There's a consensus among leading scientists that global warming is caused by human activity.
So we asked The Experts: What—if anything—should we do about it?
This discussion relates to a recent Journal Report on myths about renewable energy and formed the basis of a discussion on The Experts blog on Sept. 24.
If Food Waste Was a Country, It Would Rank No. 3 for Greenhouse-Gas Emissions
DARYL HANNAH: There's also a consensus that we must act urgently, if we are to avoid a 4-degree Celsius raise and total systems collapse.
First we should safeguard, restore and wisely manage our life-support systems, including uncontaminated water bodies and sources, soil and seeds and practice conservation and efficiency.
Known climate-destructive practices must be phased out as soon as possible, including extreme forms of fossil-fuel extraction (e.g. fracking, steam-assisted-gravity drainage (SAGD), deep-water drilling, surface mines, mountaintop removal and tar-sands projects), ocean trawling, overfishing, crop burning and endangering nature's protective resources like mangroves, coral reefs, forests and peat land.
We also must immediately wean ourselves off fossil fuels; coal, natural gas, and oil—and invest in a combination of decentralized renewable energy; solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, micro-hydro and liquid fuels made from waste and other sustainable feedstocks.
Water-intensive, mono-crop, petrochemical industrial agriculture has decimated our topsoil and created dead zones in the oceans. The simplest, most natural and likely the most effective way to sequester carbon is to rebuild soil. Regenerative organic-farming practices build soil. Some of the methods used to accelerate nature's intelligent soil-development process include compost, biochar, brown coal, Mycorrhizal fungi, vermiculture and managed livestock.
If food waste was a country, it would be the third biggest greenhouse-gas emitter behind the U.S. and China. Diverting organic waste from landfills and livestock manure from ponds in anaerobic digesters, compost, and pyrolysis can amend soil vitality while reducing methane.
While these changes might seem challenging, we do have the capacity—if we can only galvanize the will. Many communities have already begun implementing some of these solutions. But top-down change is also essential if we are to address the climate crisis with the speed and scale needed. For this to happen, citizens must insist on getting the influence of money out of politics and the legislative process.
Maximizing regional self-sufficiency with these agricultural practices and energy production methods will strengthen local economies, make them more resilient, help prevent global conflict, and ease the sense of scarcity and the economic burden increasingly felt by the majority.
Daryl Hannah (@dhlovelife) is an actress and environmental advocate.
Cutting Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Can Be Compatible With Economic Growth
CHRISTINE WHITMAN: We should reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions in a way that ensures we continue economic growth, which is entirely possible. We also need to monitor land use—few people focus on that element, but it is a significant factor.
Christine Todd Whitman was governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001 and administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 2001 to 2003. She is currently president of Whitman Strategy Group, a consulting firm that specializes in helping companies find solutions to environmental challenges.
Voters: Stop Electing Global-Warming Deniers
BILL RITTER: There are a variety of things Americans can do in their personal lives to reduce the size of their carbon footprint. Using less fossil-fuel energy, buying or leasing a solar system for a residence, and purchasing green-energy credits to offset personal carbon emissions are all examples of personal action to reduce the emissions responsible for global warming. But I think the single biggest issue we have in this country regarding global warming is a political one. There is a definite unwillingness by many of our political leaders and public officeholders to publicly acknowledge that global warming exists, or if it does exist, that it is caused by human activity.
Public polling in America demonstrates that a majority of Americans believe the science of global warming. Further, the polls tell us that Americans regard clean energy as an appropriate way to address our carbon emissions. Yet Congress' failure to act on comprehensive clean-energy legislation to address global warming proves that not enough elected officeholders have been held accountable on election day for their denier status. Until Americans begin to vote based on how the candidate feels about global warming, the issue will have less political intensity than it merits, and we will pass up the opportunity to address this solvable problem.
Bill Ritter served as Colorado's 41st governor. He is currently the director of the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University.
Regulation Won't Reduce Global Warming
TODD MYERS: The consensus among scientists is that humans "contribute to," not cause, global warming. Temperatures began rising, and glaciers receding, in about 1860, long before CO2 emissions from human activity had any impact. Global temperatures change due to a mix of natural and human-caused forces. There is still debate about the magnitude of impacts from the human-caused portion of climate change.
Therefore, the best environmental policy addresses the risk of temperature-rise, while remaining flexible and offering no regrets. Our current, regulatory-heavy policy violates those standards.
Regulatory approaches and political subsidies are extremely inflexible. Witness the struggle to stop subsidies for corn-based ethanol, which actually increased carbon emissions. We have wasted huge amounts of money on failed policies. The billions that went to prop up failed solar companies and costly new EPA regulations have done little to reduce emissions, but they have damaged the economy and taken money from other priorities.
The smart, flexible approach is a carbon price combined with tax cuts and elimination of costly and ineffective regulation.
Whatever the impact of climate change, high or low, this approach frees the economy from the weight of regulation. It puts fewer dollars in the hands of Russia and Iran. It reduces the risk of serious climate impacts.
Sadly, none of this will happen. Promoting costly and extreme climate regulation offers left-wing politicians a symbol of environmental sincerity—even if their policies don't actually work. Opposing any taxes, even Reaganesque tax reform, offers right-wing politicians a symbol of commitment to fight extreme environmentalism—even if it sacrifices opportunities to reduce regulation and weaken our international opponents.
The political value of climate policy isn't in addressing the risk (large, small or nonexistent). It is in the political benefits that accrue to politicians who take symbolically powerful, but practically meaningless, positions.
Todd Myers (@WAPolicyGreen) is environmental director at the Washington Policy Center in Seattle and author of "Eco-Fads: How the Rise of Trendy Environmentalism is Harming the Environment." He also serves on the Washington state Salmon Recovery Council.
Forget Global Warming. Waste Management Is the Big Problem.
JOHN HOFMEISTER: Based on what we know in the 21st century, it is time to come to grips with waste management. We know now better than ever before that there are too many wasting too much everywhere all the time. The man-made burdens on the earth's land, water and air are diminishing the natural ability of the earth to restore itself. It isn't socially acceptable to impose the burden of our own waste on another person. We pay to properly dispose of such waste. The same principle needs to be applied to all forms of waste, including physical, liquid and gaseous waste from all sources.
The days of emitting waste free need to end. Such a freebie is irresponsible to one another and on a global scale simply unacceptable. China's waste washing up on our Pacific coast, poisoning fish in the ocean we share and impacting the quality of the air we breathe is wrong. Likewise we impact our near neighbors in like manner, unless we don't because it's forbidden and enforced. The only way to take waste seriously and therefore to do something about it is to price it, where the money goes to disposal and remediation. We're already part way there, paying to protect land, water and air. So why don't we go the rest of the way and price waste to reduce and ultimately eliminate it as part of a competitive marketplace?
Public policy makers tend not to talk about waste management. It's insufficiently grandiose, when compared with climate change. But they should because waste management is the fundamental issue. We'll never deal with climate change from a public-policy perspective. It's too big, too controversial, too ambiguous and too long-term to deal with in any meaningful public-policy methodology. But we know how to deal with waste. We've been doing it successfully for years. I'm suggesting now to go the distance. Set the waste-management policy in motion to do more, to clean up after ourselves completely, using technology, growing an industry, creating jobs to do just that. It isn't grand but it works. Our progeny will be forever grateful.
John Hofmeister (@cfaenergy) is former president of Shell Oil Co. and founder and head of Citizens for Affordable Energy. He is also a member of the U.S. Energy Security Council.
Wanted: A Climate Solution for Developing Countries
ROBERT RAPIER: Although climate change will continue to be a topic that arouses passions on both sides, it is indisputable that the world is conducting a giant experiment on the global atmosphere for which the ultimate outcome is unknown. As an engineer well versed in risk management, I consider this situation to be unacceptable to say the least.
There are a number of things the world should be doing to address this, but for various reasons we aren't effectively addressing it. Despite all the angst and media attention, global carbon-dioxide emissions set a record high in 2012, and projections are that emissions will continue to rise.
According to the 2013 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 1.1 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide have been released to the atmosphere since 1965 from burning fossil fuels. The U.S. is responsible for 25% of the total, while China's share is presently 13% and growing.
China overtook the U.S. as the largest global emitter of carbon dioxide over the past decade, but the carbon dioxide growth trajectories of the two countries are vastly different.
The real challenge is that even though the U.S. has the largest share of legacy carbon-dioxide emissions, in the years ahead this problem is going to be increasingly driven by developing countries. Many of these countries are committing themselves to decades of new carbon-dioxide emissions by building new coal-fired power plants. In fact, globally there are 1,200 new coal-fired power plants on the drawing board. These proposed plants cover 56 countries, but 76% of those being proposed are in India and China.
In order to address the carbon-dioxide problem, we either have to develop low-cost, convenient, and scalable sources of power, so that developing countries can continue to develop (otherwise they will continue to develop with coal), or we have to find a way to start sucking a trillion metric tons of carbon out of the atmosphere and sequestering it. There are some strategies for sequestering carbon, but so far none that can significantly impact the problem.
Otherwise, we can all just hope that the worst-case projections are wrong. But "hope" should be our last resort in this case.
Robert Rapier (@RRapier) is chief technology officer and executive vice president at Merica International, a forestry and renewable energy company. He serves as managing editor for Energy Trends Insider and is chief consultant for Energy Trends Group.
How Americans Live Is the Global Model. So Let's Change How We Live
AMY MYERS JAFFE: As the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prepares to release its fifth report, Americans will be looking to the federal government for a response. The scientific community will reiterate the call for a Manhattan-style program on research and development of carbon-abatement technologies. And impassioned advocates can push for regulatory means to radically decarbonize the fuels we use. But with pressing economic recessionary issues still looming large on the political landscape, we also need to move away from the idea that social investment in R&D is going to take us 100% of the way there. We need to move to a different mind-set: How do we live and is it sustainable?
The U.S. remains in an enviable position in soft power terms. Citizens all around the planet are using our smartphone technology, watching our movies, following our media. What we buy and how we live are material to what others aspire to do. In other words, U.S. lifestyle choices matter.
The U.S. consumes twice as much energy per capita as Japan, 1½ times as much China, and 14 times as much as India and central Africa. The U.S. represents 5% of the world's population, but we consume roughly 20% of global oil production. Instead of waiting for a breakthrough in a carbon-free energy source, fundamentally we need rethink how we use energy, no matter the source. That sounds preachy at first glance but there are pockets in the U.S. where innovative things are being tried (as well as in places as diverse as Iceland, Abu Dhabi and China).
For low-income families, there are federal, state and local assistance programs to "weatherize homes" for greater efficiency. More families could take the initiative to register, instead of waiting for a volunteer to find them to sign up. Some communities are organizing to create green living solutions, like the Sonoma Clean Power Authority.
The push to localized energy is often accompanied by early adoption of energy efficiency and smart-meter technologies, which can also tap local non-oil sources and waste-to-energy options. More communities need to investigate this path which offers resiliency benefits as well. Millennials, to their credit, are driving less, and when they do drive, they are more inclined than their baby boomer parents to car share. This mind-set shift is critical, as transportation represents almost a quarter of total greenhouse-gas emissions. It may be trite to say that thinking locally can have global impacts, but we have to start somewhere and giving due credit to soft power is an excellent option in the control of every individual.
Amy Myers Jaffe (@AmyJaffeenergy) is executive director of energy and sustainability at the University of California, Davis, Graduate School of Management. She was formerly the director of the Energy Forum at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.
Climate-Change Initiatives Need a Better Roadmap
IVÁN MARTÉN: The volume of greenhouse gases emitted by humans keeps growing. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is already around 400 parts per million (ppm) and close to the critical zone of 500 ppm, the point at which the consequences for our planet are unknown and potentially irreversible, according to climate-change experts.
Although international agreements aimed at tackling climate change are failing, the issue is still on the agenda of governments and companies because the risks of inaction are huge. As President Barack Obama said in January 2013, "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations."
Public and private stakeholders should develop strategies to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions for two main reasons. First, climate change is a serious risk for our planet. Second, on the positive side, such actions can help generate new businesses that may contribute to economic growth and create jobs.
World-wide, the rise in greenhouse-gas emissions has been driven by population growth and economic development that, by necessity, increases the energy intensity (energy consumption/GDP) and the carbon intensity (CO2 emissions/energy consumption) of nations. Mitigation measures, therefore, should be focused on lowering the energy and carbon intensity of social and economic development, especially in developing economies.
National, regional and local authorities, as well as companies, should face up to this challenge with a really structured approach. They should define road maps for mitigating greenhouse-gas emissions that fit their needs and context without losing sight of their goals. Climate-change policies should incorporate detailed inventories of greenhouse-gas emissions and solid abatement strategies, as well as plans that help to adjust to the new energy context.
Such road maps should include abatement scenarios that prevent damage to economic and social development and that promote technological change. Abatement technologies must be prioritized according to both their potential and feasibility, and both over the long and short term. Authorities and companies should start considering renewable technologies like wind, solar and bioenergy that have already proven to be technically and economically feasible, as well as energy-efficiency measures in the power generation, residential, industrial, and transportation sectors. In the long term, greenhouse-gas abatement technologies such as carbon capture and storage will become more feasible, both technically and economically.
Iván Martén is a senior partner at Boston Consulting Group. He has been the global leader of BCG's energy practice since 2008 and previously was the European leader of the practice.
Carbon Pricing Is the Best First Step to Address Global Warming
MARK THURBER: The essential first step is to put in place a functioning carbon price. Europe has had this since 2005 in the form of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). California, Québec, British Columbia, Australia and New Zealand have all recently established carbon pricing of one sort or another. South Korea, Japan, and Switzerland appear to be moving toward carbon markets. Even China has started pilot carbon trading in Shenzhen, and it plans to add programs in Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing, Guangdong and Hubei.
If these markets are successful—that is, if they establish a moderately stable, nonzero carbon price without causing undue negative economic impact—this regional, "bottom-up" approach to global carbon policy could supplant the original Kyoto Protocol vision of a unified, global cap-and-trade. And by linking together, as California and Québec, and Europe and Australia, plan, regional schemes could reduce costs and establish global reach. On the other hand, high-profile failures in these nascent carbon markets could kill the current momentum for carbon pricing.
Because successful implementation of carbon pricing is so crucial, we are devoting a lot of effort in our research group to understanding how carbon markets can fail—and what market rules would reduce the risk of such failures.
Mark Thurber is associate director at the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University. His research focuses on the role of state-owned enterprises in fossil-fuel production, as well as how to deliver energy to low-income populations.
Why Global Warming is Different—and Harder—Than Previous Environmental Problems
JEFFREY BALL: Global warming is fundamentally harder than past environmental problems. Unlike smog or litter or dirty rivers, it's global, long-term and largely invisible. The upshot: Solving global warming is the top priority of essentially no one (save a relative handful of scientists and environmental activists).
That suggests two basic principles for fighting global warming. First, the steps that will be most politically feasible are those that happen to curb greenhouse-gas emissions in the process of doing something that people care more about: Cleaning the air, or producing jobs or making money. Second, in contrast to the approach taken thus far, the steps that make the most sense are the ones that are most economically efficient.
A third basic principle is equally important: Technological breakthroughs are hard to predict. So it's unwise to ground any strategy to curb global warming on the expectation that a particular technology will get big enough and cheap enough to be a main fix.
Those three basic principles are pretty general. They point to two more-specific approaches:
Focus on the biggest sources of greenhouse-gas emissions. That includes a handful of gases produced in industrial processes that, pound for pound, pack a far heavier global-warming punch than does carbon dioxide. As for carbon dioxide, it means focusing on China, the world's biggest emitter and a place that has an incentive to clean up its energy system that most people see as far more compelling than global warming: dirty air.
And when governments around the world spend money to promote cleaner energy, it's worth structuring those subsidies to reward not specific predetermined technologies, but whichever technologies over time end up able to produce the most environmental gain at the lowest cost.
Jeffrey Ball (@jeff_ball), formerly The Wall Street Journal's environment editor and a longtime energy reporter at the paper, is scholar-in-residence at Stanford University's Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, a joint initiative of Stanford's law and business schools. He writes about energy and heads a project exploring the relationships among countries in the globalizing clean-energy industry.
Let's Upgrade Our Insurance Policy on Climate-Change Risk
KATE GORDON: Climate change presents potentially catastrophic risks to our economy. If you don't believe me, ask someone who just went through Colorado's historic floods, or superstorm Sandy, or the Yosemite Rim Fire. In fact, a recent study from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society found that climate change played a role in half of 2012's extreme weather events, and doubles the annual probability of Sandy-like flooding in New York City.
These kinds of events are crippling our tourism industry and causing Americans to lose their homes and livelihoods. As if that isn't bad enough, they also threaten to break the backbone of our economy: our energy and fuel infrastructure. The U.S. Department of Energy recently published research that found that our energy infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable to extreme weather events, which are only made more frequent and more severe by climate change. Residents of San Francisco recently experienced just such vulnerability when a raging wildfire near world-renowned Yosemite National Park threatened the city's electricity supply and forced a state-of-emergency declaration from Gov. Jerry Brown.
Secretary of State George Shultz once advised President Ronald Reagan to "take out an insurance policy" against the risks posed by a depleted ozone layer—advice that helped lead to the Montreal Protocol, widely considered the most successful environmental treaty in history. Mr. Shultz has publicly called for a similar "insurance policy" to mitigate the risks of climate change. He isn't alone: The reinsurance industry also recognizes the financial folly of failing to prepare for a changing climate of risk, and has told Congress as much. The Pentagon, used to dealing in long-term threat assessment, also recognizes the potential for new geopolitical uncertainties associated with climate-induced migration or resource scarcity, and concluded in a major strategic review that climate change will act as "an accelerant of risk and conflict."
In most sectors that face such potential calamity, including low-probability but high-cost events, we act accordingly by buying insurance, undertaking threat assessments, and operationalizing the risk in our everyday investment, financial and policy decisions. We need to do the same for the risks posed by climate change. And then, risk assessment in hand, we need to act to do something about it.
Kate Gordon (@katenrg) is the vice president and director of the energy and climate program at Next Generation. She previously served as vice president for energy and environment at the Center for American Progress.