovelock’s (1979) ‘Gaia Hypothesis’ which is particularly relevant for the current thesis. In brief, Lovelock’s work acknowledges an intimate human/nature relationship within the overall context of an interconnected and dynamic natural world where all events – phenomenon or otherwise – constitute part of a self-regulating living organism (‘Gaia’) or World. Regulation is perhaps the ‘wrong’ word – ‘Gaia’ as I read it, especially in his later works [1] resembles more of a chaos of causation between events where the world would adapt to maintain life – any life.     

 

Take for example the problem of rising sea levels attributed to global climate change. Presuming climate change is enhanced further this ‘problem’ will, in the very long term, theoretically reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon and other greenhouse gases responsible for the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ by increasing the oceanic biota and therefore a key carbon ‘sink’ – with the possibility of reducing or stabilising global climate change. Human beings are therefore in a unique position as our activities can have positive and (definitely do have) negative consequences not only for ourselves but all life on the planet. At this level there has been some philosophical progress borne out of a compromise between the economic imperatives of industrial (or Modern) societies use of natural resources (development) and the realisation that we do in fact have an intimate, moreover, reciprocal relationship with Gaia. In short, rising sea levels and an altered global climate may not be a problem for Gaia but it is most certainly a problem for humans and an arguably unquantifiable number of other life forms – we are responsible creatures! Thus we have the term ‘sustainable development’ made practical by environmental policy and economics geared towards addressing the interaction between humans and our environment with an explicit need to secure an adequate environment for future development. In 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) or Brundtland Commission made these connections (i.e. environment, development and future well being) explicit in a report titled ‘Our Common future’ stating that:

 

            ‘Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable – to ensure that it [development] meets the needs of the present without compromising the [environmental] ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987, p8).

 

 

We are in a position to make this statement a reality by addressing the problem of global climate change as all life – present and future – would benefit. At a fundamental level of analysis, climate change can be prevented by altering or changing human activities that at present contribute to what is referred to as the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’. While there are several overtly technological options available to reduce, for instance, our reliance on fossil fuels such as wind, hydro, solar power and nuclear power; it will be argued that the cultivation of Cannabis would also help to restore a balanced (human) relationship with nature by addressing several additional ecological concerns arising out of modern agricultural practices and development more generally. The reasons for doing so are fundamentally practical. It will be argued that a pragmatic approach to climate change mitigation – which can address some of the associated ecological problems that enhance climatic change – will be of over-all environmental and economic benefit given the comparative ease at which such measures could be discerned and accordingly legislated for or implemented.  

 

Science has essentially proven the philosophical position of much environmentally conscious discourse. We are now aware of the extent to which our World – although dynamic in Lovelock’s sense – is a closed circuit in which we are an integral (influencing) part and that even our culturally limited (Western) concept or pretension of intelligence necessarily means we have a moral responsibility to at least try and preserve it; even if this turns out to be a solely anthropocentric goal.                         

Chapter One: Climate change and options for mitigation  

 

1.0 Climate Change

 

The scientific observation of global climate change is in no way a new activity (Houghton, 1997). Neither is the phenomenon itself, which for millions of years has seen the World shift in and out of ice ages (around 20,000 years since the last ice age), with dramatic fluctuations in the mean surface temperature of the Earth. However, there have been unusually large changes over much shorter periods in the very recent past. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels and land use conversions have artificially enhanced the ‘greenhouse’ effect leading to a greater proportion of radiation being kept in the atmosphere and in turn reflected back to the Earth’s surface resulting in a rise in surface temperature (Houghton; 1997).

 

Much of the evidence in support of human induced climate change is derived from ice-core data and the fact that since the industrial revolution (the actual date for which data seem available is 1750) concentrations of those greenhouse gases (GHGs) most responsible for climate change i.e. carbon dioxide (C0₂), Methane (CH₄) and Nitrous oxide (N₂0) have increased by 30, 100 and 15 percent respectively. From ice-core data, these gases are now at higher concentrations than at any time in the past 160,000 years (IPCC, 1996b). Agriculture is broadly responsible for 50 percent of human generated CH₄ and 70 percent of N₂O emissions contributing to 20 and 5 percent of global warming respectively. Fossil fuel combustion and land use conversions (i.e. forest to agriculture, especially livestock production) are responsible for the increase in CO₂ which accounts for 65 percent of the radiative effect associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect (IPCC, 1996b).

 

Enhanced (or accelerated) climate change represents a problem of phenomenal proportions for the maintenance of the natural equilibria on which all living organism’s survival depends. Houghton (1997) considers that changes brought about by global warming to the hydrological cycle will have the most impact. We can at present observe many indicators of this disruption in the increasing incidence of extreme weather conditions such as storms, droughts and floods and the devastation that these events cause.  Climatic projections (IS 92a) of the IPCC that consider a business-as-usual scenario (in so far as no action is taken) predict an additional increase in atmospheric carbon of 1400Gt with a subsequent rise in temperature of between 5 and 10^oC by 2200 and conclude that, ‘[t]he associated changes in climate would be correspondingly large and could well be irreversible’. (Houghton, 1997, p102)

 

It is estimated that the cost of these changes could be realised as soon as 2050 and would be in the range of 1-1.5 percent of GDP for developed countries. According to Houghton (1997) and IPCC (1996b) this figure is substantially higher (5 percent) for developing countries due to their greater geographical vulnerability to climatic variations and the fact that more of their income/expenditure depends on agriculture and water resources. Although extrapolations are difficult given the overwhelming number of variables [2] the total cost could be around 2 percent of Gross World Product (GWP) or 400 billion US dollars per annum. This figure is increased, assuming that damage remains over time, giving a cost per ton of carbon of $50. [3]

 

On a global scale, human activities currently add around 3.3 thousand million tons (Gt) of carbon (annually) into the atmosphere equivalent to a 1.5ppmv [4] annual increase, which represents 45 percent of total emissions (1.5 Gt from changes in land use and deforestation and 6Gt from fossil fuel emissions). The other 55 percent is removed by the land and ocean biota (Houghton, 1997). While this represents a simplified description of the problem there seems little need to repeat the comprehensive analysis of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change, 1990, 1996a, 1996b) although this vast body of research will be extensively drawn upon in this thesis. It has been the weight of scientific knowledge about global warming that provided the impetus for the largest meeting of government representatives ever to have taken place. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, 1992 (or ‘Earth Summit’) led to the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by 160 countries. It should be pointed out that responsibility and focus for action lies firmly with the developed countries, resting as it does (other than simply liability) with fiscal ability to implement the objectives of the convention and the socio-economic structures relevant to this, such as dominant industrial sectors and energy use/consumption.

 

 

1.1 Policy: an introduction

 

This thesis aims to provide a response to climate change complementary to the objectives set out in the UNFCCC (Article 2) [5] and recommendations of the IPCC (1996a, 1996b). However, because there are several possible responses that could be considered, it is necessary to examine the viability of these options. For a policy to be successful it would require the widest possible implementation. This is especially important in the context of global climate change. The scope of this problem, although possible to tackle at a local or regional level, necessitates that coherent policy is formulated at the international level. The UNFCCC, in terms of the number of signatories, represented the beginning of such an acknowledgement and could have innumerable ramifications for the future of (especially environmental) policymaking, increasingly taken at the global level. Of course, many environmental problems are unique in that the consequences of environmental degradation resulting from anthropogenic interference are essentially global. Despite this fact regions can (and do) have different levels of responsibility although some may suffer the actual environmental consequences of atmospheric pollution disproportionately in relation to their emissions. Many low lying and small island States exemplify this situation (IPCC, 1996b, UNFCCC, 1992).

 

Although it is of importance that international policy takes account of these disparities in order to achieve successful implementation and therefore the objective of reducing emissions there are several key questions. For instance, given that energy consumption in the so-called developing world is set to increase by around 70 percent over the next 50 years (IPCC, 1996b). How can this possibly be reconcilable with developed world abatement legislation? Could we justify ‘developing’ countries being exempt from international policy and therefore not developing alternative energy systems? Or further, does leaving developing countries exempt from policy merely ensure future markets for predominately Western owned oil conglomerates?

 

The implications of these questions are very real and demonstrate that formulating a legislatively practicable, comprehensive and inclusive international policy is extremely difficult to achieve. Given that such a policy would ideally, from the policy making perspective, have universal criteria, methodology and be in the most part standardised; it becomes clear that applying this to a heterogeneous socio-economic context is at best problematic and ignores to a certain extent the fundamental problem of climate change and its causes. These ideas will be considered in the context of an analysis of the following type(s) of policy. 

 

·Conventional regulatory instruments

 

·Taxes and subsidies

 

·Tradable permits and /or quotas

 

 

(Adapted from IPCC, 1996a)

 

 

 

 

1.2 Market-based and regulatory mechanisms

 

1.2.0 Regulatory instruments

 

These instruments would essentially involve the setting of carbon limits for particular industries within a legislative framework that bans, alters or controls polluting activities. The use of this policy instrument within the international context of climate change mitigation is, although desirable in the achievement of the overall objective, highly unlikely. There are several reasons why this is the case. For instance, as mentioned there exist a diverse range of circumstances to which such a policy would have to be applicable. A fundamental area of concern regarding an international regulation would be the possibility of reaching an agreement to begin with. The UNFCCC (hereafter referred to as the Convention) has the basis of an international regulation as targets for CO₂ abatement are outlined but at the same time requires consent of Parties to the Convention to be bound by its conditions. The extent to which a country is bound to the regulatory aspect of the Convention (specifically Article 4 part 2) is fundamentally a decision for that particular country.

 

Notably the countries that are bound to this regulatory aspect are those categorised as ‘developed’ (Listed in Annex 1 and 2 of the Convention). Of significance here is the commitment to,

 

            ‘adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting its anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs.’ (UNFCCC, 1992)

 

 

While the Convention takes account of ‘differentiated responsibility’ and State sovereignty over their resources/activities, this also serves to make salient the point that it is impossible for some countries to commit to such a regulatory objective. Doing so could jeopardise (inherently) unstable socio-economic structures and would not be an ‘equitable’ option. Moreover, the imposition of such a regulation – as recognised in the Convention – would be neither a legal or practical option. However, there is also a problem of definition. For instance, economies in S.E Asia (notably South Korea and Taiwan) are economically and socially developed to a considerable degree having sophisticated, internationally competing economies and are World leaders in polluting industries such as steel and coal. However, due to the desired voluntary nature of the agreement, these countries do not have any obligation to implement Article 4 part 2 of the Convention. Although this (voluntary approach) is totally justifiable in the majority of countries categorised as ‘developing’ (especially in sub-Saharan - excluding South - Africa and small island States); its universal application does not facilitate the meeting of the objective(s).  This point shall be the subject of further consideration at the end of this section.

 

1.2.1 International Carbon Taxes

 

This option could take many forms such as an international taxation authority or could be left to the discretion of participating States. However, as a policy instrument in the mitigation of climate change, it shares many of the problems of an international regulation discussed above. In addition there are the following points of consideration:

 

·International inclusiveness

·Agreement on level

·Implementation

·Verification

·Domestic (national) co-operation

 

The first of these points is concerned with the extent to which a tax could be international. Any country not Party to such an agreement would be at a competitive advantage over other nations in their ability to attract a proliferation of high emission industries at marginally lower tax rates than other countries (under the agreement) could offer, creating ‘carbon leakage’ (IPCC, 1996a). That country would, therefore, be increasing its emissions to its own economic advantage but most significantly it would be enhancing an environmental problem with (boundless) global ramifications which would be borne by other States.

 

1.2.2 Tradable carbon quotas

 

In effect, this policy option also requires an international emission level, such as that set in the Convention (a target of stabilising emissions at 1990 levels) and the allocation of emission quotas to individual States based on the global emission total and target. This would share many of the problems characteristic of regulatory approaches given the necessity of emission limits. In addition, such a policy involves an ‘implicit international tax’ (IPCC, 1996a) and will therefore share several problems associated with that particular option. The problems that arise in the trading of such quotas are innumerable as some countries would be better placed to purchase their ‘right to pollute’ if this was deemed necessary by the national government. Although this option is a more practicable international policy response compared with regulation or taxation there is too much room for abuse. For example, it may lead to the economic pressurisation of low emission countries to ‘trade’ quotas they would otherwise be unwilling to trade/sell, especially if they were likely to suffer as a direct result of global climate change.

 

The policies discussed thus far have to their credit the potential to allocate a suitable price to fossil fuels, which takes account of the pollution caused by associated processes and/or activities. These policies, however, could not be imposed at the international level without a certain degree of coercion and infringement on national sovereignty, which necessarily means that the implementation of such policies are left to the discretion of individual (or groups of) States. Essentially, regulation and taxation (mitigation) policy are better suited to individual states rather than global policy in what Pearce et al (1989) term the ‘polluter pays principle’. It would, for example, be far more plausible for countries with mature service-sector economies (such as the US or those in the EU) to implement a carbon tax than would be the case for a country trying to stimulate heavy industry or being exceptionally reliant on natural resources such as oil, coal or gas.

 

Because of this there remains a greater or lesser degree of inequity in mitigating the problem of climate change. The central and arguably defining characteristic of these policy instruments is the implicit (or otherwise) costs associated with them whether or not these are borne by Nation-States, industry or consumers. None of these options come without significant costs. The difference between those aforementioned options and that which follows is, essentially, that the costs associated with the next method are similar to those associated with an investment. In other words, there would be a return on the costs (additional to climate change mitigation) thereby making climate change mitigation absolutely cost effective and therefore an attractive economic (and environmental) option for countries that might otherwise be unwilling, unable or slow to adopt conventional regulatory and/or market-based mitigation measures.

 

1.3 Environmental Approach

 

Essentially this approach acts literally on the scientific basis of climate change, considering this basis as a catalyst for solutions rather than market and/or government regulation. Although the aforementioned policies do tackle the problem based on a scientific judgement in so far as the aim to reduce or abate emissions is a scientifically based goal; an environmental approach seeks mitigation through the application of scientific principles (in this case biology and chemistry) as distinct from economic principles. Importantly this is a point that receives appraisal in literature dealing with the problem of climate change. For example, the IPCC (1990, p402) states that,

 

‘ . . . the greenhouse problem is a pollution problem over space and time, and one in which increased absorption can reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases as effectively as reduced emissions.’

 

 

This could be achieved in several ways.

 

·Preservation of carbon ‘sinks’ [6]

·Enhancement of sinks

·Creation of sinks

 

These ‘sinks’ include marine activities (such as the photosynthetic properties of plankton) which account for up to 50 per cent (or 2.1Gt C0₂) of the total (4.2Gt C0₂) sequestered carbon (Houghton, 1997). However, this section (and indeed thesis) will concentrate on terrestrial mechanisms as they hold greater potential for enhancement by human activity and have themselves, a significant influence over the ability of the oceanic biota to sequester atmospheric carbon. Some of these influences include agricultural run-off, pesticides, industrial pollutants, sewage and indeed climate change (Lalli and Parsons; 1993). Terrestrial mechanisms for C0₂ sequestration are mostly associated with the chemical conversions that occur in green plant tissue (chlorophyll) in the process of photosynthesis. Plants require large quantities of (especially) CO₂ in order to grow, releasing oxygen as a ‘by-product’. CO₂, which represents 50 per cent of greenhouse gases (IPCC, 1996b), is converted along with other chemicals (or assimilates) into food by the plant. The resulting growth and storage of carbon is realised in terms of biomass. It should be noted that mature forests, such as those found in tropical regions of the World represent climax vegetation that absorb only small amounts of Carbon compared to new plant growth. [7]

 

Only those (developed) countries listed in Annex 1 of the Convention are committed to ‘protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks’ (Article 4, part 2a). The reason for which is that for many of the Worlds countries these areas represent important sources of income. In effect they are a natural resource and under international law the sovereign state has ultimate control over their exploitation, regardless of the environmental consequences of doing so. However, there is the problem of these areas being turned into sources of greenhouse gases, as fertile, often forested land (as a scarce resource) is converted for agricultural uses such as livestock or that the (natural) biomass is used as (firewood) fuel. [8]

 

‘Deforestation, the changing of land out of forests, is the single most important land use related cause of the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.’ (Adger and Brown, 1994, p233)

 

Formulating an international agreement using a scientific-environmental approach to mitigating climate change is certainly not an easier task than is using the market-based or regulatory mechanisms. However, what is apparent is the possibility for an agreement based on, for example, reforestation. Such a policy would be directly in line with the commitments (Article 4) agreed to under the Convention; including the Annex 1 (developed) countries additional commitment to provide financial assistance for developing countries to achieve the Conventions objective(s). Provided, of course, that other international agreements (i.e. Convention on Biological Diversity) are respected in the process.

 

            ‘As much as 60 percent of Indonesia’s roughly 2 million hectares of plantation (forestry) is thought to have directly displaced natural forest.’ (Adger and Brown, 1994, pp24-25)

 

A balance therefore must be struck between economic and environmental objectives where any international agreement is concerned. Plantation forests in several respects are not the solution although, given that World consumption of paper (275 million tons in 1995) is expected to increase to around 480 million tons in 2010 (Mattoon, 1998, p20) it is certainly an economically attractive option for governments or the speculative investor [9] . One of the key disadvantages of plantation forests is the time (5-25 years) required (especially in the beginning of such a project prior to the establishment of a growth cycle) before any economic benefits can be accrued. This fact goes some way to explain why plantations have displaced many natural ‘old growth’ forests. Thus the option of plantation forestry is less attractive or literally impossible for the small landowner or farmer given the scale and initial investment required. [10] This fact is reflected in the comparatively small amount of forests that are managed for goods and services. [11]  

 

An ideal environmental policy approach to climate change mitigation would include the following objectives:

 

· Sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

· Prevent the destruction of natural ecosystems (biodiversity).

· It would not burden developing countries with costly socio-economic regulations.

· It would not require significant changes to current land use (i.e. displacing people or       

    activities).

· It would have a minimal environmental impact and/or address other     

    environmental/pollution problems.

· It would also provide (socially equitable) economic incentives for global

    implementation.

 

(Adapted from UNFCCC, 1992 and IPCC 1990,1996a, 1996b)

 

This thesis follows and elaborates on the conclusions reached by the IPCC (1996a, 1996b) which hold that it is advantageous to have a cross-sectoral (or multi disciplinary) approach to the problem of climate change given the context in which policy decisions must be taken. Linking policies in the areas of transport, agriculture and forestry with the cross-sectoral dimensions of energy, land use and society’s demands for resources is integral to establishing effective mitigation policy. One definitive argument arising from the work of the IPPC demonstrated in both the model of Low CO₂-Emitting Energy Supply Systems (LESS) and Integrated Model to Assess the Greenhouse Effect (IMAGE 2.0, IPCC, 1996b) is that the strategic utilisation of biomass in the above areas will have the most profound mitigation potential in both present and future scenarios.

 

 

‘If the development of biomass energy can be carried out in ways that effectively address concerns about other environmental issues and competition with other land-uses, biomass could make major contributions in both the electricity and fuel markets, as well as offering prospects of increasing rural employment and income.’ (IPCC, 1996b, p15)

 

 

However, conclusions are sensitive to many of the key assumptions, ‘such as the productivity of biomass energy plants, the rate of technological progress in agriculture, and the rate of population and income growth’ (IPCC, 1996b, p816). Climate change also posses problems for the growth of ‘new’ biomass and for the areas of natural and plantation forests that already exist given that small (1^o C) alterations in mean annual temperature can potentially affect the ‘geographic distribution of biomes­ – i.e., biogeographic regions’ (IPCC, 1996b, p101). The implications of this means that while a standardised approach to biomass (i.e. for energy purposes) is highly desirable in terms of processing costs, the choice of biomass is an important factor given that climate change will continue for many years after atmospheric carbon levels have been stabilised. Annual and perennial crops are far less vulnerable to changes in climate than are slow to medium growth forests (IPCC, 1996b, p389) and some share many of the bio-chemical characteristics of hardwood – as will be demonstrated in chapter two.

 

The utilisation of biomass in agriculture and industry represents an economically favourable alternative to, for example, the regulatory or ‘top down’ price fixing of fossil fuels – which in the long term will only achieve mitigation objectives through economically negative activities. Moreover, it will be argued that an environmental policy for climate change mitigation has greater practical potential in terms of implementation, inclusiveness and in meeting the objective of mitigation itself. The next chapter will detail the physiology and subsequent arguments for the integration of Cannabis into (perhaps) a World Agricultural Agreement with the central objective of mitigating climate change within the guidelines of the UNFCCC and IPCC recommendations.

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter two: Cannabis

 

 

2.0 Cannabis: an introduction   

 

 

The name, Cannabis refers to a large, and as yet unquantified, population or family referred to collectively as Cannabinaceae which includes Cannabis, Humulus and possibly Humulopsis (Clark, 1999). The world’s leading researcher on this topic, Ivan Bocsa (1998), considers this family to include only Cannabis and its sub-species. It is, therefore, this former category (Cannabis) that forms the focus for this piece of work. Within the gene pool of ‘Cannabis’ there are three main sub-species: sativa, indica and ruderalis – the latter being a wild or weedy form. All share the fact that they grow spontaneously or otherwise ‘throughout nearly all equatorial to subarctic regions of the world’ (Clarke; 1999, p13). In addition, all Cannabis genera are fully interfertile with one another.

 

For the purpose of clarity, it must be pointed out that while the taxonomic group Cannabis is applied in this chapter, there are many genetic distinctions between say ‘hemp’ (Sativa L.) and the Indica or ruderalis sub-species. Among these is the propensity to produce the chemical delta-9-THC, which is illegal in the vast majority of countries and therefore has implications of an environmental, biological, economic and political nature for this thesis [12] . The variety commonly referred to as ‘hemp’ constitutes one, albeit broad, genera of the Cannabis family that belongs to the sativa L. grouping. These particular cultivars contain negligible to zero quantities of the chemical THC. European cultivation of hemp has been limited to three gene pool sections covering the following ecotypes: Northern and Central European, Southern European and East Asian. However, when taken together with the differences that also exist within each individual (ecotype) grouping, this gene pool (Cannabis) consists of an extraordinary level of genetic diversity in terms of ecotypes (geographic/climatic location), genotypes and their subsequent phenotypes (actual characteristics) and end use value. [13]

 

2.1 Physiology

 

Cannabis is an annual herbaceous crop that requires planting in the early spring as flowering is induced by longer nights (or shorter days). The characteristic growth pattern of varieties (hemp, Sativa L.) grown in the European (temperate) climate display 2-3 months of vegetative growth preceding a flowering cycle. Essentially, Cannabis is dieocius having distinct male (Y) or female (X) plants (usually of the ratio 1:1), the latter having most economic value and taking slightly longer to mature given the extended flowering cycle (Bocsa and Karus, 1998). Because Cannabis is anemophilous (wind-pollinated) the male plants, which mature faster, can be spotted and if desired by the cultivator be removed from the crop. Removing male plants is dependent on the use to which the crop is being put. For instance, if the crop is to be used for fibre, the female plants can mature for up to five months after flowering if no fertilisation occurs (Clarke; 1999). On the other hand, crops being produced for seed or oil will require male/female fertilisation to occur and so the male plants can be removed after fertilisation occurs to leave more room for the female plants to grow. The existence of monoecious (male and female flowers on one plant) varieties has enabled breeders to establish some cultivars to circumvent these breeding/cultivation restrictions (Clarke, 1999). In the EU,

 

            ‘(t)he 32 commercially available registered hemp varieties consist of twenty-two monoecious, nine dioecious, (and one uni-sex female) sexual types’. (Clarke; 1999,p16)

 

 

End use remains; however, an important factor in terms of crop management as the usual 4-6 month lifecycle can take anywhere between 2 and 10 months depending also on the location. For example, fibre crops can be harvested before flowering occurs thus negating the variables associated with a particular cultivar (van der Werf et al. 1999).  This flexibility of use and/or management makes it ideal as a rotation crop. In addition, research has demonstrated improvements in soil quality of the land used for Cannabis cultivation when in rotation with other crops (Roulac, 1997). It has also been argued that Cannabis is entirely sustainable as it ‘suppresses weeds and is virtually free from disease or pests’ [14] (Ranalli; 1999, p64) and therefore requires only modest levels of (organic) fertilisation. Because of these characteristics there are improved yields (up to 10 percent) of the crop following Cannabis when in rotation (Roulac, 1997) [15] and reduces or eliminates the need for herbicides. Such observations tie in with the fact that annual herbaceous crops are generally leguminosae and have the ability to nodulate and fix (atmospheric) nitrogen (Lopez-Real, 1981). This is a possibility that requires investigation where Cannabis is concerned, as evidence to support this hypothesis would be additional encouragement for its cultivation in rotation systems. Another highly significant characteristic of Cannabis, probably emanating from genetic inheritance from weedy (ruderallis) forms is the possible ability to grow on degraded and even polluted land. Ranalli (1999, p69) points out that Cannabis is, ‘able to extract heavy metals from the soil in amounts higher than many other agricultural crops’. 

 

The aforementioned characteristics mean that Cannabis requires very modest fertilisation and little or no herbicides or pesticides when in a rotation cycle (van der Werf et al, 1999) which holds obvious environmental and economic advantages making the integration of Cannabis into agriculture highly desirable in terms of improved sustainability. When considered in conjunction with the use value of this crop, these characteristics have serious implications for the future viability of more environmentally damaging crops such as cotton. For example, cotton (Gossypium L.) could be displaced by ‘hemp’ (Cannabis variety most favoured for fibre production) in a sustainable textile industry (Alden et al, 1998) or farmers could rotate their cotton crop with Cannabis to reduce the chemical input the cotton crop requires. More attention will be paid to overtly economic arguments in the following section, although it is often difficult to separate such interdependent issues given the physiological characteristics of Cannabis.    

 

Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) is a green plant of the C₃ variety, (Geof Kime, Hempline Inc., personal communication; 1999) which means that during photosynthesis a three-carbon compound is produced. Other plants that share this (C₃) physiology include sunflower, rice, wheat and potato (IPCC, 1996b).  While this remains constant, it should be pointed out that many of the different phytochemical characteristics associated with this crop are strongly dependent on the environment. It has been demonstrated that geographical situation can have the most profound effects given the varying temperatures, precipitation and seasonal variations that this entails, causing alterations in the biochemical pathways of the plant and thereby inducing several distinctions (Pate; 1999). One such example of this environmental influence over Cannabis is the production of Cannabinoids  (chemicals unique to the C. family) which has implications for the international production of Cannabis.

 

The production of these chemicals (over sixty such metabolic compounds) in Cannabis serve several functions for the various ecotypes and so appear to be closely linked to the environmental variables or abiotic factors, often referred to as stresses that can effect the organisms survival. A useful examination of the interplay between environmental factors and plant physiology is provided by Pate (1999) who draws on a substantial amount of empirical research. Of particular interest is the climatic influence over the production of  Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannibinol (THC) which contributes to the 3000 year old use of Cannabis for treating a diverse range of human medical conditions (Clarke; 1999). The production of THC and terpenes (unsaturated hydrocarbons) are most frequent in the indica sub-species which are predominately found in the equatorial and tropical biomes. These compounds, ‘can be seen as analogous to the waxy coatings of the cacti and other succulents that serve as a barrier to water loss’ (Pate; 1999, p26).

 

There is evidence to suggest that cannibinoids (such as CBD and CBG) found in the varieties of low THC Cannabis (hemp) grown for industrial purposes in temperate climates are in fact precursors to THC. And moreover, that their composition changes when UV-B radiation increases (280 to 315nm) given the absorption properties of THC.

 

            ‘CBD-rich English Cannabis devoid of THC produced significant amounts of THC and less CBD, when grown in the Sudan. This trend was accentuated in the next generation of plants.’ (Pate; 1999, p27) 

 

 

These observations have led to the conclusion that, ‘cannabinoids and their associated terpenes provide a survival advantage to the plant, particularly in the tropical biome’ (Pate, 1999). The implication here is that different genera may possess enhanced rates of photosynthesis perhaps closer to those of C₄ crops (i.e. those producing a four carbon compound). This would be of most benefit where genetic diversity is concerned