In a subtext of his Dot Earth blog on the sale of Australian coal to China, Andrew C. Revkin of the NY Times outlined his overall assessment of the global climate crisis and his strategy for stopping it:

“To me, choosing a number — 350, 450 or 550 parts per million [of atmospheric CO₂],[or a] 2 or 3 degrees (F. or C.!) [rise in global temperature] — is essentially meaningless for our generation, especially given the trajectories for [CO₂] emissions in China and India.

The task on emissions is twofold — to bend the curve of [greenhouse] gas releases using regulations, incentives, education and standards, but (more importantly, to me) also to build the intellectual infrastructure and innovative, globally-collaborative culture that will be required for the next generation to take that curve down toward zero even as humanity’s energy needs continue to rise. …”

The night before reading Revkin’s blog, I had the privilege of attending a lecture by Bill McKibben at Oregon State University. McKibben is the author of numerous books on global warming and the founder of an international movement to reduce the ratio of atmospheric CO₂ to 350 parts per million (ppm) (The current ratio is 394 ppm and rising about 2ppm per year).

Most recently, he has lead the successful fight to stop or at least delay the construction of Keystone xl pipeline that was to carry tar sands oil from the Canadian border to American refineries along Gulf of Mexico (which would sell the refined oil on the international market). McKibben’s strategy was one of non-violent civil disobedience consisting of a month-long sit in at the White House, where he was joined by thousands of others. “We’ll never have as much money as the fossil fuel industry,” he told the Oregon State audience, “but we do have our bodies.”

Here’s a somewhat altered version of a comment I posted on Revkin’s blog:

How can we stop global warming? Tough call.

I went to a Bill McKibben lecture last night, and he’s certainly picked a number (350 ppm). Based in part on your [Revkin’s] writeup of last week’s International Energy Agency (IEA) report, which, for all practical purposes says we’ll be locked into a 450 ppm scenario in five years (unless the powers that be “drive investment in clean energy” — Ha!), I asked McKibben the following question(s):

“Do you think it’s too late for renewable energy development to slow global warming, and shouldn’t we be focusing on a massive program of biogenic carbon sequestration? Along with a crash program of energy conservation to buy us some time?”

McKibben’s response is that energy conservation and biogenic sequestration would help, but the only real way to stop global warming was to engage in non-violent resistance to force governments to put a very high tax on carbon pollution.

The Future is Now 

I, and apparently you [Revkin] think it’s too late to hold the line to a specific number — certainly to revert to 350 ppm.

But the quandary of your approach is that building intellectual infrastructure and globally-collaborative culture for the next generation assumes that there will be a next generation capable of using those gifts. Look at the havoc already raised by a 350+ ppm-induced 1ºC temperature rise.

Then consider the fact that the historic CO₂ emissions curve is going almost straight up — and that 2010 was the worst year on record for carbon pollution.  And the five-year sword of Damocles described the IEA report.

The droughts, famines, floods and general economic chaos induced by the climate crisis threatens to be so disruptive to global civilization that it could be hard for people stay connected, nonetheless collaborate. Scarcity and chaos can lead to wars, which can lead to nuclear discharges, which will put a serious damper on the proliferation of knowledge.

So although I have little hope for McKibben’s overall strategy —  I don’I think civil disobedience can stop global warming in a timely fashion, if at all — I do agree with him that future is NOW.

 We Must Sequester Existing Atmospheric CO₂ — ASAP 

There is already too much CO2 in the atmosphere, we’re rapidly adding more, and there is a very real danger that we could trigger a methane release that would cause runaway global warming.

How can we stop global warming? Embark on a crash energy-conservation program to buy ourselves time, and initiate a massive biogenic carbon sequestration program.

What’s biogenic carbon sequestration? Essentially growing terrestrial plants — mostly trees, billions of trees  — to store carbon. As those trees die  — in two to 10 human generations — their stored carbon can be turned into “biochar” (charcoal) and buried in the earth, enhancing soil productivity.

All other approaches to “geoengineering” are fraught with the possibility of dangerous unintended consequences, but nature’s carbon storage machines — plants — can save us from global warming and restore our earthly garden.

And while Revkin and McKIbben’s approaches, along with the accelerated development of renewable energy are all part of the solution, only energy conservation can be implemented cheaply, quickly and reliably, and only biogenic carbon sequestration can restore the earth.

We’ll explore these solutions in upcoming posts on Ecotecture.

~PSW

Relevant Reading:

The Rough Guide to Climate Change, Robert Henson (2011 ed.)
The Atlas of Climate Change, Kirstin Dow and Thomas Downing (Nov. 2011 ed.)
The Great Disruption, Paul Gilding
Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough New Planet, Bill McKibben
The Biochar Solution, Albert Bates 

Related Posts on Ecotecture:

Is It Too Late For Renewable Energy to Slow Global Warming?
Man-Made Global Warming: It’s Real, Get Over It!

Comments are welcome and generally will be posted if they are on topic and inoffensive. However, Ecotecture does not post comments to the effect that global warming is a hoax. Read our position on global warming here.

The IEA’s Stark Warning

In its annual World Energy Outlook report released last week, the International Energy Agency (IEA), one of the world’s premier sources of predictive energy analysis, issued a stark warning: we have only until 2017 to avoid being on an irreversible course that will push us past the 450 parts per million (ppm) atmospheric CO₂ level that the majority of the world’s climate scientist believe will lead to catastrophic and irreversible global warming.

“As each year passes without clear signals to drive investment in clean energy,” said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol at a press conference observing the release of the report, “the ‘lock-in’ of high-carbon infrastructure is making it harder and more expensive to meet our energy security and climate goals.”

In his Dot Earth environmental blog, Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times thus interprets Birol’s remarks and the report: “The [World Energy Outlook] presents a 450 Scenario, which traces an energy path consistent with meeting the globally agreed goal of limiting the temperature rise to 2°C [by limiting carbon pollution to 450ppm]. Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permitted to 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already locked-in by existing capital stock, including power stations, buildings and factories. Without further action [to develop renewable energy] by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place would generate all the CO₂ emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035.”

Revkin goes on to say, “Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”

Is It Too Late?

Ecotecture’s position is that the needed renewable energy investment is simply not going to be made. There is far too little economic incentive, and thus political will to reverse the trends of dirty energy development in the world’s developing or developed countries within the next five years.

But even if the investments were made, it is probably too late for renewable energy to keep us from going beyond the 450ppm or 2ºC point. Because of the persistence of atmospheric CO₂ — it stays in the atmosphere for at least several centuries — and the fact that our existing energy, manufacturing, agriculture and transportation sectors are already producing 80% of the allowable CO₂ “budget” — even a perfect renewable investment scenario would only delay the “locked in” condition for a few years beyond 2035 because there will be ongoing investment in polluting industries as well.

Eventually, the polluting industries will “use up” the remaining 20% of the below-450ppm carbon budget. (Unless we abandon and dismantle the polluting industries — unlikely on a planet with an exploding population.)  (See Fiona Harvey’s excellent analysis of the 450ppm threat in the Guardian.)

Additionally, we are currently seeing the early results of disruptive climate change due to the relatively modest, approximate 1ºC  rise in global temperature that has already occurred. We clearly need to move beyond believing renewable energy can slow climate change and start thinking about removing the existing excess CO₂ from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, we can buy ourselves a little time by enacting a crash energy conservation program.

Ironically, climate change might slow itself by disrupting the global economy in ways that will delegate the Great Recession to the status of a minor and mostly forgotten inconvenience. But that’s NOT how we want to reverse climate change.

Here is an shortened version of the comment I posted on the NY Times article about the World Energy Outlook report, which bases its energy-use projections on population and economic growth scenarios:

 Few of these reports discuss the very real environmental and economic consequences of global warming. How will China continue to grow, for example, when the Himalayan glaciers that supply much of its water melt away in the next 10-15 years? How will [the] American [agricultural sector remain viable] when the drought afflicting Texas and the South spreads throughout the midwest, parching farmlands?

 How many more Katrina’s can we afford, and where, in our “austerity economy,” will governments find the money to protect New York and London from rising tides that flood their respective subways and sewer systems?

 The [NY Times] article ends by saying that delaying investment in green energy beyond 2020 will be costly. One could also argue that it will simply be too late. The money won’t be there then, any more than it is here now. We’re already beyond the tipping point of global warming and carbon pollution — and we’re becoming more, rather than less locked into polluting energy sources. It’s likely to be “game over” by 2025 at the latest.

 Our only  hope is instituting emergency programs of both energy conservation and biogenic carbon sequestration. These can be implemented relatively cheaply and quickly, and don’t require rebuilding our electric grid, chiding a recalcitrant Congress into funding green energy R&D or enacting any other policies that can’t be implemented before the end of this decade.

~PSW

Relevant Reading:

The Rough Guide to Climate Change, Robert Henson (2011 ed.)
The Atlas of Climate Change, Kirstin Dow and Thomas Downing (Nov. 2011 ed.)
The Great Disruption, Paul Gilding
Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough New Planet, Bill McKibben
The Biochar Solution, Albert Bates 

Comments are welcome and generally will be posted if they are on topic and inoffensive. However, Ecotecture does not post comments to the effect that global warming is a hoax. Read our position on global warming here.

In the introduction to his excellent book How to Cool the Planet, environmental author Jeff Goodell writes:

“By 2006, the major scientific uncertainties about whether or not the planet was warming — and why it was warming — had been long settled. (I won’t bother rehashing the evidence. If you still think global warming is a myth or unrelated to human activity, you’re reading the wrong book.)”

That was music to my ears, because it’s also true that if you don’t believe in man-made global warming, you’re visiting the wrong web site. You are unlikely to benefit from reading many of our articles because they are based on the premise that the so called “global warming debate” is settled, and move on from that position to exploring solutions to the global-warming crisis.

(If you’re unsure about the reality or causes of global warming, please keep visiting our site. Many of our articles could be of interest to you, our bookstore will carry a number of excellent titles on the subject, and we always welcome those with an open mind.)

I want to be clear that while Ecotecture’s content presupposes the reality of man-made global warming — and considers it a serious threat to global civilization — we do not claim to understand or be able to predict all of its manifestations. This is in keeping with the scientific “debate” on the topic. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists recognize the reality of man-made global warming — there is no debate there. But there is considerable debate about its possible effects, especially when it comes to the exact details.

We know the general scenario — that global warming will cause a dangerous rise in sea levels and massive storms and droughts capable of decimating entire regions and displacing their populations — but we don’t know exactly when or where those events might occur. However, we’ve been getting an inkling of that in the past few years, and it doesn’t look good. Climate-induced problems are occurring much sooner than expected, and we are already paying a heavy price for dumping too much carbon into our atmosphere.

Also, the warming that has already occurred could trigger the rapid release of massive amounts of more potent greenhouse gases such as the billions of tons of methane stored deep in the ocean and the arctic tundra, causing a “sudden,” catastrophic and irreversible spike in global temperatures.

Because of the persistence of atmospheric carbon — it remains airborne for several hundred years and the oceans have already absorbed as much of it as they can — Ecotecture takes the position that we have passed the tipping point and entered a true climate crisis. Even if we could somehow magically stop outgassing carbon dioxide tomorrow morning, there is already enough of it in the atmosphere to cause global temperatures to continue to rise for decades to come.

Therefore, much of our content will be based on reducing carbon loading through energy conservation and alternative energy production; reducing current atmospheric carbon levels though “biogenic carbon sequestration” (capturing and storing atmospheric carbon in living matter and burying some of it in the earth in the form of “biochar;” and adaption and mitigation strategies for local populations.

We consider that facing and addressing global warming — not debating its well-established realities — to be the proper function of our Journal which is devoted to “empowering our readers to solve environmental problems.”

~PSW

Relevant Reading:

The Rough Guide to Climate Change, Robert Henson (2011 ed.)
The Atlas of Climate Change, Kirstin Dow and Thomas Downing (Nov. 2011 ed.)
The Great Disruption, Paul Gilding
Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough New Planet, Bill McKibben

Related Posts on Ecotecture:

Is It Too Late For Renewable Energy to Slow Global Warming?
Man-Made Global Warming: It’s Real, Get Over It!

Comments are welcome and generally will be posted if they are on topic and inoffensive. However, Ecotecture does not post comments to the effect that global warming is a hoax.

We miss you Steve! Here’s the comments we sent to Apple and the NY Times.
~ Ecotecture Staff

Remembering Steve Jobs

Your light has gone out in our world but it shines on under my fingertips in the dark, rows of lit keys like a bank of votive candles. Your gifts grace and inspire my life and my work. Thank you Steve, you have my undying gratitude. I imagine you’ll carry on as always, making things different, from where you are now. Say hello to John.
~ Annie

I like to think that Steve’s not “dead” — he’s passed on to bigger and better things. And as long as there are people taping keys and staring at screens on this planet, he’ll certainly never die.

Still, I have a lump in my throat and wet eyes as I write this on my sixth MAC. Without Steve’s vision, gumption and integrity, where would I be? Where would we all be?

RIP Steve, and good luck with your next launch.
~ PSW