Long-term Solutions to Accelerated Global Warming

At right, below "What is a Wedge?," are links to three proposed solutions to our climate emergency, the top being my low-tech and conservation-oriented plan, the next being a tech-heavy plan of a prominent scientist/politician, and the third being the inept Obama Energy Plan. If technology-dependent plans are adopted, by the time it becomes painfully obvious that they won't work, that will be too late. I feel that solutions relying heavily on technology will allow our excessively consumptive ways to carry on, and therefore are doomed to failure because we cannot continue forever on a path of endless growth on a finite planet. Most of the posts on this site explain my ideas in further detail. I think the best solution is right here: Relocalization, not Militarization.

For New Visitors to this Blog
As this is a blog that displays posts reverse-chronologically, if you are interested in starting with my first post, see the Blog Archive at right and start with Climate Change Basics. If you wish to make a comment that disagrees with the causes, or trivializes the severity, of accelerated global warming, then this is not the cyber site for you. Such comments will not be posted. To post your actions, click here.


25 February 2009

A Scary CO2 Increase

Ice cores reveal the Earth’s natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. The fastest increase seen in the ice cores was of the order of 30 ppm by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.

We've seen a 30 ppm increase in just the last 17 years. Doing the math, that is almost 59 times faster than any period in the last 800,000 years. We really are in uncharted territory.

Psycopath in the Room
If your experiences and self-education have lead you to understand that the only real hope for a healthy and vibrant planet is to reduce per capita consumption, transition to a non-carbon and low-tech society, reduce the human population, and phase-out international commerce, then you are not alone!

In working to define and propose a policy platform for a grassroots global warming campaign, I have come to conclude that—given our limited time to begin reducing CO2 emissions drastically, as much as I want to push for the kinds of changes mentioned above—our culture is far from ready to accept powerdown solutions, so they will have to be set aside, nationally and internationally, for the time being.

This means local organizing for these wise long-term solutions must continue and accelerate, but right now, to use an analogy I find quite fitting, there is a psychopath in the room with a gun, and we have to knock the gun out of his hands. The psychopath is industrial civilization and the gun, at this moment, is CO2 emissions. For if we don’t get those going in reverse within the next 6 years, all the other great ideas and work will be moot within a hundred years. Okay, I should qualify that statement. If you don’t mind living on a planet that is 1/3 desert, 8-12 degrees F hotter than now, with only about 5% of the current diversity of life still hanging on, then I suppose you could organize all you like for bioregional societies, and be quite successful, as there will be no other choice. And that is the point. Right now, there is a small window of opportunity that will never again return, to preserve most of the current life on this planet for at least a few centuries more. Future people will have to sort it out beyond that, but if we don’t act to reduce CO2 now, all other future scenarios become bitterly bleak.

12 February 2009

Should we Aim Lower?

I just found this and wanted to share:
I do not consider it useful to talk about actions that if implemented fully, will still result in the climate problem being only half-solved and therefore be ultimately useless. So to advocate restricting CO2-e to at least 450 ppm (with the hopes of better outcomes), or reducing emissions by 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, will at best only delay the inevitable crunch. We need CO2-e to be 300-325 ppm, and >100% emissions reductions (with active geo-bio-sequestration) as soon as possible. Nothing less is going to pull [us] out of the sticky mire into which we are now rapidly sinking.

Professor Barry Brook, chair of climate change, School of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Adelaide

If Mr. Brook is right—and given that nearly every year the science finds further threats, I think he is—should we change our stabilization goal from 350 to 300 ppm? And if so, it appears we need to fund olivine sequestration development immediately. But if we could get a ban on deforestation next year (Hah! wouldn't that be great!), as well as global agreement for some of our platform, would that allow for pushing the wide-scale use of this technology further into the future?

I don't know, but I am a fan of the precautionary principle, so my hunch is, "no." Even though it requires mining (though far, far less than is currently done for coal), and it has the potential to be seen as a "fix," therefore fostering the business-as-usual mindset, at some point I have to ask, "How can I not support a locally destructive technology that ultimately results in a benefit for most life on the planet?" We have to lower the CO2 concentration, and the sooner the better. I may have to rearrange the wedges a bit, and move olivine sequestration into the "immediate" camp. But with restraints. Perhaps this technology has to have a cap on it as well, one that corresponds directly to reductions in CO2 emissions. For example, the global treaty would have to ban the funding and use of this technology in any country that wasn't actively enforcing policies that would reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel to meet the country's goal within the global goal. Of course that is way too much climate sense for our current culture to embrace, as it would buck the "unlimited growth" mentality.

The real point of this post is to show that the trend for the developing science on this issue is to prove old predictions were too conservative. Everything is happening faster than expected. See this, for example.

11 February 2009

Vehicle Efficiency Wedge

Another no-brainer. Cars should have been made smaller, lighter and WAY more efficient 40 years ago. Lots of support for this wedge abounds, but for the kinds of MPGs I'm proposing, I'm not aware of any group suggesting those numbers. Let me know if you find one, thanks!

International

Insist that there be language in the treaty to be signed this December at the international climate meeting in Denmark that:

• Agrees to 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.

• Requires nations to set targets by 2011 for vehicle efficiency of 60 mpg by 2030.


In Your Country
Pressure your elected officials to adopt:

• The aforementioned vehicle efficiency laws, with the goal of 60 mpg for all new model passenger vehicles by 2030.


Lifestyle Changes that Affect this Wedge
• If you have to buy a vehicle, try to find a used hybrid or scooter or motorcycle, or other fuel-efficient option.

Efficiency Wedge

Efficiency - Buildings, Industry & Grid

This is one solution that the Obama Administration is pursuing, but as expected, not vigorously enough. There are also a number of organizations pushing for greatly increased efficiency, like 1Sky, the Post Carbon Institute, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, and others. Some of my solutions below, again, are more idealistic than realistic, but as the economy crumbles, these ideas will become less unlikely. And I just haven't made time for finding the details on improving industrial efficiency or the grid, as these are easy to get behind without knowing much at all. Reducing energy use is a no-brainer. And I'm not using my brain much to go beyond that. Anyone interested in sending some great links or simple info to fill in the blanks below, please do!

International
Insist that there be language in the treaty to be signed this December at the international climate meeting in Denmark that:

• Agrees to 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.

• Requires nations to set targets for building efficiency, industrial efficiency and electrical grid efficiency by 2011.


In Your Country
Pressure your elected officials to adopt:

• The aforementioned efficiency plan, details of ideas below:

Buildings—
Put a moratorium on new construction until the details of a new building code are worked out and the code is law. Ensure that the new building code:
A. emphasizes local, low-embodied energy materials and salvaged materials,
B. sets a national annual tax of $100 per sq. ft. for any new residence exceeding 1500 sq ft.,
C. ensures that all new homes in the US are built to the German passivhaus standard (which requires no heating system),
D. requires all new buildings not needing shading from trees have either solar PV panels and solar hot water systems on their roofs or have no electricity or water heating devices. (Does away with code requirements for electricity and running water and puts into law that trees are more valuable than electricity generation.) Timescale: comes into force by 2015.

Introduce a building section of the Green New Deal, with two primary actions:
A. Re-train builders. As a major component of a Green New Deal, delivering jobs as well as carbon cuts, the government will immediately launch training schemes for tens of thousands of specialist builders, insulators, window-fitters, plasterers and decorators. Timescale: comes into force by July 2009.
B. A home improvement scheme like Germany’s, but twice as fast. Every year between January 2012 and 2020, 10% of homes will be fully insulated and fitted with good windows or secondary glazing, at state expense. Landlords will have a legal obligation to join or lose their right to take tenants. Announce that when the scheme is complete, gas and electricity bills will be subject to an escalating tax: the more you use, the more you will have to pay for every unit.
Timescale: pass legislation this year or next, begin implementation January 2012.

[Thanks again to George Monbiot for many of these ideas.]

Industry— [more research needed]


Grid — [more research needed]



Lifestyle Changes that Affect this Wedge
• Add insulation, efficient windows and weatherstripping if you can afford it.

Biochar Wedge

Biochar, done to minimize any release of GHG gasses, requires an oven, so it is a techno-fix. And it requires tilling the soil, but only once. As I understand it, there is much need for more R&D, but the potential for this seems worthy. However, growing crops just to burn them is a market-driven scheme and will have a net deficit to our world. Biochar, if done small-scale for local use, and using only agricultural waste, could play a small role in sequestering carbon, but I doubt it would ever amount to even one wedge. If you get behind this, here is a starting point for donating.

International

Insist that there be language in the treaty to be signed this December at the international climate meeting in Denmark that:

• Agrees to 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.

• Requires nations to research and develop small-scale biochar for local use instead of carbon capture and storage technology.


In Your Country
Pressure your elected officials to adopt:

• The aforementioned biochar research and development plan. In the US Farm Bills of 2007 & 2008, Biochar research received funding. That is a start.


Lifestyle Changes that Affect this Wedge
• Talk to people about this, get them on board and vocal!

Population Wedge

Population Reduction

Now here's a hot topic. And many non-profits stay away from this, even ones pushing for fairly sane climate policies. I was told by one that pushing for human population reduction will unfairly put the burden on women and people of color. I'd say that totally depends on how it is implemented. There has to be a program that educates and empowers women, so that they have control over their lives. See Population Connection. When women are given choices, they generally choose to have fewer children.

International
Insist that there be language in the treaty to be signed this December at the international climate meeting in Denmark that:

• Agrees to 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.

• Requires nations to set targets for stabilizing, then reducing human population, and expects them to initiate a plan for this by 2012.


In Your Country
Pressure your elected officials to adopt:

• The aforementioned population priority plan, clearly showing the relationships between population, women’s rights, carrying capacity, overshoot and climate change. Set a goal for stabilization by 2015 and an annual 3% reduction in place by 2020. Insist on tax breaks for having no children, and extra taxes for any family choosing to have more than two after 2013. Heavy funding for women’s rights and sex education will be needed.


Lifestyle Changes that Affect this Wedge
• If you want children of your own, consider adopting. If you cannot afford that option, consider foster-parenting, which can lead to adoption.
• Work/donate to alleviate poverty and educate women, particularly in non-industrial nations.

Conservation Wedge

This is a huge topic. At its core, this is tackling the revered "American Way" of over-consumption and mountains of waste. While there are climatically more important aspects of conservation, like using less electricity and driving less, basically every single purchase supports the use of fossil fuels. So this list is pretty long and, again idealistic. But the idealism is grounded in the obvious: we need a healthy planet for us to be healthy, and our entire culture is based on the consumption of finite "resources."

International
Insist that there be language in the treaty to be signed this December at the international climate meeting in Denmark that:

• Agrees to 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.

• Requires nations to set up a system of carbon rationing or a Cap and Dividend program. Each nation is responsible for their historical share of carbon emissions, those that have polluted most have to cut the most. For example, the USA, with about a quarter of the historic share of global carbon emissions, would need to cap its emissions much lower than they are today, while, say Haiti, could probably increase emissions for a few decades.

In Your Country
Pressure your elected officials to adopt:

• The aforementioned carbon rationing or Cap and Dividend schemes. Timescale: a full scheme in place by July 2010.

• A Green New Deal plan that heavily favors low-tech, human-scale, and local projects, particularly urban and suburban community gardens and greenhouses, local mass transit, bicycle lanes and bicycle repair shops.

• A ban on the sale of incandescent light bulbs, patio heaters, garden floodlights and many other wasteful and unnecessary technologies. Allow no fridge or freezer with an energy rating below grade A++ and no other appliance rated below grade A be sold or manufactured. Introduce a stiff “feebate” system for all electronic goods sold in this country. The least efficient are taxed heavily while the most efficient receive tax discounts. Every year the standards in each category rise. Timescale: fully implemented by end of 2010.

• Ban the new construction of electricity generation plants that use fossil fuel, current nuclear technology or dams.

• Create a carbon tax that is revenue neutral, meaning, for example, that as the carbon tax increases, income or sales taxes decline, or maybe it replaces the income tax for all households under $90,000 AGI. See the Carbon Tax Center, and support them.

• Abandon the road-building and road-widening programs, and spend the money on public transport and a national high-speed rail system between existing Interstate highway system lanes when possible. Timescale: immediately.

• Remove all subsidies for polluters, especially GHG emitters, and instead shift this money to re-train the loggers and factory workers losing jobs (in forest conservation and riparian rehabilitation, for example). Pay people to clean up and restore the natural environment. What a great use of tax money!

• Freeze and then reduce US airport capacity. While capacity remains high there will be constant upward pressure on any plan the government introduces to limit flights. We need a freeze on all new airport construction and the introduction of a national quota for landing slots, to be reduced by 90% by 2030. Timescale: immediately.

• Legislate for the closure of all out-of-town superstores, and their replacement with a warehouse and delivery system. Shops use a staggering amount of energy (six times as much electricity per square meter as factories, for example), and major reductions are hard to achieve. Warehouses containing the same quantity of goods use roughly 5% of the energy. Out-of-town shops are also hard-wired to the car—delivery vehicles use 70% less fuel. Timescale: fully implemented by 2020.

• Create a national vehicle excise tax for the most polluting cars, with a range of $500 to $5000 a year. Use the money this raises to:
  • a. Start closing key urban streets to private cars and dedicating them to public transport and cycling.
  • b. Increase the public subsidy for bus and train journeys. Oblige the bus companies to sign contracts providing a wider range of services. Give us integrated low-carbon transport, in which buses are scheduled to meet trains, trains and buses carry bicycles and safe cycle lanes connect with each other across entire cities.
  • c. Train thousands of new bus drivers and public transport operators. Create bus lanes on all the highways and start moving bus stations from the city centers to the highway junctions, to enable bus travel to become as fast and efficient as car travel. Link them to city centers and the aforementioned rail system with dedicated bus lanes.
Timescale: Pass laws this year, begin work in 2010; completed by 2020.

• Create tax breaks for not owning a car. Timescale: pass law this year, effective 2011.
[Many of these ideas are adapted from George Monbiot.]


Easy Lifestyle Changes that Affect this Wedge
• Start the new culture of responsible living by doing everything you can to minimize your destructive impact on the planet, but don’t let this personal transformation get in the way or detract from the more immediately important work of pressuring all levels of government to address global warming as if it was World War III. I have gotten into the habit of asking myself if each purchase or trip is really necessary, and I’ve gotten good at discerning which justifications ring true and which don’t. It isn’t that hard. If you really care about birds, never buy a cell phone again. If you really don’t want to support war and the systemic rape of women and children, never buy another cell phone, DVD player, computer, digital camera, video game, or new vehicle. Ditto for diamonds, and any chocolate or coffee or tea that isn’t fair trade certified.

In other words, educate yourself about the atrocities hidden in every product you buy and your desire to buy will greatly diminish.

• Shop at thrift store/second-hand stores.

• Eat locally as much as possible: support farmers’ markets, grow a garden or join/start a community garden, join a CSA (community supported agriculture) farm

• Use public transit and bike as much as possible

• Don’t take any trips by personal auto, plane or motor vessel that aren’t necessary (you’ll have to have ask your own morality about what “necessary” means)

• Set your thermostat down to 60 or lower in the winter (wear sweaters) and up to 80 or higher in the summer

• There are so many ways to conserve, maybe I should send you to websites all about this: Riot4Austerity, US EPA, The Nature Conservancy, WA State DOE, Sharon Astyk.

Soils Wedge

No-Till Farming

Tilling the soil accounts for 6% of anthropogenic GHG emissions. Reducing the amount of turned soil will be a good thing, for this and many other reasons. So far my search hasn't been thorough (let me know if you find a better link!), but these two groups are working toward this approach: The Climate and Energy Project, a project of The Land Institute, and the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, which belongs to Duke University.

International
Insist that there be language in the treaty to be signed this December at the international climate meeting in Denmark that:

• Agrees to 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.

• Requires nations to set up a system of removing subsidies for all conventional tillage and passing those on to no-tilling farming practices, nationwide.


In Your Country
Pressure your elected officials to adopt:

• The aforementioned scheme for transferring subsidies to only no-till practices

• A Green New Deal plan that heavily favors low-tech, human-scale, and local projects, particularly urban and suburban community gardens and greenhouses.


Easy Lifestyle Changes that Affect this Wedge
• Eat locally as much as possible: support farmers’ markets, grow a garden or join/start a community garden, join a CSA (community supported agriculture) farm

The Forest Wedges

Deforestation and Reforestation Platform

Deforestation accounts for about 20% of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions. A plan to quickly phase-out the destruction of mature forests is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest ways to make a significant reduction in CO2 emissions, with the added benefit that for every mature tree saved, that is about 20 seedlings that won't have to be planted. While I have read that reforestation and curbing deforestation are often discussed at international climate meetings, I have yet to find any organizations specifically calling for the creation of Global Forest Preserves. The closest I've seen is the REDD program from the UCS (see link below). I also have been unsuccessful in finding anyone lobbying for tree planting as part of a "green" economic stimulus, but what could be greener than planting millions and millions of trees?

While many of the solutions below are more
idealistic than realistic, if you find any groups rallying around any of these strategies, please let me know. What is politically impossible now may not be in the coming years. The Boreal Songbird Initiative, while not specifically oriented toward climate change, does have protection of the Boreal as the primary goal. Other groups working to save mature forests are FERN and the World Rainforest Movement. SinksWatch does the important work of publicizing abuse of tree planting carbon sink schemes, as many have been monocrop plantations that are social and environmental disasters. And the Turkish group TEMA has a "Plant 10 Billion Acorns" project!


International
Insist that there be language in the treaty to be signed this December at the international climate meeting in Denmark that:

• Agrees to 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.

• Sets up an international fund that creates a system of Global Forest Preserves that are stewarded by the indigenous tribes of the region, and belong to all of humanity, that will pay the nations with tropical forests to not clear any more forest, and pays them more to reforest land that has been clear-cut. 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; effective immediately (January, 2010).

• Bans 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.

• Agrees to implementing programs within the next two years that encourage or reward planting of native (or appropriate non-native) trees on a massive scale. [Green New Deal, unemployed get trained as land stewards and paid to grow out and plant trees]

In Your Country
Pressure your elected officials to adopt:

• the international policies above.

• A Green New Deal plan that heavily favors low-tech, human-scale, and local projects, particularly restoration of endangered habitat and riparian and wildlife corridors.

This Green New Deal program should train persons according to interests when possible, but the options will be determined by the locale. Examples include: greenhouse construction, greenhouse production/propagation, silviculture, bioregional ecology, land restoration, picking up litter, bicycle restoration and repair, installation of storm windows and other energy efficient products, bus driving, high-speed rail construction, solar cookers, solar air and space heating, small-scale biointensive agriculture, permaculture, etc.

• A moratorium on logging, until a national land stewardship code is in place, and ensure that this code follows as closely as possible the traditional techniques of North America's first people, who managed North American forests sustainably for 10,000 years. It should be illegal to cut healthy mature trees or to use poisons for weed control.

• Local ordinances that address climate change and biodiversity loss. For example: local building code that encourages the use of local materials, puts a limit on house size (or at least taxes that increase exponentially if new construction exceeds 1200 square feet for houses), increase development taxes for all new construction, puts a moratorium on the sale of old-growth lumber (unless it is salvaged), etc. Repeating an earlier idea: Start a non-cyber global warming action group in your neighborhood or town. Organize to put pressure on local governments to reframe 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).

Easy (or maybe not-so-easy?) Lifestyle Changes that Affect this Wedge
• Stop all subscriptions to magazines and newspapers that don’t directly inspire you to protect the planet
• Stop buying paper towels and napkins and tissues; use cloth instead
• Re-use all one-sided paper
• If you have to buy paper products, find ones made from 100% post-consumer recycled content, this includes toilet paper
• Don’t use paper plates or buy drinks or take-out food in boxes; take your own mug/bottle and reusable food containers
• Use salvage lumber instead of buying new; if you must buy new, try to find FSC lumber
• Don’t buy any books or other paper-intensive products that don’t have any truly meaningful value to you
• Don’t buy wrapping paper for gifts; if you must wrap, use salvage paper or reusable cloth
• Take your own cloth bags when shopping
• Eat less beef and less soy, unless you already get those from local sources
• Don’t buy new furniture or flooring or other wood-intensive products that aren’t necessary; second-hand stores and salvage yards may have what you need
• If you buy biofuels, buy only from sources that make them from waste vegetable oil
• Urge not only governments, but also wealthy individuals to fund the reforestation of vast areas. UNEP has a “Plant a Billion Trees” program. Join it and/or fund it.
• Support and fund as many groups as you can that have preservation of forests and vast areas of wilderness as their primary function. See the five above and also consider The Foundation for Deep Ecology.

05 February 2009

Proposed Solutions - Overview

2ºC warming takes us into uncharted territory for any time during the existence of Homo sapiens on this planet.

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
I know this list is highly unlikely to get accepted, heck, I can't even find existing organizations working toward half these solutions, but if we had a few million privileged first-worlders demanding this, some of the language might get in there. Why not ask for the world we want, instead of starting with major compromises? The red suggestions above are the ones I suspect would receive the most objections by the status quo. But it is far past time to change the ways and mindset of our society. We have to accelerate the transformation, and we have to start now. We will never know how things might have turned-out if we don't try.

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

01 February 2009

Climate Change Basics

Dear friends, family and communities of friends and family,

For those of you who were steered here by a personal letter from me, some of this post will be a repeat. Sorry about that!

About two and half years ago, I wrote a letter, intending to send it to everyone with whom I felt a genuine connection. That letter was about the oil, economic and environmental crises coming our way, and it was meant to inspire conversation about what we could do. I never sent it, primarily out of fear of bringing overwhelmingly sad news to people I cared about. Fear of being someone that no one would want to talk to. Fear of dragging people down without offering any options that they might find palatable.

Since then I’ve read quite a bit more about all these emergencies facing us, most recently a book called Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet. This is the book that has pushed me over the edge of those fears into the realm of taking the risk of alienating myself from nearly everyone I know. If you choose to read on, be forewarned that our future prospects are far bleaker than the mainstream media have ever reported. The book is devastating for many reasons, mostly because its data is based on real world physics and history, and because we have so little time to change things. Radically change things.

I expect most readers of this blog will have knowledge about accelerated global warming (AGW, aka climate change) similar to what mine was before reading Six Degrees. I’ve spent over 60 hours reading multiple articles on the web and in print since finishing the book, trying to further my grasp of the situation. So I thought it’d be a good idea to sum up AGW basics.

Climate Change Basics

• General trends over the last 500 million years: the sun has been getting hotter, Earth has been getting cooler. Hence, those who credit the sun with global warming aren’t looking at all the data. Also, over that time period, atmospheric CO2 levels have been generally declining, and many major extinctions have come with sudden rises in CO2 levels. Actual parts per million (ppm ) of atmospheric CO2 isn’t critical here—it is not about levels of CO2—it is about the speed with which the change takes place. Most life cannot adapt to rapid temperature/climate change.

• Greenhouse gases—especially carbon dioxide (CO2), because humans are generating so much of it—have a vastly greater impact on global temperatures than does the increasing heat from the sun. So CO2 rise = temperature rise. And vice-versa, actually, which makes our predicament even worse.

•”Rapid temperature change,” geologically speaking, is in the range of 1° C per thousand years, when the change is sustained for a century or more. [While a 1° change may have happened within rare 25- to 30-year periods, these changes always were offset by rapid temperature swings in the opposite direction in the following decades, making the trend a stable temperature. A more realistic measure of these rapid mini-swings is that they are about 0.4°, not the full 1° (the historical data isn’t that accurate).] There was a rise in global mean temperature (GMT) of about 0.6°C during the last century, and the trend is definitely a sustained increase with no significant fluctuation since the early 1800’s.

• Atmospheric CO2 levels had been on a general decline for more than 100 million years until about 18 thousand years ago. They then rose gently for about 8 thousand years, and have been fairly stable since, with a rise of just 20 ppm during the 10 thousand years prior to the industrial revolution.

• CO2 levels have risen 80 ppm in the last 75 years. (Almost directly proportional to economic growth, interestingly enough.) This is 533 times faster than the rate of the preceding 10,000 years.

• The current atmospheric CO2 level, 385 ppm, is higher than it has been since the Pliocene era, three million years ago.

• The Earth was 3°C hotter then, and the seas were 25 m (82 ft.) higher.

• Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising about 2 to 2.4 ppm per year.

• At this rate, we will hit 400 ppm in 2015.

• General agreement of climatologists is that CO2 levels above 400 ppm will generate a global mean temperature 2°C higher than pre-industrial levels [We are currently 0.7°C above that temperature] and carbon feedback cycles will begin.

• It appears that the first carbon feedback cycle has already begun. It is one that none of the models incorporated, and it is ominous: the tundra has begun to melt. It contains more carbon than is currently in the atmosphere as CO2. It also has a vast amount of methane, which has 20 times the heat trapping power of carbon dioxide. All it will take is a 0.1%/year release of its carbon to end life as we know it.

• The science says we have a 50-50 chance of avoiding catastrophe if we stop the atmospheric CO2 at 400 ppm and then rapidly decrease it for a century or more.

• As sophisticated as the science is, climatic events are happening years and years in advance of the projections, for example the melting of the tundra and the Arctic ice.

• So my conclusion is that, if the science says we have a 50-50 chance of avoiding catastrophe, then our chances are probably not that good. There seems no honest way to frame this gently.

So it is challenging to know where to begin this discussion. But Six Degrees offers a framework that is easy to follow: let’s look at what each degree (C) rise in global mean temperature does to selected regions of the world. The book walks the reader through 1 to 6 degrees increases, pointing out the feedback cycles that will occur as certain tipping points are passed along the way. Rather than give a full review of the book, I highly recommend getting it and reading it. If any of you who know me reading this are financially strapped and desire to read the book, let me know, I’ll send it to you.

But for the sake of putting this information out to my human community, and for hoping to inspire discussion of our options, I will proceed with the some of the most powerful points from Six Degrees and other sources I’ve read.

First of all, it is important to acknowledge that the world we live in is one already suffering from tremendous anthropogenic (human-caused) pressures. Extinction rates currently are about 1000 times higher than the historical norm for such a benign climatic period. The fact that a mainstream estimate for species extinction is 72 per day ought to be in the headlines of every paper on the planet on a daily basis, yet is almost completely ignored, shows both how dire the situation is and how those in power want to keep us ignorant of it.

To repeat what I summed up above: even fairly conservative scientific assumptions lead to the conclusion that we have only six years to freeze global emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2). As of today, our atmosphere has a concentration of 385 ppm of CO2. The climate models all generally agree that if we exceed 400 ppm, our global mean temperature will rise beyond 2°C, which will lead to escalating dangers of runaway global warming. We’ve got six years before it is too late. What does that mean? It means we can’t ignore this overwhelming information this time. Back in the ‘70’s, more than a handful of scientists started saying we had about 30 years to find more efficient and less destructive ways of existing. Well, the time is here, and in all those years, the gains in efficiency have only accelerated industrial civilization’s rate of destruction. So this time, instead of allowing business as usual, we, the people, have to be willing to make big changes, and to demand our governments do as well. We have to do this with all the spare time we have. We have to create a massive movement that cannot be ignored by the corporations and their governmental puppets. Honestly, I don’t have that much faith in civilized people, I don’t expect most of them to change, but my morality won’t allow that to stop me.

Here’s why.

While the effects of a 2°C warmer world will be horrific for many life forms (over a third of all species would be committed to extinction), and would include the slow but irreversible complete melting of Greenland’s ice—which means fast-rising sea levels and massive displacement of humans—it is still a world to which perhaps 60% of existing species could adapt, though no living species has ever had to adapt to such rapid changes in climate. And a 2°C warmer world is still a world where agriculture is possible, albeit at latitudes a good deal further from the equator than what we now experience. But the reality is, overall crop yields worldwide will decline, as they are already doing in Australia and other regions. So one huge fact we humans will have to accept is that economic and population growth will have to be reversed. To clarify the paradigm from which this culture will have to depart, here is a quote from Kirkpatrick Sale:

“Why is it that we seem willing to live with the threat of apocalypse rather than trying to seriously alter a world where consumption, of anything, is seen as unrelieved [i.e. unending] virtue, production, of anything, is regarded as a social and economic necessity, and more, of anything (like children or cars or chemicals or PhDs or golf courses or recycling centres), is unquestioningly accepted?”

We really don’t need more of anything except wild land and intact biotic communities, especially forests. If we give the Earth that, she will take care of the CO2 issue. This isn’t just Earth-based spirituality, it is proven science as well.

What happens if we go over 400 ppm?

The last time atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were in the range they are today was during the Pliocene era, three million years ago. The world was almost 3°C warmer than today, the Arctic and Antarctic supported trees and shrubs, and sea levels were 25 meters (82 ft.) higher. This calls for a long excerpt from Six Degrees:
If CO2 concentrations (of 360+ ppm) gave three degrees of global warming, surely they’ll do the same now? Perhaps—but over a longer time period than a mere century. It takes thousands of years for warmer temperatures to penetrate into the darkest depths of the oceans, for example; and for as long as the seas keep on warming, the atmosphere cannot reach equilibrium, because heat is still transferring downward. This is an example of the planet’s “thermal inertia”: Temperatures will always lag behind changes in “forcing” from solar radiation or greenhouse gases, because of the long response time of the Earth system. In the same way, it takes several minutes for water to boil in a saucepan once the stove has been turned on.
Global warming this century is a result of accumulated greenhouse gases emitted since the dawn of the industrial revolution…Even if we stopped increasing atmospheric CO2 tomorrow, it would take many centuries for the Earth to once again reach thermal equilibrium in a new, hotter state. Expecting today’s Pliocene CO2 levels to equate to Pliocene temperatures straight away would be like expecting a kettle to boil instantly.
On the positive side, this suggests that if we switch the CO2 “kettle” off quickly, we can probably avoid hitting three degrees for another century at least. On the other hand, if emissions go on rising as they currently are, global temperatures could shoot past three degrees as early as 2050. The choice is ours and the clock is ticking.

So the author, Mark Lynas, shows that temperatures lag CO2 by centuries, which is why so many people don’t see the urgency of our situation. But if you’ll look at the line I bolded above, he also suggests we are in unvisited waters. Changes are happening so rapidly and trends are such that we might see more than a 2° rise from today’s GMT by 2050.

Lynas suggests (and many others do as well) that the nations of the world agree to not allowing the CO2 level to exceed 400 ppm, thus allowing much of the current economic activity to continue, but requiring a long steady decline in emissions. While this is far from ideal, it is an avenue that allows for a paradigm transformation to take place. It will mean business can go on, but not as it has up until now. It means there will be a global acknowledgment of the dire situation we are in, and that ought to translate to the next generation growing up with a better understanding of the place of humans in the scheme of life: part, not above. Perhaps this new culture would make plans for serious decreases in economic activity and compassionate means of reducing the human population, like great personal incentives not to have children, for example.

So this appears to be the only option most of the current world could agree on: stop emissions increases about the time they hit 400 ppm, which at today’s rate is 2015. That is why we have six years before we blow the so-called 50-50 chance. But remember, the lower we keep the atmospheric CO2 level, and the faster we decrease it, the better our chances get, so why not shoot for capping emissions within 3 years?

And here is why going above 400 ppm is morally reprehensible (for the record, even if CO2 emissions could be magically eradicated, but business went on as usual, I would still find that morally reprehensible, but first things first):

• The “carbon cycle feedback,” a vicious circle by which warming releases more greenhouse gas, causing more warming, and on and on, would likely begin with the near-total collapse of the Amazon rain forest, leaving humans powerless to stop what they had started. The Amazon River contains 20% of all the water discharged into the world’s oceans, and the energy released by this huge amount of precipitation plays a major role in the weather patterns around the world, and therefore is a critical component of contemporary climate. As the Andean glaciers melt and the Amazon forest withers, the water will stop. This is simplifying it of course, but the importance of this cannot be overstated.

• A three degree rise (which, again, could happen as early as 2050 if we don’t stop it) effectively reverses the carbon cycle. Instead of absorbing CO2, vegetation and soils start releasing it in massive quantities, as soil bacteria work faster in a hotter environment and plant growth goes in reverse. (FYI: photosynthesis starts to decline at 95°F and stops entirely at 104°.) Just this source alone would cause a further increase of 250 ppm in 50 years, resulting in a planet inhospitable to nearly all life. If we get to three degrees, we will get to six or seven, and life as we know will be destroyed at that point.

• Climate models suggest a drier climate for SE Asia, home to significant tropical forests. Drier climate translates to more wild fires. Peat, sometimes hundreds of feet thick, lies beneath most of this forest, and is carbon rich. Two billion extra tons of carbon went into the atmosphere during the devastating fire season of 1997-98 from Indonesia alone. [Current anthropogenic carbon emissions are 8.1 billion tons/yr.] Fires like this would be nearly impossible to mitigate.

• With more energetic and hotter oceans, hurricanes will reach a fierceness requiring a new category, meaning we have never seen the kinds of storms that will terrorize the next several generations.

So I could go on with how it gets worse once we exceed 450 ppm, etc., but I, again recommend getting the book and reading other sources, many of which are listed on this web page. Rather than delve into that, I hope I’ve shown you enough to inspire you to make climate change a priority in your life.

The next post will lay-out some of the details of the options that seem best for us.

With sincere concern and hope for joyous action,
Brien