combatting climate change
TRANSCRIPT
Global Climate Change
NYU CGA, Professor William Hewitt
Combating Climate Change, a New Agreement
Chris Leishear
May 7, 2013
Final Research Paper, 5/7/13
Chris Leishear, Global Climate Change, NYU CGA
Dangerous anthropogenic interference, or DAI, is the phenomenon that mankind is
currently witnessing whereby human activities (both historic and current) such as land use
changes, industrial and economic processes (manufacturing, transportation, energy production
etc.) and building construction and management are taking place at such a scale, as to
dramatically alter what had been a fairly stable climate/oceanic/earth interaction system by
emitting greenhouse gases (GHG), most notably, carbon dioxide (CO2). The dangers come in
many forms including more intense storms, severe droughts that lead to increased wildfires and
decreased agricultural yields, enhanced forest susceptibility to pests and disease, rising sea
waters, a change in disease vectors (malarial mosquitoes migrating to higher elevations,
increases in dengue fever etc.), and warming and acidifying oceans that decrease the health of
the reefs that protect coasts from erosion and provide fish habitat. CO2 levels in the atmosphere
will soon surpass 400ppm. Regardless of the modeling scenario used, levels will continue to rise
so it is only a question of at what rate? Further, even if emissions were stabilized today, or even
started to decline, given naturally occurring lags in the system, we will continue to see the effects
of climate change for decades.
The countries party to the 18th COP (Convention of the Parties) to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed last year in Doha to have a fully negotiated
new agreement by 2015 that would take effect in 2020. While some progress has been made
toward reducing greenhouse gases, given the rate of increase in C02 levels in our atmosphere,
the costly and dramatic changes we are now seeing, and the burgeoning populations of the
developing world (China, India) who want a similar quality of life as the developed world (i.e.
more energy consumption), action must be immediate and the agreement must be enforceable
and cover all parties from the biggest countries to the most rural and poor of individuals. This is
a team fight and the team needs everyone to join the fray.
The goals for the new agreement must be 1) meaningful and 2) achievable because if they
are not tied to meaningful objectives and are too vague, they will not create the sense of urgency
required. If they are unrealistic to achieve, they will be ignored and the members either will not
sign up the agreement, or will do so half-heartedly as a symbolic token, decreasing the
agreement’s efficacy in reducing GHG. Enforcement mechanisms need to be present and could
include (naturally) fines, but also withdraws of technology and human capital aid that would
otherwise help developing countries with their goals. Publicity and praise go a long way in
driving behavior, even at a national level, and the progress should be publicized annually.
Incentives could include trade agreements (of sustainably developed products and services)
among members and advance travel “treaties” where certain volumes of eco-minded vacationers
are guaranteed in advance to “reward” countries that are meeting their emissions reduction goals
or overcoming a particularly difficult environmental challenge. On a personal note, my father
chooses vacation destinations based on a country’s behavior (i.e. a willingness to adopt more
Western values), and “rewards” the country in question with his patronage for 2-3 weeks of
vacation and travel spending. He and his wife just completed their “rewards” for Myanmar
(formally Burma).
A level of objectivity across the agreement is a requirement so that neither developing,
nor developed, countries feel that they have an undue burden of emissions reduction. If the
blame, or “stigma” of climate change is placed on one group or another, or even one country
(China, or the USA), this will create resentment, defensiveness, and a lack of cooperation, when
it is exactly political cooperation and trust at this moment that is required. The principle of
“common but differentiated responsibilities” has to be front and center as a guiding tenet
throughout the new agreement. While the bulk of greenhouse gases emitted since the Industrial
Revolution have come from Western Europe, the US and Japan, the developing world (China)
has now dethroned the West (US) as the top annual emitter, and if current trajectories continue
will remain so for a long time. Everyone must accept responsibility while not transferring blame
and make reasonable sacrifices whether towards transitioning from a hydrocarbon-based
transportation system to electric vehicles (US), or refraining from building additional coal fired
power plants (China) in order to reduce GHG.
Quantifiable goals should be put in place as otherwise vague objectives are prone to
dilution or “watering” down. With adequate data, comes monitoring. When data is monitored,
measurable progress, or the lack thereof, can be reported regularly and used as a barometer of
success. Poorly performing countries can look to their more successful counterparts to see what
programs, methods or technologies are driving the successful emissions reduction. Thus a
“piggybacking” of technology transfer can take place which has proven to highly effective, for
example, in enabling telecommunication access in the developing world. Rather than build out a
cumbersome (and expensive) landline based phone system, replete with miles of cables and
forests of telephone poles, much of the developing world skipped that technology and leapt to
cellular (digital) transmission.
It is a well known business axiom that “what gets measured gets managed1” (hence the IT
world’s focus on big data). As a project manager, whether I track budgets, billable hours,
training, network connectivity, trouble tickets or transactions per second, once a variable is given
focus, it can be managed and driven towards better performance. Progress, or lack thereof,
cannot be tracked if there are no data points and quantifiable objectives to pursue. Non-
quantified goals are nebulous at best, and progress cannot be tracked, nor compared, so it is
difficult to develop what consultants call “best practices”, which can then be leveraged industry
wide, or globally in this case.
For example if one of the objectives of the COP in their effort to reduce GHG, is to
reduce the average “food mile”, (distance food travels from farm to store2) the different methods
and practices to achieve this reduction can be compared if there is data that establishes a “food
mile baseline” and monthly or annual mileage averages going forward from that baseline. One
Swedish study documented that the average Swedish breakfast of apple, bread, butter, cheese
coffee, cream, orange juice and sugar traveled 24,000 miles to reach the table (or the distance
around the Earth)3. Different cities have different characteristics that may determine the success
or failure of various incentives to decrease food miles. Eating “local” (within 100 miles) may
not necessarily be the key, as rail transportation is 10 times more efficient than truck for
transporting freight, from a GHG emissions perspective. Data can track and monitor these
supply chains, determine the most efficient, and allow grocers, and consumers, to shop based on
decreased food miles and efficient supply chains (since 1,000 miles of rail transport is equivalent
to 100 miles of truck transport). A labeling system that includes food miles could greatly change
consumer behavior and purchases to the benefit of GHG reduction. One such initiative is
currently underway in Europe4.
But measuring the outcomes, and understanding how they were achieved allows for other
cities and regions to “cherry pick” the practices that might work best in their locale. If the goal is
simply stated as “support local farmers” then there is no method to determine whether or not
there is a decrease in food miles, GHG or an increase in local farm revenues. Even if there were
improvements, how it was achieved, and how effective it was compared to other methods, was
not tracked, so any lessons learned could not be applied elsewhere, negating the efficacy of
supporting local farmers. But when the goal is changed to “decrease food miles (or inefficiency
in the supply chain) 25% per capita annually for 5 years” these are very hard numbers that
concrete data can measure and track.
Quantifying data and objectives has the added goal of taking advantage of mankind’s
innate competitiveness and enjoyment of games that would further assist the reduction of GHG.
This is also known as the “Prius effect” whereby drivers ease off the gas pedal in response to real
time data from dashboard monitors to minimize fuel usage. Driving then becomes a bit of a
game and this can be applied to other areas such as residential, or even building, energy
management. Smart meters for electricity usage now link behavior to usage5 and should be
mandatory in all new construction and encouraged via rebates and tax incentives in existing
buildings. Numerous studies conclude that when it comes to energy “if we can see it, we will try
to save it”. This is the idea behind Google’s Power Meter that monitors and measures residential
energy usage in real time, allowing for immediate adjustments in energy usage6. It’s been
documented that neighbors and friends start vying with one another to minimize energy usage
(and maximize savings) with such real time and visual data.
The Carbon Disclosure Project’s aim is to measure, disseminate, and therefore allow for
the management of greenhouse gases. The CDP gathers emissions data from three thousand
corporations worldwide and shares it with government, academia and the private sector7. These
efforts are needed worldwide, as after measurement, comes monitoring. After monitoring,
comes management, which leads towards innovation and improvement (reduction) of GHG.
This leads to the dissemination of best practices and the leveraging of successful programs and
technology worldwide, further accelerating reductions of GHG.
One of the greatest success stories in the environmental movement is illustrative of the
potential forward progress that awaits us on regulating carbon emissions. In the 1980s S02
emissions from coal burning plants manifested themselves in “acid rain” that was sterilizing the
waters of the Northeast United States. Not only can I remember reading articles in National
Geographic, World, and Ranger Rick about acid rain creating lakes without fish but I can
remember optimistically trying to fish those lakes for trout in upstate New York on a weekend
visits to West Point and Saratoga Springs.
Despite industry protests of high costs, a new market based solution was quickly
hammered out in the US Congress to reduce the dangerous emissions. The solution was to set an
“emissions cap” for coal burners. Rather than regulating the industry (often seen as anti-
American), the legislation provided coal burners with the freedom to pursue reductions how they
saw fit (switching to lower sulfur coal sourced from the American West, installing scrubbers to
further burn and mitigate emissions etc.). The legislators had the foresight to build an incentive
into the ruling for over compliance such that if emissions were under the cap, the difference
generated EPA granted allowances that could be traded, sold or deposited against future caps. In
the first phase of the effort, the regulated plants reduced emissions 40% beyond the required
caps, or about seven million tons, which was a 40% reduction from 1980s levels! By 2004, the
Department of Energy estimated that the emissions cut constituted less than 1% of the $151
billion in operating expenses for the power industry8.
A second and equally successful campaign also proves illustrative to the COP as they
grapple with wrestling down emissions. During my teenage years, I can remember annual
warnings in the newspapers (I was a paperboy for the Washington Star and later the Washington
Post) of a growing hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica that eventually grew to threaten New
Zealand. Halocarbons, a family of industrial chemicals, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
were eating away the protective layer of ozone found in the stratosphere. The world quickly
came together in an unprecedented effort to combat the alarming increase in the size of the ozone
hole. The Montreal Protocol provided guidelines for the regulation of the CFCs that were
breaking down the ozone. Manufacturing practices were changed, alternative chemicals to the
CFCs were found or developed, and as a result, the ozone hole has been decreasing steadily for
two decades and in 2012 the hole was reported to be at its smallest level in the last 20 years9.
The hole is projected to be completely healed (closed) in 50-100 years10.
The two victories that the reduction in acid rain and the Montreal Protocol represent
provide hope that despite the disparate interests, lobbies, and political dysfunctions across the
world, a global problem of the magnitude as carbon emissions reduction can be solved. While
there are certainly more and bigger players, special interests, and more political dysfunctions due
to the larger global nature, there is also more data, more urgency, and precedents set (emissions
caps a la acid rain, Montreal protocol) to enable us to overcome the challenge of CO2 in our
atmosphere.
Perhaps the greatest tool to drive CO2 reduction would be a market signal through the
creation of a price on carbon. This could be crafted so as to be revenue neutral which is the only
way that such a “signal” would pass thru much of world’s (and the USA in particular) governing
bodies. The “price” on carbon would drive corporate and governmental behaviors towards GHG
reduction while a portion of the revenues created could be used to support R&D initiatives in
clean technology, abatement and adaptation programs, and technology transfer to the developing
world. In the long run, any costs of a carbon price would be offset by savings from improved
public health (cleaner air and water), decreased insurance premiums (decreased storm damage),
decreased food prices, and on and on.
A worldwide price on carbon would go a long way towards reducing GHG but
realistically, in the absence of a truly overarching governing body this would be extremely
difficult to enact. Fortunately, the world is not awaiting some leadership body from above to
impose carbon pricing; rather, a bottom up approach is manifesting itself worldwide.
The International Emissions Trading Association reports that regional and global
programs for emissions trading are not only increasing, but thriving, and that “emissions trading
continues to be the policy instrument of choice for reducing emissions across the world”. The
Western Climate Initiative, a partnership between the state of California and the province of
Quebec has committed to ambitious targets that exceed that of the European Union’s ETS
(Emissions Trading Scheme) and of RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a coalition of
911NE United states). The report goes on to detail that both Japan and China are gaining speed in
their progress to regulate emissions. China is implementing seven regional pilots prior to a
national rollout in 2015 while Japan is supporting emissions reduction projects to offset their
domestic greenhouse gas emissions using the Bilateral Offset Crediting Mechanism (BOCM) in
conjunction to phase out nuclear generation by 203012.
George Soros, in the meantime, opines that the failure of the Cancun climate change
conference to set an international price on carbon is actually a good thing. He cites the “bottom-
up” approach that is emerging to price carbon on a localized scale as is more suitable for the
individual traits of that particular marketplace. A “multiplicity of prices for carbon emissions is
more appropriate for the task of reducing carbon emissions because there is a multiplicity of
sectors and methods which each produce a unique cost curve”. Soros goes on to detail the rise of
individual countries and programs making unilateral commitments that are not dependent on
other parties. For example, the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
program (REDD) which creates financial value for the carbon stored in forests, is now charged
with treating Indonesian rain forest as a natural resource to be preserved and restored. Carbon
can be priced based either on the restoration of forests or for avoiding carbon emissions by
preserving forests. In this manner, carbon pricing from the bottom up, as opposed to a global
organization, sets the example for other sectors and nations worldwide13.
While a “bottom up” approach captures the groundswell of more localized efforts, it is
also important to have governments and corporations facilitate action through establishing
effective policies, programs and lending initiatives. For example, six of the world’s largest
banks are signatories to the Carbon Principles which seek to “reduce the regulatory and financial
risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions” and to encourage the power sector to decrease
emissions by enhancing energy efficiency and investment in “demand reduction”, i.e.
conservation efforts. By setting a regulatory and financial framework from above, and having
local or regional efforts drive action from below, there is a convergence of action, leadership,
and ultimately results, that “meets in the middle” to produce the desired outcome of reducing
GHG.
Since we are currently experiencing dangerous anthropogenic interference, adaptation has
to be a significant part of the agreement, in particular, programs and processes that assist
populations of low lying islands and coastal areas who are most vulnerable to rising sea levels,
from the Pacific islands such as Tuvalu, to the indigenous coastal communities in the Arctic, to
the urban slums of Bangladesh. For better or worse, the increasingly destructive pattern of more
intense storms, severe droughts, wildfires and infestations is bringing attention to what needs to
be done in the here and now to live with these effects. Trigger events, as costly in dollars as they
are in human lives, such as Superstorm Sandy, or last year’s flooding in Pakistan, capture our
attention and warrant immediate action. The cost of adaptation rises disproportionately with
temperature14. So in order to prevent massive outlays of dollars in a reactive mode to more
intense storms, adaptation needs to occur now, and not be postponed. Immediacy will save lives,
property, and money. Too often the effect from trigger events is short lived, but it seems that
with each new “trigger” event, the world pays a little more attention, effects a little more change,
and the message is retained a little longer.
From a climate adaptation and abatement standpoint, no single nation has the history, or
the response against the possibility of floods, as the Netherlands has. In order to live with the
omnipresent threat of flooding from rising seas and greater storms, and catapulted by the North
Sea flood of 1953 that saw nearly 2,000 dead, the Dutch take living with flood risk very
seriously. In fact, after the great flood of 1953 they took preparation to the next level with the
construction of their “Deltaworks”, an impressive and complex maze of dams, sluices, and
barriers of levies and defenses to “fight” the sea. The crown jewel of the Deltaworks is the pair of
sea gates at Maeslantkering15, each larger than the Eiffel Tower on its side, guarding the port city of
Rotterdam, which is located some 20 feet below sea level16.
Using a host of incentives such as free street parking, promotional leases and large tax
breaks, the Dutch witnessed an eight fold growth of their electric vehicle (EV) fleet in 2012.
While this represents less than 1% of new car sales17 the Dutch transition to an all electric fleet
will maintain this exponential momentum for several reasons 1) the range anxiety that plagues
Americans is not an issue because of Holland’s small size, 2) the Dutch have a historically
progressive society that has typically been enthusiastic about environmental initiatives, 3) the
infrastructure to support EVs in their county continues to get built out and 4) continued
improvements in electric vehicles and battery storage make it even more attractive to convert
from petrol based cars.
Not only are the Dutch pushing mitigation and abatement measures to help curtail GHG,
they also have a “full court press” on in order to develop their adaptive capacities and strategy
for global warming. Sixty percent of The Netherlands GDP is produced below sea level and
while much of this investment is protected by their hardened infrastructure, the Dutch are now
acquiescing to the unyielding nature of the sea’s relentless rise, by actually planning for flooding
and allowing for inundation in their zoning and land use legislation thru the “Living with Water”
program18. Farmlands, greenspace, and recreational areas (soccer fields) are increasingly being
zoned and designed as “catch basins” that will flood on purpose in an effort to alleviate pressures
on their complex of flood defenses. In lieu of flood control the new philosophy in the
Netherlands is controlled flooding.
In one example, a program called “Room for the River” has invested $3 billion into
projects that lower dikes and create room for rising waters. The program recently “bought out” a
group of farmers to use their land as a spillway to hold periodic flood waters. In another
example, a two mile long seaside boulevard was created in lieu of a levy; the design accounts for
a pedestrian bridge that would harmlessly break up when confronted by rising waters. In an
interesting about face, the Dutch have added controlled flooding to their bag of survival and
adaptation tricks against a rising sea.
The City of Rotterdam unveiled the world’s first floating pavilion on June 26, 2011, in
response to city objectives to reduce CO2 emissions and to ensure that the city remains “climate
change resilient in the future”. Construction occurred on the water, as opposed to a dry dock,
and the pavilion serves as an active exhibition and reception space focusing on Rotterdam’s
water management, climate change and energy needs. Standing 12 meters high, the pavilion has
the square footage of four tennis courts and can host 500 visitors. The adjacent plaza and dome
(see below), seat 150 guests. Building materials included polystyrene sheets fastened to
prefabricated concrete slabs. The pavilion domes are ETFE foil, a transparent material 100 times
lighter than glass. A thermal storage system provides the energy, using layers of water for
insulation and solar heating for hot water. Rain is harvested and waste water is purified19.
http://inhabitat.com/rotterdams-floating-pavilion-is-an-experimental-climate-proof-development/
Waterstudio.NL, a Dutch architecture firm has a master plan, Het Nieuwe Water (the
New Water Project)20 that entails 600 floating houses built on reclaimed land between the Hague,
North Sea and Rotterdam. Once construction is completed in 2017, the surrounding levees will
be breached and the homes water bound21
http://inhabitat.com/the-citadel-europes-first-floating-apartment-complex/
According to DeltaSync, a design and research company specializing in floating
urbanization, “from single homes to office blocks and even roads, the construction of floating
cities could make low-lying nations habitable amid dramatically rising sea levels and storm
surges22”. Further, “living on water offers great opportunities for flexible and sustainable
housing. Water homes can be manufactured at a distant location, transported over water (by
tanker or tug), reorganized and re-used at different locations.”
Education is paramount in the global initiative to combat climate change. Environmental
sciences should be integrated earlier into school curriculums and environmental responsibility
should be taught as a part of our civic duty and as a moral obligation. There are wide gulfs
between countries regarding civic and environmental obligations. For example, China’s
National People’s Congress declared in 1981 that all citizens have a duty to plant three trees a
year. High school students have to plant one tree as a requirement for graduation23 and “green
education” is built into the Chinese academic year. In the United States, I’ve never heard of tree
planting as a requisite to graduate, and sadly, I would guess that most US citizens plant three
trees in their lifetime, not a year.
We may not have the same authoritarian luxury (in this case) of mandating tree planting
and green education, but we do have uniquely American forms of “green education” at the local
level. The good food movement has two examples of teachers who not only drive GHG
emissions down but proselytize to their communities, educating school children and adults alike
in gardening, composting, eating healthy diets and the value of labor and exercise. The first
“green hero” is Will Allen, a Milwaukee based urban agriculture advocate who converted three
acres of vacant lots into 14 greenhouses that produce $250,000 worth of food annually. Allen
converts millions of pounds of food waste thru composting (and lots of worms) into nutrient rich
soil that provides healthful foods to 10,000 urbanites24. His endeavors also provide employment
for several dozen community members and education in “intensive polyculture” to local schools
and church groups which includes youth mentoring. His efforts have not gone unnoticed, having
received a $100,000 grant from the Ford Foundation in 2005, a $500,000 “genius” grant from the
MacArthur foundation in 2008, and in 2009 a $400,000 grant from the Kellogg Foundation.
Another tireless defender of “street farming” who promulgates healthy eating, sustainable
gardening, and decreased fossil fuel expenditures (both in food miles and the non-use of
synthetic fertilizers) is Ron Finley. Mr. Finley recently spoke of his “guerilla gardening” at last
years TED conference. His brand of urban agriculture goes so far as to plant vegetable gardens
in the median strips and vacant lots of his South Central, Los Angeles home25 despite not owning
the land. These two men, and probably dozens of others with their own brands of living
sustainably, not only decrease emissions by dramatically reducing food miles, but lead by
example, lives centered on sustainable agriculture. Further, they promote healthy diets in regions
with poor access to quality foods, and convert food waste into soil, decreasing emissions further
by denying garbage dumps the waste that would otherwise decompose into methane. Instead,
they feed millions of red wigglers, tilapia and perch who in turn replenish the soil that feeds
thousands.
There are several initiatives that can be undertaken to improve our ability to account for
environmental damage. As previously noted “if it is measured, it can be managed”, and this
should apply to our national (and global) system of accounting and measuring economic output.
Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, has long been used nationally and internationally to measure
the value of productivity in goods and services. However, it is woefully inadequate for capturing
the cost of ecological damage (destruction of wetlands, fisheries, watersheds, biological diversity
etc.) and public health concerns from water and air pollution etc. GDP is deeply flawed as it
essentially counts natural disasters and social ills as a positive contribution to the growth of
GDP.
The cost of repairs and rehabilitation from storm damage, flood destruction, crop failures
etc. are viewed as a good thing because they generate more cash transactions (sales) and more
consumption26. Social problems such as divorce, theft, and violent crime are also considered a
“plus” for the economy as measured by GDP because money is spent on divorce lawyers, buying
two homes instead of one (post-divorce), security systems to prevent theft, massive prison
systems and even therapy to rehabilitate and calm the frayed nerves of our consumer driven
society. This sort of “growth” as practiced today in the worldwide economy is neither sustainable
nor good. There are other alternatives available.
The GPI or Genuine Progress Indicator is one alternative that would better price
environmental and social externalities into our economy. For example, GPI subtracts negative
aspects such as resource depletion, the cost of crime, wetlands loss etc. from the measure of
progress. Another potential alternative to capturing the net value of economic activity is the
HDI, Human Development Index, which looks at the well being of the population rather than
taking a macro view of an economy.
Ecological economist Herman Daly advocates the move towards a steady state economy
(SSE), where the macro economy is not the whole, but rather a “subsystem” of a larger, finite
and non-growing ecosystem. SSE essentially states that economic growth should not exceed a
constant level of resource use that is deemed ecologically sustainable for future generations.
SSE is where the economy is neither growing nor receding. The economy could have a growing
population with declining per capita income, or vice versa, but not both, owing to the
unsustainability of both population and income growth. In the view of an SSE economist,
wetlands would have an assigned value based on their services provided as water filters and
purifiers, fish nurseries, and storm surge barriers, versus the simple dollar value of future crop
yields if they were drained and farmed. SSE recognizes that there are biophysical limits to
growth that include finite resource supplies, and that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy
law, where the availability of useful energy always declines) works against a worldwide
population that wants to consume ever more, when only finite supplies of resources are
available27.
There is a gross distortion on the true market value of many goods in the world caused by
an over reliance and outdated usage of subsidies, particularly regarding agricultural products and
fossil fuels. This country (and the world) needs to accelerate the transition of subsidies from oil
and gas to renewable energy and research. “Oil and gas business benefitted hugely from tax
breaks that go back to the 1920s (oil depletion allowances) and were intended to encourage
production in what was considered a risky game”28. Subsidies for fossil fuels have run as high as
$12B a year in the early 1980s, yet the failure of one federal loan of $500M to PV manufacturer
Solyndra sparked political outrage. Robert Semple astutely comments on his Oct. 15, 2011 piece
in the New York Times (NYT) that “one case hardly discredits the whole idea of government
support for energy innovation”. He further points out that land grants helped build the coal
industry, New Deal spending created hydroelectric dams and Department of Defense spending
got our nuclear program rolling. Private capital may be good at identifying and incubating new
technologies, but bringing those technologies to commercial scale often requires significant
public capital29.
Paul Crouser points out in the NYT’s Sunday Dialogue on Energy Incentives (November
6, 2011) “we are giving billions of dollars in annual subsidies to an oil industry that earns an
average of about $100 billion in profits a year”. The Department of Energy’s “20 Percent Wind
by 2030” study states the wind industry promises to support 500,000 American jobs less than 20
years from now30. Yet subsidies for renewables are not politically popular and do not occur at
the scale required to truly advance them to the next generation of technology that will get us
cleanly and safely towards meeting the world’s energy needs.
Unfortunately, there is no panacea to climate change, and the obstacles are numerous and
daunting. The new agreement will be difficult to craft, and very complex calculus will have to
be devised so that everyone is treated fairly and no-one is assigned a disproportionate share of
the solution (although over-achievers will not be scorned!). It will be a truly complex algorithm,
how to assign GHG reduction goals and credits. The politics will be intense, with special
interests, splinter groups, and individuals wielding asymmetrical power and miring the process in
the ugliness of backstabbing, deal cutting, resentment and abuse. However, with the continued
destructive onslaught of climate change events perhaps it is not too naïve to think that countries,
industries, community groups and their leaders can put aside differences and agree upon some
common solutions to steer us towards reductions in our GHG emissions such as education,
carbon pricing, an overhaul of how we value goods and services (to include externalities), and
individual behavior changes.
We can each take responsibility and change behaviors at home. Question your next
purchase as a “want” or a “need” and stop ogling your neighbors new car, clothes and outdoor
kitchen (keeping up with the Jones is slowly killing us), but rather admire their ability to keep an
older car running (unless it’s an EV), to knit their own clothes or maintain and repair their own
house. Start a garden, recycle more, compost, mulch, and even plow under your grass
lawn….certainly don’t use synthetic fertilizer. It’s going to take a village, a mighty big, global
village, but a village at the end of the day that is composed of billions of individuals each
working towards a common goal. Soros was right, a “bottoms up” approach can make progress,
but everyone needs to be a part of the bottom to drive true success in managing our emissions
downward.
1 Hewitt, William F, A Newer World, Politics, Money, Technology and what’s really being done to solve the Climate Crisis (Durham, New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire Press, 2013), p. 128.
2 Worldwatch Institute, http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/definitions/Food-Miles.
3 http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/definitions/Food-Miles
4 http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/definitions/Food-Miles
5 Gore, Al, Our Choice, a Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis (New York, New York: Melcher Media, 2009), p. 389.
6 Gore, p. 389.
7 Hewitt, p. 129.
8 Gore, p. 344.
9 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/antarctic-ozone-hole-size-2012_n_2016713.html
10 Gore, p. 45-47.
11 http://www.rggi.org/
12 International Emissions Trading Association Press Release: IETA Greenhouse Gas Market 2012 Demonstrates Rise of Market Mechanisms Across Globe.
13 Soros, George, Seeing REDD on Climate Change, December 12, 2010.
14 Llewellyn, John and Chaix, Camille. Lehman Brothers, The Business of Climate Change II, The Business of Climate Change II September 20, 2007. p. 33.
15 http://www.deltawerken.com/Deltaworks/23.html%29
16 Rosenthal, Elizabeth, Plugging In, Dutch Put Electric Cars to the Test, New York Times, February 10, 2013.
17 Rosenthal, Elizabeth, Plugging In, Dutch Put Electric Cars to the Test, New York Times, February 10, 2013.
18 Llewellyn, John and Chaix, Camille. Lehman Brothers, The Business of Climate Change II, The Business of Climate Change II September 20, 2007. p. 33.
19 Ross, Kate. As Seas Rise, Future Floats, New York Times October 27th, 2010. Accessed from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/business/energy-environment/28iht-rbobfloat.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1323532992-ic/RpVTUegg4ud71TjNE7w
20 http://waterstudio.nl/videos/24,
21 Ross, Kate. As Seas Rise, Future Floats, New York Times October 27th, 2010.
22 Ross, Kate. As Seas Rise, Future Floats, New York Times October 27th, 2010.
23 Gore, p. 194.
24 Royte, Elizabeth, Street Farmer, New York Times Magazine July 5 2009.
25 Hochman, David. An Appleseed with Attitude. New York Times, May 5, 2013.
26 Cobb, Clifford, If the GDP is Up, Why is America Down? The Atlantic Monthly, October 1995.
27 Leishear, Chris. Class Notes from Maria Ivanova’s Sustainable Development class, NYU CGA. July 2011.
28 Semple Jr., Robert B. Oil and Gas Had Help Why Not Renewables? New York Times, October 15, 2011.
29 Semple Jr. Robert B.
30 Bode, Denise. Incentive on Energy, The New York Times Sunday Dialogue: November 6 2011.