Human Extinction by 2025?

Most important metric

Kevin Trenberth et al. suggest in a recent article that Earth's energy imbalance, defined as the absorbed solar radiation minus the net outgoing longwave radiation, is arguably the most important metric related to climate change. Of the extra heat from Earth's energy imbalance, about 93% ends up in the ocean as increasing ocean heat content (see image below), 3% goes into melting ice, 4% goes into raising temperatures of land and melting permafrost, and less than 1% remains in the atmosphere. 

One could also argue that the most important metric related to climate change is the monthly mean surface temperatures on land, as illustrated by the image below that was created with a July 16, 2022 screenshot from NASA customized analysis plots and shows that the February 2016 (land only) anomaly from 1886-1915 was 2.94°C or 5.292°F. 

Land only anomalies are important. After all, most people live on land and humans will likely go extinct with a rise of 3°C above pre-industrial, as illustrated by the image below, from an analysis in earlier post.

Note that in the above plot, anomalies are measured versus 1886-1915, which isn't pre-industrial. The image raises questions as to what the temperature rise would look like when using a much earlier base, and how much temperatures could rise over the next few years.  

Potential for temperature rise on land

The image below shows land only surface temperature anomalies, similar to the above image but further adjusted by almost a degree to reflect a pre-industrial base, ocean air temperatures and higher polar anomalies, as discussed at the pre-industrial page.

The image features two trends. The blue trend is based on January 1880-June 2022 land only data and shows the potential for 3°C to be crossed on land and to drive humans into extinction by 2025. The green trend is based on January 2010-June 2022 land only data and shows the potential for 5°C to be crossed on land by 2026, which will likely drive most life on land into extinction. 

A temperature rise of 3°C would likely stop all activities by humans, including their emissions, yet temperatures could keep rising.

Could temperatures keep rising?

In the video below, Guy McPherson discusses Abrupt, Irreversible Climate Change to Cause Planetary Extinction.

Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere constitute yet another important metric related to climate change. Carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa in June 2022 was 420.99 ppm, a joint record high with May 2022, as illustrated by the above image. Methane and nitrous oxide concentrations are also at record high since 1750, as illustrated by the image on the right, from an earlier post. 

Greenhouse gas concentrations this high are likely to keep adding ocean heat for some time, causing further melting of sea ice, etc.

All these metrics are important, including Earth's energy imbalance, concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and monthly land only surface temperature anomalies.

Greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for many years, so even if emissions by people's activities stop now, concentrations of greenhouse gases that have a long lifetime are unlikely to fall much over the next few years, while there would be additional emissions (such as carbon monoxide) from decomposing biomass, forest fires and waste fires globally that would also make it hard for concentrations of shorter-lived methane to fall, as also discussed here.

We're also moving into a new El Niño, as illustrated by the image on the right. The difference between the top of El Niño and the bottom of La Niña could be more than half a degree Celsius, as the NOAA image below shows. The upcoming El Niño may well coincide with a peak in sunspots in 2025, further pushing up temperatures, as also discussed in the post Cataclysmic Alignment, which also mentions a recent study that warns that the combined impact of aerosols and nitrogen fertilizers can contribute much more strongly than previously thought to the formation of cirrus clouds that contribute to global warming. 

The resulting heatwaves and fires could trigger massive blackouts and, as civilization grinds to a halt, this could cause much of the sulfate masking effect to fall away almost instantly, resulting in further acceleration of the temperature rise. 

All this looks set to contribute to keep temperatures rising for years to come, with the danger of increasing ocean temperatures to the point where there would be massive eruptions of seafloor methane that contribute to the clouds tipping point at 1200 ppm CO₂e to be crossed, which in itself would push up temperatures by a further 8°C and cause rapid extinction of most life on Earth, as this 2019 analysis and this and this more recent analyses warn.

[ from earlier post ]

The clouds tipping point could be crossed as a result of seafloor methane releases. There is potential for such releases, given the rising ocean heat and the vast amounts of methane present in vulnerable sediments at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean, as discussed in posts such as this one. If methane concentrations would increase in line with the trend in the above mage, i.e. methane reaching 780 ppm CO₂e by 2028 using a 1-year GWP of 200, this plus a concentration of carbon dioxide of 420.99 ppm as in the image further above would suffice to cause the clouds tipping point to be crossed. When adding further forcers, this could happen even earlier.

[ click on images to enlarge ]

Altogether, the global temperature could rise by more than 18°C above pre-industrial within a few years, as also discussed at the Extinction page. Even the longer-term outlook doesn't look promising. A 2020 analysis by Jorgen Randers et al. points out that, even if all greenhouse gas emissions by people could stop immediately and even if the temperature anomaly could fall to 0.5°C above pre-industrial, greenhouse gas levels would start rising again after 2150 and keep rising for centuries to come, while, as discussed in an earlier post, a 2016 analysis by Ganapolski et al. suggests that even moderate anthropogenic cumulative carbon dioxide emissions would cause an absence of the snow and ice cover in the next Milankovitch cycle, so there would be no buffer at the next peak in insolation, and temperatures would continue to rise, making the absence of snow and ice a permanent loss for millennia to come.

Conclusion

In an earlier post, the following question was also discussed: Could temperatures keep rising? This post concludes that surface temperatures on land could rise strongly over the next few years and drive humans into extinction as early as in 2025. Temperatures could continue to rise afterwards and drive most life on Earth into extinction soon thereafter, making it the more important to do the right thing now and help avoid the worst from happening, through comprehensive and effective action as described in the Climate Plan.

Our duty to support local people's courts that administer local feebates 

The disregard for science and democracy by those in power has now become so apparent and appalling that we, the people, must agree that the best way forward is to institute Local People's Courts in which randomly-chosen residents administer local feebates, as a superior form of democracy and decision-making.

Elections do allow people to participate in decisions regarding their own lives and future, but elections only give people a single choice every few years between representatives who then take decisions of importance for them. While this can be regarded as a shallow form of democracy, it is now sufficiently clear that elections effectively remove people's participation in such decisions and deteriorate the outlook and future for people and the environment locally and globally.

Residents should participate in decisions regarding their own lives and environment by supporting Local People's Courts that administer local feebates, with fees added to the sales price of polluting products and to rates on degraded land, and with revenue of fees used to fund support for improvements, such as through rebates on cleaner products sold locally or rebates on local rates on improved land. Local People's Courts can best ensure that choices regarding percentages and eligibility of fees and rebates are science-based, while feebates leave the choice as to what to buy or sell to individuals.

[ image from earlier post ]

Links

• A perspective on climate change from Earth's energy imbalance - by Kevin Trenberth et al. 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/ac6f74

• Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions - by Lijing Cheng et al. 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-022-1461-3

• Improved Quantification of the Rate of Ocean Warming - by Lijing Cheng et al. 

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/14/JCLI-D-21-0895.1.xml

• NASA - GISS Surface Temperature Analysis 

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/customize.html

• When will we die? 
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/06/when-will-we-die.html

• An earth system model shows self-sustained thawing of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020 - by Jorgen Randers et al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z

• Could temperatures keep rising?

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2021/06/could-temperatures-keep-rising.html

• Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception - by Andrey Ganapolski et al. (2016)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494

• NOAA - Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Mauna Loa, Hawaii 
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/graph.html

• Will COP26 in Glasgow deliver?

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2021/10/will-cop26-in-glasgow-deliver.html

• Impact of interannual and multidecadal trends on methane-climate feedbacks and sensitivity - by Chin-Hsien Cheng et al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31345-w

• NOAA - ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

• NOAA - Monthly Temperature Anomalies Versus El Niño

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202206/supplemental/page-4

• Cataclysmic Alignment 
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/06/cataclysmic-alignment.html

• Sunspots
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/sunspots.html

• Methane rise is accelerating

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/03/methane-rise-is-accelerating.html

• Aerosols
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/aerosols.html

• Runaway temperature rise by 2026?

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/04/runaway-temperature-rise-by-2026.html

• Pre-industrial
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/pre-industrial.html

• Clouds feedback
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/clouds-feedback.html

• Extinction
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html

• Climate Plan 
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

Shortcomings of IPCC AR6 WGIII - Mitigation of Climate Change

In the video below, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres comments on the launch of the IPCC AR6 WGIII SPM Mitigation report. 

[ U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres ]

The report has severe shortcomings, including: 

The IPCC makes it look as if the temperature rise could be restricted to 1.5°C above pre-industrial and insists there was a carbon budget left, to be divided by using monetary analysis. 

This narrative results in a failure to highlight in the SPM some key drivers of change (such as heat pumps in buildings and air taxis in transport) and in inappropriately referring to such key drivers of change as 'options', while failing to mention the best policies to achieve the necessary changes, i.e. through local feebates.

The agenda behind this narrative becomes further evident in phrases such as “CCS could allow fossil fuels to be used longer, reducing stranded assets” and “oil and gas assets are projected to be more at risk of being stranded toward mid-century”. 

Instead of “assets” at “risk” of getting “stranded”, these are liabilities that burden the world with a rising cost of clean-up and compensation claims. The IPCC gives CCS further undeserved importance by mentioning it no less than 32 times in the SPM, while a key driver of change such as heat pumps is mentioned only once, and not under buildings but industrial policy. 

The image below, from the report's SPM, shows “options” by sector with the length of each bar indicating their potential for emissions reduction by 2030, while the color inside the bar gives a cost estimate. 

[ from IPCC AR6 WGIII SPM, click images to enlarge ]

These are not genuinely options, since the dire situation leaves little choice and instead makes it imperative to act most urgently, comprehensively and effectively on climate change, in line with the Paris Agreement. 

The Paris Agreement does instruct the IPCC to describe the best pathways to achieve this and the IPCC has until now refused to do so. As Arctic-news blog has pointed out for more than a decade, mitigation is most effectively achieved by offering people a range of options, preferably through local feebates, which will also make such policies more popular, as a 2019 analysis (above) concludes.

[ from earlier post ]

Options are more appropriately realized in the form of feebates that can offer a range of options, with the more polluting options attracting fees and with the revenues used to fund rebates on the cleaner options. 

An example of a wider set of local feebates is depicted in the above analysis of EV policy. A more diverse set of feebates could include not only fees on fuel and fuel-powered vehicles, but also on facilities that sell or process fuel, vehicle registration, parking, toll roads, etc. It's important to act comprehensively, along several lines of action, e.g. to redesign cities and plan for air taxis. 

Given the urgency to act, such lines of action are all best implemented as soon as possible, yet at the same time many lines of action are best kept separate, as illustrated by the above image. 

The image on the right illustrates the difference between using a Gobal Warming Potential (GWP) for methane of 171 over a few years, vs the IPCC's use of a GWP of 28 over 100 years. 

Fees on sales of livestock products can raise revenue for pyrolysis of biowaste, with the resulting biochar added to the soil.  That would also support the transition toward a vegan-organic diet more strongly, in line with the conclusion of an earlier IPCC report that a vegan diet ranks highest regarding mitigation (image right, from an earlier post). 

The Climate Plan prefers local feebates. Where needed, fees can be set high enough to effectively ban specific alternatives.

Furthermore, instead of using money, local councils could add extra fees to rates for land where soil carbon falls, while using all revenue for rebates on rates for land where soil carbon rises.

That way, biochar effectively becomes a tool to lower rates, while it will also help improve the soil's fertility, its ability to retain water and to support more vegetation. That way, real assets are built, as illustrated by the image on the right, from the 2014 post Biochar Builds Real Assets.

Catastrophic Methane Rise 

The IPCC narrative hinges on radical cuts in methane emissions from 2020, as illustrated by the image on the right. 

Instead, methane rose by 15.27 ppb in 2020 and by 16.99 ppb in 2021, the two highest growth levels since the NOAA record began in 1984. 

The combination image below shows the catastrophic rise of methane. The image in the left panel shows a trend based on January 2008-December 2021 monthly mean methane data. 

When extending this trend, current methane concentration would be 1920 ppb. Note that methane in December 2021 was 18.6 ppb higher than in December 2020, and it now is April 2022.

The situation is even worse than depicted in above image, as NOAA's data are for marine surface measurements. Methane tends to rise in the atmosphere and accumulate at higher altitudes. As illustrated by the image below, mean methane level is growing fastest at the higher altitude associated with 293 mb. 

Anyway, have another look at the combination image further above. The right panel shows that, if the trend continues, a concentration of 3840 ppb (i.e. double the current concentration) could be crossed in 2029, which would translate into a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) of 768 parts per million (ppm) at a one-year global warming potential (GWP) for methane of 200. 

The image on the right shows a trend that, if continued, will cross a carbon dioxide level of 450 ppm by 2029. 

Add this 450 ppm for CO₂ to 768 ppm CO₂e for methane and the joint CO₂e could be 1218 ppm in 2029, i.e. it would have crossed the point at which the clouds feedback starts to kick in (at 1200 ppm CO₂e). 

The clouds feedback could thus raise the global temperature by 8°C by 2029, but when also adding the temperature impact of greenhouse gases and further drivers, the clouds tipping point could be crossed much earlier, say by 2026, while a temperature rise of 10°C could happen even before the clouds tipping point gets reached. Drivers could include nitrous oxide (N₂O, see image right), seafloor methane, water vapor, loss of Arctic sea ice and the falling away of the aerosol masking effect, as discussed at the Extinction page.

The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.

Links

• Secretary-General Warns of Climate Emergency, Calling Intergovernmental Panel’s Report ‘a File of Shame’, While Saying Leaders ‘Are Lying’, Fuelling Flames
https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/sgsm21228.doc.htm

• Mitigation of Climate Change Report 2022: "Litany of broken climate promises" - UN Chief
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8rlLaT8v4Q

• IPCC Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change - Summary for Policymakers
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf

• IPCC special report Climate Change and Land
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl

• IPCC Report Climate Change and Land (review)

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/08/ipcc-report-climate-change-and-land.html

• Which policy can help EVs most?

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/10/which-policy-can-help-evs-most.html

• Confirm Methane's Importance

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2021/03/confirm-methanes-importance.html

• Biochar Builds Real Assets

https://biochareconomy.blogspot.com/2014/08/biochar-builds-real-assets.html

• The Importance of Methane

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/the-importance-of-methane-in-climate.html

• NOAA - Globally averaged marine surface monthly mean methane data
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/ch4/ch4_mm_gl.txt

• NOAA - Globally averaged marine surface annual mean methane data

https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/ch4/ch4_annmean_gl.txt

• NOAA - MetOp satellite methane data - Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI)

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/soundings/iasi

• NOAA - Mauna Loa CO2 weekly mean and historical comparisons

https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_weekly_mlo.txt

• Clouds feedback

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/clouds-feedback.html

• Extinction

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

Which policy can help EVs most?

In many countries, it has been proven hard to implement policies that help electric vehicle (EVs). In France, fuel taxes have triggered huge protests. In Ecuador, huge protests followed a steep rise in fuel prices, as a result of a decision to end gasoline and diesel subsidies.

An analysis conducted by Arctic-news compares eight policies on two criteria, i.e. how effective they are from a policy perspective and how popular the policies will likely be. As the image below shows, many policies are little or no better at helping EVs than continuing with business as usual (BAU).

“Tightening fuel economy standards may aim to reduce fuel use,” says Sam Carana, editor of Arctic-news, “but the Jevons paradox shows that this may lead to people buying more powerful cars, drive longer distances, etc. Moreover, it does little to help EVs, in fact, it may make it cheaper for people to keep driving fossil fuel-powered cars.

Sam Carana adds: “Subsidies for EVs aren't popular with pedestrians and cyclists, or with people who use public transport to go to work. These are often the poorest people and they feel that money that is spent on subsidies for EVs comes at the expense of social services for the poor. Subsidies are unlikely to gain popular support. Similarly, when subsidies for EVs take the form of tax deductions given to EV buyers, this mainly benefits those who can afford to buy EVs. Additionally, this reduces overall tax revenue, leaving less money for social services.”

“Taxes aren't much better, they may make driving a polluting car more expensive, but as long as people keep driving polluting cars, it won't help EVs and it won't help much with the climate crisis either. Higher taxes on fuel and cars haven't made EVs much more common in Europe than they are in the U.S., where such taxes are lower. The worst form of tax is 'Cap & Trade', as it enables people to keep driving polluting cars by paying for emission cuts elsewhere. Even if those cuts are indeed made elsewhere, they aren't made locally. Tax and Dividend seeks to get popular support by promising people part of the revenue, but this means the money isn't used to fight pollution and it may even be counterproductive, by helping people to keep driving fossil fuel-powered cars. Simple carbon taxes therefore seem more effective, while they may also be more popular with the poor, since more of the revenues can be spent on social services.”

Sam Carana: “Local feebates are the best way to go. It makes sense to add fees to the price of fuel, and - in order to most effectively facilitate the necessary transition to EVs - the revenues are best used to support EVs locally, which also helps such polices gain popular support locally.”

The analysis also looks at a wider set of local feebates, such as fees on sales of fossil fuel-powered cars, with the revenues used to fund rebates on local sales of EVs. Fees on facilities that sell or process fuel could also raise revenues that could be used to fund rebates on, say, EV chargers.  Furthermore, differentiation in fees on car registration, on car parking and on toll roads could all help make EVs more attractive.

In conclusion, a wide set of local feebates can most effectively facilitate the necessary changes and can best gain local support. The climate crisis urgently needs comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan, which recommends implementation of local feebates to facilitate the necessary changes.

An associated issue is the Urban Heat Island effect, as illustrated by the image on the right. Buildings, roads and cars can significantly increase temperatures and pollution including ozone at surface level.

One way to reduce temperatures, pollution and road congestion is by using electric vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) air taxis.

Lilium plans to start offering air taxi services from 2025. While using about the same amount of electricity as an EV traveling over roads, the Lilium Jet travels as fast as 300 km/h and has a radius of 300 km.”

Sam Carana adds: “In practice, most trips are less than 10 km. A fleet of 10,000 Lilium Jets could cater for all trips otherwise made by cars in an area where one million people live.”

In theory, this could remove virtually all cars from a city, resulting in less need for roads, bridges, tunnels, parking spaces, garages, driveways, airports, etc. These air taxis can use the roofs of large buildings for landing and take off, or dedicated areas in parks or custom-built places along the shore (see image below).

This also means there will be less need for resources, infrastructure and space to manufacture, sell and service vehicles. As a result, urban centers could use the spaces gained for more trees, parks, footpaths and bike-ways, while becoming more compact, enabling people to live closer together and closer to workplaces, shops, restaurants, educational and medical facilities, etc. As cities become more compact, the average trip within a city will become shorter in distance and take up less time.

Lilium Flight Footage from Lilium on Vimeo.

Local councils should be keen to help make this happen, for a number of reasons. A fleet of air taxis can help combat road congestion, global heating, including the Urban Heat Island effect, and pollution by cars. At first glance, creating places for 10,000 air taxis to land and take off may look like a big job, but many businesses will be keen to accommodate air taxis. Moreover, it is very attractive when considering that 10,000 air taxis can replace the need for up to a million vehicles, as well as the need to build and maintain the associated roads, bridges, tunnels, parking spaces, garages, etc. It can also double the amount of land available for parks, houses and other buildings. Lilium plans to start offering commercial services from 2025, so it's time to start planning now and create places for air taxis to land and take off where they will be needed.

The video below, 'The Urban Green', was posted by WWF International on March 17, 2016.

Links

• Climate Plan (page)
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Climate Plan (post)
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/06/climate-plan.html

• Climate Plan (group)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/climateplan

• Feebates
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/feebates.html

• Who are the gilets jaunes and what do they want?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/who-are-the-gilets-jaunes-and-what-do-they-want

• Ecuador's Morena scraps fuel subsidy cuts in big win for indigenous groups
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-protests/ecuadors-moreno-scraps-fuel-subsidy-cuts-in-big-win-for-indigenous-groups-idUSKBN1WT265

• Ecuador’s Government Crisis, Explained
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/ecuadors-government-crisis-explained/2019/10/08/d54f19f2-ea17-11e9-a329-7378fbfa1b63_story.html

• Ecuador: Society's Reaction to IMF Austerity Package 

https://nacla.org/news/2019/10/14/ecuador-societys-reaction-imf-austerity-package-indigenous

• The Jevons Paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

• Keeping Your Cool: How Communities Can Reduce the Heat Island Effect
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/heat_island_4-page_brochure_508_120413.pdf

• Hotter Summers Mean More Health Risks In Urban Heat Islands
https://www.opb.org/news/article/hotter-summers-mean-more-health-risks-in-urban-hea/

• Lilium Jet
https://lilium.com/

• Electric Transport group at facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/electrictransport/learning_content/?filter=2089885254419184

• Biochar group at facebook

https://www.facebook.com/groups/biochar

• Air taxis group at facebook

https://www.facebook.com/groups/airtaxis

Rapid Transition to a Clean World

100% clean and renewable wind, water, and solar (WWS)

all-sector energy roadmaps for 139 countries of the world

[ click here for explanatory video of above image ]

Above image is from an excellent study by Jacobson et al., showing that it is technically feasible and economically attractive to shift to clean energy facilities between now and 2050. This will create net jobs worldwide. It will avoid millions of air-pollution mortalities and avoid trillions of dollars in pollution and global warming damage. It will stabilize energy prices and reduce energy poverty. It will make countries energy independent and reduce international conflict over energy. It will reduce risks of large-scale system disruptions by significantly decentralizing power production.

Mark Jacobson: A 100 percent Renewable Economy

Given that there are so many benefits and there are no technical and economic barriers to complete a 100% shift by the year 2050 (and 80% by 2030), why not make an even faster transition?

Sam Carana suggests that feebates, especially when implemented locally, can best facilitate the necessary shift. Moreover, when energy feebates are implemented jointly with feebates in further areas, greenhouse gas emissions could be cut by 80% by 2020, while soils, atmosphere and oceans could be restored to their pre-industrial status over the course of the century.

[ the above emission cuts and feebates images were used in a meanwhile dated 2011 post ]

To achieve the most effective and rapid shift, Sam Carana recommends implementing two types of feebates, i.e. energy feebates and further feebates such as fees on sales of livestock products while using the revenues to fund rebates on soil supplements containing biochar.

Sam Carana adds that further lines of action will be needed to prevent Earth from overheating, warning that comprehensive and effective action is needed as described in the Climate Plan.

The image below shows that a shift to 100% clean (WWS) energy by 2050 (80% by 2030) could reduce CO2 to ~350 ppmv by 2100.

[ from Jacobson et al. 2015 ]

Energy feebates are the most effective way to speed up the shift to clean energy. Further feebates could make additional cuts in greenhouse gases emissions, while also removing carbon from the atmosphere and oceans, allowing us to aim for bringing down carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to 280 ppmv by the year 2100.

Links

- How Renewable Energy Could Make Climate Treaties Moot (2015)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-renewable-energy-could-make-climate-treaties-moot/

- 100% Wind, Water, and Solar (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for Countries and States

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USState-plans.html

- The Solutions Project - 100% Renewable Energy
thesolutionsproject.org

- Feebates
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/feebates.html

- Climate Plan

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

Obama's Power Plant Rules: Too Little, Too Late, Too Ineffective

On June 2, 2014, the Obama administration through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that states must lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted for each unit (MWh) of electricity they produce.

1. Too Little

Under the EPA rules, the nationwide goal is to reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector by 30% from 2005 levels. This will also reduce other pollutants.

Sam Carana: The goal should be an 80% cut in emissions. Reductions should not be averaged out over different types of emissions, but instead the 80% reduction target should apply to each type of emission, i.e. 80% cuts in CO2 and 80% cuts in CH4 and 80% cuts in black carbon, etc.

2. Too late

Under the EPA rules, states must meet interim targets during the 2020s, but they can delay making emission cuts provided they will on average comply with targets by 2030. Moreover, the EPA suggests that they can from then on maintain that level subsequently.

Sam Carana: For over six years, I have been calling for an 80% cut in emissions by 2020. When people now ask if I still believe such reductions are feasible given the lack of action over the years, I respond that, precisely because so little has been achieved over the years, it now is even more imperative to set a target of 80% emissions cuts by 2020. If we start cutting 13.4% off this year's emissions, and keep cutting emissions by the same amount each subsequent year, we'll be under 20% (i.e. at 19.6%) by 2020. 

3. Too ineffective

Under the EPA rules, states could comply by either reducing CO2 emissions from their power plants or buying credits or offsets from elsewehere, e.g. through cap-and-trade programs. States can choose to use existing multi-state programs or create new ones.

Sam Carana: The goal should be a genuine 80% cut in emissions in each and every state. It is good to delegate decisions to states regarding what works best locally to achieve such reductions. However, schemes such as cap-and-trade, carbon credits and offsetting keep local polluters dirty by allowing them to claim credit for progress made elsewhere. A state buying credits from beyond its borders does not genuinely reduce its own emissions, making it even harder for it to reach its next targets (which should be even tighter), while also making it harder for targets to be reached elsewhere.  

The bigger such schemes grow, the more they become fraught with difficulties, twisted with irregularities and riddled with political chicanery, making them prone to fraud and bribery, often beyond the administrative scope and legal reach of local regulators. 

Such schemes are inherently counter-productive in that they seek to create ever more demand for polluting activities; they will continue doing dirty business until the last possible 'credit' has been sold, burning the last bit of fossil fuel from irrealistic carbon budgets that are fabricated inside the dark politics of compromise, campaign-funding and complacency. 

Such schemes are designed to profit from keeping the dirtiest power plants going and prolonging their lifetime beyond any reasonable purpose, in efforts to perpetuate the scheme itself and extract further money that, instead of being used to benefit the cleaner solutions, is then often used to finance further pollution elsewhere and spread the reach of such schemes. Such dreadful conduct is typically hidden away in a web of deceit custom-made to avoid the scrutiny of public accountibility.

And what if states fail to reach targets? The EPA suggestion to use such schemes effectively delays much local action, while encouraging states to negotiate with each other. This opens up the prospect of states blaming each other and taking legal action rather than genuine action. If the trappings of such schemes make states fail to reach targets, penalties could be imposed, but that still does not guarantee that targets will be reached; furthermore, given the complexities of such schemes, policing them poses additional burdens on administrators, police, courts and lawyers. Huge amounts of money and time have already been spent on court cases to postpone action, rather than on building genuine solutions.  

The best way to cater for non-compliance is to prepare federally-administered fees, to be levied on sales of polluting products, and with the revenues used to fund federal projects that do reduce emissions. As said, it's good for the EPA to encourage states to each work out how best to reduce their respective emissions, provided that each state does indeed reach set targets. Where a state fails to take the necessary action, the EPA should resume control and call for federal fees to be imposed in the respective state. 

The Clean Air Act calls for the 'best system of emissions reduction' to reduce emissions from power plants. The best system is one that levies fees on pollution and then uses the revenues to fund rebates on the cleaner products sold locally.  

Such combinations of fees and rebates (feebates) are the most effective way to make our economy sustainable, as part of the comprehensive action that is needed to avoid climate catastrophe. For more details on comprehensive and effective action, see the ClimatePlan blog. 

Related

- Methane Man
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/01/methane-man.html

- Climate Plan
http://climateplan.blogspot.com

President Obama, why don't you use your powers?

President Obama, why don't you use your powers to more effectively reduce the danger of catastrophic climate change?

As an example, you could direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose fees on sales of gasoline. The revenues of such fees could then be earmarked to fund ways to make the use of genuinely clean energy more attractive.

Delegation

The duty to act on climate change can delegated to states, provided that sufficient progress is made to combat climate change. States can thus to a large extent decide what action and what mix of policies they feel will work best where. Where such progress is lacking, federal authority can resume control, impose fees in the respective state and decide to direct (part of) revenues to federal programs, such as construction of high speed rail tracks that cross state borders, waste management in national parks, federal research grants into ways to combat climate change, etc.

State administrators can similarly decide to delegate their authority to local levels, allowing each local council to implement feebates believed to work best in the respective area. And similarly, state administrators can resume control in case of a lack of progress in a specific area, and direct the revenues to state programs.

Further action

Further action will be needed to reduce the danger of catastrophic climate change, which calls for a comprehensive climate plan such as described at http://climateplan.blogspot.com

President Obama, here's a climate plan!

President Obama, now is the time to act on climate change! Climate change won't wait. There are encouraging signs indicating that a summit is being organized, to be hosted at the White House, to launch a comprehensive climate action plan with broad-based and bipartisan support.

What plan? Well, here's a climate plan!



The first line of action of most climate plans is to cut emissions. Two types of feebates, working separately, yet complimentary, can cut emissions most effectively and can be implemented locally in a budget-neutral way, without requiring complicated international agreements:

1. energy feebates (pictured above) in sectors such as electricity, heating and transport, and 
2. feebates in sectors such as agriculture, land use, waste management and construction (pictured below).

Pictured on the left are feebates that impose fees on sales of Portland cement, nitrogen fertilizers and livestock products. This will make further cuts in emissions.

The revenues are then used to fund rebates on clean construction and on soil supplements containing biochar and olive sand, which will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in buildings, soil, river banks, roads and pavement.

Working seperately, yet complimentary, energy feebates and feebates in agriculture and other sectors can dramatically bring down carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and oceans; as a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide could be brought back to pre-industral levels of around 280ppm by the end of the century.

For further discussion, also see Towards a Sustainable Economy

Thus, these two feebates will be effective on two lines of action, i.e. on cutting emissions and on reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and oceans.

Even with these measures, temperatures will keep rising for some time, as excess ocean heat will get transferred to the atmosphere over the years and as aerosols (particularly sulfur) fall away that are currently emitted when fuel is burned and thus mask the full wrath of global warming.

Continued warming comes with numerous feedbacks. Combined, these feedbacks threaten to trigger runaway global warming, i.e. warming that will cause mass death, destruction and extinction.

How to avoid mass-scale death, destruction and extinction

This means that, in addition to the first two lines of action, further lines of action will be necessary, i.e. Solar radiation management, and Methane management and further action. Further action includes regulatory measures such as ending commercial flights over the Arctic and support for pyrolysis to avoid burning of biomass. The image below pictures several methods of Arctic methane management that should get high priority, given the threat of hydrate destabilization in the Arctic.

Arctic Methane Management

Fees imposed on commercial flights could fund solar radiation management, while the feebates described above will also be most effective in further lines of action, i.e. in Arctic methane management and further action.

Why act now, and how?

To view the presentation "Why act now, and how?" by Sam Carana, click on the link below:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1baoKjwp9Ci2KFdTPB3yDKjDCIws1gelrqhCFqSVtWgQ/edit

Message to the Survivors