According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the US are:

• Electricity production (31% of 2013 GHG emissions), mostly from burning fossil fuels, especially coal and natural gas.

• Transportation (27% of 2013 GHG emissions), primarily from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes.

• Industry (21% of 2013 GHG emissions), mostly from fossil fuels for energy and GHG emissions from chemical reactions necessary to produce some goods.

• Commercial and Residential (12% of 2013 GHG emissions), such as from heating and air conditioning.

• Agriculture (9% of 2013 greenhouse gas emissions), such as GHS emissions from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.

• Land Use and Forestry (offset of 13% of 2013 GHG emissions) – Land areas can absorb or release green house gases. Since 1990, managed forests and other lands in the US have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit.

There you have it. My goal is to explore ways to reduce GHG emissions in each of the above sectors by a whole bunch.

Electricity generation is the biggest culprit. Options for reducing emissions include more solar/wind/nuclear and better carbon capture. Development of “clean coal” technologies will also be important. Remember: the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Reducing demand for electricity would also reduce power plant emissions. And since reducing demand has mostly to do with industrial, commercial and residential  usage, the EPA categories are clearly not independent of each other.  Here we’re mostly talking about increasing energy efficiency and reducing consumption. Solar will be part of the mix but I’m ambivalent about biofuels – at least at the current state of biofuel technology. As a rule, anything that leads to significant expansion of agricultural land at the expense of wild habitat should be avoided.

Demand for electricity would also go down if more of the population moved to milder climates, away from those long, cold winters. It would help further if more of us moved to bigger cities, which are associated with lower energy consumption due to smaller living units and the prevalence of multiple-unit residences (e.g., apartment buildings). Another plus of urbanization is that urban residents drive much less than their rural and suburban counterparts.

Speaking of transportation, that’s next.

Materials and energy are mainly used up in the production, transport/delivery and consumption of goods and services.

In a recent online poll of 1,009 individuals, over 60% of each age category said they prioritize life experiences over possessions. Whether “experiences” are more damaging to the environment than possessions depends on the experiences and the possessions.

Per the World Bank, per capita CO2 emissions in the US are 17 metric tons per year (roughly 37,500 pounds) – about 4 times the global average. How could we cut that in half without putting a serious dent in the American standard of living?

This is a complicated question. We’ll have to figure out CO2 emissions for typical products, services, and activities, what a decent standard of living would be, and which and how much of the products, services and activities are required to achieve a decent standard of living. A lot of guesswork and assumptions will be involved. Approximation is the goal, not precision.

Next: a bunch of calculations.

Is it possible for human societies to achieve or maintain a high standard of living without causing significant environmental harm? As a first step in this exploration, I’m going to define a high standard of living as a situation where the basic needs of the population are taken care of and about 50% of income can go to discretionary spending. As for environmental harm, I’ll focus on the amount of land, material and energy required for the economic functions of production, consumption, and transport/delivery of goods and services.  Less land, material, and energy means less environmental harm.

Basic needs include adequate housing, food, transport, clothes and healthcare. Discretionary spending would be on things like more-than-adequate housing, etc., plus all the rest: entertainment, recreation, personal growth, etc. Obviously, the line between adequate and more-than-adequate is a bit arbitrary; it’s still a necessary distinction.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will assume continued economic growth is a good thing. The relatively affluent/environmentally benign society I’m trying to create won’t be like the Hobbits Shire or a Buddhist paradise; it will retain a certain edge. There will an unending quest for more and better, fueling innovation and getting young people excited. Of course, for those who are so inclined, seeking meaning and well-being by letting go of desires will still be an option. For the rest, desire, status competition, and perpetual dissatisfaction will be as per usual. But at least all will have basic housing, food, transportation, healthcare, and something to wear.

Ok, so how can we give our society the basics+ with less land, less stuff and lower carbon emissions?

To be continued….

Hope springs eternal, especially the having your cake and eating it too variety. One example is the idea of increasing environmental protection without sacrificing economic growth. Can it be done? Hardcore environmentalists tend to say no, economic activity is the main way humans hurt the environment. Producing, consuming and transportation all have environmental costs and so they clearly have to be cut back. Humans will have to learn to make do with much less.

Others point out that there is no necessary relationship between economic transactions and environmental effects. The amount of material and energy required to serve an economic function – make a widget, grow tomatoes, run a restaurant – isn’t set. Increasing efficiency allows us to make more and do more with less. Dematerialization has been accelerating in advanced economies for some time. For instance, over the past 40 years the amount of physical material required to meet the needs of Americans has been falling although the population keeps increasing (Bailey 2001). And many countries have seen a decoupling of CO2 emissions and economic growth. For instance, over the period of 1990-2013, Sweden’s GDP grew 58% while CO2 emissions have decreased 23%.

However, what may be true for advanced economies may be less so for developing countries. The road to development requires high economic growth, which necessarily requires significant increases in material and energy use. Since most people live in developing countries, some argue that reductions in material and energy usage in developed countries would be overwhelmed by increases in the rest of the world.

This was exactly the point in a recent study on development (Steinberger et al, 2013), where the authors conclude there is no empirical evidence for decarbonization or dematerialization in developing countries as they achieve higher economic growth rates or incomes. The authors suggest we shift away from “industry development as usual” and embrace green pathways to economic growth or even de-prioritize economic growth in favor of other sources of human well-being. They see the challenge for economic policy being to curb consumption while preserving and enhancing living standards. Unfortunately, they provide no concrete suggestions on how to actually accomplish this. So that will be my project for the next several posts.

References:

Bailey, Ronald (September 5, 2001). “Dematerializing the Economy”. reason.com. Retrieved December 5, 2015.

Andersson Magdalena and Lövin, Isabella (May22,2015) Sweden: Decoupling GDP growth from CO2 emissions is possible. The World Bank. Retrieved December 5, 2015.

Steinberger, Julia K. Krausmann, Fridolin, Getzner, Michael, Schandl, Heinz and West, Jim Development and Dematerialization: An International Study PLoS One. 2013; 8(10): e70385.Published online 2013 Oct 21. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0070385 PMCID: PMC3804739

In “Ten Commandments of How to Fail in an Environmental Campaign”, Avner de-Shalit discusses the various ways environmentalists alienate potential supporters. The Second Commandment is my favorite: Always Use the Terminology of Despair. We see violation of this Commandment all the time in discourse about climate change: although the IPCC predictions run the gambit from manageable to catastrophic, climate activists focus on the worst-case scenarios. I imagine their rationale is to motivate people and governments to take more aggressive measures to deal with the threat. So we hear about agricultural collapse, mass famine, global warfare, and possibly even the extinction of the human race.

And yet the masses haven’t gotten with the program. Per a recent Pew Research survey, just 42% of Europeans and Americans are “very concerned” about climate change. Several countries have actually seen a decline in the perception that climate change is a “very serious” problem. In China, for instance, the percentage of people polled who consider climate change to be a very serious problem dropped from 41% in 2010 to 18% in 2015.

How could this be happening? It’s not all that mysterious. As de-Shalit puts it, “…people generally react in a very basic way to the threat of dire consequences and horrific scenarios. They simply repress and doubt what they hear – a common strategy when faced with alarming prognostications. Thus while environmentalists try to force an impression on the general public with their somewhat exaggerated predictions, the eventual outcome is counter-productive: many people simply disbelieve, do not want to believe, or even refuse to listen.”

All this reminds me of a study about people who had seen the climate change disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow. Although the film was clearly marketed as fictional and not a scientific treatise, some environmentalists hoped the vivid images in the movie might galvanize the public to increase pressure on their governments to do more about climate change. Instead, the researchers found that viewers’ “belief in the likelihood of extreme events as a result of climate change was actually reduced.”

So there you have it.

References:

“Ten Commandments of How to Fail in an Environmental Campaign”; Environmental Politics Volume 10, Issue 1, 2001 by Avner de-Shalit, Associate Fellow Oxford Centre for Environment, Ethics and Society, Mansfield College, Oxford

“Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change” Lowe et al   Public Understanding of Science Public Understanding of Science October 2006 vol. 15 no. 4 435-457

While organic farming methods can be as or more productive than conventional methods, for many large scale crops, organic just doesn’t compete. For instance, in the US, organic corn, soybean and wheat crop yields are much lower than conventional yields. So don’t expect organic to be a major player anytime soon – at least in the US. That’s not such a bad thing though – conventional farmers are increasingly adopting conservation practices that have greatly reduced the negative externalities of modern agriculture. For instance, no-till is standard practice for over a third of major field crops in the US. Farmers are also finding ways to decrease fertilizer and pesticide use and to reduce chemical run-off (e.g., buffer zones). Purists may remain unimpressed but not me. The badness of artificial chemicals (as opposed to natural ones) is a matter of dose, not absolutes. If our farmers can keep reducing that dose while maintaining or increasing productivity, the net good is served. Less land needed for agriculture, more land spared for wild ecosystems.

Today the Obama administration officially rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline. As President Obama acknowledged, this decision was mostly symbolic. The existence of the pipeline itself would have made little difference in the battle against climate change, nor would its economic payoffs have been all that great. Obama said rejecting the Pipeline would strengthen his hand in upcoming international talks on climate change, making the US more credible in the fight.

In other words, the administration’s decision was about PR: “see, we’re serious!” But the people that need to come on board – the people who are skeptical either about the seriousness of global warming or about the efficacy of government actions to combat global warming – can see through all this condescension. Condescension feeds the skepticism. And those who already believe don’t need symbolic gestures. I basically agree with the Washington Post editorial A disappointing but long-awaited decision on the Keystone XL pipeline . Check it out.

It’s pretty well accepted that the global climate will not only become warmer overall but that in many places, climate will be more extreme and erratic. So: floods one year, drought the next 5 years. Yes – we must do what we can to mitigate global warming – but it’s likely that unpredictable and extreme weather will still be part of the forecast. What can be done?

As conditions worsen, I would expect considerable migration from the South to the North.  Given that the decline of human population is projected to start by 2050 or so and be in full force by 2100, the in-migration to the North will likely be manageable, provided governments don’t get too xenophobic. Also, given that advanced non-agrarian societies have lower birth rates, the move to the North will quicken the population decline (a virtuous cycle). Northern US, Canada, and Russia will probably benefit from the influx.

Water supplies and agriculture would suffer the greatest impact. Given the likelihood of less predictable climate, we’ll have to develop ways to better conserve, store, and transport water during years of favorable weather to soften the impact of the bad years. More reservoirs and canals would help, as would the development of crops that need less water and use water more efficiently.  We would also need to continue the development of increasingly resilient crops able to thrive in variable conditions and continue to improve intensive sustainable farming practices.

Between population decline, intensification of  agriculture, and increased urbanization, wild habitat will spread. However, some species will not be able to adapt to climate change within their traditional habitat, so we will need to insure that habitats are large enough to accommodate the migration of floral and fauna to take advantage of shifting microclimates and resources. We will also have to act as stewards of these habitats to both facilitate migration and maintain resources. This may involve the controlled introduction of more resilient food sources in some areas, or intermittent periods of more direct management, such as feeding stations.

And for some species, we’ll need to expand seed banks and create breeding compounds to maintain sufficient genetic integrity to ride out the storm and be returned to the wild at some later date. Yes, that could be for hundreds of years. But, you know, I keep hearing that artificial intelligence and robots are going to make most work obsolete – so it’s not like humans will be too busy to help out. Time to roll up our sleeves.

While admirably trying to save the planet from global warming, many environmental activists seem to undermine their efforts by focusing on a narrow range of possible solutions. Sometimes ideology plays a role: there is an anti-capitalist, anti-technology streak within the environmental movement that resists suggestions that involve harnessing the profit motive or engineering know-how. And then there is a certain amount of zero-sum reasoning: if humans gain, the planet loses – therefore, the only way to save the planet is through deep and permanent sacrifice on the part of humans.

Of course, some sacrifice will be necessary – the question is how much, what type, and how implemented. But a focus on sacrifice can backfire and become counter-productive. For instance, GDP growth can reduce environmental impact (e.g., through creating diverse job opportunities for women and fostering women’s education, which is the single best indicator of family size; through agricultural intensification and reduction in small holdings, resulting in more land available for reforestation and wild habitat; through spreading carbon decoupling and de-materialization processes that are associated with economic development – to name a few). There are multiple paths to reducing GHGs and the impact of climate change on the environment – I think all should be explored with an open mind. Instead, what I see again and again is a kind of “my way or the highway” attitude toward climate change mitigation and adaptation, with a strong bias for “natural” rather than “artificial” solutions.

Case in point is a recent interview with Steven Amstrup, who studies polar bears for the US Geological Survey. Asked what the most important thing is that can be done to save the polar bear, Amstrup responds, “Absolutely the most important thing – and really the only thing – that will save polar bears in the long run is to stop the rise of greenhouse gases and stop the warming of the planet” (italics added). He then goes on to dismiss alternative solutions, such as relocating polar bears to other habitats (they evolved in the Arctic and so are only able to live in Arctic conditions); restricting hunting (a good thing but still inconsequential in the long run); teaching polar bears to hunt like grizzles and so be able to exploit a different habitat (nope, polar bears are too specialized, while grizzlies and brown bears are more adaptable); creating floating platforms that serve the same function as floating ice (nope, too big of a project and fake ice lacks essential qualities of real ice); and, finally, zoos and captive breeding (nope, baby polar bears need to grow up in the wild with their mamas teaching them hunting skills).

Amstrup makes good points through the interview. All the possible solutions have problems. But he stops there – where the problem is identified. I kept hoping for some discussion of serious research addressing these problems to see if they can be minimized or eliminated. There was none. Could artificial platforms be designed that make a better substitute for floating ice? (After all, if we’re creating lab-raised meat, perhaps we can develop algae and mollusk-attracting platforms.) Could transition programs be developed so that captive-bred polar bears could be trained to survive when they are returned to wild habitat when conditions improve? Are there initiatives to further explore these options – or are they being dismissed out of hand? If the latter, what a shame. If the Arctic ice all melts, and we never really developed a Plan B, the polar bears will go extinct.

Note: This and several subsequent posts will be about possible adaptations to climate change. Serious consideration of adaptations does not require any slackening of effort to mitigate climate change.

In the last post, I mentioned that Arctic ice could disappear completely by 2100 and without the ice, some animals may very well go extinct, including polar pears and ring seals. And that’s just the (disappearing) tip of the iceberg….

It’s estimated that one in six species could disappear over the next century, with animals and plants in South America and Australia especially hard hit. What can we do to make this not happen?

A tendency I’ve seen among environmentalists and climate activists is to quickly knock down suggestions that seem “unnatural”. These individuals seem to favor solutions that protect and restore habitats but look askance at solutions that involve changing habitats, captive breeding, or the selective introduction of some endangered species into new habitats. The idea here is that ecosystems are so delicately balanced that you can’t change anything without ruining the whole thing.

Of course, there is some truth to that. But it’s the kind of categorical thinking that doesn’t acknowledge exceptions, trade-offs or matters of degree and undermines the problem-solving process. It’s the type of thinking that is quick to find issues with unfavored solutions and just stop there – oops, can’t do that – instead of considering these issues as something that can be fixed or at least minimized. When engineers find a problem in a design, they don’t throw out the plans – they say “what can we do to fix that?” That’s an attitude we all could benefit from. Besides tripping up creative problem-solving, the idea of a pristine state of nature is not exactly reality-based. Natural environments have been “invaded” and changed by invaders constantly throughout the history of our planet. Pristine environments free of human impact have been the exception to the rule for millennia. Which is not at all saying that those species will just have to live with us and our cats. Or die.

Here’s the thing: while protection, restoration and expansion of relatively human-free habitats are essential to saving endangered species, it is not enough. More needs to be done.

Polar bears provide an excellent case for illustrating the above points and for thinking through possible solutions to their plight. Next up.

Inspired by: Stewart Brand (2009) Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto