![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livingdebIt took me months to read Joseph Romm's Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know (3rd ed.) (2022). I just couldn't take it psychologically for very long. But I've condensed it quite a bit for you, as it is an excellent, well-researched book on a hot topic (pun noted).
First, there are some tipping points we have already passed. There is no avoiding:
* sea level rise of 4 feet (due to the collapse of the Western Antarctic ice sheet glaciers)
* desertification of some regions, leading to higher food costs
Then here's what will happen with a 'business as usual' approach--if we don't make any more improvements than we're doing now. Here is a brief summary:
* much higher sea level rise (1 foot per decade by 2100)
* much worse desertification (1/3 of inhabited, arable land) especially in subtropics (and thus food insecurity, migration, war--like in Syria today)
* more bad storms
* more droughts
* more record-setting hot days, fewer record-setting cold days; more areas with too much heat and humidity to be livable
* worse hurricanes (stronger, less predictable, weakening more slowly, and with worse storm surges)
* worse and more frequent wildfires
* worse and more frequent snowstorms (there's such as thing as too cold to snow!)
* worse tornadoes (more tornadoes per storm, wider paths)
* massive species loss on land and sea
* increasing salinization of rivers
* more smog
* more ocean acidification
Basically, imagine an America where everyone's moving inland and north to places that can't handle the growth, so it's basically like third-world, slum, war-torn living. I'm guessing certain rich people will escape a lot of this, but they are not immune to everything, especially uprisings of angry poor people (like the French Revolution).
We can avoid the worst impacts by doing what UN Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez says: "We must end fossil fuel subsidies, phase out coal, put a price on carbon, protect vulnerable communities from the impacts of climate change and make good on the $100 billion climate commitment to support developing countries."
(What about geoengineering? Carbon dioxide removal by reforestation or direct capture is relatively safe but expensive. Even just capturing and permanently storing CO2 from coal plants is very expensive. Reflecting sunlight, say, by injecting vast quantities of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes, is possibly affordable but flawed as a solution because it would not slow ocean acidification and could disrupt food production.)
The Good News
And how much would it cost to do what the UN Secretary General requests? "Every major independent economic analysis of the cost of strong climate action has found that it is quite low." I cried after reading that, too. Because then why aren't we doing it?
What do they mean by "quite low"? In 2014, the International Agency "said that a systematic effort to use renewable energy and energy efficiency and energy storage to keep global warming below the 2 degree threshold" would cost about 1% of global gross domestic product per year.
And they said, "The $44 trillion additional investment needed to decarbonize the energy system in line with the 2DS by 2050 is more than offset by over $115 trillion in fuel savings." Plus there would be less pollution and climate change.
'The conclusion that avoiding dangerous warming has a very low net cost is not a new finding.' Comparison: global spending on insurance is 3.3% of GDP. Delaying increases the cost.
And can we adapt if we don't avoid those worst impacts? For sea-level rise, we could use stilts, levees, sea walls, pumping systems, abandonment. (Sea walls don't work in some places with permeable land like southern Florida). It's difficult or impossible to adapt to desertification - it's no coincidence that the word "desert" is both a noun meaning a dry place and a verb meaning to abandon. Agriculture and food security could be easily overwhelmed.
What can (we beg that) the government do? There are four basic strategies:
1) economic - pricing emissions (carbon tax, cap-and-trade) or subsidizing carbon free energy.
2) regulatory - fuel economy standards, energy efficiency standards for appliances, renewable energy percentage standards for utilities, emissions limits from different facilities such as power plants. (In US, Obama's Clean Power Plan).
3) technological - basic and applied research aimed at lowering costs and improving performance of low-carbon sources.
4) forestry/land use policies - fighting deforestation.
(There are loads of details on each, but I'm trying to keep this short--ask questions if you want.)
For energy, the best strategy is increasing efficiency, such as with weatherization, auto fuel economy, LEDs, occupancy sensors, and natural lighting.
The next important strategy is replacing fossil fuels with clean energy like solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy, especially with new battery technology (though the biggest source currently used (another pun!) by the electric grid is "pumped storage" at hydroelectric plants (potential energy). Fascinatingly: "In Denmark, the owners of electric vehicles have been earning as much as $1500/year by plugging in when they park and selling excess power back to the grid when needed."
Next most important is substitution/energy conservation - walking, biking, public transport, internet (the increase in telecommuting, teleconferencing, and internet shopping is helping). This is the only one that requires behavior change. No one is asking us to go back to caveman days, just to make minor tweaks in our current fabulously luxurious and extravagant lifestyles. Reducing consumerism also helps. Changing our diet to consist of more plants and fewer ungulates and dairy helps. The author recommends keeping meat, fish, and eggs to less than 90 g per person per day (not completely cutting them out of your life, even though you could still stay healthy and maybe even enjoy eating). (I've read that there's such a thing as regenerative ranching where the ungulates aren't nearly so hard on the ecosystem, so that's another alternative.)
Finally is taxing gas.
First, there are some tipping points we have already passed. There is no avoiding:
* sea level rise of 4 feet (due to the collapse of the Western Antarctic ice sheet glaciers)
* desertification of some regions, leading to higher food costs
Then here's what will happen with a 'business as usual' approach--if we don't make any more improvements than we're doing now. Here is a brief summary:
* much higher sea level rise (1 foot per decade by 2100)
* much worse desertification (1/3 of inhabited, arable land) especially in subtropics (and thus food insecurity, migration, war--like in Syria today)
* more bad storms
* more droughts
* more record-setting hot days, fewer record-setting cold days; more areas with too much heat and humidity to be livable
* worse hurricanes (stronger, less predictable, weakening more slowly, and with worse storm surges)
* worse and more frequent wildfires
* worse and more frequent snowstorms (there's such as thing as too cold to snow!)
* worse tornadoes (more tornadoes per storm, wider paths)
* massive species loss on land and sea
* increasing salinization of rivers
* more smog
* more ocean acidification
Basically, imagine an America where everyone's moving inland and north to places that can't handle the growth, so it's basically like third-world, slum, war-torn living. I'm guessing certain rich people will escape a lot of this, but they are not immune to everything, especially uprisings of angry poor people (like the French Revolution).
We can avoid the worst impacts by doing what UN Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez says: "We must end fossil fuel subsidies, phase out coal, put a price on carbon, protect vulnerable communities from the impacts of climate change and make good on the $100 billion climate commitment to support developing countries."
(What about geoengineering? Carbon dioxide removal by reforestation or direct capture is relatively safe but expensive. Even just capturing and permanently storing CO2 from coal plants is very expensive. Reflecting sunlight, say, by injecting vast quantities of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes, is possibly affordable but flawed as a solution because it would not slow ocean acidification and could disrupt food production.)
The Good News
And how much would it cost to do what the UN Secretary General requests? "Every major independent economic analysis of the cost of strong climate action has found that it is quite low." I cried after reading that, too. Because then why aren't we doing it?
What do they mean by "quite low"? In 2014, the International Agency "said that a systematic effort to use renewable energy and energy efficiency and energy storage to keep global warming below the 2 degree threshold" would cost about 1% of global gross domestic product per year.
And they said, "The $44 trillion additional investment needed to decarbonize the energy system in line with the 2DS by 2050 is more than offset by over $115 trillion in fuel savings." Plus there would be less pollution and climate change.
'The conclusion that avoiding dangerous warming has a very low net cost is not a new finding.' Comparison: global spending on insurance is 3.3% of GDP. Delaying increases the cost.
And can we adapt if we don't avoid those worst impacts? For sea-level rise, we could use stilts, levees, sea walls, pumping systems, abandonment. (Sea walls don't work in some places with permeable land like southern Florida). It's difficult or impossible to adapt to desertification - it's no coincidence that the word "desert" is both a noun meaning a dry place and a verb meaning to abandon. Agriculture and food security could be easily overwhelmed.
What can (we beg that) the government do? There are four basic strategies:
1) economic - pricing emissions (carbon tax, cap-and-trade) or subsidizing carbon free energy.
2) regulatory - fuel economy standards, energy efficiency standards for appliances, renewable energy percentage standards for utilities, emissions limits from different facilities such as power plants. (In US, Obama's Clean Power Plan).
3) technological - basic and applied research aimed at lowering costs and improving performance of low-carbon sources.
4) forestry/land use policies - fighting deforestation.
(There are loads of details on each, but I'm trying to keep this short--ask questions if you want.)
For energy, the best strategy is increasing efficiency, such as with weatherization, auto fuel economy, LEDs, occupancy sensors, and natural lighting.
The next important strategy is replacing fossil fuels with clean energy like solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy, especially with new battery technology (though the biggest source currently used (another pun!) by the electric grid is "pumped storage" at hydroelectric plants (potential energy). Fascinatingly: "In Denmark, the owners of electric vehicles have been earning as much as $1500/year by plugging in when they park and selling excess power back to the grid when needed."
Next most important is substitution/energy conservation - walking, biking, public transport, internet (the increase in telecommuting, teleconferencing, and internet shopping is helping). This is the only one that requires behavior change. No one is asking us to go back to caveman days, just to make minor tweaks in our current fabulously luxurious and extravagant lifestyles. Reducing consumerism also helps. Changing our diet to consist of more plants and fewer ungulates and dairy helps. The author recommends keeping meat, fish, and eggs to less than 90 g per person per day (not completely cutting them out of your life, even though you could still stay healthy and maybe even enjoy eating). (I've read that there's such a thing as regenerative ranching where the ungulates aren't nearly so hard on the ecosystem, so that's another alternative.)
Finally is taxing gas.
no subject
on 2023-11-27 11:44 am (UTC)no subject
on 2023-11-27 05:14 pm (UTC)Yep, I definitely like supporting regenerative agriculture. I have access to meat from (at least?) two different companies where I live.