Twenty things every American should know about climate change

I'm not a climate scientist. Over the past four moths, I've spent a lot of time researching climate change and talking with the experts. I'd like to share with you the most important things that I learned:

Global warming is the biggest threat that our civilization has ever faced
The change in the world’s climate, which is constantly becoming clearer, “is the biggest problem that our civilization has ever been confronted with,” said Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government. The more I learn about climate change, the more I find myself in agreement with this statement. It is only through the recognition of the critical importance of this issue that we will be able to prioritize our resources intelligently and appropriately to deal with this enormous challenge. We have only one planet. Preserving it for future generations must be our top priority.

We have the technology we need to start to solve the problem. What we lack is the political will.
We have the technology today to get started on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80%. We know how to generate power from renewable sources at low cost with nearly zero emissions. We also know how to make cars that run on this cleanly generated power (such as plug-in hybrids and full power battery electric vehicles). Yet this technology is either sitting on the sidelines or deployed in very low volume. There are four primary reasons for that. First, energy prices are unfairly distorted because of huge government subsidies of the fossil fuel industry and because we do not ascribe a true market cost to emitting greenhouse gases. Secondly, the fossil fuel industry spends a lot of money to ensure that our government protects their interests at the expense of the public interest. Thirdly, many of the technologies we have available to us need government assistance in order to overcome scale issues, cost issues, technical hurdles, and market barriers before they can be widely deployed and while others, such as carbon capture and sequestration, need more government funded pilot projects to prove viability. Fourthly, unlike typical disasters, climate change is deceptive because the damage is done many decades before we see the results and the impacts happen very slowly, not abruptly. So there is never a single "disaster" that can initiate political change. Even with all the public awareness about global warming today, Congress still refuses to redirect the incentives away from industries that make the problem worse and toward industries that make the problem better. We need to change that. Al Gore is right when he says "we have to urgently expand the limits of what is politically possible." Clean money election reforms such as Senator Durbin's Fair Elections Now Act (S.1285) are extremely helpful in accomplishing that.

Electing the right President is critical
During the Live Earth concert, Robert Kennedy, Jr. said the most important thing we can do to combat climate change is to get involved in the political process. He's exactly right. By far, the most important office for us to choose is our next President. We cannot just elect any Democrat. Our next President must be a bold leader who both understands and can articulate the importance of climate change and who is not afraid to mobilize our country to solve it. We need a President that will set a bold greenhouse gas reduction goal for our country and who will ask us to rise the challenge to solving the greatest crisis mankind has ever faced. We need a President who will engage our nation's best thinkers to create a bold plan to meet the challenge and then mobilize the Congress to support that plan. Our next President must have the courage to ask people to make environmentally friendly choices. We must also educate the public on the importance of electing members of Congress who both understand the problem and who are committed to help solve it.

We must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 90% ASAP and get other countries to do the same
The best way to minimize the impacts of climate change is to make the reductions as soon as we can. It's also cheaper to act sooner. The Stern Review pointed out that it is twenty times less expensive to avoid the impacts of climate change than to pay the price of dealing with it. So what are we waiting for? The sooner we make the cuts here, the sooner we can encourage other developed nations to follow our lead. In general, the deeper we cut now, the less it will cost us later. If we could cut our emissions to zero tomorrow, that would provide the greatest benefit. But that is not practical. However, a 90% reduction in less than 30 years is possible to achieve. We cannot continue to take the position "if other countries don't cut, we won't either." We must be a world leader and set an example for others to follow. If they do not, we must work very hard to ensure that they do. Failure is not an option.

We have less than 10 years to achieve dramatic reductions
You hear a lot of talk about achieving 80% reductions by 2050. But the reality is that we must act much sooner than that. There is a ecological "tipping point" that scientists believe will occur before 2017. When that tipping point is exceeded, our climate system transitions from a negative feedback system into a positive feedback system. Today, our natural systems act to dampen the amount of CO2 we release by absorbing a good fraction of it. But as the earth becomes hotter, these systems break down and will start contributing to making things worse instead of better. If we do not make dramatic progress within the next 10 years, then climate change becomes a runaway train, beyond our ability to control it. This will not be easy. Today, worldwide emissions are increasing at a faster rate than at any point in history. We don't have a lot of time. The deeper and faster we cut our emissions over the next 10 years, the better.

Incremental improvements won't get us there
Baby steps won't get us there in time. Incremental efficiency gains won't get us there in time. Instead of thinking of how we can improve fuel efficiency by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years, we should instead be asking ourselves how can we can improve by over 100 miles per gallon in less than 5 years. We can do this with plug-in hybrids. It will not be easy. But we have the technology to do this. In 1941, we completely re-tooled our automotive plants in less than 12 months. We could do it then. We can do it now.

We must transition all our power and transportation systems to zero emissions starting today
In order to achieve an overall 90% reduction goal, we must transition all our energy sources to sources that are at least 90% cleaner on average than the sources we use today. That is a huge and revolutionary undertaking, but there is no other option. For all practical purposes, it means any time we build a new power plant or replace an existing one, we must choose an alternative that is as close to zero emissions as we can get. It also means every single coal and natural gas plant must either be retrofitted with carbon capture and storage, or they must be shut down. It means that every new power plant that we build must be either zero emissions or nearly zero emissions. That means no new coal or natural gas plants can be built until carbon capture and sequestration is proven to be safe and secure. We can do this today using wind, concentrated solar (such as Ausra), geothermal, hydro, and other technologies. We need to extend our electrical grid to our nation's "renewable hotspot" locations where power can be generated or stored inexpensively and then build the transmissions lines we need to link those resources to major regional power grids. We need to upgrade our grid to be a smart grid that can accept power from intermittent renewable sources. We need to transition all our cars to technologies that have well-to-wheels zero or near zero greenhouse gas emissions. The most efficient way to accomplish that using technology available today is to fuel our transportation from the power grid with full-power battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids with a 40 mile all electric range. If you start with green power, battery electric vehicles are almost four time more efficient than the most efficient fuel cells that are run on green hydrogen. However, according to a study at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, with today's electrolyzers and power costs of 5.5 cents per kWh, green hydrogen can be produced for $3 per kg which makes green hydrogen as a fuel source competitive with gasoline. Finally, all our cars should be made out of advanced materials that are lighter, cheaper, and stronger than today's materials. With the right government incentives, all of these technologies can become realities. We can move from a fuel efficiency of 25 miles per gallon to over 125 miles per gallon by adopting technologies in use today. Today, consumers who want to make a green choice cannot because grid-powered cars aren't commercially available. We need to change that.

We need to incorporate the true economic cost of greenhouse gas emissions into our energy prices
Today, there are significant market distortions that favor existing fossil fuel technologies and make it more difficult for new clean-energy technologies to compete. This means that energy prices do not reflect their true economic cost to society. There are two ways to fix that. First, we must attach an economic cost to greenhouse gas emissions such as by using with a cap-and-auction system (with a cap that goes down each year). Secondly, we must divert our government subsidies from things which make the problem worse to things that make the problem better. Energy prices will then reflect their true economic cost and our free market system can operate much more efficiently.

Efficiency and conservation are the low hanging fruit
Conservation and efficiency are the easiest ways to achieve reductions because they are typically negative cost items, i.e., they save us money. Education and incentives will help to accelerate movement in this area. Simple things such as compact fluorescent light bulbs, better building insulation, and driving at the speed limit are have a very high economic payback.

We must incentivize things that make the problem better and stop incentivizing things that make the problem worse
We cannot just rely on fixing the economics so that we factor in the cost of greenhouse gas emissions and then let the market work. That will take too long. In order to move swiftly, incentives are absolutely required. Right now, things are incentivized backwards. According to Plan B 2.0, the world's fossil fuel industry is being subsidized by taxpayers at more than $210 billion per year. Imagine what would happen if that money were directed toward helping clean energy technologies that are in the public interest instead of helping industries that make the problem worse! It would cost us nothing. We wouldn't have to change the amount of spending at all. We'd only change where we spent it. Secondly, we must carefully prioritize our incentives so that the technologies with the greatest emission reductions get the most incentives. Today, it's the reverse. Buying a Hummer gets you a bigger tax break than buying a Prius. We need to change that. We must also make sure that efficiency and conservation incentives are aligned between producers and consumers. For example, power companies should share the savings when customers use less energy and cogeneration should be encouraged.

We should avoid installing long-term infrastructure—such as inefficient buildings and conventional coal-fired power plants—that will lock in untenable emission trajectories, especially since there are cost-effective clean alternatives available. Incentives should be used only for technologies that can help us achieve our 90% reduction goal.

Government should have a few rules, a few strategic investments, and lots of incentives
The role of government should be to set one very clear greenhouse gas reduction goal and then establish only those regulations that are absolutely required to ensure that the goal is met. The fewer the rules, the better. For example, establishing a cap-and-auction system ensures that the emissions are within the goals. The regulations and incentives should be carefully thought through, and, whenever possible, proven to be effective before they are rolled out on a national scale. We should also learn from and avoid the mistakes of other countries (such as the cap-and-allocate system used by the EU). If we must roll out unproven regulations or incentives, they should pass a scientific peer review process. Also, there are a few strategic investments or bets that the government needs to make. For example, we have enough wind power in just a few states to power the entire country. But without a national electric grid, that power cannot be sold or delivered. Just like the government invested in a national highway system, it should make a strategic investment in a national energy system. The incentives also need to be long-term and stable. For example, no one will invest billions to build wind farms if the government can change the rules the next day. A very important advantage of using incentives to change behavior is that it's hard to argue that incentives will cost jobs, damage the economy, or limit consumer choice since incentives are never mandatory. Incentives also are a great way to test veracity. If our government offers $100 billion dollars to the first car company to mass produce cars before 2015 that achieve more than 125 miles per gallon, who would oppose that? If it is so impossible to do, then why would anyone oppose it?

Reducing global population makes it much easier to achieve our goal
There is a clear connection between population growth and virtually every challenge facing our planet. It's time we stopped avoiding talking about this issue and started making it part of the national dialog. In 2002, a team of scientists led by Mathis Wackernagel concluded that human demands surpassed our planet's ability to regenerate back in 1980. Today, the US makes up 5% of the world's population, but consumes a third of it's resources. Imagine what would happen if everyone had the same standard of living that we do! Over the last 50 years, we've doubled our population. Fortunately, the rate of population growth has declined recently, but it is still increasing. Did you know that half of the pregnancies in the US today are unwanted? We don't need to restrict anyone's desire to have children. All we need to do is to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies. Both liberal and conservatives states are doing this now and we need to help the rest of the world do the same. By every major metric we can measure, our civilization is in the state of decline with respect to our natural resources. The lower our population the easier it will be to reverse these trends including global warming. Without lowering our population, it will be impossible. You never hear anyone talk about it, but eliminating unwanted pregnancies world wide is one of the most cost effective ways we can reduce global warming.

The easiest way to get other countries to reduce their emissions is to rapidly reduce the costs of the new technology
A lot of people think we are doomed. They think even if we can do it in the US, we'll never get India and China to agree to the same goals. And even if we did, they can easily fail to meet their promised commitment. That very well may be true. If we allow ourselves to think that way, we'll ensure it is true because if we don't try, we are almost sure to fail. There is a much more promising scenario however. If we can implement these technologies in the US and increase the scale and drive down the costs, then those countries will have an economic incentive to adopt clean energy technologies. That is a powerful motivator. Combined with sufficient political and economic sanctions from countries that have reduced their emissions, it should provide sufficient motivation for countries to participate.

We must invest continue to invest heavily in clean energy R&D
Although we have the technologies we need to start fighting global warming today, government R&D funding is needed to achieve lower costs and to encourage the invention, development, and rapid commercialization of the next generation of clean-energy technologies that will allow us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 90%. We should put the most money into the technologies that will have the greatest payoff over the next 20 years. Can you imagine where we would be if we had taken the $400 billion we invested in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and instead invested it in "Operation American Energy Independence"? We need to spend billions on a wide variety of technologies: battery, fuel cell, hydrogen, cellulosic ethanol, wind, concentrated solar, geothermal, carbon capture and storage, large scale energy storage (such as advanced adiabatic compressed air energy storage) for intermittent renewables, photovoltaic solar, and the list goes on. Did you know that we have 100 times more geothermal energy than coal? It's our nation's cleanest and largest energy source. An MIT study recommended that the US invest $1 billion over 15 years to investigate new geothermal technology. We still haven't done it. We need a President that demands that these types of investments in our future be made.

Most of us can reduce our carbon footprint by 10% or more overnight by making a few easy changes
Government policy changes are necessary for us to achieve the huge reductions that are required. Consumer education is one of the most efficient ways to achieve reductions very quickly. Many of us can make a few minor changes and achieve a 10% or more reduction literally overnight. For example, to save 10% on your electricity usage you can change your lightbulbs to compact fluorescents, use cold water instead of hot in the laundry; hand wash your dishes instead of using a dishwasher; raise the thermostat on your air conditioner (or lower your heater in winter) to save energy, and so on. You can save up to 15% in fuel consumption by following the simple tips at Flex Your Power at the Pump. In general, educating the public on ways to save energy is a low cost way to achieve significant reductions very quickly.

We need a great integrated, long-term plan
In order to accomplish our goals, we need all the pieces to work together. Plug-in hybrids are zero emissions only if all our power is clean (but even with the current dirty electricity, hybrids are still cleaner than petroleum). Wind energy is useless if there are no power lines to transmit the energy. The pieces are all interrelated, the issues are complex, and there are credible experts that disagree. For example, is hydrogen a viable transportation fuel? There are widely varying opinions among the experts. Government should pick a path and make a few strategic bets on the best way to achieve our goal without closing the door to any alternatives that emerge. For example, Brazil made a strategic bet on ethanol that has served them well; they did not just incentivize everything and let the market sort things out. The energy problem is so complex that it requires a room full of experts to understand all the pieces and how they might fit together. We need to tap the best minds in our country, put them in a room, tell them we need to reduce our carbon footprint by 90% as soon as we can, and ask them what are the best options available for government to facilitate this goal. That plan must have long term time horizons and we must guarantee policy stability (including a sufficiently high carbon price and investment credits) over decades-long time periods. The final plan of investment, regulations, and incentives chosen by our President should pass scientific peer review as being both necessary and sufficient to achieve the goal.

We need to make our progress more visible
Ever try to lose weight? A scale gives us positive feedback when we stick to our diet, and negative feedback when we don't. Similarly, we should track and publicize our CO2 emissions on a weekly basis. For now, if you want to see what things look like around the globe, check out BreathingEarth. In the near future, we'll be able to track our own individual energy use and greenhouse gas emissions using devices such as the $50 ecoMeter, a passive device which has reduced power usage by up to 30%.

Nuclear power should only be used as a last resort
There are many other arguments against nuclear power in this Greenpeace report. If used, ideally they should be constructed in a way that can survive (without dangerous emissions) an earthquake (such as the earthquake in Japan recently) or terrorist attack. We have clean renewable technologies that we should deploy instead that don't have the risks of nuclear plants. Also, any technology we develop, we need to be able to export to other nations to follow. So while nuclear looks like it may not be viable, global warming is the more immediate problem. It is interesting to note that Germany is actively trying to get off of its huge investment in nuclear power (see Germany says auf Wiedersehen to nuclear power). In 2005, 30% of their power was from nuclear. Germany hopes to close all nuclear plants by 2020. So if for some reason we cannot reach our greenhouse gas reduction goals without nuclear, then we need to decide whether it should be part of the mix.

Global warming is more important than jobs or the economy or anything else
You hear President Bush talk about how we can't afford to fight global warming or that it "would hurt the economy." We must decide whether saving the planet is more important than potentially hurting our economy (many say it would help our economy, especially our balance of trade). This is a tough question we should all ponder. The planet? Or our economy? Which is more important. Hmmm....

We cannot solve this alone
Even if we cut our greenhouse gas emissions to zero tomorrow, that would help a lot, but we would still have a problem. Cutting the US GHG emissions to zero tomorrow is the equivalent of everyone cutting their emissions by 25%. That would be a great start, but we'll still emit more than the planet absorbs. Therefore, even after this enormous cut, CO2 will continue to rise every year and our temperature will continue to get hotter and hotter every single year at an increasing rate!! This is a global problem. The US must show it can be done, we must cut as deeply and as quickly as we can, and we must aggressively export our technology to other countries and provide sufficient carrots and sticks to ensure that they do.

We need a set of Apollo projects for global warming
We should identify less than a dozen key R&D goals needed to solve global warming. For example, create a full power battery electric vehicle for under $20K by 2020.

Replacing coal plants with zero emissions plants is one of the highest leverage things we can do
Consider the following:

Home Depot has funded the planting of 300,000 trees in cities across the US. Each tree will absorb and store about one-third of a ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) over its lifetime. In addition to the coal plants that already exist, there are now 151 new conventional coal-fired power plants in various stages of development in the US today. The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized (500 MW) coal-fired power plant, in just 10 days of operation, would negate the Home Depot’s entire effort.

Wal-Mart, the largest “private” purchaser of electricity in the world is investing a half billion dollars to reduce the energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of their existing buildings by 20% over the next 7 years. "As one of the largest companies in the world, with an expanding global presence, environmental problems are our problems," said CEO Lee Scott. The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized coal-fired power plant, in just one month of operation each year, would negate Wal-Mart’s entire effort.

California, which makes up over 10% of the country’s new vehicle market, passed legislation to cut GHG emissions in new cars by 25% and in SUVs by 18%, starting in 2009. If every car and SUV sold in California in 2009 met this standard, the CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized coal-fired power plant, in just eight months of operation each year, would negate California’s 2009 effort.

In the US, approximately 5 billion square feet of residential, commercial and government buildings are renovated in a year. The US Conference of Mayors, American Institute of Architects, US Green Building Council and numerous states, counties and cities have adopted The 2030 Challenge to reduce the energy consumption of all renovated buildings by 50% (see www.architecture2030.org). The CO2 emissions from just one 750 MW coal-fired power plant each year would negate this entire 2030 Challenge effort.

If every household in the U.S. changed a 60-watt incandescent light bulb to a compact fluorescent, the CO2 emissions from just two medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year would negate this entire effort.

The Campus Climate Challenge (CCC), a growing student movement in the US, states that global warming “is our problem, and it’s up to us to solve it, starting right here on campus, right now.” The challenge calls for all high school and college campuses in the US to go carbon neutral (reduce global warming pollution to zero). If the challenge were met, the CO2 emissions from just four medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year would negate the CCC’s entire effort.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a ‘cap and trade’ cooperative effort by eleven Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states (ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, PA, NJ, DL, MD) to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2014. The CO2 emissions from just 13 medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year would negate the entire RGGI effort.

Many climate change bills have been introduced in Congress this year to cap and begin reducing US greenhouse gas emissions, so any new coal-fired power plants work to negate these efforts.

21 things every American should know about climate change

By Steve Kirsch