Carbon neutral targets are not enough. At the current rate, we have approximately 9 years to eliminate fossil fuels entirely and achieve carbon negative targets, or we will have the transition forced on us.
We face a crisis unlike anything in recorded history, a crisis that affects all of us, a crisis that could either unite us to the benefit of all, or could quite possibly, as recently arguedby David Wallace-Wells in New York Magazine, destroy human civilization as we know it. Does this sound like hyperbole to you? Well, read on, as it is, unfortunately, not. Thankfully there is a solution, but it requires all of us to work together.
In January, global mean atmospheric CO2 content breached 405 parts per million (“ppm”), up from 400 ppm 14 months earlier and closing even more rapidly toward the 450 ppm danger point than experts have predicted. 450 ppm is the point where scientists predict that catastrophic events due to climate change are not only highly likely, but are also likely to become irreversible. At this pace we will hit 450 ppm in ~9 years, far sooner than the initial predictions of 2100 or subsequent predictions of 2036 referenced earlier. But there is hope. Despite Donald Trump announcing he intends for the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Accord, hundreds of leaders have committed to not only adhering to Paris Accord commitments, but many are also increasing their commitments, demonstrating the kind of leadership humanity needs.
Unfortunately, while carbon neutral targets and existing Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (“INDCs”) under the “Paris Accord” (aka “COP21”) are a good start and the people involved deserve praise for achieving a remarkable agreement, as correctly pointed out by Nicaragua, such commitments do not go far enough. Our best bet is to both eliminate fossil fuels from our energy mix entirely and restore, or replace, carbon sinks as quickly as possible. Stated simply, the world needs to adopt carbon negative (“C-“) targets. The good news is, as demonstrated and defended by Stanford professor Mark Jacobson and his colleagues, and others, going 100% renewable is not only entirely possible, but also makes sense. The transition to renewables creates potentially US$124.7trn in investment opportunities with returns typically in the range of 12-18%, creates jobs, and saves both lives and money. Restoring or replacing carbon sinks is also possible, as is electrification and use of hydrogen for transportation.
This article will explain:
the crisis humanity faces and how we got here,
what will happen if we do not achieve carbon negative targets or achieve them too late,
why “baseload” fossil fuel and nuclear plants are not needed and how 100% renewable energy is both technically and economically viable, and
why carbon negative targets are in everyone’s best interests, and what we can each do to achieve them.
Make no mistake, the situation is indeed dire but we already have the technology we need to solve the problem. We can still change the course we’re on, and this transition must and will happen. The question is, how bad will we let things get before we take the steps necessary to make things better?
The crisis & how we got here
For the 650,000 years prior to industrialization, and for almost the entirety of the ~350,000 years marking the oldest known fossil records of humans, our habitat was in a state of equilibrium with CO2 levels fluctuating between 170ppm and 298ppm in cycles that took thousands of years. The most recent 67 years have been different. While carbon and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions naturally occur from volcanos, vegetation decay and other sources, natural carbon sinks such as forests, vegetation growth and ocean processes were sufficient to maintain a generally livable habitat for humanity. However, with industrialization and rapid population growth humanity has 1) eliminated approximately 46% of trees globally and 2) increased use of fossil fuels to supply energy for electricity, heat, industry, and transportation. Our habitat is, quite visibly, no longer in equilibrium.
According to the International Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), Electricity and Heat cause approximately 25% of CO2 emissions, Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (“AFOLU” AKA deforestation) accounts for approximately 24%, ahead of both Industry at 21%, and Transport at 14%. As a result of our ongoing activities global average atmospheric CO2 breached 400ppm in 2015. In January, just over a year later, CO2 rose to 405ppm with the measurements at Mauna Loa showing 410 ppm. These are CO2 levels not seen in approximately 3 million years, older than the oldest fossil records of our entire genus. Contrary to the unwillingness of former fossil-fuel industry executives, and those with ties to them, to acknowledge the facts, this 45.8% increase in CO2 (over 100ppm of which occurred since 1950) is clearly caused by human activity and endangers both our lives and our way of life.
If frequent photographs of people covered in masks, to avoid breathing smog, in places like Beijing and Delhi are insufficient to prove the point, the fact that we are destroying our habit to such an extent that many places are already unsuitable for human habitation on many days is clearly visible in the 5.5 to 7 million people that die every year due to air pollution, equivalent to having WWII every 8.5 to 15.5 years. Achieving C- targets will save millions of human lives every year and result in net gains to society. The IMF estimated global energy subsidies at $5.3 trillion in 2015, of which fossil fuels receive over 97%, and that society could have annual net gains of $1.8 trillion or more just through reform.
