GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
The start of a new year is a good time to look at developments concerning global warming over the past 12 months.
While the topic has certainly stayed central in the minds of many citizens and policy-makers around the world, scientific studies have revealed up-to-date assessments of the risks posed by global warming to the ecological systems that support our resource-intensive lifestyles. The assessments are not good.
Over much of the past decade, climate scientists have estimated that global warming could be limited to a 2 degrees centigrade increase, if global warming emissions were brought under early control and reduced. Emissions have however risen in recent years at a faster rate than ever, and some scientists now say it will be impossible to prevent an estimated 4.3 degrees centigrade of warming. Bear in mind that the last time the planet was 5 degrees warmer was 35-55 million years ago, when swampy forests were the predominant vegetation and alligators lived close to the North Pole.
A climate change study released in early December, which took two years to complete, was produced by the US Climate Change Science Center. As well as predicting long-term drying of the southwestern US, it foresees global sea levels rising by 4 feet this century. This means goodbye to hundreds of cities worldwide as we now know them, from New York to London and Miami, and disastrous losses of human living space in densely populated countries such as Bangladesh.
What’s more, this recent study sounds an alarm about the risk of abrupt climate changes, which are predicted to occur when particular “tipping points” are reached. One example of a tipping point is when the Arctic ice sheet melts so much that the exposed dark mass of sea water absorbs enough solar heat that it does not freeze over again. (This is in contrast to a glaring white ice cap, which reflects the solar heat back into the atmosphere.) A tipping point marks a permanent shift to a new set of climate conditions.
Tom Armstrong, a senior advisor for global change programs at the US Geological Survey, stated that “there are really no policies in place to deal with abrupt climate change.”
CHINA OVERTAKES THE US
Several developed nations managed to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions in 2007, including Denmark (8%), the UK and Germany (3%), and France and Australia (2%). On the other hand, US emissions rose by 2%. Those in China and India, two emerging industrialized nations, also rose steeply; in China’s case by 7.5%, which is equivalent to one half of the 2007 worldwide increase. China is now the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide.
Another problem is that the planet’s oceans and forests, which were able to absorb a whopping 57% of carbon dioxide emissions between 1959 and 2000, are now absorbing only 54% of these emissions. In other words, they are getting maxed out in terms of their ability to absorb excess carbon dioxide, which is increasingly going to stay in the atmosphere instead, and speed up global warming.
Benjamin Santer, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory calls it “kind of scary” that the recent growth in worldwide carbon dioxide emissions exceeds the highest growth predicted only two years ago by the International Panel on Climate Change.
A global climate change conference Poland in December produced “the bare minimum of what we needed for the talks,” according to Jennifer Haverkamp with the Environmental Defense Fund. Several developing nations offered concrete plans to cut back their carbon dioxide emissions – including Mexico and South Africa. Brazil committed to reduce deforestation by 70% by 2017 – deforestation being responsible for about 20% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
Unresolved were basic questions of equitably balancing emissions cuts between rich and poor nations. The conference in Poland was a stepping stone towards a new international climate change treaty in December of 2009.
AL GORE’S FIVE-POINT PLAN
In a November opinion piece in the New York Times, Al Gore spelled out his five-point plan to repower America, with a commitment to providing 100% of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. This plan would also result in a large degree of independence from overseas sources of oil and gas.
Firstly, the Obama administration and Congress should offer large-scale incentives for solar, wind and geothermal energy sources. Second, we should plan and build a unified, nationwide “smart grid” for the distribution of renewable electricity from its rural sources to the cities where it’s needed. The cost would be around $400 billion over 10 years.
Third, we should convert the nation’s automobile industry to build plug-in hybrids to run on renewable electricity. This has the added benefit of the hybrid vehicles being charged overnight, during off-peak hours.
Fourth, we should get going on nationwide programs to make our buildings more energy-efficient. About 40% of carbon dioxide emissions in the US are from the energy needs of buildings for heating, cooling, and lighting.
Fifth and lastly, we should put a price on the burning of carbon fuels, to encourage greater investments in clean energy both nationally and internationally. This would include programs to slow deforestation worldwide.
CALIFORNIA CONTINUES TO LEAD THE WAY
In December, California’s Air Resources Board unanimously approved a 134-page plan to reduce our state’s global warming emissions by 15% from today’s levels by 2020. The plan would require one third of California’s electricity to come from renewable sources – far more than any other state has pledged till now.
More than 43,000 comments were received by the Air Resources Board in the 18 months of public hearings that went into the new plan. Cuts to automobile carbon emissions are slated for 31%; cuts through energy efficiency, improved appliances and green buildings will total 20%; cap-and-trade transactions to foster greener energy will save 34% over current usage.
Details of the plan include incentives for local governments to reduce urban sprawl (which requires more car trips); capturing methane at landfills; the manufacture of much more efficient vehicles; and using less energy to transport and to treat water is a key factor – currently this uses up 20% of all the energy used in the state!
It’s anybody’s guess whether California’s ambitious plans can spur the world to a greener future in time to stop severe changes to our planet’s ecosystems that will threaten agriculture and the economy. California’s energy use – although equivalent to the world’s eighth largest economy – is still only 1.5% of the global total.
The end of our full-speed ahead consumer culture
It would be nice to think that concerned policy-makers were moving as one to address worsening global climate change. In fact, the inertia of business as usual is enormous – the global corporate machinery that devours the planet’s minerals, forests and crops to design, manufacture and transport the plethora of consumer goods we believe we need. Politicians are still largely beholden to political contributions from the oil and gas and defense industries, though the reality of our situation requires a speedy shifting of government subsidies from these industries towards major green infrastructure programs.
Let’s look at it this way – at a growth rate of 3%, the global economy doubles each 23 years. Professor Rod Smith of the UK’s Royal Academy of Engineering has shown that “each successive doubling period consumes as much resources as all the previous doubling periods combined.”
In other words, a 3% growth rate between now and 2041 will consume as much natural resources of all sorts, as has been used by all humanity up until 2008. Obviously the goal of incessant growth is up against limited amounts of available natural resources, as well as the risks of global climate change. Herman Daly’s book “Steady State Economics” is a good place to look further into how economics works at the end of growth as we have known it.
IS THE RECESSION A TIMELY NUDGE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?
If the richer nations are to drastically lessen their use of energy and resources over the coming decades, in order to limit the growth of global warming, people must first learn to focus their financial resources on what they really need, rather than what advertising has persuaded them to purchase.
It is interesting that the current recession is upon us exactly when it is vital to reduce the fossil fuel energy we consume daily. Perhaps the recession can serve as a reminder of what is more important than the quantity of stuff we surround ourselves with, whose manufacture is causing the planet to overheat.
Certainly, incoming President Obama seems set to focus more determinedly on the problem of global warming than has President Bush. His choice for Secretary of Energy, Nobel-prize winning Steve Chu, is someone who takes climate change seriously.
WHAT ARE WE TO DO?
The list of ways to reduce your carbon footprint is long enough to allow plenty of leeway for approaching the problem in your own way.
First, there’s your house, which on average consumes 40% of our energy in the US. Replacing older appliances, as they wear out, with the most efficient models is straightforward. Having an energy audit of your home can reveal numerous ways to stop wasting energy. Invest in solar electric panels on your roof.
Second, your transportation energy, which is the next largest chunk of your individual energy consumption. Basically, try to drive less and carpool, or use mass transit or a bicycle more. Then there’s flying, still the fastest growing transportation choice. It’s crazy to be expanding airports at a time of runaway climate change. Help reverse this trend by flying a lot less often, and for shorter distances.
Third, there’s the energy it takes to produce the food and goods you purchase. Buying locally grown foods is a great alternative. Avoid buying summer fruits and vegetables in wintertime, which are often shipped many thousands of miles. Buying more fresh foods also avoids the energy used to process and wrap and ship all the packaged foods in the supermarket.
Step away from the addiction to stuff, whether gadgets, clothes, or whatever. And talk to your family and friends to spread the word.
FOCUS ON THE LOCAL
While global climate change can seem too enormous a problem to confront, a lot of the solutions are local in nature and lend themselves to local activism. Locally, we can support producers of fresh fruits and vegetables. We can support local initiatives to generate renewable energy, at the household and/or community level. We can work to make public transportation more plentiful and available. We can support recycling efforts, and the local reuse of the recycled materials collected locally.
OTHER RESOURCES
Scientists are taking their climate change message directly to the public at web sites such as: realclimate.org, climatepolicy.org, climateethics.org.
A informative web site encouraging energy and resource efficient building practices with a focus on Ventura County can be found at: http://www.builditsmartvc.org/vc/vc6.php
You can get involved with the Ojai Valley Green Coalition. Check out their web site for more: http://www.ojaivalleygreencoalition.org/
