The Kyoto Protocol and the Science of CO2 Stabilization

AOSC 433/633 & CHEM 433/633

Ross Salawitch

Class Web Site: http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~rjs/class/spr2013

Topics for today:

• Fossil Fuel Emission as a Function of Population & Standard of Living

• Kyoto Protocol: More than just CO2

• Attempts to regulate future atmospheric CO2 via:

− Public policy

− Engineering

433 students:

Please have a look at Problem Set 6, which has been posted

Lecture 19

18 April 2013

1Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Fossil Fuel Emissions: Population & Standard of Living

Emissions from coal, oil, gas & cement prod, 1950 to 2011: 313.5 Gt C

• Many sources of future emissions of fossil fuel (e.g., central to IPCC forecasts)

• Some postulate can not decouple studies of future climate & population projections

(e.g., http://www.atmos.umd.edu/IMO-Population-Kalnay.pdf)

• Changes in the standard of living also likely to be extremely important

• How can we assess population vs standard of living ?!?

2Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Atmospheric CO2 is long-lived and clearly associated with increased surface radiative forcing & rising temperature

Figures from IPCC (2007)

3Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Atmospheric CO2 is long-lived and clearly associated with increased surface radiative forcing & rising temperature

Figures from IPCC (2007)

Models

driven

only by

natural

forcing

4Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Global Fossil Fuel Emissions

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

CO

2 E

mis

sio

ns (

GtC

y-1)

5

6

7

8

9

10Actual emissions: CDIAC

Actual emissions: EIA

450ppm stabilisation

650ppm stabilisation

A1FI

A1B

A1T

A2

B1

B2

2006

Most Fossil Fuel Intensive

IPCC SRES Scenario

2010 emissions: 9.2 Gt

2011 emissions: 9.5 Gt2008

2007

2010

Raupach et al., PNAS, 2007.

(updated)

5Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Image: “Global Warming Art” : http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Stabilization_Scenarios_png

Curve that levels off at ~560 ppm

has emissions peaking ~2030

Less than 20 years from now !

CO2 is long lived: society must reduce emissions soonor we will be committed to dramatic, future increases!

Lecture 5, Slide 15

6Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

World Carbon Emissions20 June 2007

7Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

China: 1.70 Gt C per year US: 1.58 Gt C per year

Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7148/fig_tab/4471038a_F1.html

Lecture 5, Slide 8

Carbon Emissions

http://transitionvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Hansen-12-6-10-figure-1.jpeg

8Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Kyoto Protocol

• Negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in November 1997

− Annex I countries: Developed countries (Table 10.1 of Houghton) with varying

emission targets, 2008-2012 relative to 1990, ranging from +10% (Iceland)to −8% (EU-15)

−Annex II countries: sub-group of Annex I countries that agree to pay cost of

technology for emission reductions in developing countries

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland,

Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America

−Developing countries: all countries besides those in Table 10.1 of Houghton

• Went into effect in 16 February 2005 after signed by _________

• Annex I countries:

−agree to reduce GHG emissions to target tied to 1990 emissions. If they cannotdo so, they must buy emission credits or invest in conservation

• Developing countries:

− no restrictions on GHG emissions

− encouraged to use new technology, funded by Annex II countries, to reduce emissions

− can not sell emission credits

9Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Kyoto Protocol

Article 3

1. The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view toreducing their overall emissions of such gases byat least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.

2. Each Party included in Annex I shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under this Protocol.

3. The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions bysources and removals by sinks resulting fromdirect human-induced land-use change andforestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990,measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment period, shall be used to meet thecommitments under this Article of each Party included in Annex I. The greenhouse gas emissionsby sources and removals by sinks associated with those activities shall be reported in a transparent and verifiable manner and reviewed in accordance with Articles 7 and 8.

KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE

UNITED NATIONS

FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON

CLIMATE CHANGE

Page 10Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty 10

Kyoto Protocol

19 June 2009

Today

11Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Kyoto Protocol Targets CO2 emissions

Does not include:

LULUCF (land use, land-use

change and forestry)

GHGs other than CO2

12Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming

David G. Victor, Princeton University Press, 2001.

Kyoto Mechanisms

• Joint Implementation− Allows developed countries to implement projects that reduce emissions or increase

natural GHG sinks in other developed countries; such projects can be counted towardsthe emission reductions of the investing country

• Clean Development Mechanism

− Allows developed countries to implement projects that reduce emissions or increase

natural GHG sinks in developing countries; such projects can be counted towardsthe emission reductions of the investing country

− Australian Carbon Data Accounting Model

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/initiatives/ncat.aspx

being discussed as pilot for international metric for quantifying effects of reforestationon the carbon fluxes

• Emissions Trading

− Annex I countries can purchase emission units from other Annex I countries thatfind it easier to reduce their own emissions

13Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Kyoto Gases

GHG GWP, 100-yr Industrial Use Lifetime

CO2 1Fossil fuel combustion;

Land use changes

Fossil fuel combustion;

Rice paddies; Animal waste;

Sewage treatment and landfills;

Biomass burning

Agriculture & river chemistry associated with pollution

Biomass burning & fossil fuel combustion

Refrigerant (HFC−134a: CH2FCF3), foam blowingagent, and by product of HCFC manufacture

Aluminum smelting (CF4)

Semiconductor manufacturing (CF4)

Insulator in high voltage electrical equipment

Magnesium casting

Shoes and tennis balls (minor source)

Multiple, ~172 yrs

CH4 25 ~10 yrs

N2O 298 ~115 yrs

HFCs 124 to 15000Range from 1.5 to

270 yrs

PFCs 7400 to 12200 1000 to 50,000 yrs

SF6 22800 3200 yrs

14Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

GWP − Global Warming Potential

time final

HFC 134a

time initial

time final

CO2 2

time initial

[HFC 134a(t)] dt

GWP (HFC 134a)

[CO (t) dt]

− × −− =

×

a

a

where:

aHFC 134a = Radiative Efficiency (W m−2 ppb−1) due to an increase in HFC-134a

aCO2 = Radiative Efficiency (W m−2 ppb−1) due to an increase in CO2

HFC-134a (t) = time-dependent response to an instantaneous release of a pulse of HFC-134a

CO2 (t) = time-dependent response to an instantaneous release of a pulse of CO2

Note: HFC-134a is CH2FCF

HFC-134a 14 yrs Time Horizon

20-yr 100-yr 500-yr

GWP

HFC-134a

15Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

HFC-134a Spectra

IPCC “SROC”: Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the

Global Climate System

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf

16Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Not all HFCs are equal wrt Global Warming

WMO/UNEO 2011 “Twenty Questions”

http://esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions

17Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Radiative Forcing due to HFCs

Fig 2.9

IPCC “SROC”: Special Report on Safeguarding

the Ozone Layer & Global Climate System, 2005Velders et al., PNAS, 2009

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf

SRES: Special Report on Emission Scenarios: used in past IPCC reports including IPCC (2007)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios#SRES_scenarios_and_climate_change_initiatives

18Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Radiative Forcing due to PFCs

IPCC “SROC”: Special Report on Safeguarding

the Ozone Layer & Global Climate System, 2005

Fig 2.9 Zhang et al., Sci China

Earth Sci, 2011

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf

19Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Radiative Forcing due to SF6

Zhang et al., Sci China

Earth Sci, 2011

SF6: Sulfur hexafluoride

• SF6 = 3,200 yr

• Applications: gaseous dielectric in electrical transformers;

insulator for windows; retina surgery

• Also had been used in sneakers but Nike has phased out this use:

20Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

http://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-registry/projects/nike-sf6-substitution-project

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/insitu/cats/conc/mlosf6.html

Cap and Trade vs Carbon Tax

From an economic point of view, these two policies are vastly different

Cap and trade regulates amount emitted

Carbon tax regulates price of emission

Comparison of Architectures for Greenhouse Gas Regulation

The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol

and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming

David G. Victor, Princeton University Press, 2001

21Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Kyoto Emission Targets

EU-15: 3.2 billion tons CO2, 2010

3.4 billion tons CO2, 1990

6 % decline

Japan: 1.3 billion tons CO2, 2011

USA: 5.6 billion tons CO2, 2011

5.1 billion tons CO2, 1990

21 % growth

♦

Figure:

The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming

David G. Victor, Princeton University Press, 2001.

Emission Data:

USA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-ES.pdf

EU: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2012

Japan: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-05/japan-may-meet-kyoto-emissions-cut-target-ministry-estimates.html

22Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

• Cancun (December 2010)

Consensus on measures to protect tropical rain forests, promote clean technologies,and help poorer nations adopt to rising sea level

No meaningful action on CO2 emissions

• Bangkok (April 2011)

Key divisions between developed and developing countries … negotiations brought toa standstill over this division

EU: pushing for second Kyoto commitment period, beyond 2012

U.S., Japan, Russia, Canada: opposed to second Kyoto commitment period

Sources: http://www.progressives.org.uk/articles/article.asp?a=7957 &

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Governments+face+climate+test+resolve+Bangkok/4541975/story.html

• Washington DC (April 2011)

“U.S. EPA efforts to protect public health by enforcing clean air and water rules will beundermined by a planned 16 percent budget reduction, environmental groups said”

“Republicans argued for a larger cut plus provisions that would bar the EPA from enforcing

rules on reducing carbon dioxide from power plants and factories”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-12/epa-budget-cut-will-restrict-enforcement-of-clean-air-rules-activists-say.html

• Bonn, Germany, June 2011Bonn climate talks end with no agreement on key areas

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/17/climate-talks-end-no-agreement

Climate News

23Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

• Durban, South Africa (Dec 2011)

Renewed the Kyoto Protocol in principle and a new process called the Durban Platformfor Enhanced Cooperation (DPEC) was put in placeDPEC: countries will negotiate a new "outcome with legal force" by 2015 that would replacethe Kyoto Protocol

• Rio De Janeiro, Brazil (June 2012)192 governments renewed their commitment to sustainable development, including a

49 page document, but commitment was non-binding

• Doha, Qatar (Dec 2012)

Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol framedhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Doha_Amendment_to_the_Kyoto_Protocol &

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cop18-doha-climate-change-conference

Climate News

Ref Year GHG reductions 2020

US*

EU-15 1990 20 to 30%

Japan**

Norway 1990 30 to 40%

* US did not participate** Japan indicated that it does not intend to be under obligation of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol

24Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative “RGGI”

http://www.rggi.org/home

• RGGI caps CO2 emissions from region’s fossil fuel power plants (> 25 Mega Watt)

– Regional CO2 emissions held constant from 2009 through 2014– Beginning 2014 regional CO2 emissions decrease for a total

reduction of 10% by 2018– All fossil fuel fired facilities must own allowances equal to their

annual CO2 emissions

• 10 States are part of RGGI– Each state has an emissions cap

– Regional market for CO2 emission allowances

• Maryland joined on 20 April 2007– Bill passed in Annapolis

– Participation governed by Md Dept of the Environment (MDE)

• 19 auctions have been held; 3 more scheduledthis year

Auction info: http://www.rggi.org/market/co2_auctions/results

– $ 196 million has been generated for Md as of 15 March 2013

1,225,830VT

State Emissions Cap

(Tons CO2)

CT 10,695,036

DE 7,559,787

MA 26,660,204

ME 5,948,902

NH 8,620,460

NJ 22,892,730

NY 64,310,805

RI 2,659,239

MD 37,505,984

TOTAL 188,078,977

25Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Revenue as of Sept 2012Millions of $

%(Original %)

Allocation

49.924

(46)Energy efficiency projects

89.443

(17)Low income electricity assistance

48.123

(23)General Rebates

15.57.4

(10.5)Clean energy, education, & climate programs

6.53.1

(3.5)Administration

209 100.0 Maryland RGGI Revenue

Maryland RGGI Revenue and Allocation

http://www.env-ne.org/public/resources/ENE_Auction_Tracker_FullReport_20120920.pdf

26Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Carbon Capture & Sequestration

MEA-monoethanolamine (CH2CH2OH)NH2 in an aqueous solution will absorb CO2 to form ethanolammonium carbamate.

2RNH2 + CO2 + H2O (RNH3)2CO2

MEA is a weak base so it will re-release the CO2 when heated

Kintisch, Science, 2007

27Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Where to Place the Sequestered Carbon?

Herzog et al., Scientific American, 2000

28Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Carbon Sequestration in Action:

Sleipner, Norway

• Captures ~90% of CO2 that is generated

• CO2 pumped into 200 m thick sandstonelayer 720 m below sea floor

• Project initiated in response to $50 ton taxon CO2 emissions instituted by NorwegianGovernment in 1996

• Investment in capital cost paid off in aboutone and a half years !

National Geographic, June 2008

29Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) Costs:

50−100 US$/tCO2 net mineralizedMineral carbonation

5−30 US$/tCO2 injectedOcean storage

0.5−8 US$/tCO2 injectedGeological storage

1−8 US$/tCO2

transported per 250kmTransportation

25−115 US$/tCO2 net capturedCapture from other industrial

sources

5−55 US$/tCO2 net capturedCapture from gas processing or

ammonia production

15−75 US$/tCO2

net capturedCapture from a power plant

Cost rangeCCS component

50−100 US$/tCO2 net mineralizedMineral carbonation

5−30 US$/tCO2 injectedOcean storage

0.5−8 US$/tCO2 injectedGeological storage

1−8 US$/tCO2

transported per 250kmTransportation

25−115 US$/tCO2 net capturedCapture from other industrial

sources

5−55 US$/tCO2 net capturedCapture from gas processing or

ammonia production

15−75 US$/tCO2

net capturedCapture from a power plant

Cost rangeCCS component

~$45/ ton

~$4.5/ ton

~$4.5/ ton

Cost of capture: ~$54 / ton CO2 × 9.5 × 109 tons C / yr = $ 513 billion

Present cost of fossil fuel: $ 86 / barrel ≈ $ 743 / ton

World GDP, 2010: $ 71.8 trillion CO2 capture = 0.7 % of world GDP

= 7 % of cost, barrel of oil

Ross & Timback of theenvelopeanalysis

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

30Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/briefing-montreal-2005-11/presentation-special-report-co2.ppt

Sequestration of CO2 from the Atmosphere:Oceanic Biology

• Iron's importance to phytoplankton growth and photosynthesis in the ocean dates back tothe 1930s, when English biologist Joseph Hart speculated that the ocean's great "desolate zones" (areas apparently rich in nutrients, but lacking in plankton activity or other sea life) might be due to an iron deficiency

• This observation has led to speculation by numerous scientists that “tanker loads” of iron powder, deposited in the right place and time, would increase oceanic dissolved iron content enough to turn these “desolate regions” into oceanic biological havens

http://www.motherjones.com/files/legacy/news/outfront/2008/03/dumping-iron-1000.jpg

31Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Sequestration of CO2 from the Atmosphere:Oceanic Biology

• Numerous experiments have been conducted, many with “success”: i.e., plankton blooms and increased ocean productivity, carbon export associated with regions that have been fertilized by iron

• A recent German study has shown that diatom population is limited by the availability of silica, as well as iron

• Some scientists have long argued that the iron fertilization vision is flawed because:a) lack of iron not always the limiting factor for growthb) the diatoms that form are much larger than phytoplankton that populate typical

surface waters (top of the oceanic food chain):

14 Jan 2009:

German science ministry halts iron fertilization in the Southern Ocean

over concerns that environmental assessment must be completed

before nutrient enhancement can begin.

UN Convention on Biological Diversity has called for a called for

a moratorium on such experiments except at small scale in coastal waters

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7959570.stm

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090114/full/news.2009.26.html

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/ioc-oceans/single-view-oceans/news/ocean_fertilization_we_cannot_afford_to_gamble_with_the_ocean

32Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Sequestration of CO2 from the Atmosphere:Oceanic Biology

• Numerous experiments have been conducted, many with “success”: i.e., plankton blooms and increased ocean productivity, carbon export associated with regions that have been fertilized by iron

• A recent German study has shown that diatom population is limited by the availability of silica, as well as iron

• Some scientists have long argued that the iron fertilization vision is flawed because:a) lack of iron not always the limiting factor for growthb) the diatoms that form are much larger than phytoplankton that populate typical

surface waters (top of the oceanic food chain)

• Academic research continues:

http://www.biogeosciences.net/7/4017/2010/bg-7-4017-2010.html

33Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

Sequestration of CO2 from the Atmosphere:Carbon Burial

• Prof Ning Zeng (UMCP) advocates planting, harvesting, and burial of rapidly growingtrees (proposal is to collect dead trees on forest floor and selectively log live trees)

• Meetings have been held to discuss this idea:

• A UMd Gemstone Project has addressed this issuehttp://teams.gemstone.umd.edu/classof2010/carbonsinks

• Statements from Zeng, Carbon Sequestration Via Wood Burial, Carbon Balance and

Management, 2008 http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/3/1/1 :

Here I suggest an approach in which wood from old or dead trees in the world's forests is harvested & buried in trenches under a layer of soil, where the anaerobic condition slows the decomposition of the buried wood.

Because of low oxygen below the soil surface, decomposition of buried wood is expected to be slow

34Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

RGGI Allowance Prices

35Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty

http://www.rggi.org/market/co2_auctions/results

UMd Climate Action Plan

Update to http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/documents/2010_Campus_Sustainability_Report.pdf

36Copyright © 2013 University of MarylandThis material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch or Tim Canty