Recommendations to deal with global warming

Action plan with 10 recommendations on dealing with global warming, as first published in 2007, complemented by a further 4 more recent recommendations.

Contents

• 1. Energy feebates
• 2. End perverse energy subsidies
• 3. Global commitment
• 4. Lifestyle change
• 5. Standards
• 6. Support solutions
• 7. Urban planning
• 8. Further feebates: Biochar and olivine
• 9. Government should lead
• 10. Disclosure
• 11. Adaptation
• 12. Carbon dioxide removal
• 13. Geo-engineering
• 14. Afforestation

1. Energy feebates

Impose fees on fossil fuel, on polluting power plants and on engines to fund local programs to electrify transport and to supply electricity in clean and safe ways, in particular by facilities that produce wind, solar, hydro-electric, geothermal, tidal and wave power. Link fees to rebates, through feebates tailored to fit local circumstances and to encourage electricified transport powered by renewables (see image below).


2. End perverse energy subsidies

End support for fossil fuel. There still are too many perverse subsidies for fossil fuel.


3. Global commitment

Agree on and support a new International Treaty, such as a strengthened Copenhagen Accord or a renewed Kyoto Protocol. Each nation should commit to reduce its emissions by, say, 10% annually. Nations should each be able to decide for themselves how to do this, provided they each meet their targets independently and genuinely (i.e. without buying or fabricating offsets or credits domestically or abroad). Border adjustments can help ensure that commitments are indeed met. As further discussed below, nations will also need to bring the atmosphere and oceans back to their pre-industrial state, and geo-engineering methods will need to be included, in a responsible way, as an indispensable part of such a comprehensive climate action plan.


4. Lifestyle change

Support lifestyles that are more environmentally-friendly. Encourage use of the Internet as an alternative to travel and commuting. Encourage homeschooling and working from home. Deregulate taxi services.


5. Standards

Impose standards and industry-specific regulations to ban products that cause large amounts of emissions, where good alternatives are readily available. An example of this would be incandescent light bulbs and gases used for cleaning and for refrigeration and air conditioning. Many nations have meanwhile set a date for a national ban and do actively promote a global ban. Another example would be gases used for cleaning and for refrigeration and air conditioning. Standards could be complemented by feebates, e.g. fees on sales of air conditioners that need HCFC-22, as well as on sales of HCFC-22 itself, while using revenues to fund rebates on the cleaner alternatives.


6. Support solutions

Support clean and safe energy. Apart from financial support, there must also be more active support in regulations and government policy to develop new facilities. Don't pick winners, but encourage competition and diversity among suppliers of such energy. Encourage interconnection and overlap of electricity grids, so that households can choose which grid to sell electricity to, if they generate a surplus in their backyard. Where needed, stop protecting intellectual property and use eminent domain provisions and fast-tracking legislation to speed up development of infrastructure.


7. Urban planning

Plan and develop new green communities, such as communities without roads (i.e. with footpaths and bikepaths instead of roads). Plan houses close together, around a local center of shops and restaurants. Redesign existing cities so that people have to travel less. Impose fees on combustion ovens and use the revenues to support energy saving programs, such as distribution of solar cookers (see image below), solar LED lights, more efficient appliances, buildings, etc.


8. Further feebates: Biochar and olivine

Support biochar and olivine. Impose fees on the sale of Portland cement, livestock products and nitrogen fertilizers and use the revenues to support biochar. Pyrolysis should be the preferred way to handle surplus biomass (see image below).


9. Government should lead

Make government take the lead in reducing emissions. Ask for ideas. Have more staff work from home. Look at ways to offer services over the phone, over the Net, etc.


10. Disclosure

Disclosure. Make that government departments and large companies publicly disclose their emissions of greenhouse gases. Make products display on their packaging the amounts of greenhouse gases needed to produce it.


The above ten recommendations have remained much the same since first posted back in April 2007, in Ten recommendations to deal with global warming. However, too little has happened since, reason for the need to add another four recommendations:


11. Adaptation

Prepare for the impact of climate change. Preserve species that are under threat from climate change. Protect and support areas such as rain forests. Assist with adaptation.


12. Carbon dioxide removal

As discussed under 8., various methods to remove carbon dioxide should be jointly applied to restore oceans and the atmosphere to their pre-industrial state, such as through biochar burial and olivine weathering. Furthermore, methods of carbon capture from ambient air should be supported. Fees could be imposed on aviation, while the revenues could be used to support carbon air capture, which could in turn produce synthetic fuel for use in aviation, thus kick-starting carbon air capture technology.


13. Further geo-engineering

Study, consider and responsibly deploy further geo-engineering methods to increase solar reflection and to deal with methane, in order to reduce the risk of runaway global warming, and use techniques such as algae bags to reduce acidification of oceans and pollution in general, in addition to above carbon dioxide removal methods.


14. Afforestation

Deploy plans for afforestation. Plan for desalination to irrigate and vegetate deserts and other areas with little vegetation.

Towards a sustainable economy 

Global warming calls for global commitment and local action

Emission trading will not work!

We should recognize that a global emission trading scheme will only sabotage real efforts to reduce emissions. It's a scheme designed by neocons and polluting industries, who aren't interested in reducing emissions, but who seek to exploit the situation in order to sell nuclear plants to developing countries, which will have to be paid for with emission credits that will in turn let polluters in developed countries off the hook. The neocons see this as an opportunity to send troops abroad to supervise operation of plants and shipments of uranium, nuclear waste, etc. It's a recipe for dictatorship and for global economic, social and environmental disaster.

Global commitment, local action

Instead, we should reach a international agreement that makes more sense, and we should reach this agreement soon, at the latest in Copenhagen in 2009. This agreement should merely set binding annual reduction targets that each country should meet. This agreement should let decisions how to achieve those targets be taken locally, while preparing for trade sanctions against those who fail to reach their targets.

It should be left to local communities to each decide on the technicalities of how to reduce their emissions. After all, conditions differ from place to place; some technologies will work better in one area than in another area. There are many ways to, say, produce clean and safe energy; wind turbines may be attractive in some areas, solar energy may become more prominent elsewhere, while yet another area may predominantly exploit geothermal power; many areas may also prefer to import electricity. Similarly, hydrogen may well become the dominant way to power ships, while cars will predominantly drive on battery power in future.

What policies work best?

Meanwhile, we should be discussing what are the most effective policy instruments to both discourage sales of products that cause emissions and encourage sales of better alternatives.

Feebates are most effective

A framework of feebates is in my view most effective, each with fees imposed on a specific type of product and with proceeds in each case used to fund rebates on local supply of better alternatives. Such a feebate policy only needs to insist that alternatives are clean and safe - market mechanisms can best sort out what works best where.

A framework of feebates is the most effective way to facilitate reductions, because feebates have a double impact, in that they impose a fee on whatever needs to be discouraged, while then using the proceeds of these fees to fund rebates on better alternatives. Market mechanisms can best sort out which products deserve to get rebates.

Different areas can implement feebates in different ways. This flexibility makes feebates attractive for areas with unique circumstances that make a universal policy less applicable. Feebates can target whatever product causes most emissions in the respective area and establish a shift to the better alternatives available in each area.

Feebates are budget-neutral - proceeds of fees can accumulate in a trust, thus creating a pool of money from where rebates can be paid on a first-come-first-go basis. If needed, the trust can take out loans to ensure early payment of rebates.

Implementing FeeBates

Feebates are most effective when applied locally, i.e. by using the proceeds of fees collected in an area to support the better alternatives that are supplied in that same area. That way, most money will be used to make changes where they are needed most.

Instead of prescribing a specific technology, a feebate policy should simply encourage better alternatives, e.g. by insisting that alternatives should be clean, safe and otherwise acceptable to the community. A good feebate policy will optimize market mechanisms and respect consumer choice, which will further increase the overall effectiveness of the policy and minimize bureaucratic overhead.

Fees are best calculated as a percentage added to the price of a product. Similarly, rebates are best calculated as a percentage of the sales price. This also increases the effectiveness of the policy by minimizing bureaucratic administrative overhead.

Fees can be initially low, say 10% of the sales price. Especially when alternatives still have little marketshare, such a 10% fee will create a huge pool of money from where rebates can be funded. Rebates can then be high, say 50% or even more, to facilitate a gradual but swift shift to better alternatives. Once the shift takes place, percentages could change, i.e. fees could be increased, while rebates could decrease. This way, the feebate will phase itself out as the shift eventuates.

Proposed FeeBates

Over the years, I have proposed a number of feebates, including:

- a 10% fee on sales of new gasoline cars, with rebates on local sales of zero emission vehicles;
- a 10% fee on sales of fossil fuel, with rebates on purchase and installation of local facilities that produce energy in safe and clean ways;
- a 10% fee on sales of building and construction work that uses polluting concrete (i.e. that contributes to global warming), with rebates on local purchases of clean concrete;
- a 10% fee on sales of fertilizers, with rebates on local sales of agrichar (or biochar); and
- a 10% fee on sales of meat, with rebates and vouchers on vegan-organic meals served in local restaurants.

The Hydrogen Economy

Hydrogen fuel cells constitute an efficient way to store energy and as such they form an important component in our struggle to contain global warming. Hydrogen fuel cells are a convenient and clean way to power cars and supply electricity on demand virtually everywhere. The importance of hydrogen as a technology is huge, as it constitutes the clean and renewable storage compliment to clean and renewable ways to capture energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, wave and hydro-power.

The Hydrogen Economy is much more than that; it promises to change the fabric of our society. Hydrogen, holds the promise to break up the current cartel of energy suppliers that works hand-in-glove with a military-industrial complex that holds the entire world in a suffocating stranglehold. Hydrogen can clean things up and set the economy free. Hydrogen is the elixer that can remedy our polluting habits to create a better society, without the monopolies, the pollution, the taxes, regulations and the military controls that come with the current ways of supplying energy. Currently, energy is largely obtained from sources that centralize the economy around a single supplier, such as a huge nuclear plant or coal-powered plant. Similarly, oil is pumped up under monopoly conditions and transported in huge tankers, which has created these allmighty oil companies that extend their grip over society through services stations and political lobbying to keep cars polluting the world.

We should look forward to a world in which anyone can capture energy for free in their backyards, from renewable power sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydro-power. This energy can be directly stored in fuel cells that are built into heating and cooling systems of buildings, lights, TV-sets, stereo equipment, computers, cars, mowers, scooters, power tools, etc. Wherever you now see rechargeable Lithion batteries used, such as in mobile phones, think hydrogen and you'll get a preview of the bright future that awaits us. Hydrogen fuel cells will enable us to cut the wires through which the puppetmaster controls us now. Hydrogen fuel cells hold the promise to set us free. Let's take a serious effort to give this technology a chance!

Why both capitalism and socialism are dead!

Many politicians claim to act in the interest of the public, yet they act in the interest of a narrow group. The nature of the electoral system (one election every three or four years) makes that politicians are typically seeking only short term benefits for a select groups of voters that will help them get elected. Similarly, politics often focuses on local issues and this makes politicians inclined to blame outsiders for any problems.

So, how much can we trust politicians to be able to take adequate action on an issue like global warming? If we handed the task of dealing with global warming to right-wing politicians, they would propose buying off those who wanted action, resulting in no effective action at all. They are keen to establish carbon trading schemes. The danger of such schemes is that the rich will use such schemes to continue their polluting lifestyle, paying the poor under the pretence that this will solve the problem, but the result is that the problem only increases as the rich don't stop polluting while the poor will use this money to imitate the polluting lifestyle of the rich.

On the other hand, if we handed the task to left-wing politicians, they would increasingly tax the rich for their polluting lifestyle and use the proceeds partly to increase an inefficient government bureaucracy, in which case nothing effective would be achieved either. Since no alternative is made available, the rich will simply continue with polluting activities (because they can afford to do so), while the poor have no alternatives either, so - in line with socialist doctrine - they will be given the other part of the tax proceeds with the argument that they needed help with the increased cost of energy and food, which will only lead to them to continue with or take up further polluting activities.

As said, we should not wait for those who seek to advance a specific political ideology, to articulate the necessary action for us. No, we should all take responsibility ourselves and both take action regarding our own lifestyle, as well as regarding our logic. Because the answer as to what should be done is so simple and straightforward. The best way to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is to tax emissions of greenhouse gases and subsidize alternatives. In case of carbon dioxide, fossil fuel should be taxed and the proceeds should be used to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy, which will make the policy doubly effective. Similarly, the best way to decrease emissions of methane is to tax what's responsible for that, e.g. by introducing a tax on the sale of meat. Again, to make such a policy doubly effective, the proceeds should be used to subsidize local supply of alternative food, e.g. in vegetarian restaurants.

These are only two out of my ten recommendations to deal with global warming, but it goes to show that one can reach conclusions without waiting for answers from politicians. The importance of global warming as an issue is also that it so clearly shows what happens when good debate on such an issue is neglected in society. Indeed, it is precisely because we have failed to think matters through that we're in such big problems with climate change. As many say, it's hard to trust politicians to come up with effective policies - global warming is one of the issues that demonstrates that both capitalism and socialism are dead. It's up to us to articulate the action plan. Global warming as an issue urges us all to think matters through and make sense of why so many politicians have let us down for so long.

Tax greenhouse gas emissions!

The quickest and most effective way to deal with global warming is to tax greenhouse gas emissions and to spend the proceeds to encourage the use of renewable energy locally.

Tax puts a price on pollution and, in combination with a reward for those who avoid pollution, it establishes market mechanisms that encourage efficiency, innovation and technological progress.

It is also the quickest way to combat global warming - a tax will immediately discourage pollution, whereas other policies may allow the rich to continue polluting, e.g. by paying the poor in developing and over-populated countries where people will be inclined to use that money to mimic the lifestyle of the rich, leading only to more pollution.

Instead of taxing the rich and handing the money over to the poor, as in the old socialist motto, we should adopt a new motto, i.e. tax energy suppliers who pollute and give it to suppliers who don't.

By taxing pollution and spending the proceeds on rewards for clean and renewable energy, the policy is doubly effective.

Spending the proceeds locally ensures that they are used where they have the most impact, as the biggest markets for energy will receive the biggest incentives to shift away from pollution.

Should greenhouse gas emissions be taxed and should those tax proceeds be used to encourage the use of renewable energy locally?

Global Warming - cap and trade or tax?

The US Supreme Court ruled on April 2nd that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must limit greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide.

Four Bills are now under discussion in the Senate that would instruct the EPA to set caps on greenhouse gas emissions and allow for trading of permits, so that those who do better than their allocated target can sell their "surplus" to those who fail to do so.

The problem with permits is that, if they are given away for free to existing polluters, that would be like rewarding them for the pollution they make. Alternatively, permits could be auctioned off, or there could be a mix. e.g. with a progressively larger proportion of permits to be auctioned off.

There remains a problem with trading in that it mainly seems to benefit polluters. Polluters who reduce their emissions will benefit, so there's a clear incentive for them to do so, but a wind farm that didn't generate greenhouse gases to start with will not get or need any permits, and it therefore wouldn't benefit from selling any "surplus" - it didn't get anything to sell, nor will it need to buy any permits. Trading in permits appears to leave the profits of such trade in the hands of a group of polluters and those feeding on them.

Instead, emissions could simply be taxed. Whether permits are auctioned or emissions are taxed, the key question is who will get the revenues. One thing that should be avoided is that such revenues will merely be used to assist the poor with paying their higher energy bills. If that would be the case, then no gain would be achieved at all. If the rich can afford to pay higher prices, and the poor get subsidies, then nothing will change in terms of pollution. Instead of taxing the rich and handing the money over to the poor, as in the old socialist motto, we should adopt a new motto, i.e. tax energy suppliers who pollute and give it to suppliers who don't. Indeed, it makes sense to reward suppliers of energy most who pollute least. A more blunt position would be that only suppliers of energy should get subsidized that do not add extra heat, i.e. those who don't add extra heat should get all the subsidies, while those who do should not be subsidized at all.

Such a combination of tax and subsidies would result in a shift away from supply of energy that contributes to global warming on the one hand, towards supply in energy that doesn't contribute to global warming on the other hand. Tax the first group and give the money to the second group! Because money is merely passed from one group to the other, there is no risk of a budget blow-out. The money is all accounted for, if the money that's raised is simply passed on in the form of subsidies.

Taxes could be set at rates to achieve certain aims. If taxes are too low and buying polluting energy is still relatively cheaper than non-polluting energy, then the tax rate will simply have to be raised to cause a quicker shift.

What characterizes our Times?

What characterizes our Times? I recently asked friends to name things that were most characteristic of the times we live in now. Here's the top ten answers I got.

1. Global Warming

Global warming and climate change loom large as challenges faced by everyone on Earth. Will this unite the world into taking a joint approach to combat the problems? Or will it divide the world? We seem to have moved beyond an earlier split between those who acknowledged and those who denied the need for action. The issue now is how to implement action.

2. Terrorism

The US has troops all over the world, but who is the enemy? Wars used to be fought between countries. Nowadays. conflicts are fought out between groups within a country. The question is whether such conflicts can be contained within a country. Fears are that terrorists will increasingly strike globally to make their point.

3. Globalisation

McDonalds restaurants are everywhere, all over the world. You can walk through shopping malls anywhere in the world and there's little difference. Shoe shops in such malls were made in China, designed in the US, carry an Italian brand name, while the profits go to a bank account on the Bermudas. Trade has more and more global aspects and there's no indication that this trend is reversing.

4. Air travel

Not only is trade going global, people are becoming mobile globetrotters, backpackers holding multiple passports. In the old days, only travelers, sailors and pilgrims had stories to tell about distant countries (migrants don't count, they traveled one way only!) Nowadays, tourists, diplomats, business people and students all fly happily abroad, to return within weeks, sometimes days. People love to fly. Despite the threat of terrorism and despite the concerns for global warming, airlines keep moving more people between cities, countries and continents. As airports become the hub of modern society, entire cities start emerging around them.

5. Competition

It's the economy, stupid! It's some politicians’ favorite phrase. Finance, free trade, deregulation and competition policy seem to dominate the agenda in many newspapers. Demographic changes, immigration and changes in lifestyle have huge impacts on the economy, making many people call for political action. Are we now living in the Economic Society? With communism in retreat, has economics and competition policy become the dominant ideology?

6. Urbanization

In what must count as the biggest population moves in history, a large part of China's rural population has moved to settle in cities along the coastline. Urbanization is happening all over the world. Big cities keep on growing, while rural areas become less-densely populated. Does the city skyline most symbolize modern times?

7. Drug-resistant diseases

AIDS, Avian influenza, TB and other bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics. Some pretty scary pictures emerge on TV from time to time, as diseases break out in one part of the world. In today's global society with growing international air-travel, it seems ever harder to stop new diseases from crossing borders and spreading globally.

8. Science and Technology

All over the world, science and technology changes people's lives at ever more rapid pace. New diseases call for new medical technology. With more old people than ever populating most countries, the market for new drugs and cures seems insatiable. Old people seek to extend their lives, while young people may face the challenge of infertility. Genetic engineering and bio-technology promise plants to cope with climate change and yield higher crops for food and bio-fuel. Nowhere is the impact of technology more apparent than in the merging areas of computers and communications. Smart people now carry smartphones, complete with camera, Internet access and GPS. Will the Internet turn all of us into scientists?

9. Power of the individual

In the old days, people felt part of their family, of the place where they worked, of a trade union and the same people they met every day. They had the same friends since they went to school together. Nowadays, people move more frequently, out of these traditional networks. Families have become small, rather than extended. One person can run a company from home. All this empowers the individual. The challenge is for people to find things to identify with and ways to interconnect and have a social life.

10. Decreasing relevance of the Nation-State

Are international treaties making the nation-state irrelevant? Given that all the above points reflect global issues that seem to cross national borders with increasing ease, does this mean the end of the nation-state?

Indeed, I wonder if others who compiled a list of ten issues that most characterized our times would come up with many different issues. Seen in this light, is the nation-state the best instrument to tackle the challenges posed by all these issues?

Can we rely on political systems that were designed to put the interest of the nation first, to adequately deal with problems of a global nature? Can we rely on national politics to solve global problems? Worse, is the rise in prominence of all these global issues perhaps the result of an over-reliance on national politics?

If national politics is indeed in decline, what will replace it? Localism? World Government? Chaos and anarchy? Dog-eat-dog? Global politics? The latter is an oxymoron as long as politics remains inherently national. Perhaps the biggest challenge of our times is to find coherent ways of dealing with global problems, without delegating that task to national politicians and without relying too much on the Nation-State model of politics to solve those problems. We need to come up with modern responses to modern problems. How can we claim to promote competition in the light of a declining bio-diversity? How can the Internet create new ways of politics, such as digital voting, opinion polling and lodging protests? We need all the imagination of webdesigners, writers, film producers, artists and product designers to visualize, articulate and otherwise express ideas, using the media of our times to point at solutions that fit our times. Let's redesign politics to fit our modern times.

Sam Carana

Ten Dangers of Global Warming

---

Abstract

Many people wrongly believe that the only way they will be affected by global warming, will be a tiny sea level rise over many decades. But there are at least ten dangers of global warming. Events that to many may seem to be unrelated, can combine to make things progressively worse, with one danger feeding and reinforcing the next one.

---

Contents

The Scream  

• 1. Flooding
• 2. Shortage of water
• 3. Famine and disease
• 4. Migration and refugees
• 5. Collapse of the financial system
• 6. Economic collapse
• 7. War and civil unrest
• 8. Pollution, in particular as a result of nuclear war, fallout and waste
• 9. Tipping points
• 10. Panic

Let's have a look at the many concerns and dangers associated with global warming and the resulting changes in climate around the world. I've tentatively grouped them into ten points.

1. Flooding.

We've all seen the pictures of disappearing glaciers and the predictions of rising sea levels. Most people live close to the sea, but many are in denial about the impact of global warming. They falsely believe that the only change that will affect them will be a tiny rise of sea level over many decades. But without action on global warming, weather events will become increasingly extreme.

And without government action to move people to newly-built cities, they will continue to live on land most prone to flooding and most exposed to tsunamis, hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes and thunderstorms, until a disaster hits them like we've seen happen in New Orleans. The task ahead is many scales larger than the evacuation of New Orleans, which after all occurred in the richest nation on earth while all other infrastructure in the U.S. was in good working order. Ironically, global warming comes with increased risks not only of flooding, but also of shortage of water.

Storm Surge

2. Shortage of water.

Dead Vlei

Many areas could be hit by droughts, especially once glaciers that previously fed rivers have disappeared. We can also expect more droughts as the weather becomes more turbulent, while the occasional heavy storm wouldn't give much relief, but instead cause landslides, erosion and run-off of top-soil.

Heatwaves and shortage of potable water cause dehydration and heat stroke in people and livestock, making them more vulnerable to diseases. Lack of rain and irrigation results in loss of stock and crop, and increases risks of wildfires.      

As people and animals move to more fertile grounds, overgrazing of land and clearing land of trees could cause desertification there as well. All this, combined with the increased risk of flooding, should increase concerns for famine and disease.

3. Famine and disease.

Famine 

Higher temperatures will increase the risk of tropical diseases, such as malaria, in previously temperate zones.

Starvation is one of the biggest unconscious human fears that may well become a reality that is daily displayed on TV. The most fertile land is typically located just above sea level, where rivers enter the sea. Due to climate change, many areas will need to switch to other crops. This will take time, further contributing to transitional if not permanent shortages of food everywhere. Food storage and distribution will be hit by rising cost of cooling, while stored food will become exposed to pests and diseases in the face of increased humidity and in the absence of adequate refridgeration. Cost of transport will rise, while many roads may become inaccessable due to flooding and storm damage.

4. Migration and refugees.

Migration will stress the infrastructure of many cities, even if they weren't affected much directly by climate change in terms of famine, droughts, epidemics, flooding or storm damage. Apart from this, people will also be driven away from many areas by pollution, heat, pests, diseases, shortages of water and supplies, and collapse of infrastructure, medical care and security.

Many people will seek new habitats, while at the same time many countries will seek to stop refugees from crossing borders. Refugee camps are notorious for the outbreak of epidemics, such as cholera. Without proper planning and action, this could result in human tragedy at unprecedented scale, while refugee camps could become breeding grounds for new diseases like avian influenza.

Natural disasters caused by climate change, from Wikipedia, Refugees 

5. Collapse of the financial system.

The Biochar Economy 

The value of money used to be linked to gold, but now is based on economic growth, value of real estate and the value of stock (company shares) and the like. As such factors become increasingly exposed to the the above points, the entire global financial system risks collapse.

Instead, carbon-based local currency may take over to some extent.

Uncertainty about this increases the risk that governments will simply become more dictatorial.

In the absence of market forces to guide developments, there will be increased risks that such dictatorial governments take actions that make things worse, resulting in total economic collapse.

6. Economic collapse.

Many countries face uncertain futures, as they are dependent on income from oil, coal, tourism or a single crop that cannot survive climate change. As an example, air travel could become too expense for tourists, taking away the single biggest revenue stream for many small countries. Entire industries, such as manufacturing of cars and airplanes, may collapse. Globalisation has made many industries dependent on access to resources and products that come from halfway around the world, while the cost of transport is likely to go up.

Again, such economic collapse may set the scene for dictatorship in many areas, increasing the risk of war and of wrong decisions being taken in general.

Conscription 

7. War and civil unrest.

The above points should increase our concerns about the risk of wars and civil unrest. Production of weapons is one of the biggest industries worldwide, with the clout to influence governments. The oil industry is often regarded as the most powerful influence of global politics. Some countries will want quick and dramatic changes, while other countries may resist all calls for change or may want entirely different changes, setting up confrontation at a global scale and setting the scene for World War III. Within most countries, there will also be opposing groups. The smartest people, who we now need more than ever, may be killed, may end up in prison or may otherwise be silenced, while dictators seek to grab power without any intention of solving the problems.

Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP 

8. Pollution, in particular as a result of nuclear war, fallout and waste.

The Nuclear Delusion 

As concerns about emissions of carbon and methane increase, industry may - in efforts to avoid emissions of greenhouse gases - cause other types of pollution instead, such as soot and sulfur by diesel engines.

The air will get more polluted in cities, as their population and traffic grow. Global warming causes hot summer days to get hotter, especially where there are Urban Heat Islands, increasing ground-level ozone, which exacerbates smog.

The nuclear industry may present itself as a "green" alternative, whereas nuclear fallout and waste should count as some of the biggest pollution dangers. As concerns about carbon emissions sink in, more countries may consider using nuclear power for electricity, despite its high cost, while many countries may seek to develop nuclear weapons in response to perceived increased risk of war in the light of the above points. The secrecy under which such development takes place gives cause to concern about global safety and security.

9. Tipping points.

Will America be a desert by 2100? 

One of the biggest dangers is that, without dramatic action, Earth will reach certain tipping points beyond which sudden dramatic and catastrophic changes take place that are irreversable in the short term.

Droughts and fire could destroy the Amazon. The Arctic may lose all of its sea ice within years. Global warming may cause earthquakes, which can come with tsunamis and shockwaves that can also disturb submarine hydrates, causing them to release huge amounts of methane. While droughts, earthquakes and more turbulent weather come with loss of lives, infrastructure and fertile land, global warming can also cause tipping points to be crossed, making the greenhouse effect even worse.

So, instead of facing gradual changes that can be mitigated by planned action, we may suddenly face a future in which many if not most people will have little or no access to food, water, medicines, electricity and shelter, while diseases go rampant and gangs and warlords loot and devastate the few livable areas left. Human beings as a species will face the risk of total extinction, particularly if many species of animals and plants that humans depend on will disappear.

10. Panic.

The Scream 

While each of the above points is sufficient reason for concern, many people are still in denial about the severity of the problem of global warming, the accumulation of dangers and their progression.

Once they do get the message, though, there's a risk of over-reaction edging into panic. This may result in people buying up all the food they can get hold of, trying to get their hands on weapons, etc. Unscrupulous companies may exploit the situation by deliberately creating scarcity of medicines, etc.

This is another reason to be open about these concerns and to come up with planning that makes sense.




Background: This post is an illustrated version - with minor editorial edits - of the original post of March 7, 2007, which was followed on April 8, 2007, by Ten Recommendations to deal with global warming. By early 2013, these two posts, together with another 2007 post at Gather (on the Hydrogen Economy) had been viewed by some 100,000 individual visitors. 

For more background, view cutting-edge developments and proposals at the following two blogs, which have jointly received well over 1,000,000 views:
Geo-engineering blog
Arctic-news blog

Global Warming and the impact of Extra Heat

What are the basics of Global Warming, specifically the impact of extra heat? What is extra heat? What is its impact on global warming? Feel free to make comments if you see things differently!

1. Natural Heat versus Extra Heat

The sun heats up Earth during the day. This solar energy constitutes natural heat, as opposed to extra heat that is added by human activity such as burning of fossil fuels. Simply said, extra heat comes on top of heat that comes naturally.

Sunlight reaches Earth with a strength of 174 PW or about 1.7 billion times the amount of power produced by a large electric power plant (which is some 100 million watts of energy). That is indeed a huge amount of power compared to the total human energy production, which was only 13.5 TW in 2001.

However, all this sunlight is needed to lift Earth's temperature all the way from the minus 454 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Kelvin) of deep space to its current average temperature. In other words, it takes just a little bit of extra heat by comparison to increase the average temperature on Earth by a few degrees.

Also, we get a different impression if we look at the amount of energy deposited by the Sun per square meter. At the top of the atmosphere, the shortwave energy flux received from the Sun is about 1,368 watts per square meter. Because of its spherical shape, at any instant the Earth receives on average only half the incident solar flux, i.e. 684 W/m² . Due to the Earth's rotation, the average radiative flux received over a day-night cycle is half of this value, i.e. 342 W/m² .

Taking into account cloud coverage and the fact that the efficiency rate of capturing this energy with solar panels is rather low (say 10% to 15%), you can only expect an output of 19 to 56 W/m² or 0.45 - 1.35 (kW·h/m²)/day from solar panels.

How much extra heat is generated by human activity, compared to the heat resulting from sunlight? Firstly, the human body itself creates a lot of heat, but let not count that as "extra" heat for the time being. We're mainly looking at industrial activity, using electricity, cars and the like. A house will consume about 1kWe (kilowatt-electric) if measured as a continuous stream of electric power. If you keep the lights on in your office and your house, you may be using a few hundred watts of energy. A TV-set or a computer may use much more. If you drive home in your car, the engine generates a huge amount of heat. Vacuum cleaners, air-conditioners and refridgerators also use huge amounts, but they're not used continuously. On average, a typical person adds a few hundred watts of energy into the atmosphere, day and night, all year long. Currently, most of this demand is met by burning fossil fuel, which counts as extra heat that is added to the atmosphere.

As said, total human energy production was 13.5 TW in 2001. Since total Earth surface is 510,100,000 km2, the extra heat works out to be some 0.02 W/m², so it's rather insignificant when spread out over the entire globe.

2. The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming

The atmosphere works like a greenhouse, shielding us from too much sunshine during the day, while also keeping heat trapped so that we do not freeze at night. In other words, the greenhouse effect shields us from both extremely high and low temperatures.

Greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide, as well as water vapor, trap such heat in Earth's atmosphere. The more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, the stronger the greenhouse effect.

As said, activities such as burning of fossil fuels add extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, resulting in a stronger greenhouse effect. This will both result in both less sunshine getting through and less heat escaping the atmosphere, but the combined effect is a relatively higher overall temperature on Earth. Over the years, human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels, has substantially increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, resulting in a stronger greenhouse effect, causing global warming and climate change.

3. Positive Feedback

This global warming comes with positive feedback, i.e. the impact of global warming itself accelerates global warming and causes further increase of temperatures:

• Decreased reflection of sunlight results in increased retention of heat. The overall albedo (reflection rate) of Earth will decrease. Sunlight is reflected more by white surface (such as snow), compared to darker surface (such as rock and soil). As the albedo decreases (which is the case when snow melts), less light is reflected and more heat is absorbed by the soil. Albedos can be as high as 90% for snow and as low as 4% for charcoal. Most land areas have an albedo range of 10 to 40%. The average albedo of the Earth is about 30%. As the permafrost, the ice and snow in the polar regions melts, as the iceplates in the Arctic regions break loose and icebergs float away, as less snow falls in the mountains and as glaciers melt, all these areas change color from white to dark. All this causes a further rise in temperature, as the darker soil and sea absorb more sunlight and thus heat up, where previously the sunlight was reflected back into space by the white ice and snow.



• As the permafrost melts and disappears, thawing boreal forests, swamps and tundras will emerge that - as bogs heat up and peat thaws - will release huge amounts of methane gas, a twenty times more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.



• Global warming will come with more extreme weather conditions. Floods typically cause a huge loss of top-soil. Rotting and decomposing trees release methane, as do the termites that feed on them. Land clearing, over-grazing, droughts and fires further put entire regions at risk of desertification. The Amazon rainforest, the African tropics, the tropical rainforests in Indonesia, they all risk turning into savannah and deserts, releasing the carbon stored in trees as carbon dioxide into the air and releasing huge amounts of methane in the process, while also decreasing the capacity of soil to absorb carbon dioxide.



• As snow melts, more humidity gets into the air. This vapor constitutes another important greenhouse gas. As Earth heats up, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will increase, as more water evaporates at the surface, both on land and at sea. This causes a further increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in atmospheric temperature.



• The human factor also constitutes an important form of positive feedback that's often overlooked by climatologists. More extreme weather conditions can be expected, i.e. droughts followed by floods and storms, followed again by droughts, etc. This will result in larger run-off of fertile top-soil. Farmers may try to adapt to climate change, but it will take years before they will have found the best types of plants for the new conditions. The result will be higher food prices and demand for new agricultural areas. Rising sea levels, droughts, storms and floods will make people leave low-lying coastal areas and move to higher grounds, where they will start clearing trees for agriculture, industry, roads and housing. The overall result will be increased loss of forests. Thus, the human factor is expected to constitute another positive feedback, as discussed further in the Ten Dangers of Global Warming.

In other words, Global warming comes with 'positive feedback', which means that we're not only stuck with global warming for some time to come, but we can only expect things to get worse, even if we did decide to stop adding any further greenhouse gases and extra heat (i.e. on top of the heat and gases that come naturally).

4. Impact of Extra Heat

All extra heat that we release will add to global warming. As said, it seems rather insignificant compared to natural heat from the sun, from geysers and other natural geo-thermal sources. It also seems insignificant compared to the natural heat that remains trapped in the atmosphere due to the extra amounts of greenhouse gasses we produce. Neverthless, as more heat remains trapped in the atmosphere due to an accelerating greenhouse effect (since global warming comes with all kinds of positive feedback), its significance is increasing. Extra heat may become increasingly important in assessments, e.g. when subsidies are allocated to the type of energy that produce the least extra heat.

5. Nature versus Human Activity

In many respects, human activity is to blame for global warming. Burning of oil and coal are obvious human activities that result in global warming. While nuclear power plants may look better in terms of greenhouse gases compared to burning of fossil fuels, nuclear plants will also directly add extra heat into the atmosphere. In the light of the accelerated greenhouse effect, such extra heat remains - even more than before - trapped in the atmosphere, adding further acceleration to the already accelerating global warming. As said, extra heat may seem insignificant compared to natural heat, but it may just tip the balance when deciding how to allocate subsidies to combat global warming. Similarly, where geothermal schemes extract heat from the depths of Earth, this may also constitute extra heat that wouldn't be added naturally.

Agriculture can also add substantial amounts of extra heat: animals release methane gas, clearing land for agriculture by burning forests releases carbon dioxide, inefficient farming practices result in release of nitrous oxide, etc. In Australia, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture constituted 16% of total emissions in 2004 (source), while agriculture was largest source of nitrous oxide and methane emissions (source).

But that doesn't mean that all human activity was bad and that all farms needed to be transformed into forest overnight. Bad forestry practies also add extra greenhouse gases, due to composting and formation of swamps resulting in methane, and due to natural burning and firestorms. Many forests would burn naturally and this can be minimised with good forestry management. Similarly, termites release methane gasses, so it makes sense to avoid this.

Banning all human activity and letting nature go rampant is not the answer. The big challenge is to find ways in which we can live, work, travel and do things we want to do while minimising our contributions to further global warming. Capturing the heat of the sun and geysers, and capturing the turbulance of wind, waves and rivers is not only a way to use energy that is already present naturally, it can also flatten wild weather patterns that could do a lot of damage.