Watch the 'Face It' webcast

There is a silver-bullet solution to global warming 8

The dialogue between this country's youth and key decision-makers during the important Focus the Nation (FTN) event on January 31st has the potential to become diluted and confused. If it does, another opportunity to move a segment of the country towards seriously addressing climate change will have been wasted.

Shotgun Approach Falls Short

Although every personal effort at reducing energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions is laudable and helps change the way we think about global warming, taking the shotgun approach to emissions reductions is simply not enough. Time is extremely short, and we must act immediately and boldly if we are to avert a climate crisis.

The Silver Bullet

Contrary to what many are saying, there is a "silver bullet" solution to global warming, and it is time we, as a nation, faced up to it.

By calling for "no more coal," we not only immediately cap GHG emissions, but we also meet the reductions needed to avert dangerous climate change. Why? Because coal is the only fossil fuel plentiful and supposedly cheap enough to push the planet to 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere -- the threshold set by the scientific community beyond which we will trigger dangerous tipping points.

What does "no more coal" mean? It means first a U.S. and then a global moratorium on the construction of any new conventional, GHG-emitting coal plants, and the gradual phasing out of existing plants by 2050. This results in an immediate cap on GHG emissions while allowing time to retrain coal workers for other jobs.

Oil and gas consumption will not get us to 450 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. We are now reaching the peak in global oil and, soon, natural gas production. As oil and gas peak, production and consumption will decline, prices will increase, and alternative fuels will become more economically attractive. After they peak, oil and gas depletion rates will stretch out over many years. To quote NASA's Dr. James Hansen from his recent personal testimony before the Iowa Utilities Board:

It is clear that Congress does not "get it." They stand ready to set a goal of 60% reductions, 80%, 90%! Horse manure. Those are meaningless numbers, serving nothing but their campaign purposes. Before you cast a vote for a politician, ask whether they will support actions that can actually solve the problem.

The most important question, by far, is the moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in the United States and Europe, the places that have created the climate problem. Until we take that action, we have no basis for a successful discussion with China, India, and other developing countries.

Coal will determine whether we continue to increase climate change or slow the human impact. Increased fossil fuel CO2 in the air today, compared to the pre-industrial atmosphere, is due 50% to coal, 35% to oil, and 15% to gas. As oil resources peak, coal will determine future CO2 levels."

If we do not stop coal, we do not make it. It's that simple.

The beauty of a "silver bullet" solution to the climate crisis is that it joins us together around a single, powerful goal, concentrating our efforts and magnifying our effectiveness in solving the problem1.

Face It Webcast on January 30-31, 2008

To get this message out, and to show how we can meet our energy needs without coal, the nonprofit research organization Architecture 2030 will be hosting a nationwide webcast, called Face It: There is a Solution to Global Warming. To help kick off and input the Focus the Nation dialogue, the Face It webcast will be broadcast from Architecture 2030's website, www.architecture2030.org. It can be viewed any time after 9:00 a.m. EST on January 30, making it easy to substitute the half-hour webcast for classes or watch together in an office meeting.

During the webcast, Architecture 2030 will unveil two competitions about the solution to global warming, with $20,000 in prize money. Students will be asked to create something (you'll have to tune in to the webcast to learn what) that will reverberate throughout their campus and society at large.

The Face It webcast will build on the information provided during Architecture 2030's highly successful webcast, The 2010 Imperative Global Emergency Teach-in. The Teach-in, which broadcast live in February 2007, reached a quarter of a million students, design professionals, and government officials worldwide (in 47 countries).

-----

1 Nuclear energy, "clean coal," and unconventional fossil fuels such as oil shale and tar sands are not responsible or realistic replacements for conventional coal. In addition to the many social, environmental, storage, security, and proliferation issues associated with nuclear power, a single nuclear power plant costs billions of dollars and takes 8 to 12 years to get on line. "Clean coal," i.e., carbon capture and sequestration, by the industry's own admission, is 20 years out, if it is proven feasible and economically viable. Oil shale and tar sands are energy-intensive fuels to produce. Without conventional coal as a cheap energy source for mining, processing, and transporting these fuels, they cannot economically compete with conservation and renewables (solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal).

Edward Mazria is an internationally recognized architect and the founder of Architecture 2030, which aims to rapidly transform the building sector from a major contributor of greenhouse-gas emissions to a central part of the solution to the global-warming crisis.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 2:47 am
    14 Jan 2008

    Kids! Turn off the TV!

    Webcast?  How about reading some scientific papers and reading instead of spending all night "social networking" with your no-good friends?
    For example:
    Study Says Glaciers Formed During a Very Warm Period

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/world/europe/11glacier. ...
    At the time, tropical surface ocean temperatures in the west Atlantic exceeded 95 to 99 degrees Fahrenheit, several degrees warmer than now, and alligators and tropical breadfruit trees flourished in the Arctic.

    My Log
  2. Edward Mazria's avatar

    Edward Mazria Posted 3:26 am
    14 Jan 2008

    Ice LossFrom the same NY times article, seems you forgot to mention:
    Thomas Wagner, a German scientist at Newcastle University in England who was among the authors, cautioned against concluding that modern ice in the Arctic or Antarctic might resist current global warming.
    Or to add the latest article at (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008 ...): Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica

  3. GreenEngineer Posted 3:47 am
    14 Jan 2008

    Hey Ed,A friendly piece of advice: Just ignore jabailo.  This community has unfortunately attracted a certain number of persistent trolls who appear to get their jollies by interjecting nonsense into the discussion and sidetracking real dialog.  Jabailo is one of them.
    Ignoring them is the best policy.  It doesn't make them go away, but it minimizes their ability to damage the dialog.
    By the way, welcome to Gristmill.  This is actually one of the best green communities on the net, trolls notwithstanding.  I appreciate the work you've done in setting a difficult-but-achievable goal with the 2030 Challenge, and I'm glad to see you here.
  4. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 4:15 am
    14 Jan 2008

    Not Incompatible

    Edward,
    The two studies are not incompatible...as long as you accept naturo-genic origins for global warming.

    My Log
  5. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 4:17 am
    14 Jan 2008

    But Dr. Zaius, he can speak!A friendly piece of advice: Just ignore jabailo.  
    See no science.

    Hear no science.

    Speak no science.
    That is the mantra of the Pharasees of AGW orthodoxy...

    My Log
  6. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 4:27 am
    14 Jan 2008

    ed (and bailo)Ed --
    Perhaps the point could be made that instead of talking about reducing emissions by x percent by 2050, say 80-90%, a concrete way to achieve that is to say we need to decrease the amount of coal plant emissions by 80-90% by 2050.  That takes it out of the realm of abstraction, and very much in support of your point, makes it very concrete.
    Bailo -- Just thought you'd like to know that I found your paper on encapsulation interesting.
  7. Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 6:51 am
    14 Jan 2008

    webcastI'm working on getting my daughters' school to join in!
    -k

    Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi

    Read Lights Out reviews
  8. stopgreenpath Posted 6:31 am
    16 Jan 2008

    finally, someone gets it!i have been shouting into a black hole, for the most part, in trying to get some serious distinctions between GREEN ENERGY POLICIES and GREENWASHED B.S. POLICIES.
    thank you, ed, and the rest of the 2030 crew for finally addressing TRUE conservation, especially as it relates to building practices.  half-hearted lightbulb programs and $50 coupons for fridges have become symbols of "trying to look like we're trying without actually harming utility bottom lines," whereas your program demands legitimate change.  
    thank you also for distinguishing between local, decentralized, sustainable and renewable (rooftop) power and wilderness-killing remote generation and transmission of so-called "renewables" which only benefits utilities.  ok, i think 2050 is way too long to phase out coal, but we can see how our new energy paradigm shifts things, and maybe move that number forward a decade or two (i hope)...
    you appear to be one of the few organizations which "gets it," so i wish you tremendous success in getting the message to the people!

    the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement