Just three steps for climate stability and energy security Boone Pickens has a plan. Thomas Friedman advocates going “geo-green” to solve our multiple . crises of “jobs, temperature, and terrorism”. Lester Brown can solve them with Plan B 2.0, and Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow have their stabilization wedges. Amory Lovins’s plan is for “winning the oil endgame” while stabilizing climate. Twenty-one states “from California, to the New York island” now have plans for steep reductions of 50-80% in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. So why is it that the U.S. EPA and the federal government are the only ones who do not have a plan for mandatory cuts? They should read more. I’m reminded of the story of two campers with a menacing bear outside their tent. One camper nervously reaches to put on his running shoes, and the other one says, “Are you crazy? You can’t outrun a bear.” The first camper replies, “I know. The way I see it, I only have to outrun you.” So I’m throwing our ES&T hat into the ring to outrun these other plans. To win approval, any plan must begin with energy security. That’s because Americans are, as Cyndi Lauper says, “insecurious”. We’re cautiously curious (and somewhat worried) about the effects of climate change and insecure about everything else. So the urgency of energy security doesn’t need to be sold to Congress or the publicswe’re already secure in our insecurity. This year Congress debated the Climate Security Act. Last year we passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (but it hasn’t worked yet). If I wanted education reform, I’d label it the Stupidity Prevention and Security Act. But that’s a topic for another editorial. Our energy insecurity is largely the result of imported transportation fuels: petroleum to make gasoline for our cars and diesel for our trucks. Combustion of these fuels produces roughly 30% of our GHG emissions, and the first step in the ES&T plan would be to replace all gasoline-powered automobiles with plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles. This has the major advantages of instantly solving the energy independence part of the equation while acting rapidly on climate change by changing a capital stock in only 8–10 years. Toyota hopes to have 400 plug-in hybrids on the road late next year, and GM is shooting for release of the Volt electric car by 2010. How would we recharge the batteries of the more than 200 million cars and light trucks in the U.S., you ask? “Elementary, my dear Watson.” We’d use large-scale wind power that has been stored and fed into the grid at night, and local solar photovoltaic collectors on our roofs and
T
10.1021/es8023918
2008 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 09/29/2008
parking lots during daylight hours. That’s the second step in our plan. Electric transportation provides short-term storage for wind and solar power (lack of storage is their major disadvantage) while replacing the need for imported transportation fuels. Denmark already produces 20% of its electricity from the wind. We’d mandate a federal renewable portfolio standard, provide tax credits to induce market penetration, and issue energy vouchers for low-income citizens, thus reducing our GHG emissions by 30% and cleaning the air for the first time since Henry Ford pushed the accelerator to the floor. Imagine the health dividendsthen watch the price of oil plummet. The third step would be to get serious about energy efficiency and conservation. Heating, lighting, and airconditioning of buildings account for about 40% of all GHG emissions. Simply put, every building in the future must be superefficientswe haven’t even tried until now. Simultaneously, a moral challenge should be put to Americans to conserve energy with our thermostats and our feet (walk, bike, ride mass transit, and get fit in the process). It might even help reduce the epidemic of obesity and diabetes in our country. Buildings are a capital stock with an average life of 50 years, so changing them will take decades. But personal conservation measures could kick in immediately and save energy big-time. Coupled with the use of daytime wind power from the grid, GHG emission reductions from buildings could total another 20%. Just three things will do it: hybrid and electric cars, wind and solar power like Denmark, and energy-efficient buildings (and people), for a 50% reduction of GHGs by 2050. We’d improve economically, environmentally, socially, and geopolitically. If GHG reductions of more than 50% are required (as climate models say), then we’ll need to invoke a carbon tax, develop carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power plants, and consider nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle. There you have it: (1) replace transportation fuels by purchasing hybrid and electric cars, (2) recharge the electric cars with large-scale wind and local solar photovoltaics, and (3) mandate energy-efficient buildings (while challenging folks to conserve). We’ve dawdled so long that time is running out. There’s a bear outside the tent.
Jerald L. Schnoor Editor
[email protected] October 1, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 7027
