From fkramer@... Wed Jan 02 21:56:43 2008
Return-Path: <fkramer@...>
Received: (qmail 80700 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2008 05:56:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.67.97)
by m54.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2008 05:56:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n3.bullet.mail.re1.yahoo.com) (69.147.103.130)
by mta18.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jan 2008 05:56:42 -0000
Received: from [68.142.237.89] by n3.bullet.mail.re1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jan 2008 05:56:42 -0000
Received: from [209.73.164.83] by t5.bullet.re3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jan 2008 05:56:41 -0000
Received: from [66.218.67.201] by t7.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jan 2008 05:56:41 -0000
X-Sender: fkramer@...
X-Apparently-To: calcars-news@yahoogroups.com
X-Received: (qmail 35493 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2008 05:55:55 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.94)
by m46.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2008 05:55:55 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO nlpi001.prodigy.net) (207.115.36.30)
by mta15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jan 2008 05:55:54 -0000
X-ORBL: [209.233.16.121]
X-Received: from Felix04Laptop.calcars.org (adsl-209-233-16-121.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [209.233.16.121])
by nlpi001.prodigy.net (8.13.8 out.dk.spool/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m035tdkc009394;
Wed, 2 Jan 2008 23:55:39 -0600
Message-Id: <200801030555.m035tdkc009394@...>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:55:35 -0800
To: "calcars-news-yahoogroups.com" <calcars-news@yahoogroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Originating-IP: 207.115.36.30
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:4:8:0:1
From: Felix Kramer <fkramer@...>
Subject: 5 Zingers on Climate Crisis: McKibben/Romm on Parts/Million;
SciAm on Solar; Newsweek on Adaptation; Globe & Mail on PHEVs
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=163771593; y=CTMkIEp08XpgbBzk-sPrJTateNK3Z5qN6fI3OmvWLh0stE_pbdPW
X-Yahoo-Profile: felixkramery
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-system
X-eGroups-Approved-By: felixkramery <fkramer@...> via web; 03 Jan 2008 05:56:40 -0000
Getting back after the holidays to the campaign=20
for plug-in cars, where we now define our goal as=20
"Successful Commercialization of PHEVs=20
ASAP," we're reminded about one of the three=20
reasons we're doing this: because our atmosphere=20
can't wait a decade to start fueling cars with=20
electricity instead of liquid fossil fuels. In=20
this campaign, and the larger effort to evolve to=20
a low-carbon economy, we're just at the beginning=20
of an incredible mobilization and transformation.
Five items start us all off: one on solutions,=20
two about the magnitude of the challenge, one=20
about "adaptation" and finally a good story about PHEVs and climate change.
1. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MAGAZINE'S cover story for=20
January 2008: "A Grand Plan for Solar Energy: By=20
2008 it could free the U.S. from foreign oil and=20
slash greenhouse emissions...here's how." Buy it=20
at the newsstand for $4.99 to read the 10-page=20
article, including elaborate graphics, or read it=20
online at=20
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=3Da-solar-grand-plan&page=3D1=20
and view comments at=20
http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=3D300005637#comment=
s
Key Concepts as presented by SciAm's editors [plus our comments]
* A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas=20
and nuclear power plants to solar power plants=20
could supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity=20
and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
* A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to=20
be erected in the Southwest. [46,000 square miles=20
of land in the Southwest -- that's a 215x215 mile area]
* Excess daytime energy would be stored as=20
compressed air in underground caverns to be=20
tapped during nighttime hours. [Though since the=20
plan is described as including electricity to=20
power 344 million PHEVs, we wish the authors had=20
been aware of the potential of using those vehicles to store energy.]
* Large solar concentrator power plants would be=20
built as well. [These include molten salt that=20
can store energy for up to 16 hours.]
* A new direct-current power transmission=20
backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
* $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050=20
would be required to fund the infrastructure and=20
make it cost-competitive. [Loan guarantees and=20
declining price subsidies, which the authors=20
suggest be fueled by a carbon tax of 1/2 cent/kWh.]
2. BILL McKIBBEN: this powerful environmental=20
writer (who organized the 2007 StepItUp events,=20
and recently merged that campaign into a new=20
broad national campaign, http://www.1sky.org/ )=20
wrote a provocative Op Ed in the Washington Post=20
December 28 on the magnitude of the challenge. We=20
reprint it here, followed by an equally=20
thought-provoking response from Joseph Romm.
Remember This: 350 Parts Per Million
By Bill McKibben
Friday, December 28, 2007; Page A21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR200712270=
1942.html=20
Bill McKibben is a scholar in residence in=20
environmental studies at Middlebury College and=20
the author of the forthcoming "Bill McKibben Reader."
This month may have been the most important yet=20
in the two-decade history of the fight against=20
global warming. Al Gore got his Nobel in=20
Stockholm; international negotiators made real=20
progress on a treaty in Bali; and in Washington,=20
Congress actually worked up the nerve to raise gas mileage standards for ca=
rs.
But what may turn out to be the most crucial=20
development went largely unnoticed. It happened=20
at an academic conclave in San Francisco. A NASA=20
scientist named James Hansen offered a simple,=20
straightforward and mind-blowing bottom line for=20
the planet: 350, as in parts per million carbon=20
dioxide in the atmosphere. It's a number that may=20
make what happened in Washington and Bali seem=20
quaint and nearly irrelevant. It's the number that may define our future.
To understand what it means, you need a little background.
Twenty years ago, Hansen kicked off this issue by=20
testifying before Congress that the planet was=20
warming and that people were the cause. At the=20
time, we could only guess how much warming it=20
would take to put us in real danger. Since the=20
pre-Industrial Revolution concentration of carbon=20
in the atmosphere was roughly 275 parts per=20
million, scientists and policymakers focused on=20
what would happen if that number doubled -- 550=20
was a crude and mythical red line, but=20
politicians and economists set about trying to=20
see if we could stop short of that point. The=20
answer was: not easily, but it could be done.
In the past five years, though, scientists began=20
to worry that the planet was reacting more=20
quickly than they had expected to the relatively=20
small temperature increases we've already seen.=20
The rapid melt of most glacial systems, for=20
instance, convinced many that 450 parts per=20
million was a more prudent target. That's what=20
the European Union and many of the big=20
environmental groups have been proposing in=20
recent years, and the economic modeling makes=20
clear that achieving it is still possible, though=20
the chances diminish with every new coal-fired power plant.
But the data just keep getting worse. The news=20
this fall that Arctic sea ice was melting at an=20
off-the-charts pace and data from Greenland=20
suggesting that its giant ice sheet was starting=20
to slide into the ocean make even 450 look too=20
high. Consider: We're already at 383 parts per=20
million, and it's knocking the planet off kilter=20
in substantial ways. So, what does that mean?
It means, Hansen says, that we've gone too far.=20
"The evidence indicates we've aimed too high --=20
that the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2is=20
no more than 350 ppm," he said after his=20
presentation. Hansen has reams of paleo-climatic=20
data to support his statements (as do other=20
scientists who presented papers at the American=20
Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco=20
this month). The last time the Earth warmed two=20
or three degrees Celsius -- which is what 450=20
parts per million implies -- sea levels rose by=20
tens of meters, something that would shake the=20
foundations of the human enterprise should it happen again.
And we're already past 350. Does that mean we're=20
doomed? Not quite. Not any more than your doctor=20
telling you that your cholesterol is way too high=20
means the game is over. Much like the way your=20
body will thin its blood if you give up cheese=20
fries, so the Earth naturally gets rid of some of=20
its CO2each year. We just need to stop putting=20
more in and, over time, the number will fall,=20
perhaps fast enough to avert the worst damage.
That "just," of course, hides the biggest=20
political and economic task we've ever faced:=20
weaning ourselves from coal, gas and oil. The=20
difference between 550 and 350 is that the=20
weaning has to happen now, and everywhere. No=20
more passing the buck. The gentle measures=20
bandied about at Bali, themselves way too much=20
for the Bush administration, don't come close.=20
Hansen called for an immediate ban on new=20
coal-fired power plants that don't capture=20
carbon, the phaseout of old coal-fired=20
generators, and a tax on carbon high enough to=20
make sure that we leave tar sands and oil shale=20
in the ground. To use the medical analogy, we're=20
not talking statins to drop your cholesterol;=20
we're talking huge changes in every aspect of your daily life.
Maybe too huge. The problems of global equity=20
alone may be too much -- the Chinese aren't going=20
to stop burning coal unless we give them some=20
other way to pull people out of poverty. And we=20
simply may have waited too long.
But at least we're homing in on the right number.=20
Three hundred and fifty is the number every person needs to know.
3. JOSEPH ROMM (former US Dept of Energy=20
official, author of Hell and High Water and The=20
Hype About Hydrogen) at his "Climate Progress"=20
Blog responds to Hansen and McKibben, makes clear=20
the enormity of the challenge we face, and in=20
responding to some of the two dozen comments,=20
explains how important it is to distinguish=20
between what's "politically impossible" and=20
what's "doable" -- to figure out ways to evolve=20
our priorities so what's acceptable and what's technically feasible match u=
p.
"Parting company with McKibben and, maybe, Hansen"
http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/29/bill-mckibben-james-hansen-350-ppm/
Posted on Saturday, December 29th, 2007
The nation's top climate scientist, NASA's James=20
Hansen, apparently now believes "the safe upper=20
limit for atmospheric CO2 is no more than 350=20
ppm," according to an op-ed by the the great=20
environmental writer Bill McKibben. Yet while=20
preindustrial levels were 280, we're now already=20
at more than 380 and rising 2 ppm a year!
Like many people, in the 1990s I believed 550 was=20
the target needed to avoid climate catastrophe -- but now it's clear that
1. 550 ppm would lead to the greatest=20
disaster ever experienced by human civilization=20
-- returning us to temperatures last seen when=20
sea levels were some 80 feet higher. This is especially true because=85.
2. Long before we hit 550, major carbon cycle=20
feedbacks -- the loss of carbon from the tundra=20
and the Amazon, the saturation of the ocean sink=20
(already beginning) would almost certainly kick=20
in to high gear, inevitably pushing us to much,=20
much higher CO2 levels (see here and here and my book).
Exactly when those feedbacks seriously kick in is=20
the rub. No one knows for sure, but based on my=20
review of the literature and interviews of=20
leading climate scientists, somewhere between 400=20
and 500 ppm seems most likely. It could be lower,=20
but it probably couldn't be much higher.
So I, like the Center for American Progress and=20
the world's top climate scientists, now believe=20
450 ppm is the upper bound. That said, I have=20
spent two decades managing, analyzing,=20
researching, and writing about climate solutions=20
and can state with some confidence that:
1. Staying below 450 ppm is technologically=20
doable, but would be the greatest achievement in=20
the history of the human race, by far. It would=20
require a global effort sustained for decades=20
comparable to what the U.S. did for just the few=20
years of World War II (the biggest obstacle is=20
not technological, but political -- conservatives=20
currently would never let progressives and moderates pursue such a strategy=
).
2. If 350 ppm is needed (and I'm not at all=20
sure it is) then the deniers and delayers have=20
won, since such a target is hopeless.
In 2008, I will devote a fair amount of ink bits=20
to laying out the solution (there really is only=20
one), but to understand why 450 is so hard, and=20
350 all but inconceivable, let's look at the odd=20
way McKibben describes the solution:
[McKibben]: And we're already past 350. Does that=20
mean we're doomed? Not quite. Not any more than=20
your doctor telling you that your cholesterol is=20
way too high means the game is over. Much like=20
the way your body will thin its blood if you give=20
up cheese fries, so the Earth naturally gets rid=20
of some of its CO2each year. We just need to stop=20
putting more in and, over time, the number will=20
fall, perhaps fast enough to avert the worst damage.
Not a great analogy. Yes, CO2 concentrations will=20
probably start dropping once we cut emissions 80%=20
from current levels. But you can change your=20
entire diet -- cut cholesterol intake or=20
carbohydrates 80% or more -- tomorrow. Humanity=20
cannot, however, cut its hydrocarbon diet 80%=20
tomorrow or even, realistically, in 10 years.=20
That would require replacing the world's entire=20
energy infrastructure -- power plants, cars,=20
planes, factories, fueling infrastructure, large=20
parts of homes and commercial buildings -- while=20
simultaneously deploying a hydrocarbon-free=20
energy system in the rapidly-growing developing world.
McKibben certainly understands some of the difficulty:
[McKibben]: That "just," of course, hides the=20
biggest political and economic task we've ever=20
faced: weaning ourselves from coal, gas and oil.=20
The difference between 550 and 350 is that the=20
weaning has to happen now, and everywhere. No=20
more passing the buck. The gentle measures=20
bandied about at Bali, themselves way too much=20
for the Bush administration, don't come close.=20
Hansen called for an immediate ban on new=20
coal-fired power plants that don't capture=20
carbon, the phaseout of old coal-fired=20
generators, and a tax on carbon high enough to=20
make sure that we leave tar sands and oil shale=20
in the ground. To use the medical analogy, we're=20
not talking statins to drop your cholesterol;=20
we're talking huge changes in every aspect of your daily life.
A better analogy might be stomach stapling, but=20
even that doesn't do justice to what we would=20
need to do to get to 350. Hansen's three=20
proposals are a drop in the bucket. Dealing with=20
electricity is trivial compared to dealing with transportation.
Suppose we could get global carbon emissions to=20
peak in 2020 at 10 billion tons, level off for a=20
few years, and then decline 3% per year=20
afterwards. No easy feat since emissions are=20
currently at 8 billion and rising over 3% per=20
year. China and India, for instance, would have=20
to agree to a hard emissions cap in 2020. Rich=20
countries would need to start slashing emissions=20
immediately. CO2 concentrations in 2020 would be=20
about 410 ppm (and rising over 2 ppm a year).
Around 2050, we'd be at 5 billion tons and very=20
likely over 450 ppm, rising over 1 ppm a year.=20
But remember, we need to average 5 billion tons a=20
year for the entire century just to stabilize at=20
450 ppm (according to the IPCC -- and that is probably a best-case scenario=
)!
So the scenario I laid out won't get us to below=20
450 (I have a long discussion in the book about=20
why beating 500 ppm is so hard if we try to do it=20
the tradtional [i.e. slow] way). That's why I say=20
450 needs a World War II scale effort starting in=20
the next decade. I think 350 ppm is simply beyond=20
serious practical and political consideration.=20
You might as well tell people we need to develop=20
a time machine to go back 20 years and warn the=20
world that we need to start cutting emissions=20
then =85 then again, who would listen.? [And who=20
would we send back, anyway? That's an interesting=20
parlor game all by itself]. McKibben ends:
[McKibben]: But at least we're homing in on the=20
right number. Three hundred and fifty is the number every person needs to k=
now.
I part company with him here. I haven't talked to=20
Hansen yet and I'll reserve further judgment until I see a paper or PPT by =
him.
Since beating 450 ppm is doable and certainly=20
necessary -- that's where I draw the line. One=20
advantage of pursuing 450 is that if we do get=20
some sort of unexpected breakthrough -- a cheap=20
and practical way to draw CO2 out of the air=20
(that doesn't use a lot of land, water, or=20
energy) and stick it someplace permanent -- then=20
we would have a system in place to deploy it fast=20
enough to perhaps get to below 400 ppm. And even=20
if turns out 450 doesn't avert catastrophe, it=20
will surely slow down the impacts enough to make adaptation more viable.
So I'm sticking with 450. Implausible? Yes.=20
Impossible? No. Less costly than inaction? By far.
4 NEWSWEEK on "Learning to Love Climate=20
'Adaptation" in the December 31-January 7 issue=20
says "It's too late to stop global warming. Nowo=20
we have to figure out how to survive it.
Read the piece at=20
http://www.newsweek.com/id/81390 -- Author=20
Sharon Begley returned to Newsweek recently after=20
five years writing The Wall Street Journal's=20
"Science Journal." She wrote the magazine's=20
summer '07 cover story about global warming=20
deniers. In this story she starts to outline a=20
few of the ways the world will be changing and how to think about adaptatio=
n.
What do we think about those who say let's start=20
planning for the consequences of rising oceans,=20
extreme climate, species extinction, etc.? Some=20
who are devoting their lives to heading off a=20
climate crisis feel that those who focus on=20
adaptation are undermining their efforts. I don't=20
see it that way; I say "thank you" to everyone=20
working on adaptation. Clearly however much we're=20
able to defer the worst consequences, our world=20
is going to change, and we're going to need smart=20
people and enormous resources to find ways to=20
respond. It's certainly better that people work=20
on adaptation rather than do nothing. At the same=20
time, I'd hope most of those who recognize the=20
magnitude of the challenge will choose to devote their energies to preventi=
on
5. THE TORONTO GLOBE & MAIL had a good story,=20
"How technology can help fight climate change,"=20
by Martin Mittelstaedt, December 19, 2007=20
featuring PHEVs, quoting us and Lester Brown at=20
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071212.wbaliside12/BNS=
tory/Technology/home
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Felix Kramer fkramer@...
Founder California Cars Initiative
http://www.calcars.org
http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
|
Felix Kramer <fkramer@...>
felixkramery
 Offline
 Send Email
|
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
