Limiting climate change requires a revolution in the way the global economy generates and consumes energy. It is becoming increasingly clear that the current diplomatic approach -- as evidenced by the results of last year's Copenhagen Climate Conference and the follow-on talks completed in Bonn just this month -- should be redesigned to meet this immense political, technical, and social challenge.
Almost two decades ago, the world's nations, including the United States, ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, pledging to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations below dangerous levels. Since then, negotiators have aimed for a global agreement on the specific level considered dangerous and on binding targets for emission reductions that ensure this threshold will not be breached.
The Copenhagen negotiations aimed, but failed, to implement this plan. Nations expressed support for holding any increase in global average temperatures below 2° Celsius, but obligated themselves to no actions to ensure such an outcome. This is not surprising: this strategy requires nearly two hundred nations to commit themselves to march down a revolutionary path to combat a very serious but uncertain threat.
The global agreement strategy assumes that governments can set a meaningful threshold beyond which climate change becomes dangerous, and then chart a path far into the future to avoid crossing that line. But climate science can define no such precise threshold. It can only suggest an increasingly serious accumulation of risks as temperatures rise. In addition, meeting any reasonable target requires eliminating the atmospheric release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels, and no nation in human history has ever grown rich without burning such fuels. The chronicle of environmental diplomacy suggests that most nations will prove very reluctant to sign a treaty with binding commitments they do not yet know how to meet.
As an alternative to the diplomatic process, some commentators emphasize a Clean Energy Revolution strategy that focuses on national governments taking aggressive but independent actions to cut emissions. This view makes some sense. National governments are primarily responsible for policies necessary to limit climate change: increased support for research on clean-energy science and technology; regulatory policies such as a cap-and-trade system that set a market price on greenhouse gas emissions; and complementary measures such as efficiency standards for automobiles and buildings. All three types are needed to enable the private sector innovation and investment on the scale needed for an energy revolution.
But this strategy also rests on some questionable assumptions. Climate change presents what economists call a collective action problem, in which successful solutions require many different parties to respond in a coordinated manner. Limiting climate change requires all nations to eventually eliminate their emissions. The clean energy strategy assumes national actions will make green energy less expensive than today's fossil fuels quickly enough to limit changes to the Earth's climate.
A more robust solution might combine the best of the two approaches. Rather than attempt to drive an energy revolution through international negotiations, it would rely on some national governments -- driven by a mix of environmental concern and economic self-interest -- to aggressively pursue a low emissions path. But global negotiations would still have an important role. They would refocus on supporting these early adopters and creating conditions that make it economically risky for lagging nations to fall too far behind.
The next round of climate negotiations in Mexico this December could pursue several actions to implement such a strategy. It could continue current efforts to promote the broad-based scientific assessments that establish the seriousness and damages from climate change; establish international reporting standards for monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions; set greenhouse gas emissions standards for industries and products, based on demonstrated best practice. Developed countries should also continue to assist the poorest nations in adapting to the impacts of climate change.
These steps would help create internationally recognized norms for what practices, and what nations and firms, were contributing to the solution, and which to the problem. International climate negotiations could also begin laying out the conditions under which nations that had substantially reduced emissions could impose carbon tariffs on those that had not. Ensuring the consistency of any such carbon tariffs with the rules governing trade is a necessary and proper role for international negotiations.
Under this race-to-the-top strategy, individual nations would invest towards a clean energy revolution. The international negotiations would promote the legitimacy and importance of those efforts, and provide tools that the leaders might eventually use to protect their investments against the laggards. Such tools, like carbon tariffs, would unlikely be applied until a majority of nations were already well on their way to zero emissions economies. While no nation would be asked to commit to a green energy revolution, all would have an incentive to invest towards one, because each would fear a future where they had dropped too far behind and were excluded from markets by a growing majority of green energy leaders.
Over the last two decades, those most concerned with climate change have grown accustomed to the idea that because climate change is a global problem, it can only be solved by a global consensus on the precise definition of dangerous climate change and a binding plan for how to avoid it. When negotiations fail to produce a sufficiently ambitious plan, advocates emphasize the dangers of climate change and call for renewed efforts. Not surprisingly, this approach has failed to catalyze change on anywhere near the needed scale. Perhaps it is time for a new strategy, one that sets no specific international plan for the energy revolution, but instead relies on some nations to race ahead and, once a majority have discovered a promising path, gives them the tools to strongly encourage the rest to follow.
We are reaching a point of 400ppm CO2- which in recent geologic history has meant an ice free arctic and Greenland- and sea levels 50-75 feet higher then today.
The arctic is melting rapidly- as this happens other climatic tipping points will be triggered- with warming likely to accelerate. The oceans are also reaching a point of extreme stress- from a warning planet- as they become increasing acidic due to the 'mopping up' of the excess CO2-
As you alluded to there are other tipping points- but the glass has tipped already-
We are in deep deep trouble- and yet the media says nothing- they are just as complicit as the oil and coal companies of an approaching hell storm.
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
Better stay with the fossil we know than the scary wind, solar and waste bio char that may have problems down the road......
Doubt: is there really human caused climate change?
YES.
uncertainty: Will we have enough materials to make all the Solar, Wind and Bio Char systems we need?
YES.
Our Civilization will collapse if we don't recycle everything.
The market will force the recycling of what we have dumped if the value and scarcity of any mineral requires it. Somehow you don't believe we will find the minerals? Gold and many other materials are very painstakingly recovered from waste.
You Don't think that alternatives will be found? For instance Gold, used to be used in virtual all electronics, has been 99% removed from new designs.
Wind turbines. Aluminum will work too, or super conductors.
Vague worries about material shortages that MAY occur when solar wind and waste bio fuels have achieved 90% energy production are fossil pr.
But of course the nuke industry assumes the PUBLIC WILL PAY.
Save money, cut the deficit, employ everyone, cut energy dependence:
Immediately order energy retrofits for all gov buildings.
Rooftop PV Solar, Offshore wind, and Waste Bio char, can supply the worlds energy and fuel needs: cleanly, safely, Forever, within 12 years and cheaper in the long run 2-6 cents now, and 26$ per barrel bio oils.
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
about 1$ per Wp solar panels, new.
install solar plants for about $1.30 per watt, compared with an industry average of about $1.75, according to Hardy." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=a7K1FZoNgJ0w
Wind: “between two and six cents today, depending on location.12 Wind power approaches competitiveness with conventional generation at this price point. “
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind%20issue%20brief_FINAL.pdf
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/BiofBioproBioref%203,%20547-562,%202009%20Laird.pdf
26$ per barrel bio oil from waste bio char.
Nah.... if we did that consultants (a.k.a. pundits) like Robert and his call for "international approaches" would be out of a job.
James Lovelock
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2009/10/the-biochar-debate.html
http://www.biomass-asia-workshop.jp/biomassws/05workshop/poster/P-03.pdf
Waste Bio Char, with rooftop solar pv and offshore wind can supply all the world and energy, cheap safe, clean, forever, replacing fossil and nukes in 12 years, USING NO LAND.
I am reminded of the story of the dam cracking at the head of the valley and the towns people in the town below wait until some guy comes roaring into town to screaming that the dam has burst. Almost everyone runs into the street to see if it's true. The few that moved out when first warned of the crack survived. Unfortunately we who are well aware of the impending doom can't move out. Most people want to hide from the truth. You can see the number of fans I have.
which would a massive amount of energy to move.
Its a nice thought but streetlights aren't numerous enough or hot enough to affect the temperature of the earth. Streetlights don't waste energy, they prevent traffic accidents and crime at night, that's why they are installed.
Streetlights are actually a decent arguement if you are trying to make a case for the urban heat island affect, but that theory negates Global Warming theory, so I doubt youd' be in favor of it.
Switch to LEDs when doing this, since LEDs are the only light source that can stand being turned on an off that often.
LEDS last longer and are more efficient too!
http://www.greenandmore.com/LED-conventional-incandescent-retrofit-lamps.html?googprodf
"Perhaps it is time for a new strategy, one that sets no specific international plan for the energy revolution, but instead relies on some nations to race ahead and, once a majority have discovered a promising path, gives them the tools to strongly encourage the rest to follow."
So here in lies the truth, which is ironic for the author and Climate Change believers. "once a majority have discovered a PROMISING PATH".
That line acknowledges a promising path has NOT been discovered and therefore trying to enact laws that limit traditional use of fossil fuels through tariffs and regulation leaves a vacuum of viable options to these traditional fuels. Hence, economically, the nations and governments that pursue such laws before a promising path is found suffer. The evidence is in California, Spain and other jurisdictions that have tried to force a green path that does not exist. Economically this has been a disaster and California, for example, has a ballot initiative to repeal thier efforts because it is sendiong jobs and businesses elswhere.
When the technology is there and is financially viable, the economy will support it. But not until then.
The Entire world economy if crashing, but you blame CA's on green energy?
think!
Solar wind and waste bio char are cheaper!
For example, there isn't enough copper to build all the wind farms you imagine.
UN warns rare metal shortage could derail clean tech boom
Failure to improve recycling rates of metals such as lithium and gallium could leave them "essentially unavailable" for use in solar panels, electric cars and other clean technologies
BusinessGreen.com Staff, BusinessGreen, 14 May 2010
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2263071/un-warns-rare-metal-shortage
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-17a-peak-oil
Crash Course Chapter 17b: Energy Budgeting
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-17b-energy-budgeting
Crash Course Chapter 17c: Energy and the Economy
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-17c-energy-and-economy
WASTE Bio Char is energy positive to make, create liquid and gaseous fuels, and charcoal that can be used to enhance soils in a carbon negative way.
Sewage BioChar Alone can produce about 10% of the world energy needs.
Everything we harvest from the land, we eventually DUMP.
So instead of wasting land on dumps, let's get energy, fuels and fertilizer from our Waste!
add rooftop pv solar and offshore wind, and you have a great energy solution.
Guess we just need to change the name from Global Climate Change then and we're good to go.
Why? because rooftop solar and waste bio char are better and cheaper.
-boggle-
Or conversely, an infinite number of unique human minds to be liberated and encouraged to explore the as yet unappreciated possibilities.
Ideas result from stimulation. Practical ideas benefit from nurturing. Earth-changing ideas deserve optimisation. If you want to create conditions conducive to promoting rapid growth, first construct a suitable greenhouse.
“protect their investments”
Regular seasonal restrictions, limiting use of water, are expected to be implemented shortly. It is estimated that up to 50% of treated supplies are being lost/wasted through failures in the underground infrastructure. But no one is viewing the current situation, as an opportunity to conclusively address that problem.
"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008
But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."
Luckily, there is a simple and cheap way to immediately cool down the Earth: just add a little (more) sun dimming aerosol to the upper atmosphere.
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
Now, assuming you can geo-engineer the temperature, what do you do about the CO2 being absorbed in the oceans? That may be an even bigger disaster.
I also oppose the notion of letting some countries or regions leap ahead. That is already happening, to very little benefit for the environment, because the countries that lag - USA, China and India - are the worst polluters. One American SUV or pick up truck makes up for several European or Japanese fuel sippers.
It is clear that the US, Chinese and Indian governments lack the moral authority to push for any significant progress on climate change, so it is up to us as individuals. Each family needs to limit its energy consumption, and for goodness sake, quit having so many kids!
Columbia University Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center presents "Our Energy Challenge" by Nobel laureate Professor Richard Smalley of Rice University.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4626573768558163231
Dr David Goodstein: Running out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil
http://today.caltech.edu/theater/5602_bb.ram
Dr Albert Bartlett
Understanding Exponential Growth in demand
"The Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crises" http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_index.htm
http://www.guba.com/watch/3000053112
You don't need to worry about future consumption since depletion rates (http://oildepletiondebate.blogspot.com/2008/11/iea-world-energy-outlook-2008.html)
and the affects of those depletion rates will have on the global economic system (http://oildepletiondebate.blogspot.com/2010/04/united-states-joint-forces-command-us.html) both in terms of economic modeling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7vGDwGLU7s) and in terms of oil prices by 2015 (http://setup2.barrons.com/article/SB122065354946305325.html?mod=Barron),
It's a very Unpleasant Truth http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2008-0830-2a.ram