By Huck Fairman
The warnings have come: from the United Nations, from the World Meteorological Organization, and from 11,000 scientists in 153 countries – just to name the most prominent.
The warnings have been about the serious environmental changes ahead, and that those changes are accelerating, now coming sooner than originally predicted. The causes for these changes are basically that civilization has been pouring fossil fuel emissions into our atmosphere, trapping solar radiation. To quote the UN statement, we are “sleepwalking toward climate catastrophe.” The obvious question then is: can we, will we, meet the challenge?
The world has responded successfully before. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol banned CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals. Now the ozone layer is healing.
But the causes and extent of global warming are much more complex and widespread.
In order to reverse global warming many different approaches and policies will be needed. And so far, there have been few signs of the necessary international cohesion. Few countries have lived up to their Paris Climate Accord promises.
Moreover, two developments already underway may suddenly make the situation very much worse. First, if the arctic tundra melts, it will release vast quantities of methane, which has much greater warming potential than CO2. Secondly, if the Arctic sea ice melts, it will permit the solar energy reaching it to be absorbed, and not reflected back into space.
Already the Arctic surface air is warming at twice the global rate, and the temperatures over the past five years have exceeded all prior records back to 1900. Scientists have calculated that if that reflecting capacity were to disappear, the warming experienced by the Earth would be equivalent to 25 more years of warming – a change that would deliver catastrophic damage to environments.
Therefore, maintaining the arctic sea ice is among the most important goals related to global warming. But how do we do that, along with the general goal of reducing emissions?
Cutting emissions of CO2 is, of course, essential. But there are other short-lived climate pollutants (CFCs, black carbon, methane, and tropospheric ozone,) that also need to be eliminated.
One study indicated that aggressively targeting these other “superpollutants” could have a pronounced benefit on the Arctic, cutting the rate of warming by 2/3rds.
Fortunately, in the state of California, we have a leader in efforts to reduce “superpollutants.”
Since the 1960s, the state has reduced black carbon emissions by 90%. California also has the strongest standard for limiting methane emissions. In addition, the state now requires that all new public buses be electric. This is part of the blueprint we need.
But in fact, the national and international situation is so severe that we really need to try every reasonable strategy available. As the UN’s Secretary General explained, “The point of no return is no longer over the horizon. It is in sight and hurtling toward us.”
Responding to the climate crisis, New York City’s council, and San Francisco’s have both declared a climate emergency. In a number of states, legislation is beginning to address the situation.
California, Washington, Maine, Hawaii and New York have committed to 100% renewable energy by 2050 or sooner. New Jersey has not embraced that necessary goal, but the state is planning to construct an off-shore wind farm. Residents should hold our government to that goal.
Most people now recognize that addressing the climate crisis means turning to electric vehicles and to solar and wind power – even wave power along the world’s shores. An interesting sidelight will be the economic and technological competition between China and the US. Will one economy take the initiative more effectively and thereby gain economic ascendancy, and benefit?
China is subsidizing EV access. We should find ways to make that work here.
A second general approach to reducing warming may be via geoengineering. This can include efforts to cover new Arctic ice with white sand, to reflect solar radiation. It may also be viable to introduce sulfates, or other particles, into the atmosphere, to deflect solar radiation, much as volcanic clouds do.
Yet another necessary approach will be turning to more plant-based foods and to farming methods that help keep, or store, carbon in the ground, while also producing less methane and requiring less fossil fuel driven transportation.
Still another entire set of policies that can have an indirect impact is addressing population growth along with human rights, women’s rights and family planning services – all as part of the Green Wave, which however unspecified it is at this point, combines a number of needed changes.
The point is that our climate crisis is just that: a crisis in which we need to do pretty much whatever we can, as soon as we can. The warnings are out there. Now it is up to us and our leaders to take the necessary steps to save ourselves.
