In order to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to levels that would not further imperil earth's climate, the globe as a whole will have to spend $45 trillion dollars, according to the International Energy Agency's 2008 report. This expenditure would reportedly produce a 50% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2030.
The reduction is only marginally possible, according to most experts, since 2030 is only a few decades away and the world's industrial and energy capacity is largely based on burning fossil fuels. The expenditure is impossible. The world's population is six and one half billion. On a per capita basis, this would mean about $7,000 per person. Unfortunately, most of the world's population lives in third world countries and subsists on less than a dollar an hour. To them, this burden of debt represents five years wages. What will they eat while paying off their portion? How will they afford even simple necessities like fuel to cook their food and clothing to protect them from the elements?
On the other hand, with global temperatures predicted to rise as much as six degrees Celsius by 2100, and drought, climactic weather and disease the natural consequences of this warming, what choice do they have? Growing food will become precarious to impossible in much of Africa, Asia, China and even South America if this predicted warming occurs.
Industrialized countries will have to take up the burden of financing this revolution. This means changing not only the way we in industrialized societies currently eat, live and work, but changing our entire perspective on need versus want. The exigencies of climate change, and the need to prevent further impacts, may send us back to a technological version of the pioneer days; growing our own food, washing clothing by hand, even bicycling or walking to and from work and grocery stores where possible. Things are likely to get a lot worse before they get better. On the other hand, since we created most of these emissions during our industrialization in the first half of the twentieth century, it seems only fair that we in the "first world" should have to sacrifice now to curb them.
There is no single path leading to a sustainable energy future, and technology will be our best weapon. We can begin by cutting electricity usage in our homes and workplaces. This can be as simple as switching all incandescent bulbs for compact fluorescent bulbs. We can put our electronic toys like DVD players, televisions and computers on multi-outlet power strips with surge protectors, and shut the strips off when units are not in use. We can put up clotheslines for drying clothing - dryers are the biggest energy hogs in most households. Where homeowner's association or municipal laws forbid clotheslines, we can petition to change these laws; there is no better legal stance than earth's habitable future.
At work, we can ask businesses and corporations to mandate emergency lighting during non-work hours, and enforce a policy where all computers are not merely put in "sleep" mode but actually shut down at the end of the day. Our corporate office buildings don't need to be lit brightly enough to be seen from space when no one is in them. We can also insist that all companies convert to paperless billing where possible, and provide consumer incentives for electronic bill paying. We can cut business travel; most meetings can be as effectively conducted via videoconferencing, or even teleconferencing. These last two measures alone will cut 500 million tons of CO2.
Some of us with money can turn in our gas-guzzler SUVs for hybrids. A good portion of us can skip that expensive vacation and use the savings for a down payment on one of the new electric cars. Many of these can now attain speeds of 60-75 miles per hour and travel up to 200 miles on a single charge; if you drive more than 200 miles round trip to work you are living someone else's dream anyway. Those who cite safety as an issue should know that SUVs aren't any safer for children than ordinary cars. The real modus operandi behind SUVs is a status-symbol, and it's time we in the U.S. give up our attitude of entitlement. The only thing we are entitled to is life, and that will be marginalized by global warming to a degree we haven't yet imagined.
We can, and must, use nuclear energy as a stopgap to the development of solar, wind and geothermal energy technologies. Other than spent fuel storage, nuclear energy is non-polluting. More important, it delivers vast amounts of energy to cities where neither wind nor solar are effective substitutes, as in the Upper Midwest in winter.
Many have suggested carbon emissions trading as a method to reduce CO2. Simply explained, carbon trading gives companies an average carbon allowance based on their niche in the business or industrial sector. Thus, if you make paper, you have (for example) ten tons of emissions credits. If you exceed that, you either have to buy credits from a company that is using less of its emissions credits, or pay a fine.
It's an acceptable system, but doesn't really limit emissions that much, because most companies who pollute have the money to buy credits and pay fines. Another, better, method is to tax emissions at a rate that makes it prohibitively expensive to be a polluter. These taxes could be paid into a central pool and used to nudge industries in the direction of emissions reduction technologies. This would spur alternative energy businesses, and provide funding for the kinds of inventions that will create an energy-safe future for our children.
The payoffs are self-evident. Cutting CO2 will lead to lower energy use, less dependence not only on imported oil but oil in general, and a reduction in the fossil-fuel burning emissions like sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that lead to acid rain. A reduction in CO2 will also slow ocean acidification, a largely unheralded event which -perhaps more than rising temperatures - imperils not only corals but much of the ocean's life and consequently a good portion of humanity's food supply.
We will all be taxed, both literally and figuratively, to pay for these emissions reductions, meaning less disposable income for luxuries. On the other hand, it is our demand for luxuries that got us here. The cost of cutting emissions will be high; the cost of not cutting them will be life itself for many of the earth's current inhabitants, including humans.
Further Reading:
