Dear All,

I've just posted the very first blog on our brand new website
www.GlobalClimateSolutions.org <http://www.globalclimatesolutions.org/>.
Please take a to visit the website and to provide feedback.

I think you'll find we're looking at the most cutting-edge solutions to
global climate change and peak oil. We welcome any and all thinking about
these incredibly important matters to share their ideas on our blog by
becoming a guest contributor.

Respectfully,
Ryan D. Hottle






Extreme Carbon Negativity: 280 ppm by 2050 by Ryan D. Hottle

One could argue that climate change awareness has thus far progressed
through four distinct phases. A mere twenty years climate change was the
obscure work of academics. Phase one. Phase two was the fiery argument over
the merits and uncertainty of the science by a fairly small crowd of
researchers (and industry-funded naysayers)–most of the people, however,
remained unattached and undecided as far as the debate went. As of two or
three years ago–roughly corresponding with Al Gore's release of "An
Inconvenient Truth"–we entered a new level of widespread public recognition.
That was phase three. Now we seem to be entering a fourth phase: serious
solutions.

The past several months have given witness to an incredible burgeoning of
studies, action plans, and public announcements which commonly suggest the
gravity of the situation we are in is a hell of a lot worse than we
originally imagined. The upshot of this conclusion is that the proposed
solutions to climate change are going to have to be of a much higher caliber
than those of the past have been. No longer are we talking about the
business-as-usual plans to reduce emissions levels 50% by 2050 or to cap CO2
levels at 650 parts per million. We need serious, comprehensive,
highly-effective, and timely strategies to combat climate change. The
science has set the bar far higher and now the leaders of the climate
movement are rising to the challenge:

· Dr. James Hansen of NASA and his fellow colleagues have released a
groundbreaking paper arguing that the safe upper limit of CO2 in the
atmosphere is 310 to 350 parts per million (ppm) while offering a compelling
plan to deal with the threat.

· Lester Brown and The Earth Policy Institute have just released an
ambitious plan to reduce global emissions levels 80% by 2020.

· Al Gore and "The We Campaign" have just launched a bold plan to generate
100% of U.S. energy from clean, carbon-free sources by 2020.

· Bill McKibben and fellow activists of the "Step It Up Campaign" have
created a new platform for advocating serious carbon reductions to 350 ppm
of CO2 which is, appropriately enough, called 350.org.

· Dr. Johannes Lehmann and colleagues from around the world will be
gathering this September at the International Biochar Initiative to discuss
the powerful new strategy to reverse climate change: carbon-negative energy.


· Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, president of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change) has recently revealed his belief that humanity has a mere 7
years to put into action a robust plan to combat climate change.

The authority and magnitude of these voices cannot be underestimated. After
a hundred years of massive exploitation of the world's resources, population
growth and the pumping of carbon reserves into the atmosphere, scientists
are now realizing that (a) global climate change is quite easily the
greatest threat that has ever faced humanity, and (b) that it is happening
much more rapidly than they originally thought. Suffice to say, we've pissed
Mother Nature off royally.

Many within the climate change community are calling for reductions down to
350 parts per million according to Hansen's aforementioned study. Personally
(without being a climatologist), I believe we should shoot for 100%
emissions reductions by 2025 and to lower atmospheric CO2 levels a full 30%
by 2050 back to pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm.

Lowering atmospheric carbon dioxide levels down to 280 ppm is the sensible
thing to do because 280 ppm represents the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
that the Earth system has been self-regulating at for the past 10,000 years.
280 ppm also corresponds to the climatic system under which all of our
agricultural systems and species have evolved under. It should be noted that
the 310 to 350 ppm of atmospheric CO2 that Hansen is suggesting we shoot for
is the safe upper-limit of atmospheric carbon–not the ideal atmospheric
carbon level. In terms of the precautionary principle, adding a 10 to 20%
buffer to Hansen and McKibben's target of 350 ppm makes sense because being
off by even a little bit could have catastrophic consequences.

So how is it that we get to this target of 280 ppm, particularly when we are
adding 2 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere each year? The difficulty to
describing how exactly we transform a society, infrastructure, and worldview
from one that is inherently unsustainable to one that will be prepared to
weather the storms of climate change, peak oil, food and water scarcity, and
the multitude of other threats that will be pounding us from all sides is
that we need far-reaching, evolutionary change at all levels simultaneously.


Pointing to renewable energy production and green jobs as a solution to our
current dilemma–while popular among many organizations and individuals
within the climate change community–is a drastic and potentially disastrous
oversimplification of the situation in which we find ourselves. Alex
Steffen, of www.Worldchanging.com <http://www.worldchanging.com/>, has
rightly accurately critiqued Gore's speech writing that:

"The problem with Gore's speech is its single-answer clarity, it's attempt
to boil down our problems into their most important part. Renewables may or
may not be "the lynchpin" of a sustainable society, but they are clearly far
from the only answer.

"We need to make a big, massive, one-off investment to transform our energy
infrastructure," Gore told a reporter. That's true.

"But it's only part of the truth: that we need a series of parallel "big,
massive, one-off investments." The problems we face will not be solved with
one big effort, even a big effort on the scale of the lunar landings or the
War on Poverty. The problems we face will only be solved by a wholesale
transformation of many interlocking systems at once — a transformation that
aims to overcome many problems at once.

"Do we need wind farms and solar arrays? Yes! But we also need to redesign
our cities, so that we're able to grow green, dense, walkable communities
that let us change our transportation systems, redefine our architectural
practices and recreate our infrastructure.

"We need revolutions in farming, fishing and forestry, one that makes sure
that the food we eat, the clothes we wear and the materials we use are
healthy and sustainable — and we need better stewardship of the public lands
and waters we all rely on.

"We need a new relationship to water, water supplies and water consumption.
We need transformed product designs, new industrial processes, green metals
systems, green chemistry and zero waste solutions to the garbage we create.

"We need a massive wave of innovation, right now, in every single part of
America's material civilization."

Steffen is right. What is really need is comprehensive model for solving
climate change that incorporates a diversity of interconnected solutions
that work in synergy with one another. We need a bold reshaping of
lifestyles and thought-patterns. We desperately need a plan that can be
rapidly implemented that will suck CO2 out of the atmosphere as fast as we
possibly can. We need a roadmap to lead us from collision course we are
headed on into a new and better world of environmental sustainability and
social equity.

To the groundswell of bold thinking around solutions to climate change I
would like to dedicate the very first blog posting at our new website (
www.GlobalClimateSolutions.org <http://www.globalclimatesolutions.org/>) to
the unveiling of the "Earth Rebirth Model" for Solving Climate Change. The
Earth Rebirth Model (ERM) proposes a systems approach based on permaculture
principles to mitigating and adapting to climate change as well as dealing
with the interconnected threats of peak oil, food and water scarcity,
economic depression, and ecological destruction.

As the name suggests, the ultimate goal of ERM is to simultaneously solve
the climate change crisis while creating a more sustainable, equitable,
beautiful, and, ultimately, more meaningful planet for present and future
generations to come.

Here let me briefly introduce the reader to ERM by considering four critical
aspects of the model. Though these four pieces of the solution certainly are
not all the solutions ERM considers, these are four solutions which I
believe are absolutely critical to getting right right away:

First, is placing a price on carbon. Without accurately applying the true
cost of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, business-as-usual will continue
unabated, leading us down the path of inevitable destruction. In his book,
"Climate Solutions: A Citizen's Guide," Peter Barnes presents a sensible and
equitable model for applying a Cap-and-Trade scheme. Likewise, James Hansen
has presented a very similar model albeit using a Carbon Tax-and-Dividend
scheme: "Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend –No Alligator Shoes!"

Both of these systems operate on a national level by placing an increasing
cost on carbon that is than equally redistributed to the citizenry. While
both of these are good models, I am personally drawn to the global
"Contraction and Convergence" model or the updated Cap and Share model but
with unique built-in mechanisms to decrease global population (voluntarily,
of course), increase social equity across the planet, provide a "Global
Climate Emergency Fund," and to promote rapid development of carbon negative
energy technologies by paying people to sequester carbon. Perhaps most
importantly, any scheme that we adapt will have to have aggressive political
teeth that give countries a solemn choice between tasty carrots or extremely
painful sticks in order to ensure global compliance. (More on the details on
this scheme in upcoming blog.)

The second is producing clean, renewable energy with net-zero or
net-negative CO2 emissions. Upon Gore's proclamation that we reduce
emissions 100% by 2020, Jerome a Paris of the Daily Kos performed some
useful napkin-level sketches on whether this would be possible simply with
our available wind generating capacity in the United States. What he found
was that 100% carbon free energy by 2020 may not be possible but 50-90%
would be.

What neither Jerome a Paris, Al Gore, Lester Brown, Bill McKibben nor many
other of the "climate all-stars" seem to be aware of, however, is our
ability to couple and modulate intermittent wind and solar capacity with
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Pyrolysis Systems that can produce
carbon-negative energy from agricultural debris and other biomass waste
streams. In addition to sequestering carbon and producing energy the
byproduct of pyrolysis is a powerful soil amendment known as "biochar" which
can improve water retention in soil, provide homes to microorganisms, reduce
need for nitrogen fertilizers by decreasing nutrient leaching, decrease the
"dead zone" phenomenon, and improve overall soil health.

Dr. Johannes Lehmann, professor of Soil Science at Cornell University, has
suggested that we could be sequestering upwards of 5.5 to 9.5 Petra grams
(Pg) of carbon per year by 2100. To put this in perspective, consider that
we are presently emitting 5.4 Pg of carbon per year from fossil fuels. Thus,
we can clearly intuit that the potential of carbon negative energy (and
carbon negative farming practices) is absolutely stupendous even if it were
only 1/10 this effective. Questions remain over whether the addition of
charcoal to soils will increase microbial activity, thereby, speeding
decomposition of soil organic matter. Clearly more research is needed, but
this should not be an excuse to stall the implementation of widespread
trials within the very near-short term. Governments everywhere should be
investing as much money as possible into biochar, carbon-negative energy.

If we find it is as promising as current research suggests, we may choose to
simply mandate that the coal companies either capture and store 100 percent
of their carbon emissions by 2025 or switch their generating capacity to
pyrolysis based systems. It's that simple: If you're not carbon neutral or
carbon negative by 2025, you're out of work. Period.

Third is "Relocalizing" our communities and economies. The visionary leaders
who have been promoting and actively working to address the
largely-unrecognized and misunderstood threat of global peak oil and gas
production have been promoting relocalization for a number of years.
Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of people don't understand peak oil,
the media isn't informing them about it, and practically all the leaders and
politicians either don't have the intelligence or backbone to talk about the
situation.

Relocalization is the process of creating more sustainable and self-reliant
communities by growing food, producing essential goods, and deriving a
sustainable and fulfilling life locally. It is the opposite of the
fossil-fuel economy and provides a compelling model for "decarbonizing" our
energy infrastructure, agricultural production systems, economies, and
lifestyles. See the work of Richard Heinberg, Julian Darley, The Post Carbon
Institute, and The Relocalization Network.

Fourth is integration. In Permaculture one of the chief principles is to
"Never just do one thing." Another is to "Utilize the yields of each element
to meet the needs of other elements in the system." In other words, our
solutions cannot exist by themselves—we must design solutions that integrate
together in a synergistic fashion.

Let's look at prevention of catastrophic forest fires as a case-in-point. As
temperatures rise and hardiness zones continue their upward creep, there is
likely to be significant negative effects on many species and ecosystems.
Some species and ecosystems will be faced with widespread die-off, collapse,
and extinction. As the following maps from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's "Forestry Climate Change Atlas" (
http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/) indicate, we are going to see potentially
drastic increases in average annual temperatures within the next several
decades. The first image is of current mean temperatures. The second of a
low-impact scenario of climate change, while the third is the high-impact
scenario in 2100.

One of the prone ecosystems in my area of the country is the
Maple-Beech-Birch forest types in U.S. Northeast. As they die-off there will
be an enormous accumulation of biomass that could potentially provide fodder
for massive fires. In order to prevent these fires, it would behoove us to
reduce the quantity of biomass on forest floors. This presents the
opportunity for turning a portion of the biomass into energy and biochar
through pyrolysis. We are faced with a single problem. We approach it with
creativity and science and we create a positive solution to the problem. But
we don't stop there…

The biochar could then be added to soils to enhance soil productivity. "Food
Forest" systems that produce fruit, nut, berry, mushroom and other perennial
crops could be planted in the (See Dave Jacke's work at
www.EdibleForestGardens.com <http://www.edibleforestgardens.com/>); woodland
coppicing management systems; and low-input, high-diversity polyculture
biomass production systems (See David Tillman's article "Carbon-Negative
Biofuels from Low-Input High-Diversity Grassland Biomass") are being
planted.

The sustainably managed forest ecosystems could provide the raw material to
rebuild significant portions of our housing infrastructure to become passive
solar buildings (locking up carbon in the process.) The Forest Gardens would
provide fruits, nuts, berries, mushrooms and other perennial crops for local
consumption. The coppiced woodland area could provide material for home heat
and small-to-medium scale pyrolysis plants as well as for locally
manufactured tools. The grassland biomass would provide us with additional
sources of energy for either cellulosic ethanol production or pyrolysis.
Intelligent and sustainable management of wilderness could involve opening
up "South-to-North Wilderness Corridors" enable migration paths for species
on the run from rising temperatures.

This is but one example of how a comprehensive and synergistic model would
work in a single place, though the principles can be applied universally.
Instead of trying to apply the common, isolated solution to the problem, we
find that we can accomplish a multitude of important processes
simultaneously with an intelligent, integrated approach.

280 ppm by 2050 is indeed possible, though I would argue that the
comprehensive and integrated approach that The Earth Rebirth Model suggests
is going to be the essential to reduce atmospheric levels down to
sustainable levels fast enough.

The first phase of climate obscurity passed 20 years ago with Hansen in
front of the U.S. Congress. The second phase of climate debate has been all
but won by the climatologists–the climate skeptics, few in number and
lacking in any real credibility, are licking their wounds over in the corner
and posting dubious propaganda on YouTube. The third phase of climate
recognition is quickly moving to the fourth phase of real climate solutions.
This phase will be vital to how well and how quickly we move to the fifth
phase: climate action.

The fate of this precious planet and the future of our children and
grandchildren hangs in the precipitously in the balance. What we choose to
do–or not to do–in the next five to ten years will make all the difference.
Be prepared to work hard together–that's the only way we're going to win.

-- 
GLOBAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS

www.GlobalClimateSolutions.org <http://www.globalclimatesolutions.org/>
serious, sustainable solutions to climate change including carbon-negative
energy

submit your ideas and articles on-line at:
www.GlobalClimateSolutions.org <http://www.globalclimatesolutions.org/>
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please 
visit:  http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ 

RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org

Reply via email to