Class 6 - Climate Solutions

Scientific and Spiritual Dimensions of Climate Change

A Study Course

Class 6

Climate Solutions

By now you know that climate change is a very complex issue: There are many causes and a wide range of harmful effects. Working on a solution is equally complex. There is no simple prescription to solve the problem of global warming. However, it is quite possible to effectively mitigate it by taking a holistic approach. This means reducing emissions in all sectors of human activity. We already discussed numerous beneficial actions individuals can undertake to reduce their personal carbon footprint. While it is very important that individuals begin leading a sustainable life, it is not sufficient. It would take too long until everyone on the planet is educated about climate change and motivated to change the way they live. Moreover, many changes must be made on a much larger scale, in the local community, as a nation, and particularly on the global level. In this class you will learn about some areas where it is imperative that society takes action.

Section 1: Mitigation and Adaptation

There is a need for humanity to take action on climate change in two ways:

- We need to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is called mitigation.
- We need to reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts. This is called adaptation.

Mitigation
Greenhouse gases are emitted from many sectors in society: Power plants, deforestation, transport, agriculture, industry, buildings, waste. Everywhere, emissions must be significantly trimmed. Much can be accomplished with energy conservation and efficiency, and by the use of carbon free energy and new technology. This will require a re-thinking and re-organizing of almost everything we are doing as a society and as individuals.

Adaptation
Climate change is already under way. Adaptation is necessary. For example: In many areas, farmers may need to change their crops to plants that are more drought resistant or can stand higher temperatures. In low-lying areas, zoning plans may need to consider sea-level rise. Human settlements may have to be moved and certain areas evacuated. Many poor countries will need technical and financial support from rich countries.

However, there are limits to adaptation. If we continue with business as usual (if we don't reduce our greenhouse gas emissions), many of the effects of climate change will be too great for our ability to adapt.

Discussion: How could climate change affect the region you are living in? What kind of adaptation measures would be helpful to mitigate the impact?

The remaining sections of this class are all part of mitigation efforts.

Section 2: Energy Generation and Use

The production of energy is responsible for the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions compared to all other sectors. It is responsible for almost 26% of total emissions. ⁱ

The quickest and most cost effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are energy conservation and efficiency. It is estimated that far reaching conservation practices combined with energy efficiency could save 40% of energy!
We need worldwide efficiency standards for household appliances. “The standards would be raised every few years to take advantage of the latest technological gains in efficiency. The principal reason that consumers do not buy the most energy-efficient appliances is because the improved design and insulation increase the upfront costs. If, however, societies adopt a carbon tax reflecting the health care costs of breathing polluted air and the costs of climate change, the more efficient appliances would be economically much more attractive.” ⁱⁱ

“Within the industrial sector, there is a hefty potential for reducing energy use. In the petrochemical industry, moving to the most efficient production technologies now available and recycling more plastic can cut energy use by 32 percent. With steel, gains in manufacturing efficiency can cut energy use by 23 percent. Even larger gains are within reach for cement, where simply shifting to the most efficient dry kiln technologies can reduce energy use by 42 percent.

The retrofitting of buildings can reduce energy use by 20–50%! Such a reduction in energy use combined with the use of green electricity to heat, cool, and light the building means that it may be easier to create carbon-neutral buildings than we may have thought. ⁱⁱⁱ

Carbon Free Energy
A few generations have already used up about half of the Earth’s oil reserves. The remaining oil will take more energy to extract. With growing populations and growing economies we will run out of oil sooner than later. Now, the threat of climate change forces us to act even more quickly to get away from fossil fuels. Moreover, as oil will get increasingly scarce and therefore more expensive, there is the great danger that other fossil fuels like coal and oil shale will be more widely used, which emit even more CO₂.

About 20% of our CO₂ emissions will stay in the atmosphere for 1000 years or more. That’s why the quick reduction (and ultimately elimination) of CO₂ emissions should get first priority. Coal is the worst CO₂ polluter. Phasing out coal-fired power plants (and not building new ones) should get first priority in mitigating global warming according to NASA scientist James Hansen. There are many other environmental and health benefits with abandoning the burning of coal, as these power plants emit huge amounts of toxic chemicals, especially mercury.

Now is the time to move to carbon free energy, usually called renewable energy. “Renewable energy technologies tap into natural cycles and systems, turning the ever-present energy around us into usable forms. The movement of wind and water, the heat and light of the sun, heat in the ground, the carbohydrates in plants—all are natural energy sources that can supply our needs in a sustainable way. Because they are homegrown, renewables can also increase our energy security and create local jobs.” ^iv It is necessary to use the already available technology to build wind turbines and solar energy systems on a large scale as quickly as possible. At the same time, much more research needs to be done in the area of renewable energy. As it takes energy to create the capital equipment (wind turbines, solar cells etc.) for our sustainable energy future, we should use the relatively cheap fossil fuel energy while we still have it to do exactly that. The good news is that energy sustainability (through renewable energy) only has to be achieved once.

Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy doesn’t have one easy solution. No other energy source is as powerful as fossil fuels. A range of different energy sources needs to be used. The choice of energy sources will depend on their local availability.
A new energy infrastructure needs to be built based on renewable energy in order to satisfy long-term energy needs in a climate friendly way.

Section 3: Transportation

“Society currently relies almost exclusively on petroleum-based fuels, such as gasoline, for transport. This fuel use is responsible for 13% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.” ^v

In addition, in many of the world’s cities like Beijing or Mexico City the quality of daily life is deteriorating because of heavy air pollution. Breathing the air in some cities is equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes per day. In the United States, the number of hours commuters spend sitting in traffic going nowhere climbs higher each year.

Some cities have already taken successful measures in addressing their traffic problems and often at the same time other pressing issues: Bogotá, Colombia, achieved a greatly improved quality of life by putting the interest of people before cars. Within just 3 years, the city banned the parking of cars on sidewalks, created or renovated 1,200 parks, introduced a highly successful bus-based rapid transit system, built hundreds of kilometers of bicycle paths and pedestrian streets, reduced rush hour traffic by 40 percent, planted 100,000 trees, and involved local citizens directly in the improvement of their neighborhoods. ^vi In Paris, authorities have set up an official city-wide bike-rental system to encourage the use of bicycles instead of cars.

Very important for curbing greenhouse gas emissions is a good public transportation system. A prerequisite for an efficient public transport is good city planning and the avoidance of urban sprawl.

Japan is leading the world with its high-speed bullet trains, which achieve a speed of up to 306 km (190 miles) per hour. “On some of the heavily used intercity high-speed rail lines, trains depart every three minutes. Japan’s high-speed rail network stretches for 1,360 miles, linking nearly all its major cities. Once high-speed links between cities begin operating, they dramatically raise the number of people traveling by train between cities. For example, when the Paris-to-Brussels link, a distance of 194 miles that is covered by train in 85 minutes, opened, the share of those traveling between the two cities by train rose from 24 percent to 50 percent. The car share dropped from 61 percent to 43 percent, and CO₂-intensive plane travel virtually disappeared.” ^vii

Fuel efficiency standards for cars should be raised to the highest possible with current technology. The price of energy should reflect its true cost to society. A current estimate of the full cost of gasoline to society is about $15 a gallon (£2.4 British pounds per liter). Once such hidden costs are incorporated in the pricing system, alternative energy will become financially much more attractive.

The use of electric cars could be encouraged with financial incentives. However, electric cars will only help mitigate climate change if the electricity comes from clean energy sources. Hopefully, higher prices for less polluting cars will help to reduce the numbers of cars on the world’s street. Car pooling and sharing are also necessary, as well as people adopting less car dependent lifestyles.

Section 4: Sustainable Agriculture

"Whoever brings dead land to life, that is, cultivates wasteland, for him is a reward therein." ^viii Muhammad

The beginning of our civilization happened about 10,000 years ago, at a time when the Earth’s climate became more stable. Our civilization depends on agriculture, which requires a climate with only minor variations. As we have seen in class 3, section 5, most changes in climate are detrimental to agriculture and threaten global food supply.

Although agriculture will be one of the first casualties of climate change, it is also a major contributor of greenhouse gases. “Overall, land use and land use changes account for around 31% of total human-induced greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.” ^ix Both this section on agriculture and the next section on reforestation address land use.

Current agricultural practices and the whole food economy are greatly contributing to global warming. One way of practicing stewardship is with sustainable agriculture. “Growing plants can remove huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and store it in vegetation and soils in ways that not only stabilize the climate but also benefit food and fiber production and the environment.” ^x

Organic agriculture can significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Synthetic fertilizers release greenhouse gases into the air. But the organic approach sequesters carbon: It takes carbon out of the air and puts it back in the soil. The use of compost increases organic matter and therefore leads to more fertile soils and better water retention capacity, which will make the plants more flood and drought resistant. ^xi

Organically grown crops can better withstand the higher temperatures caused by global warming. Many experts believe that organic agriculture is not only a tool to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, but also a way to alleviate poverty and improve food security in developing countries.

A study found that “beef cattle raised organically on grass emit 40% less greenhouse gases and use 85% less energy making beef than cattle raised on grain.” ^xii

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport. The major reason for the high carbon dioxide emissions by livestock is “deforestation for the expansion of pastures and arable land for feed crops. It generates even bigger shares of emissions of other gases with greater potential to warm the atmosphere: as much as 37 percent of anthropogenic methane, mostly from digestive processes of cows, and 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide, mostly from manure. ^xiii

Besides climate change, other serious problems are associated with meat production: Farms and food processing plants have grown into gigantic factories. This development has not been in the interest of people: Farm hands and employees often work under slave like conditions; the quality of the food is greatly diminished; salmonella poisonings have become more frequent; chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are polluting soil and water and affect human health; they contribute, for example, to the rising cancer rates. Human health is compromised by the regular administration of antibiotics and growth hormones to livestock. If thousands, often tens of thousands of animals are living in the extremely close proximity of a factory farm, the danger of disease is high. That’s why new diseases like avian or swine flu are emerging. Moreover, the vast amount of animal waste not only releases substantial amounts of greenhouse gases, especially methane, but is also very toxic. “In North Carolina, hogs outnumber citizens, and they produce more fecal waste than California, New York, and Washington combined.” ^xiv “The livestock sector also contributes to water depletion; currently, the livestock sector accounts for 8 percent of human water use globally.” ^xv

“Researchers found that the difference between a vegan diet and a red-meat diet in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions equaled the difference between driving a sedan and driving a sport-utility vehicle.” ^xvi The benefits of a vegetarian diet were expressed by the voice of religion and of science way before the climate crisis came to our attention.

“The food of the future will be fruit and grains. The time will come when meat is no longer eaten.” ^xvii ‘Abdul'l-Baha

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." ^xviii Albert Einstein

It is still possible to raise some livestock in a sustainable way. However, meat can only play a small part in feeding a growing world population. In sustainable agricultural practices, smaller sized local farms grow a diversity of crops and animals. The manure of the animals is a welcome fertilizer for the plants. Here just one example: “In many densely populated Asian nations, where demand for seafood is growing fastest, fish farming is a natural addition to existing rice farming operations. This isn’t new. Archeological evidence shows that Chinese farmers have been raising fish in rice paddies for nearly 3,000 years. Vegetable scraps and crop residues are fed to fish, which in turn produce waste that is used to fertilize the fields. Farmers can also use fewer pesticides and herbicides, since fish help control pests by consuming their larvae and eating weeds and algae that compete with rice for nutrients. (Fish farming also helps to control malaria, since fish eat mosquito larvae.)” ^xix

A decentralized agriculture cuts down on costs and CO₂ emissions resulting from the transportation of food. A further positive effect of a decentralized agriculture is that it greatly increases food security. (More on decentralization in class 7, section 6.)

Section 5: Reforestation

“If anyone has a palm shoot in his hand on the last day he should plant it.” ^xx Muhammad

“There are already many tree planting initiatives under way that are driven by a range of concerns, from climate change to desert expansion, to soil conservation, to making cities more habitable. These include the worldwide Billion Tree Campaign launched in 2007, urban tree planting initiatives in many cities, the Great Green Wall being planted in China, and the Saharan Green Wall of Africa, as well as a big push to expand tree plantations within a number of countries.

"The Billion Tree Campaign was inspired by Kenyan Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai, who had earlier organized women in Kenya and several nearby countries to plant 30 million trees. The United Nations Environment Programme, which is administering the Billion Tree Campaign, reported as of October 2007 that it had received pledges to plant a total of 1.2 billion trees by year end.” ^xxi Among the participating countries are Mexico, Ethiopia, and Senegal.

“South Korea is in many ways a reforestation model for the rest of the world. When the Korean War ended, half a century ago, the mountainous country was largely deforested. Beginning around 1960, under the dedicated leadership of President Park Chung Hee, the South Korean government launched a national reforestation effort. Relying on the formation of village cooperatives, hundreds of thousands of people were mobilized to dig trenches and to create terraces for supporting trees on barren mountains. Se-Kyung Chong, researcher at the Korea Forest Research Institute, writes, “The result was a seemingly miraculous rebirth of forests from barren land.
Today forests cover 65 percent of the country, an area of roughly 6 million hectares.” ^xxii

We should keep in mind though that planting forests is only a partial and temporary solution to climate change. Growing trees in a young forest absorb a lot of CO₂, but once the forest matures, they absorb far less. "Planting forests will only compensate for a small fraction of emissions, even if you cover all of Hungary in young trees." ^xxiii The most urgent measure to take would be to stop deforestation, especially in Indonesia and the Amazon, as deforestation accounts for about 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Section 6: Garbage – an Obsolete Concept

Waste is contributing to global warming in more than one way. Landfills release methane, garbage trucks emit CO₂, and most of the things we throw away could be recycled to produce consumer goods with much less energy than from new materials.
Society got used to throw away towels, napkins, plates, cups, handkerchiefs, shopping bags etc. Even reusable products and machines are usually not manufactured with longevity in mind, only with reduction of production costs.

“The throwaway economy is on a collision course with the Earth’s geological limits. Aside from running out of landfills near cities, the world is also fast running out of the cheap oil that is used to manufacture and transport throwaway products. Perhaps more fundamentally, there is not enough readily accessible lead, tin, copper, iron ore, or bauxite to sustain the throwaway economy beyond another generation or two. The challenge is to replace the throwaway economy with a reduce-reuse-recycle economy. Officials should worry less about what to do with garbage and think more about how to avoid producing it in the first place.” ^xxiv

San Francisco is at the forefront of American cities in waste reduction. It recovers 72 percent of the materials it discards and has created the first large-scale urban collection of food scraps for composting in the country. The city’s goal is to achieve zero waste by 2020. ^xxv

It is possible to develop a comprehensive reuse and recycle economy. Products can be designed so that they last for a long time and that after their lifespan, they can be disassembled and their materials reused again.

Section 7: Four Difficult Issues

Some measures to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions are complex and controversial. This course does not endorse any policy; it only wants to inform about the scientific facts. In the next class we will talk about spiritual and ethical principles. It is left to the participants to make up their own individual opinion on the following topics. Here are some of the facts on bio-fuels, nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, and the legal measures cap and trade versus carbon tax:

1. Bio-fuels have already become a large industry in some countries. The experience has shown that it is necessary to use that resource responsibly so that companies’ profits are not made at tremendous costs to the world's poor and to the environment.

Bio-fuels are a renewable and theoretically carbon neutral energy source because the amount of carbon dioxide created by the burning of bio-fuels is equal to the CO₂ absorption capacity of the plants. Bio-fuels are derived from sugar, starch (especially corn), or oil seed crops.

The increasing demand for land for bio-fuel plantations is causing deforestation and destruction of some of the last and largest primeval forests, which are being logged and burned to clear land for these bio-fuel plantations. In Indonesia, millions of acres of primordial rainforest are at stake. The government plans to clear vast tracts of this forest for oil palm plantations for bio-diesel for export to Europe, threatening the existence of wildlife including orangutans, rhinoceros and tigers.

The logging and burning of forests for bio-fuel plantations releases huge quantities of greenhouse gases, which are unlikely to be offset by the bio-fuels created from the crops grown on these former forest lands. The burning of the forests of Indonesia each year (largely for oil palm plantations) makes it the world's third largest producer of global carbon emissions, even though most of the population lives in poverty.

Indigenous peoples who depend on forests for food, medicine, shelter, livelihoods or culture are being forcibly displaced from their lands in some countries to make room for bio-fuel plantations.

"The biotechnology industry is using rising demand for bio-fuel as a new way to sell their problematic genetic engineering technology. One company is genetically engineering trees for release in the Southeast US and Brazil that have specifically been modified to produce cellulosic ethanol. Studies on the risks of releasing GE trees into the environment in plantations are virtually non-existent. However, the escape of engineered pollen and seeds from these plantations into native forests up to hundreds of miles away is inevitable and irreversible. The results of this genetic contamination are predicted to be very serious both for humans and wildlife." ^xxvi

“Producing and using first-generation bio-fuels can release more greenhouse gases than are absorbed during biomass growth. These emissions occur when new land is cleared for cultivation; when fertilizer and pesticides are manufactured, transported, and applied; when energy is used to run farm machinery, pump irrigation water, and operate refineries; and when the fuel is transported and used. The total global warming footprint depends on what feedstock is used, how and where this feedstock is grown, any land-use changes, and how the fuel is processed. Some estimates suggest that corn ethanol provides only a 12 to 18 percent net reduction in emissions compared to gasoline, but these figures assume that the refineries are fueled by natural gas. If more-polluting coal power is used, the lifecycle emissions are higher than those associated with gasoline.” ^xxvii

Bio-fuels are creating competition between food for people and fuel for cars, leading to skyrocketing grain prices and increasing numbers of people who cannot afford to eat. As one example, the amount of grain needed to create enough ethanol to fill the tank of a single SUV could feed one person for an entire year. There simply isn't enough grain to feed all of the people and all of the cars.

Already now, bio-fuels are partly to blame for the increasing global food crisis. However, bio-fuels could have a small but important place in mitigating global warming if produced responsibly, for example from waste materials. Also several perennial plants like switchgrass, which grow on marginal lands and don’t require fertilization, could be used in a sustainable way and without competition with food crops.

2. Due to the pressure of cutting greenhouse gases quickly, some concerned people are advocating nuclear energy. Here again it is necessary to be fully informed about all the facts:
Nuclear energy is not completely carbon free. It is true that the operation of a nuclear power plant doesn’t emit CO₂. However, the construction of such a plant uses a lot of concrete, which releases vast amounts of CO₂ during its production. Once the plant is built, uranium needs to be mined and transported, both of which processes require fossil fuels. Its waste will have to be transported as well.

Radioactive waste from nuclear power plants stays highly toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. It is probably possible to build a somewhat safe storage site that can last several hundred years. However, a few hundred years is nothing compared to the lifespan of the waste’s toxicity. How will future generations cope with the radioactive waste we have already produced? And they will not have the fossil fuels available to deal with the problem.

Although nuclear energy has been used in many countries for many decades, no country in the whole world has found a safe place or a safe method for the storage of its waste.

There is always the danger of an accident due to human error or technological failure. One of the worst nuclear accidents happened in Tschernobyl in 1986. In the aftermath, more than 130 000 people were evacuated from a 30-km zone around the reactor. The WHO estimates that around 4 million people in Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine have been affected by the nuclear disaster. Roughly one million are undergoing medical treatment for consequential health impairments. A direct link between the accident and thyroid cancer among children is recognized internationally. The nuclear disaster at Chernobyl effectively deprived Belarus of 22 per cent of its agricultural land and 21 per cent of its forests. The official Chernobyl Committee in Minsk, which is responsible for dealing with the consequences of the disaster, estimates the total damage for the Republic at USD 235 billion. This is more than ten times the gross national product of 1997 and about 60 times the annual national budget. ^xxviii

Nuclear power plants are a potential threat to peace and security: The enriched plutonium of nuclear power plants can be used to make nuclear weapons. Also, a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant cannot be ruled out.

Nuclear power plants require huge amounts of cooling water. Increasing water shortages are a great threat to their operation. In addition, as the used water is returned to the river, it raises its temperature damaging its ecosystem. As the oxygen content in the warmer water is reduced, it can result in killing all the fish. That’s why nuclear power plants in Europe often have to reduce their production during heat waves. This problem will be exacerbated greatly in the coming decades when heat waves will be more severe and river flow severely reduced in the summers because of the disappearance of glaciers.

Nuclear energy is very expensive. Until now it could compete economically with other energy sources because it has been heavily subsidized by governments and because expenses of building safe storage facilities and maintaining them for hundreds of thousands of years are not included in their financial statements, nor are the costs of past or possible future accidents.

The building of a new nuclear power plant requires huge amounts of money which will no longer be available for investment in renewable energy, both in research and in projects.

Despite all these threats, it’s important to stay open minded to new scientific research. For example, James Hansen, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is regarded as one of the world’s leading climate scientists, believes that our first priority of action to lower greenhouse gas emissions should be energy conservation and efficiency, and the use of renewable energy. However, he thinks that these efforts may not be sufficient to lower our emissions enough to prevent dangerous climate change. He suggests intensifying research on “4^th generation” nuclear power. This type of nuclear power could also help us solve the nuclear waste problem that we have already created because it would use that waste as fuel. This would eliminate the need for further mining. Moreover, the remaining radioactive waste would have a much smaller volume and a half-life of decades rather than hundreds of thousands of years. ^xxix This research still needs to be done and we cannot rely on that option.

3. Carbon Capture and Storage: One ingenious way of mitigating climate change would be to somehow getting rid of all that CO₂. Scientists have been exploring various ways to capture CO₂ from industrial sources, especially from coal-fired power plants. The captured CO₂ would be pressurized into a liquid. The next step would be to pump it into geological formations such as deep saline aquifers more than 2000 feet (610m) underground or into depleted oil and gas fields, or injected into deep-sea sediments where it would be stored for a long time.

Several technical problems and environmental risks arise with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). CO₂ would need to be transported to the storage site requiring an extensive transportation system unless it’s possible to build a power plant near the storage site. CO₂ could leak, or migrate and pollute drinking water. The cost of CCS is extremely high. It requires huge amounts of water. The process of separating and compressing the CO₂ is highly energy-intensive. It would reduce a power plant’s energy output by a quarter or more. The CO₂ emissions of that quarter of additional burned fossil fuel could not be captured; neither could methane emissions during coal mining operations.

A major problem with CCS is that its technology will not be available until 2020 or 2030. We don’t know yet whether it will be technically or economically feasible. And we are not in a position to wait with reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, the respected Union of Concerned Scientists advocates for more research on Carbon Capture and Storage: “CCS technology holds sufficient promise that commercial-scale demonstration projects can and should be undertaken. These projects can inform subsequent decisions about whether mass deployment of CCS is warranted and cost-effective.” ^xxx

Renewable energy may turn out to be economically more feasible. While doing research on CCS it is imperative not to build any more new coal fired power plants without CCS and to curtail greenhouse gas emissions on a grand scale in all sectors of human activity. ^xxxi

4. Laws that limit greenhouse gases are indispensable. Currently, two basic options are discussed in many countries, one is the Cap and Trade System, the other one a Carbon Tax.

Some governments have already taken well-intentioned first steps towards limiting CO₂ emissions with a carbon cap. “A carbon offset is a financial instrument representing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. One carbon offset represents the reduction of one metric ton of carbon dioxide, or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. Offsets are typically generated from emissions-reducing projects. The most common project type is renewable energy, such as wind farms, biomass energy, hydroelectric dams or forestry projects. Companies buy carbon offsets in order to comply with caps on the total amount of carbon dioxide they are allowed to emit.” ^xxxii Companies are issued emission permits. They are allowed to trade these carbon credits.

Many people have pointed out that in practice, this system of carbon trading hasn’t resulted in true global emissions reductions, as emissions are often just shifted to other areas. Some projects have also been controversial; especially those that cut down old growth forests replacing them with fast growing trees. Another major problem with this system is that it is very complicated and therefore difficult to monitor. ^xxxiii

Some economists point out that a transparent cap and trade system has the potential of effectively reducing CO₂ emissions, especially as the caps can be gradually lowered to reduce emissions even more. ^xxxiv Cap and trade may be a good transitional tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially when they are used for alternative energy projects.

Not everyone agrees. This is the opinion of NASA scientist James Hansen: “A carbon cap that slows emissions of CO₂ does not help, because of the long lifetime of atmospheric CO₂. In fact, the cap exacerbates the problem if it allows coal emissions to continue. The only solution is to target a (large) portion of the fossil fuel reserves to be left in the ground or used in a way such that the CO₂ can be captured and safely sequestered. A rising carbon price is essential to ‘decarbonize’ the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising. The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public. The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products. A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle-income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.” ^xxxv

Other experts in the field of climate change agree that a carbon tax is indispensable because it makes environmentally destructive behavior more expensive. At the same time, it rewards environmentally responsible actions. If the carbon tax is returned equally to the population it will improve the economic condition of lower income people at the same time. When such a carbon tax is gradually increased it could become the best tool to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy and to bring society back to a lifestyle in harmony with nature.

The word “tax” has been tainted with a negative connotation. However, in a fair system, a tax is a contribution of individuals and businesses to the common good. In turn, everyone benefits from government services like good schools, public transportation, or public safety services. And, of course, everyone will benefit if we can avert the threat of irreversible catastrophic climate change.

REFERENCES

i    Information from “Dire Predictions – Understanding Global Warming”, the illustrated guide to the findings of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) by Michael E. Mann and Lee R. Kump, p. 159
ii    Lester R. Brown, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Earth Policy Institute, 2008) From Chapter 11. Raising Energy Efficiency
iii    Lester R. Brown, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Earth Policy Institute, 2008) From Chapter 11. Raising Energy Efficiency, THE ENERGY SAVINGS POTENTIAL
iv Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.50simplethings.com/renewables/index.html
v    “Dire Predictions – Understanding Global Warming”, the illustrated guide to the findings of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) by Michael E. Mann and Lee R. Kump, p. 162
vi    Information from Chapter 11, “Designing Sustainable Cities,” in Lester R. Brown, Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006), available on-line at http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB2/index.htm   e-mail 5/1/07
vii    Lester R. Brown, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Earth Policy Institute, 2008) From Chapter 11. Raising Energy Efficiency, RESTRUCTURING THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
viii Muhammad
ix    “Farming and Land Use to Cool the Planet” by Sara J. Scherr and Sajal Sthapit in State of the World 2009, p. 31, published by the Worldwatch Institute
x    “Farming and Land Use to Cool the Planet” by Sara J. Scherr and Sajal Sthapit in State of the World 2009, p. 31, published by the Worldwatch Institute
xi    For more info see: http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/stabalize062404.cfm
xii quoted in State of the World 2008 by the Worldwatch Institute, chapter 5, Meat and Seafood: The Global Diet’s Most Costly Ingredients by Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg, p. 65
xiii    info from: (Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO 2006, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf
xiv    Deep Economy, Bill McKibben p. 60
xv    Meat Contributes to Climate Change, UN Study Confirms, by Megan Tady, Dec. 7, 2006, http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956
xvi    Meat Contributes to Climate Change, UN Study Confirms, by Megan Tady, Dec. 7, 2006, http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956
xvii    Abdul'l-Baha     (Compilations, Baha'i Scriptures, p. 452)
xviii http://thinkexist.com/quotation/nothing_will_benefit_human_health_and_increase/15538.html
xix    State of the World 2008 by the Worldwatch Institute, chapter 5, Meat and Seafood: The Global Diet’s Most Costly Ingredients by Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg, p. 67
xx Hadith
xxi    Lester R. Brown, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Earth Policy Institute, 2008) From Chapter 8. Restoring the Earth PLANTING TREES TO SEQUESTER CARBON
xxii    Lester R. Brown, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Earth Policy Institute, 2008) From Chapter 8. Restoring the Earth PROTECTING AND RESTORING FORESTS
xxiii    Laszlo Galhidy, forestry officer for the environmental group WWF, Hungary
xxiv    Lester R. Brown, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Earth Policy Institute, 2008) From Chapter 6. Early Signs of Decline, THROWAWAY ECONOMY IN TROUBLE
xxv    info from http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/overview.html?ssi=3
xxvi    Global Justice Ecology Project, http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/globalwarming.php
xxvii Smart Choices for Bio-Fuels, a report by the World Watch Institute and the Sierra Club, http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/biofuels.pdf
xxviii    Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, The international communications platform on the longterm consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=36481624&navID=4&lID=2
xxix    info from “Tell Barack Obama the Truth – The Whole Truth”    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf
xxx    “Coal Power in a Warming World”, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf
xxxi    for more information: “Carbon Capture and Storage” by Peter Viebahn, Manfred Fischedick, and Daniel Vallentin, published in State of the World 2009 by the World Watch Institute,
and “Coal Power in a Warming World”, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf
xxxii    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
xxxiii    Info: http://www.newsweek.com/id/36517
xxxiv    Info from a lecture by Mary D. Nichols, chairman, California Air Resources Board, on Nov. 12, 2008 at the University of Rhode Island
xxxv    James and Anniek Hansen, in a letter to Michelle and Barack Obama, 29 December 2008

Return to course home page - Return to Climate page
Last updated 9 November 2009
© Christine Muller and International Environment Forum