Global Warming Action Plan

Action Plan to deal with global warming and climate change

2011-03-26T21:41:00.000-07:00

Goals:
1. Adapt and deal with symptoms (preparation, preservation, plantation, energy saving, etc)
2. Combat causes of global warming
2.1. Long-term impact (cut CO₂ emissions and remove CO₂ from atmosphere and oceans) ^(C,D)
2.2. Short-term impact
2.2.1. Reflect more sunlight back into space ^(D)
2.2.2. Reduce pollutants other than CO₂
2.2.2.1. Reduce emissions of chemical gases such as HFC, PFC, SF_6,, halon, CFC and HCFC ^(A)
2.2.2.2. Reduce emissions of CH₄, N²O, BC, CO, NO_x and VOC ^(B,C,E)
2.2.2.3. Produce extra OH ^(D)

This can be best achieved through:

A.		Protocols (Kyoto, Montreal, etc), standards and deposits (refunded at collection) on products containing inorganic pollutants
		Fees on nitrogen fertilizers and livestock products (where farmed) to fund local application of biochar
C.		Fees on burning fuel (where burned) to fund clean local alternatives (incl. EVs, solar cookers, WWS energy)
D.		Geoengineering (adding lime to seawater and aerosols to the atmosphere, carbon air capture, using UV light to stimulate methane oxidation, cloud brightening, etc; for more see the geoengineering group)
E.		Organic waste handling standards (e.g. the UNEP-proposed ban of open field burning of agricultural waste)

Color Use:

Blue		Goals
Purple		Inorganic waste policies (cycle A)
Green		Land use and organic waste policies (cycles B & E)
Orange		Geoengineering & energy-related policies (cycles C & D)
——>		Feebate policies

Acronyms and Abbreviations
BC	black carbon (or soot)
CFC	chlorofluorocarbon
CH₄	methane (or natural gas)
CO	carbon monoxide
CO₂	carbon dioxide
EV	electric vehicle
HFC	hydrofluorocarbon also known as freon, with the subclass HCFC
HCFC	hydrochlorofluorocarbon
H₂O₂	HOOH or hydrogen peroxide
NO	nitrogen monoxide (commonly known as nitric oxide)
NO₂	nitrogen dioxide
NO_X	nitrogen oxides (NO and NO₂, which cause O₃, smog and acid rain)
N²O	nitrous oxide
O₃	ozone
OH	hydroxyl
PFC	perfluorocarbon
SF₆	sulphur hexafluoride
UNEP	United Nations Environment Programme
VOC	volatile organic compound include CFCs, styrene, limonene and formaldehyde
WWS	WWS energy or Wind, Water and Solar Energy (water includes hydro, wave, tidal and geothermal)

Related Posts

Goals
Ten Dangers of Global Warming
America can win the clean energy race

A. Protocols, standards and deposit programs
A national bottle recycling bill
Green Refrigerators and Air Conditioners

B. Fees on nitrogen fertilizers and livestock products, funding biochar
Biochar
Afforestation - bringing life into the deserts
Save the Rainforest
Fees on Livestock to fund Biochar

C. Fees on burning fuel, funding clean local energy programs
Electric Vehicles - Frequently Asked Questions
SuperB Grid

D. Geoengineering
The Threat of Methane Release from Permafrost and Clathrates
Funding of Carbon Air Capture
Open letter on Arctic sea ice loss

E. Organic waste handling standards
Algae Bags

——>

Feebate policies

Feebates

Further reading
Posts at Gather

Global Warming Action Plan

2011-01-23T23:30:00.000-08:00

All nations should commit to effective action to deal with climate change. Nations should each be able to decide for themselves how to do this, provided they each meet agreed targets independently and genuinely (i.e. without buying or fabricating offsets or credits, domestically or abroad). Where necessary, border adjustments can help ensure that commitments are indeed met.

Some policies may aim to reduce emissions in one area, while causing emissions elsewhere. As an example, biofuel may reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in transport, while increasing agricultural emissions, reducing forests and diverting crop, water and energy from better use.

It is important for nations to each achieve results on each of the following points, without achievements in one area being counterproductive elsewhere. It is therefore recommended to take an approach that seeks results on each of the following points.

Part 1. Reduce oceanic and atmospheric CO₂

Target: Ensure that atmospheric CO₂ levels do not exceed 400 ppm over the next few decades, while aiming for a longer term target of 350 ppm.

James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist, says in Target CO₂ : Where Should Humanity Aim? that atmospheric CO₂ should be reduced to 350 ppm. To achieve this target, several policies will need to work in parallel with each other.

1.1. Dramatic cuts in CO₂ emissions

Most emissions are energy-related. In many cases, dramatic cuts in CO₂ emissions can be achieved merely by electrifying transport and shifting to generation of energy by clean facilities such as solar panels and wind turbines. Each nation should aim to reduce their CO₂ emissions by a minimum of 8% per year over the next ten years, based on their 2009 emissions, and by 80% by 2020.

1.2. Carbon must also be actively removed from the atmosphere and the oceans

A study at the University of Calgary concludes that, even if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO₂ in the atmosphere, the West Antarctic ice sheet will still eventually collapse (by the year 3000), causing a global sea level rise of at least four meters. This means that - apart from reducing emissions - there should be additional efforts to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere and the oceans, in order to get CO₂ down to levels as pictured on the above graph.

Carbon is naturally removed from the atmosphere and the oceans by vegetation, so it makes sense to protect forests and encourage their growth. There are ways to reduce ocean acidification, such as by adding lime to seawater, as discussed at this geoengineering blog and group. Carbon capture from ambient air and pyrolysis of surplus biomass with biochar burial are some of the most promising methods to further remove carbon from the atmosphere. Biochar can also help with afforestation and prevent deforestation and land degradation. Funding of carbon air capture could be raised through fees on jet fuel.

All nations should commit to such initiatives — care should be taken that emission reductions are not substituted by carbon removal or vice versa.

Part 2. Short-term action

The Arctic sea ice acts as a giant mirror, reflecting sunlight back into space and thus keeping Earth relatively cool, as discussed in this open letter. If this sunlight instead gets absorbed at higher latitudes, then feedback effects will take place that result in much higher temperatures, in a process sometimes referred to as Arctic amplification of global warming.

The IPCC didn't take such feedback into account in AR4. A study that used 2007/2008 data as starting point predicts a nearly sea ice free Arctic in September by the year 2037, some predict an even quicker demise. A study by by National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Jeffrey Kiehl found that carbon dioxide may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models of global climate. Melting of ice sheets, for example, leads to additional heating because exposed dark surfaces of land or water absorb more heat than ice sheets.

Albedo change is only one of a number of feedback processes. A rapid rise of Arctic temperatures could lead to wildfires and the release of huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane that are now stored in peat, permafrost and clathrates, which constitutes further feedback that could cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Heat produced by decomposition of organic matter is yet another feedback that leads to even deeper melting.

2.1. Reduce methane and nitrogen oxide emissions

Reductions in the emissions of methane and nitrogen oxide can be achieved by a change in diet, improved waste handling and better land use.

Effective policies such as feebates can impose fees on nitrogen fertilizers and livestock products, while using the revenues to fund pyrolysis of organic waste.

2.2. Emissions of other pollutants than conventional greenhouse gases should also be reduced

Both the Kyoto Protocol and the IPCC have focused much on reducing CO₂ emissions, as well as other conventional greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrogen oxide. Melting in the Arctic carries the risk of huge additional emissions from peat, permafrost and clathrates, which calls for more immediate mitigation action.

All nations should therefore commit to short-term mitigation — long-term mitigation efforts should not be substituted by short-term mitigation or vice versa.

As this NASA study points out, for more effective short-term impact, drastic cuts should also be made in other pollutants, such ozone, soot and carbon monoxide. This is further illustrated by the image on the right that shows what causes most radiative forcing (W/m²) when taking into account all pollutants over a 20-year period, from a study published in Science. Reducing short-lived pollutants could significantly reduce warming above the Arctic Circle, finds a study published in Journal of Geophysical Research.

A relatively cheap way to achieve such cuts is by encouraging the use of solar cookers and rechargeable batteries to power LED lights. Many types of equipment and appliances can also be powered this way, even when batteries are recharged by hand cranking or pedaling. Electrification of road transport is a crucial part of short-term mitigation, as illustrated by the image, while generation of energy from clean facilities such as solar panels and wind turbines (as also discussed under part 1.1.) will further contribute to reductions in short-lived pollutants.

Furthermore, reductions in short-lived pollutants can be achieved by preservation of forests, which justifies financial assistance by rich countries. As said, such assistance should not be used by rich nations as a substitute for domestic action — action is also required domestically by each nation, on all points.

The desired shifts can often best be accomplished locally by budget-neutral feebates, i.e. fees on local sales of fuel, engines and ovens, each time funding the better local products, as illustrated by the image below.

2.3. Furthermore, consider ways to reflect more solar radiation back into space

Discussions of ways to reflect solar radiation can be found at this geoengineering blog and group.

Part 3. Adaptation

Look at policies that can help people, flora and fauna adapt to climate change. Rich nations are urged to give financial assistance to poorer nations, as well as to facilitate technology transfer, including by preventing that intellectual property protection acts as a barrier to such transfer.

3.1. Prepare for extreme weather events

Look at safety issues from the perspective of a changed world. It makes sense to prepare for hailstorms, heavy flooding, severe droughts, wildfires, etc., and to grow food that fits such weather patterns best.

3.2. Preserve biodiversity

Protection of rain forests is well covered in the media. Biodiversity can be further preserved by means of seed banks, parks and wildlife corridors.

3.3. Vegetate

Fresh water supply and food security require extensive planning, such as selection of best crop. Build facilities for desalination both for fresh water in cities and to irrigate and vegetate deserts and other areas with little vegetation.

image from: Towards a sustainable Economy

More on Global Warming:

More on Geoengineering:

Global Warming Action Plan

2009-02-22T22:09:00.000-08:00

Global warming requires a comprehensive response, consisting of at least four parts:
- Emissions reduction
- Carbon stock management
- Heat transfer and radiation management
- Adaptation

Each of these parts requires a separate and appropriate policy framework - details should be worked out as soon as possible in an international agreement, say, at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference end 2009.

To achieve the reduction in emissions that we need to have, emissions need to be reduced for each country.

There should be separate policy frameworks for emission reduction and for radiation management. This will avoid that a country can seek a cheap way out, e.g. by causing some albedo change somewhere on Earth, in efforts to "trade" itself out of its emission reduction obligations.

Many types of radiation management require political agreement at international level, which can require delicate diplomatic negotiations. On the other hand, no international agreement will be breached if a country decided to build more solar or wind farms, in its efforts to reduce the emissions from its coal-fired power plants that could then be decommissioned as a result.

Having separate policy frameworks allows countries to largely decide individually how to achieve emission reductions, without requiring the international approval that would be necessary in many cases of radiation management.

Countries can each decide how to achieve their emissions reduction targets, provided they each do indeed reach their target. This should be backed up by the threat of sanctions against countries that fail to reach their reduction targets. A check on a, say, annual basis, should verify whether each country did reach its target.

Similarly, carbon stock management deserves a separate policy framework, which should include the oceans and preservation of rainforests and associated biodiversity.

Finally, adaptation to climate change also requires a separate policy framework, as one country's actions may damage another country. Issues like fresh water supply, refugees and preservation of biodiversity need to be worked out at international level.

In conclusion, there should be separate policy frameworks for each of these parts. This will ensure that each country will make sufficient efforts to reach the targets in each of these parts. What should be done, though, when a country fails to reach its carbon emission reduction target and proposes to make up for that shortfall by means of carbon capture and storage (CCS)? In that case, the amount of CCS should be punitive. The offset ratio should be punitive, to avoid that countries will start using CCS as a routine way to escape their obligations to reduce their emissions.

This paradox is worked out in proposals such as cap and capture, that acknowledge that we need to aim to do both, i.e. reduce emissions in addition to capture carbon. Carbon capture can be used to offset emissions, though, but in that case the offset ratio should be punitive, to avoid that countries will stop making an effort to reduce emissions.

As an example, a country could be allowed to offset a shortfall in its emission reduction target, if it demonstrated successful capture and safe storage of, say, twice the amount of the shortfall. Failing to do so, the country would face sanctions, as arbitrated by the WTO, and tariffs could be imposed up to the cost of such CCS (by international tender) with the proceeds of such tariffs used to ensure that such CCS does indeed take place.