In the first post I tried to show how urgent this situation is, but now I’ll try to put it as succinctly as I can: if we cannot force our governments to implement drastic, war-time-speed policies by the end of 2010, the chances of our descendants having to endure a living hell before the century is over, and maybe as soon as mid-century, are VERY high. The chances of the extinction of 90% or better of all species are VERY high. The chances of a huge (greater than 50%) decrease in human population due to famine and water scarcity and war by century’s end are VERY high. As a 2003 Pentagon report states, “Humans fight when they outstrip the carrying capacity of their natural environment. Every time there is a choice between starving and raiding, humans raid.” This is why more resource wars seem inevitable.
Most people today are aware of global warming, but few feel the immediacy of the situation, even those with young kids—kids who will experience most of this century. I’m afraid part of the reason for that is that the threat, to date, has affected few of us in the wealthiest nations, and that the predictions keep putting the really scary stuff at mid-century or later. But ask the people of Iraq if resource wars haven’t started already. Ask the people of Sudan if famine is a distant fear. Ask the polar bears who can’t find the ice shelves anymore. Ask the 100 or so species that went extinct TODAY if the apocalypse has started.
Because carbon, once released into the atmosphere, takes hundreds—and some say more than 1000—years to be reabsorbed into plants, animals, soil and water, we know that even if all emissions stopped today, the Earth would need a few centuries to recover. We also know that the oceans take much longer to absorb heat than does the air or land masses, so the oceans will likely continue to heat for hundreds of years more, but at a very slow pace. A pace to which marine life can adapt. Basically, this is what we need to do, stop emissions tomorrow.
Okay, we can’t. But if we make plans to stop increasing them by 2015, then actually follow through with that and quickly begin reducing them, we have a shot at reducing the rapid rise in GMT this century. We have a shot at not letting things get out of control. There’s no guarantee, with chances looking to be less than 50-50, but that is better than the alternative.
Before I get into solutions, I thought I’d explain some acronyms and equations which will be used. Some may be repeats from the first post.
GMT = global mean temperature
GHG = greenhouse gas
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent, which is used by some scientists to indicate that all the GHGs in the atmosphere, combined, are equal this CO2 concentration
AGW= accelerated global warming
BAU= business as usual
GtC = gigaton of carbon, or a billion tons of carbon
GtCO2 = a billion tons of carbon dioxide
1 GtCO2 = 0.27 GtC
1 GtC = 3.7 GtCO2
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Solutions
Researchers at Princeton came up with a wedge idea for tackling how to propose solutions for replacing or substituting the current technologies that produce GHGs. Many others have adopted this idea because it does help us see the options more clearly. A wedge is a reduction of 1 billion tons of carbon (GtC)/year at the end of the period (in the first case proposed below, 20 years, 2010-2030). We’re at 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide (8.1 GtC) emissions a year — rising 3.3% per year — and if my math is right, we have to average below 8 billion tons CO2 a year for the entire century if we’re going to stabilize at 350 ppm by 2150 or so. We need to peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations around 2015 at 400 ppm, then drop emissions at least 90% (below 1990’s level) by 2030 to 2.5 billion tons CO2 (.68 GtC), and then go to near zero net carbon emissions by 2050.
What seems to be the most realistic assessment to date for how many wedges need to be employed to reach 350 ppm CO2 by 2150 comes from Joe Romm of Climate Progress. He says we need 8 wedges by 2030, 10 thirty-year wedges (2030-2060), and “a whole lot more after that.” [Note: If we could do 14 wedges by 2030, we’d have a shot at getting back to 350 ppm this century.]
The 2007 IPCC reports state clearly that economic and demographic growth are the fundamental drivers of global climate change. For this and many other reasons grounded in my morality, I believe the solutions need to be lifestyle- and policy-focused, not technology-heavy, as are most mainstream proposals.
This is what the entire planet must achieve:
2010-2030 — 8 wedges
• 2 wedges of forestry — End all tropical deforestation. Plant new trees over an area the size of the continental U.S.
• 1 wedge of soils — Apply no-till farming to all existing croplands
• 1 wedge of conservation, reduced per capita consumption of everything
• 1 wedge for population reduction (have to reduce by 1.7 billion people—or more with the decreasing footprint—to get a wedge)
• 1 wedge for biochar (charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass, used as a soil improver and carbon store), replacing nitrogen fertilizers. [5/21/09: I have serious doubts about this and would now recommend another wedge for conservation.]
• 1 wedge for efficiency — buildings and industry
• 1 wedge of vehicle efficiency — all cars 60 mpg
2030-2060 — 10 wedges
• 1 more wedge of forestry —Continue ban on deforestation. Plant trees over an area the size of the continental U.S.
• 1 more wedge of soils — Continue no-till farming on all existing croplands
• 2 wedges of conservation, reduced per capita consumption of everything
• 1 wedge for more population reduction (another 2 billion below today’s level; down to 3 billion, which may be approaching a sustainable level)
• 1 wedge of fourth generation nuclear (Why? See this.)
• 1/2 wedge for menhaden restoration
• 1 wedge for olivine sequestration (though the mining aspect is disturbing)
• 1 wedge of vehicle efficiency — all cars 80 mpg
• 1 wedge of reducing vehicle use to half of today’s average annual miles traveled
• 3 wedges of efficiency — one each for buildings, industry, and cogeneration/heat-recovery for a total of 15 to 20 million GW-hrs.
• 2 wedges of concentrated solar thermal – ~5000 GW peak
• 1 wedge of solar photovoltaics (PV)— 2000 GW peak [or less PV and some geothermal, tidal, and ocean thermal]
• 1/2 to 1 wedge of wind for power — half- to one million large (2 MW peak) wind turbines
You’ll notice this totals up to 16.5 wedges for the 2030-2060 period. That is because we need to try every acceptable option, and any of these could be moved ahead if there is a significant movement behind them. In fact, all of these (and others) could be shuffled endlessly, but I’ve laid them out according to my preference, as I realize this has all been an exercise through which I figured out a sane climate platform, but one that will never be accepted in this political/societal climate. I also list more wedges than needed because those institutions with most clout are touting existing nuclear technology, coal with carbon capture and storage, and/or biofuels. None of these are acceptable to me. If a sensible climate movement develops this year, we will need to show that there are lots of acceptable options. I'm not excluding all technologies, obviously, and was surprised to learn of a promising nuclear option—thorium molten salt reactors, also referred to as 4th generation nuclear (see link above), which has far fewer dangers than existing nuclear plants and the waste is only radioactive for 300 years—but we would need to fund R&D for this right away to get them online by the 2030's. The only reason I recommend this is that these reactors can use old nuclear waste as a fuel, therefore removing that nightmare from our world forever. Aside from this and the solar and wind technologies, if we have the will for it, a low-tech or no-tech approach is all the better. If a citizen-backed climate movement demands more than enough wedges of carbon reduction, it will be less difficult to dispel the need for the most dangerous and damaging technologies. So demanding a plan with 25 wedges by 2060 seems reasonable. Besides, if we did all 25, our chances of avoiding runaway warming get better than 50-50.
Here is one sample of the enormity of our challenge, from Joe Romm:
EFFICIENCY: Just one 20-year wedge of efficiency requires, by my rough calculation, every country in the world doing as much efficiency in five years as California did over the last three decades — and then repeating that again, again, and a fourth time. And that is no mean feat, since California had to change its utility regulations, adopt aggressive building codes, train lots of people in every aspect of energy efficiency, and have a very smart, very well-funded Energy Commission pushing, funding, and fine tuning this.
Personally, I’d love to see 4 wedges for forestry, 6 for conservation, 1 for population reduction and 1 for efficiency, all by 2030. No need for lots of new technology and production. Pay people to plant trees all over the world. It is a cheap fix, and as good as work can be. Relocalization would be the buzzword everywhere. But since we aren’t going to convince too many governments with that plan—and it is quite unrealistic—the longer list above is my current best shot that might be acceptable to the average citizen. It certainly won't be acceptable to the corporate heads that run industrial civilization.
So here’s the plan. Pick a wedge or two that you really want to promote. Read the associated ideas for each wedge at the links to the right and find other research. Think of more ideas and share them with this blog. Come up with a personal plan of action. Share this site with everyone you know, and share your plan with supportive friends. Encourage everyone you know to make climate change policy a part of their lives. Volunteer regularly for organizations fighting for sane climate solutions, and donate money to them if you can. A list of my recommended groups is on the right.
Remember, while local actions are good, and lifestyle changes are critical, the primary focus is to be effective in changing policy on the state and national levels. Unfortunately, we don’t have time, with this issue, to try to win over every municipality. That will come later, either because the national leaders are on board or because the global system is crumbling before our eyes. With the bold declarations on climate change coming from the Obama administration, we may never have a better opportunity than right now. And realistically, all we have is right now, as each passing day takes us closer to the point of no return.
There are already lots of organizations working to influence the House, the Senate and the US representatives to the International Climate meeting in Copenhagen in December. Since the Copenhagen meeting is intended to set the next "Kyoto Protocol," it is critical that some sensible solutions get included.
I spoke with a grassroots organizer who has been working full-time on climate change for four years now and he felt that it wasn't too bold to guess that 1% of the US population would support the kinds of "radical" solutions I propose. What if, by the end of the year, 1%, or 3 million of us, were actually working weekly to promote these sane solutions? That would make us the biggest grassroots movement in US history, but even if we were very vocal and active, would that still be enough to get a global agreement, with national laws to match, that meet our criteria? I suspect not, but we can't know that for sure until we try.
Here are a few ideas of what we can insist our governmental leaders do:
This December at the international climate meeting in Denmark:
• Create and agree to a worldwide treaty with a goal of stopping the CO2 level before it hits 400 ppm, then reducing GHG emissions to a CO2 equivalent of 350 ppm by 2080. Emphasize that this agreement cannot be diluted with “market” solutions, that cap and trade will not work. (For 20 years the “green” climate agenda has embraced two insidious beliefs that are rooted in market fundamentalism: Deficit spending is always bad for the economy, and we should “let the market decide” our energy future. The result has been repeated political failure, skyrocketing emissions, and stagnation of energy technology.)
• Adopt the low-tech platform we are proposing, with the following details being critical:
Strategies put into this treaty must include short-term and long-term approaches.
Short-term (the first 8 wedges above, for the period 2010-2030)
Effective immediately (January, 2010):
• Create an international fund that will pay the nations with tropical forests to not clear any more forest, and pay them more to reforest land that has been clear-cut. Create Global Forest Preserves that are stewarded by the indigenous tribes of the region, and belong to all of humanity. The Union of Concerned Scientists has done a study of the costs of reducing deforestation, and when compared to the recent financial bail-outs, it is a pittance.
• Ban clear-cutting of forests worldwide. China actually did this a few years ago, and primarily for economic benefits, they have a ban on deforestation still.
• Each signatory must agree to implementing programs within the next two years that encourage or reward:
- creating a carbon rationing program and/or a carbon tax
- planting native (or appropriate non-native) trees (not mono-cropped!)
- no-till farming on all existing croplands
- reducing per capita consumption of non-essential items
- population reduction
- small-scale biochar production for each locale, with the aim of replacing nitrogen fertilizers
- efficiency improvements for buildings and industry
- vehicle efficiency increases, with a goal of 60 mpg for all new cars by 2030
- capping economic growth at 0.1%
- creating policies for new building construction that emphasize use of local materials, efficiency and passive heating and cooling
- phasing-out the manufacture of wasteful and unnecessary products and technologies
- keeping one parent at home
- banning mountain-top removal coal mining and construction of new coal power plants
- creating low-tech production jobs appropriate to local communities
- improving and expanding mass transit systems
- investing in clean energy technologies
- removing all subsidies for polluters, especially GHG emitters
Long-term (wedges for 2030-2060)
Agree to assess the benefits of all immediate actions on a yearly basis, and to adjust all agreements based on the scientific consensus and public support of the international community.
- Commit to planting trees over an area twice the size of the continental U.S. by 2060
- Continue no-till farming on all existing croplands
- Create a plan to restructure each nation into bioregional societies, and greatly reduce global trade
- Remove all subsidies for international corporations and remove laws which protect corporate heads from lawsuits
- Plan for the phase-out of commercial airlines
- Come to consensus on a population stabilization target and a year by which it is to be reached
- Make vehicle efficiency such that all cars get 80 mpg by 2060
So, to reiterate and clarify some things you can do:
Decide where you want to put your energy, your heart, for the next year or two. Then jump! Volunteer and donate to the groups doing the work that most resonates with you. Send the above ideas and more to everyone you know, and all of your elected officials and local newspapers. If you have friends or contacts in Europe, get them on board with this, then get commitments from them to be part of the people’s delegation at the December climate meeting in Copenhagen. The planet doesn't need people flying to Denmark from all over the world on its behalf, it needs our friends in Europe to represent those of us in other continents.
Use at least half of your free time spreading the word about this issue, and talk to strangers about global warming.
Start a non-cyber global warming action group in your neighborhood or town. If you just can't get on board with a national or interational campaign, organize to put pressure on local governments to re-frame all local ordinances with climate change and biotic diversity as focal points (a mature forest has far more value to the planet—therefore us—than any amount of money a few corporations could make from its despoiling). Or organize to become a “Transition Town.”
Ideas for the proposed wish list of wedge options will be coming in the next few posts, so stay tuned.
Thanks for reading all this!
Brien
No comments:
Post a Comment