An introduction to the core climate solutions
Many people have asked me to write some introductory pieces. This post will serve as an introduction to climate solutions as well as a gateway to my ongoing series on the core solutions. For ease of access, I will place this in the “most popular posts” list (in this blog’s right-hand column) and constantly update it.
By core climate solution, I mean a technology-based strategy that can provide at least one half of a “stabilization wedge” by mid-century. Even half a wedge is huge — some 350 Gigawatts baseload power (~2.8 billion Megawatt-hours a year) or 160 billion gallons of gasoline. For the record, the U.S. consumed about 3.7 billion MW-hrs in 2005 and about 140 billion gallons of motor gasoline.
The world needs to deploy 12 to 14 wedges by 2050 if we want to keep total global warming at or below 2°C and avoid crossing the carbon cycle tipping points that would drive us inexorably toward catastrophic climate impacts (see “IEA report: Climate Progress has the 450-ppm solution about right“). The core climate solutions I have been detailing are the ones put forward in “Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 2: The Solution.” They include:
- Energy efficiency is THE core climate solution, Part 1: The biggest low-carbon resource by far
- Plug-in hybrids and electric cars — a core climate solution
- Is coal with carbon capture and storage a core climate solution?
- Recycled Energy — A core climate solution
- Are biofuels a core climate solution?
- Hot rocks are a rockin’ hot climate solution
- Wind Power — A core climate solution
- The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power, Part 1
Concentrated solar thermal powerSolar Baseload — a core climate solution
I am also in the process of going through each of the links above and making sure they are “one stop shop” posts with updated lists of related posts written after they were posted. So, for instance, the energy efficiency and nuclear power pieces now have links to all of the subsequent posts in their multipart series.
I am always interested in suggestions as to other solutions to write about. Yes, I am planning a series on (the cruel hoax of) geo-engineering.
I tend to focus on technology-based solutions because behavior-based solutions are much harder to analyze and frankly much harder to achieve through government policy — at least for now. In ten years, when gasoline prices are well past $5 a gallon and even conservatives see that the painful reality of human-caused global warming has come faster and harder than they ever imagined, many strategies that are not politically feasible today will be desperately pursued as the world descends into what I have called Planetary Purgatory.
I hope people find this post useful and link to it or send it friends.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
You missed one - “austerity” (just accepting that we need to tread more lightly on the planet).
The US way of life is not negotiable. That’s fine, because nature doesn’t negotiate. When Gaia has had enough of us she will shrug us off and get on with a new project.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
JR: yes thx!!! after watching “heat” lasy night, maybe it might be time to start talking about how states and provinces in north america stand to fare under an aggressive sustainability program? and how easy it will be for the different p/layers to collaborate?
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Sadly, it is not just a matter of figuring out the wedges, and taking action.
Yesterday I happened on 3 separate reputable media sources giving false information about congress, that will lead to more poor voting choices.
The SF Chronical described the energy plans of McCain and Obama as “two peas in a pod” the NYT, a similar misrepresentation, and on PBS last night, the opposition to the L-W cap and trade was portrayed as if it was opposed by all of congress, and in response to gas price rise this summer (and was the only climate legislation).
NO.
The opposition has been to ALL climate change legislation from Gores BTU tax in 93 through renewable portfolio standards to production tax credits, it has always been lined up almost exactly on party lines, and it has not wavered since at least 1993. Current gas prices: pfffhht!
So it is unlikely that the averagely informed voter can make the correct choice - even if they want to stop climate change!
Our media is the biggest obstruction to getting climate safety.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
1. Tax Global Warming. Tax inefficient energy usage
2. Nationalize all Carbon Energy Companies.
3. Mark the carbon shoe size for all goods and services
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Use those tax funds to permanently remove some carbon from the active carbon cycle.
The best method I have found is carbon dioxide mineralization via olivine. We could start doing some of this today for about $38–40 per tonne of carbon dioxide.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I’d be interested to hear your views on high altitude wind. I feel it will form a big chunk of the wind wedge.
And what about freight transport?
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Scatter — What about freight transport? Please amplify.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Not to quibble, Susan, but at least 16 Senate Democrats have voiced their opposition to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (and they weren’t pissed because it wasn’t strong enough). Unfortunately, with about 1/3rd of the entire Senate Democratic caucus currently opposed to even a bill as crappy as Lieberman-Warner, the political battle for climate solutions requires more than just a stronger Democratic majority in Congress. It’s unfortunate, but those are just the facts, and it doesn’t do us any good to ignore them.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Well it forms a significant chunk of energy consumption and carbon emissions. I can’t find a good number for global freight transport emissions though.
There is some work to be done in cutting emissions but maybe it’s small in comparison to the others?
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
p.s. thanks for collating your posts like this Joe. It’s definitely helpful as a resource.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Scatter — In the 4–5% range of total carbon emissions are
cement production
USA cars and light trucks
ocean vessels (includes cruise ships)
Try the International Energy Agency (IEA) website to see if you can find what you are after.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
What I’d like is a little more information on the costs and cost benefits of each of the wedges.
If I see a extremely low carbon and non-carbon energy source or savings, each wedge is usually listed as ‘1 million wind turbines at 2 megawatts each.’ And that’s alot of wind turbines, but it doesn’t go on to explain how many coal plants don’t have to be built because of it. What is the standard cost of a carbon fueled wedge and then what is the cost of a non-carbon fueled wedge that replaces it. Example, a 100 million BEV’s and PHEV’s cost x amount over 30 years compared to 100 million regular gasoline vehicles cost 80 percent x.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Jesse, true, that L-W cap and trade did attract unusual bipartisan opposition, but that is a real standout, isn’t it?
Of the 50 votes on clean energy since 1993, there have been very few times when Democrats voted dirty: Kyoto was the one shocker.
But, cap and trade is hardly the only way to effect change. Feed in tariffs, a nationwide RPS like the 26 states have, zero energy building codes, long term PTC etc, all work, all of which all the Democrats have tried to pass multiple times.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Ronald — It is clear that energy efficiency is always a money-maker. Not enough businesses have be doing it, but more are doing so now.
October 31st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I am still holding my breath waiting for a monstrous political scare story to come out, sponsored by Boone Pickens, Harold Simmons, and friends. Hopefully all the possibilities have been exhausted.
So when Boone tells us about the “abundant natural gas” I wonder what the real story is. I know there are big investments being made in liquified natural gas systems, where that commodity is brought here on ships. How would that be happening if there was so much already here?
I wonder what the real story is with wind. Ontario Canada data shows a very low rate of electricity production coming from their wind systems. We also observe from time to time in California that the older wind tower equipment is substantially ineffective.
Of course, the new towers are amazingly big, and I remain hopeful that this type of generation will be practical at some time in the future. I could see a plan where these were brought on as coal plants were replaced as they wore out. In this way major capital expenditures for wind are conceivable.
In comparison, people wear out cars much faster, and the replacement rate can be expected to result in a much faster change-over process.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
How about a separate list - Core Policy Solutions? Or, if you can summarize it in one bullet point, add it to the list of Core Climate Solutions.
Sounds like you favor something other than a cap or massive gov’t investment - would like a summary of your thinking on that.
[JR: I’ll get there, sometime in the next few months. I do have a bunch of posts on policy solutions. ]
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
As far as I know the reasons for these drastic weather changes in australia and other parts of the world varies from water levels out of their normal bounds, surface evaporation level caused by building dams around the world, deforesting and also our popular carbon emmisions that is the main character in global warming.. no clods no rain… I have a hare brain idea… in areas of australia that have inland bound winds most of the year.. is it possible to build huge water heaters inside the sea hot enought to evaporate water (close to shore) and let the wind blow the vapour back inland.. calculate how much was the cloud density from past records and “make the clouds” go back to where they were… I dont know just a thought… I have more of these silly ideas here http://ravitherat.blogspot.com/2008/07/happening.html#links … by the way I am from malaysia.. but my fiancee is from victoria.. so I know how bad it is at the farms…
December 18th, 2008 at 1:13 am
This list needs to be coupled with an evaluation for policy options that can get us there (or not). One of the most successful existing programs is the tax incentives that have boosted investment in renewable energy and sales of hybrid vehicles. However, it seems like everyone is ignoring the possibility of expanding on this success by enacting far more aggressive, broad tax cuts for green energy, vehicles, infrastructure, energy effieicency products, etc. If you want more of something, the best thing to do is tax it less.
You can read more about this approach at www.greenenergytaxcuts.com.
It is a shame that most folks are fixated on approaches that will either not be anywhere near as effective (direct federal investment) or will act as a drag on the economy (carbon tax or trade) when the sharp green tax cuts could offer a massive boost to the economy and save the auto industry at the same time.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I want to respond to this post, and to the following comment in particular:
“I tend to focus on technology-based solutions because behavior-based solutions are much harder to analyze and frankly much harder to achieve through government policy — at least for now.”
Friends of mine have written a paper which proposes a low-tech solution to this chrisis. Please read the abstract below, and then read the paper. Its amazing science, and the ramifications should not be underestimated.
— Rich
*Soil Restoration, Ocean Anoxia, & Menhaden Reduction - New Considerations for Climate Change Dynamics and Mitigation*
By Seth J. Itzkan & Jim Laurie
September 2008
Seth.Itz…@gmail.com
jimlaur…@gmail.com
*Abstract*
There are three emerging areas of research that we believe hold promise for helping to understand and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Although they stem from diverse fields of inquiry, we believe their effects are tightly coupled. These concern the following: (1) the role of soils in
climate stability and their potential for significant, permanent, and viable carbon sequestration of up to 10 gigatons per year, (2) the role of ocean
anoxia as a predecessor to extinction episodes, and its troubling rise in
today’s seas, and (3) the role of algae eating fish, such as menhaden, in
controlling estuary eutrophication and rapid expanse of ocean “dead zones”.
Seen together, these three areas of research show that restoring degraded soils while putting a moratorium on the fishing of algae eaters, may in fact be the most efficient way to reduce atmospheric CO2 to below dangerous levels (350 ppm) while avoiding perilous trigger events, such as ocean anoxia. These measures can be achieved without great sacrifice or cost, and in a fashion that supports improved yields, reduced environmental impacts, and new sustainable economies.
…
http://www.sethmosphere.com/?p=79
–
January 7th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Sounds like you favor something other than a cap or massive gov’t investment - would like a summary of your thinking on that