In a post-election editorial, Al Gore laid out a policy roadmap for addressing climate change. Gore's plan looks like a bunch of other plans that have recently landed on the president-elect's doorstep. I will now do you the favor of summarizing reams of policy expertise in five bullet points, henceforth referred to as the Grand Climate Plan:
- Carbon pricing
- Efficiency standards
- Carbon-free electricity
- Smart electrical grid
- Electric
carstransportation
Some heavy caveats are in order: the Grand Climate Plan isn't meant to be comprehensive or even sufficient to address climate change. Plenty of important stuff falls outside the scope of these five points. Nor is the Grand Climate Plan meant to imply consensus. Every one of these broad-brush categories encompasses a range of policy tools and attendant debates.
Take No. 3, for example, carbon-free electricity. The term lumps together everything from offshore wind to clean coal to nuclear power. It also covers policy tools ranging from direct subsidy to cap-and-trade to renewable portfolio standards.
Nevertheless, the "plan" represents, if not consensus, then a sort of policy convergence, a set of interlocking puzzle pieces that, to a good approximation, chart the contours of the big-picture, climate-related policy proposals presently on the table. This situation is much changed from just a few years ago, when mainstream wonk types would have been hard-pressed to lay out any sort of coherent climate policy agenda outside maybe pushing for the U.S. to join Kyoto.
I have a feeling I'll be referring to the Grand Climate Plan a lot in the future, as it provides a fairly handy reference point from which to view competing proposals and legislative efforts. For the moment, though, I thought I'd mention some of the most glaring gaps, areas where little consensus exists other than the understanding that something needs to be done:
- Coal. There are a lot of coal-fired electrical plants out there, and there will be a lot more by the end of the decade. How fast can we get rid of them? How fast do we need to? Are the policies under consideration anywhere near up to the task?
- Forests and land use. Probably we'll eventually see efforts to protect the world's forests looped into the global carbon market, but a lot of unresolved issues remain. In the meantime, deforestation is still 20 percent of the global warming problem.
- China. And India. And international cooperation in general. I don't doubt that such cooperation is possible, but I'm not sure that anyone yet knows what it will look like.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
Comments
View as Flat
Darrell Posted 4:11 pm
01 Dec 2008
I'd expand Electric Cars to Electrify Transportation, taking in mainline passenger and freight and urban transit.
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 9:30 pm
01 Dec 2008
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:21 pm
01 Dec 2008
Solve Transportation/Electricity for US, China, and India.
And Solve Deforestation for Brazil, and Indonesia.
That'd solve most of our problem right there.
_
That said, US has to lead the way.
Lead by example.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:42 am
02 Dec 2008
Solve deforestation for Brazil, Indonesia & Africa
Solve electricity and transport
Actually solving deforestation is closely linked to providing electricity and clean fresh water.
There by, we need to provide electricity and transport not just to US, China and India, but to the whole world.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:00 am
02 Dec 2008
I'd say that has more to do with agricultural practices.
we need to provide electricity and transport not just to US, China and India, but to the whole world.
Ultimately, yes. However one has to consider that if we can get US, China, and India on board, then getting the rest of the world to follow will be simple.
To be frank, the rest of the world could stick with oil and coal, and we'd still be ~80% of the way there toward zero carbon perfection.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 4:39 am
02 Dec 2008
A zero-carbon future is a necessity. But even before that, we need to figure out a way to solve the deforestation problem.
The deforestation question is directly related to the fresh water crisis.
I'd say that has more to do with agricultural practices.
When the land becomes barren due to monoculture of crops, when rivers grow thinner and underground acquifiers get used up, farmers (particularly, subsistent farmers) have no option but to clear more forest land to grow crops. This is how humanity performed agriculture for thousands of years. This slash-and-burn agriculture is no longer sustainable due to our humongous numbers.
Providing clean fresh water is a must for solving the deforestation problem at its roots.
The second principal cause (though more visible) for deforestation is logging. Firewood is the only source of energy for several tribal populations. This has to stop, and alternate means of energy (electricity) should be provided to the populations living around rainforest areas.
Electricity is also needed to solve the above fresh water problem (particularly in areas which are under threat of desertification due to climate change).
If we don't solve the electricity+clean fresh water issues (both of which are top priorities for the UNO anyways), deforestation and biodiversity loss is a given.
This threat is far more direct and proximal than the global warming threat, as scary as that can be by itself.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink