Last December’s agreement in Bali to launch a two-year negotiation on climate change was good news, a rare example of international cooperation in a world seemingly stuck in a spiral of conflict. Cynics might note that the only accomplishment was an agreement to talk some more, and their cynicism may yet be confirmed. Nevertheless, the growing understanding that serious climate-control measures are feasible at modest cost is welcome.
The arithmetic is becoming clearer. If the rich nations continue to grow in wealth and the poor ones systematically narrow the income gap with successful development, by 2050 the global economy might increase sixfold and global energy use roughly fourfold. Today’s anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are around 36 billion tons annually, of which 29 billion are the result of fossil-fuel combustion and industrial processes, and another seven billion or so are to the result of tropical deforestation. Roughly speaking, every 30 billion tons of emissions raises CO2 levels by around two parts per million (ppm). The current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is around 380 ppm, up from 280 ppm at the start of the industrial era in 1800. Thus, to arrive at 430 to 450 ppm by 2050—a plausibly achievable “safe” level in terms of its likely climate change consequences, but only 50 to 70 ppm more than the current one—cumulative emissions should be kept to roughly 750 to 1,050 billion tons, or roughly 20 billion tons a year. This goal can be achieved by ending deforestation (on a net basis) and cutting by one third our current fossil-fuel-based emissions.
So here is the challenge. Can the world economy use four times more primary energy while lowering emissions by one third?
The key, arithmetically, is to cut CO2 emissions per unit of primary energy to roughly one-sixth of their current level. That may sound like a daunting task, but it is actually within reach. Let’s remember that 80 percent or so of total energy use will come from a small number of types of sources: electricity production (40 percent), vehicles (25 percent), heavy industries including cement, petrochemicals, refining, and steel (10 percent), and heating of buildings (10 percent).
A promising core strategy seems to be the following. Electricity needs to be made virtually emission-free, through the mass mobilization of solar and nuclear power and the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants. With a clean power grid, most of the other emissions can also be controlled. In less than a decade, plug-in hybrid automobiles recharged on grid will probably get 100 miles per gallon. Clean electricity could produce hydrogen for fuel-cell-powered vehicles and replace on-site boilers and furnaces for residential heating. The major industrial emitters at refineries, cement plants, and steel mills could be required (or induced through taxation) to capture their CO2 emissions or to convert part of their processes to run on power cells and clean electricity.
The economics are also favorable. Carbon capture and sequestration at coal-fired power plants might raise costs for electricity as little as one to three cents per kilowatt-hour, according to a special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The mass conversion of the U.S. to solar power might involve an incremental cost of roughly four cents per kilowatt-hour, with overall electricity costs on the order of eight to nine cents per kilowatt-hour. These incremental costs imply far less than 1 percent of the world’s annual income to convert to a clean power grid. The costs in the other sectors will also be small. The fuel savings of low-emissions cars could easily pay for the added costs of batteries or fuel cells. Residential heating by electricity (or co-generated heat) rather than by home boilers will generally yield a net saving, especially when combined with improved insulation.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentCan we please move past this rubbish about CO2? There is no evidence of any link between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and atmospheric temperature. There is no certain mechanism through which there could be a link. but there is evidence that as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase its impact as a Greenhouse Gas decrease logarithmically. SciAm is billed as a real Science Magazine, so lets see some real science on Climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you will be waiting a long time for SciAm to abandon in its religiously held beliefs about co2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts just absurd to think that a gas which is almost completely transparent to IR radiation has the largest effect on surface temperature through the mechanism ascribed.
Oh well, most of the northern hemisphere is in a cooling plunge the likes of which hasn't been seen in a century, and I think its likely a preview of coming attractions given the solar cycle we are entering.
So much for the warmingists game of global energy production and economic control, I guess. Too bad the sun didn't play along.
Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, the peer-reviewed work of thousands of scientists done through the IPCC gives our current understanding of the CO2 mechanics. You may not like it, you may not agree, you may say so and that's your right in a democracy. But then you're the one relying on faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSame goes for comments on cooling (refer to the definition of climate vs weather, and to the El Nina cycles)
If you are relying on the IPCC scientists, then you have just argued against yourself. IPCC is political not scientific - check their charter. ...and check the political representatives who approve the IPCC reports line by line. While you are at it you might like to closely look at what the actual science is rather than relying on press reports. Do your homework - don't just parrot what you have been told.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn excellent article but why did you not include wind power along with nuclear and solar?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn Burton
jjj burton@verizon.net
Welcome article. But global warming ecocatastrophe may well happen much faster than Sachs assumes, as Jim Hansen has warned us. We may well have only a decade left to implement radical reduction in carbon emissions. As Eisenhower warned us in more than 50 years ago, the military industrial complex is a huge burden on humanity, and "MIC" has grown much bigger in the last 50 years, driven by oil addiction. No war, no warming is the only way to avoid ecocatastrophe and a much more miserable and dangerous world in only a few decades. Building more nuclear power plants contributes to more C emissions until they are completed and diverts resources away from a much cheaper and quicker solution (wind turbines). Better plans for solarization: Arjun Makhijani and Lester Brown.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just read "The Scramble for the Arctic" by Scott Borgerson in Foreign Affairs magazine. It seems seven nations are not only anticipating Global Warming, they're planning on exploiting natural resources, [ including petroleum ], just as soon as the ice melts. After reading about the Permian Extinction etc. why would anyone question the cause & effect of carbon dioxide and methane gas. Denial is an antidote to stress. I read that some Titanic passengers amused themselves for a time by throwing snowballs from some iceberg debris that fell on deck just hours before the ship went down. In the meantime, just follow the money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a follow on to my previous comment. There seems to be two camps of thought on this subject; the "Believers" and the "Nonbelievers". One camp cites the vacuity of the Scientific Community forever coming up with crisis scenarios based on "lightweight" evidence. If nothing of this magnitude could ever appear in their imaginations, why should they believe in this supposition. The only thing certain about the future is uncertainty, and plenty of people "burned" by the "stock bubble" and "housing boom" learned that the hard way. I weigh in with the "Believers" for no other reason than to do nothing would be tantamount to riding "down with ship" so to speak. What's really bothersome is those that plan to reap in the supposed "treasures" of Global Warming assuming it would reach some equilibrium at that point. Based on paleontologic history we have no idea how far this thing would play out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe entire globe is currently experiencing the most rapid temperature drop on record--nearly 1 degree F over the course of one short year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can anyone still cling to AGW theory, which was derived from computer models, all of which are grossly in error?
All models predicted a warming troposphere. It is cooler. All models predicted a warmer ocean. It has cooled to depths of 5000m. All models predicted a warmer global surface temperatures. The surface temperatures have dropped significantly very rapidly.
All this cooling is occur despite increasing co2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
The solar activity has decreased during the last year by a correlating proportion. Hmmmmm....I wonder if the solar component as a climate driver has been underestimated, while the role of co2 has been greatly overstated in the models?
The answer is obvious.
Too bad the sun did not play along with the global socialist energy and economic control scheme they've been planning to enact by blatant lying regarding the impending global warming doomsday scenario.
The only reason any laypersons would still 'believe' in AGW is because it is a belief that is religious in nature.
The sun has fully refuted the theory, and invalidated the models supporting it.
--
Edited by hallucinogenic toreador at 02/28/2008 9:45 AM
Ah, it comes down to religion again. How really simple this now all becomes. Honestly, I really do hope the earth is cooling, my utility bill was horrible last summer. My heart goes out to all those poor politicos that wanted to exploit the Arctic, they'll just have to wait for AGW2!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would you wish for a cooling climate? Cool periods have been devastating to mankind. Without exception, humans and civilization flourish and advance during warm periods, and by contrast, suffer horribly during cold periods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, we are observing that solar activity has declined precipitously over the last year, to levels that should cause everyone concern.
The religiously held belief by individuals and governemts in anthropogenic global warming via fossil fuels and co2 is deleterious to the plans we should be making to endure a potentially devestating global cool down via reduced solar output.
Scientific American, the IPCC, and climate modelers should be held accountable when its time to pay the piper.
This discourse appears to be heading toward a "Black Hole" my friend, time for me to move on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, Hugh, similar to the actions of most global warmingists when presented with the indisputable current observations of a cooling planet which is contrary to the predictions made by the AGW models, you are pulling the equivalent of the classic five year old routine of stuffing index fingers into your earholes while shouting, 'aye, aye, aye, aye, aye!'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess you've picked-up your toys and gone home.
Why hasn't SA even publised one single article in regards to the rapidly cooling planet in '07/'08?
The steepest temperature change on record doesn't warrant a mention?
Come on, now!
Folks who claim the Earth is actually cooling are misunderstanding clear data that shows the global average temperature increasing. I personally can't understand this apparent fixation on maintaining a view that conflicts with the data. There are many sources of information that explain this. The data are at:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
If you can't see warming in that data, you are truly hopeless.