Damon Matthews, from Concordia University in Canada, and Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, USA, used a global climate model to study the impact of reductions of greenhouse gases on global temeprature. They warn that current emissions targets for 2050 are insufficient to avoid substantial future warming. Instead they believe that we need to eliminate emissions altogether, or find a way of actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The Climate Neutral Network was recently set up by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said at the launch: "Climate neutrality is an idea whose time has come, driven by the urgent need to address climate change but also the abundant economic opportunities emerging for those willing to embrace a transition to a Green Economy". Mr Steiner added that a "transition to a low, even zero carbon future, can be a reality if inspiring and practical actions can be federated around the world."
Norway is promising to be climate neutral by 2030, partly by capturing emissions and burying them under the North Sea.
New Zealand plans to introduce electric cars. Already, New Zealand's electricity comes largely from hydro and geothermal energy. New Xealand aims to generate 90% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025, but a big challenge is its livestock. Half of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture.
Iceland has soaring emissions due to its aluminium smelters, but has a great asset in its hydro and geothermal energy. Currently 99% of electricity generation and 75% of total energy production is coming from geothermal and hydro-power. Iceland is also introducing hydrogen in a number of places and plans to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions by up to 75% by 2050.
Costa Rica has managed to to reverse deforestation, thanks to conservation and replanting, and has increased its forest cover from 21% in 1987 to 52% today. Furthermore, most of its electricity is generated by hydro-power. Costa Rica expects to be climate neutral in 2021.
The above four countries, together with four cities (including Vancouver, Canada) and five corporations have become the pioneering founding members of the Climate Neutral Network.
The United States could show leadership by aiming for climate neutrality as well.
References:
Only zero emissions can prevent a warmer planet - New Scientist 29 February 2008
Look, no carbon footprint! - New Scientist, 9 March 2007
Guilty countries pledge to go carbon neutral - New Scientist 29 February 2008
Iceland - The world's first hydrogen society - by Sam Carana 10 November 2007
New Zealand bans new power plants that burn fossil fuel - by Sam Carana 5 December 2007
UNEP Unveils the Climate Neutral Network - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Climate Neutral Network - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
UNEP Unveils the Climate Neutral Network to Catalyze a Transition to a Low Carbon World - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 31
New Zealand has plenty of wind and already most of its electricity comes from geothermal and hydro-energy (65% of New Zealand's electricity is generated from renewable resources, mainly hydroelectric plants). New Zealand has set itself the target of generating 90% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. I see no need for a repeat of the above incident.
Raising and transporting livestock results in a lot of carbon dioxide. But to reduce greenhouse gases we'll need to look further than just carbon dioxide. Livestock emits a lot of methane. Furthermore, their feed is typically produced by using a lot of fertilizers. To reduce all such emissions, a country like New Zealand will need to reduce its livestock and transform the land into forests.
Have featured this in Earth Hour 2008 .... I need to post an update! my bad ... but I very glad to have your excellent articles; thank you
Wish Canada was doing a better job of committing to the reduction of carbon emissions.... it's embarassing.... appalling even .... that they signed on for Kyoto and then decided not to bother shiving a git!
There's a lot of issues with meat. Emissions, growth hormones, antibiotics, moral issues, health issues (cardio-vascular risks, colorectal cancer and obesity) and more. Also, the grazing and growing feed requires huge tracks of land and huge amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, water, etc. Furthermore, using up all this land comes at the expense of forests and drives up prices for food. Amazingly, livestock and feed for livestock is subsidized with huge amounts of tax money. Those subsidies should stop; that money can and should be spent in better ways. As described in an earlier article, I propose to tax the sale of meat, in a FeeBate policy where proceeds are used to fund vegan-organic meals to be served in restaurants in communities without roads. Anyone with other suggestions?
Please visit the POM Education group at http://pomeducation.gather.com/ to see why our money needs changing and how it brings about its devistating consequences.
My comment was made in the interest of precision. A vegan living in Main contributes to greenhouse emissions by purchasing produce transported from as far off as Brazil or Africa when fresh vegetables are not locally available. OR contributes to greenhouse emission by preparing and preserving vegetable foods for use when fresh foods have to be transported to Maine.
All I am saying is there is no simple way to cut emissions while maintaining the living standard people have come to expect. Humanity has evolved technologies that make it possible for six billion humans to subsist on this planet. All that technology requires the production of energy in one form or another. Production of that energy with fossil fuels releases the carbon trapped in the fuel into the atmosphere, the ensuing warming of the planet makes more technology necessary to sustain the six billion people and their offspring. At some point the escalation becomes unsustainable and the whole system implodes. Over the last 2000 years, human population on earth has grown from 300 million to six billion. Over the past 50 years or so it has doubled.
The simple solution is birth rate reduction. The other way to eliminate human impact on environment is to eliminate humanity. Please, wait till nature eliminates me to begin that process, I don't want to suffer, no one does.
I acknowledge that carbon neutral is an excellent goal to work toward. This country has a much more challenging road to this goal than do the small countries you have mentioned. It is not going to be accomplished in the same time frame or nearly as easily as those.
It would be nice but again, reality creeps in and rears it's ugly head!
I'm interested in all information and research studies that inform us of the impact of reductions of greenhouse gases on global temperature.
I agree with you Sam that the sooner we act on global warming ~ the better off we'll be -- SO TRUE! The economic perspective is not discussed about as much as it should be.
The CLEAN ALTERNATIVES (such as solar and wind energy) . . . those alternatives that you call our attention to regularly Sam, is a focal point for most of us who are concerned with our global environment.
WE can all learn so much from your Articles, Sam -- thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Blessings ~
Rene
Yes, we can make a significant difference in ten years with strong government regulation. As I've said before, your "feebate" idea may be great but it will die aborning. And the point I was making is that it will take the US longer to accomplish this than the much smaller countries you mentioned.
Even the OECD, a normally conservative organization that focuses on economics, speaks out in favor of swift action on global warming, concluding that this will have a positive cost-benefit result. See my article OECD: start focusing on the environment!
You may not understand it but size does matter. The larger the country the longer it will take to even identify the sources of the problem. Our country has a very cumbersome government by design, that tends to move things slowly. Our founding fathers created a cumbersome government very intentionally. Efficient government is a dictatorship. But we'll get there, just take a little longer than small countries. Patience is truly golden and here is your opportunity to practice that trait!
I am glad to see that five corporations have involved themselves in this effort!
I acknowledge that much could be done faster with sufficient resources alloted to the project. We can't afford a war in Iraq and that at the same time. In fact, after eight years of this administration, it's going to be difficult for this country to come up with the money at all.
The sources of emissions are well known, James. Most countries collect data for submission to the IPCC. Have a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005, showing that well over 80% of US emissions are caused by fossil fuel - the mining of fossil fuel and burning it in power plants and in transportation. Additional emissions come from agriculture, waste, cement and the production of iron and steel, etc, but these are smaller amounts.
The solutions are also well known. There are cleaner ways of making concrete and there are better ways to use the land, there are electric cars and there are clean and safe ways to produce, store and transmit electricity nationwide.
James: "..much could be done faster with sufficient resources alloted to the project. We can't afford a war in Iraq and that at the same time. In fact, after eight years of this administration, it's going to be difficult for this country to come up with the money at all."
It wouldn't require huge amounts of money or extra resources, James. Have another look at my article on the OECD report and my comments underneath the article. The problem is that the Bush administration is supporting the wrong parties, at the expense of what we need instead. Government should end such bad policies and encourage a shift towards better alternatives, which in my view is best achieved by a greenhouse gas FeeBate policy.
Many of the sources are well known. But where are they? What in each instance, needs to be done to correct. How extensive is any given source? What are the ramifications of using a given technique to ameliorate this problem in this location? What are the ramifications of remediation by different means? How will adverse effects by ameliorated? It's not that simple!
And, like I've told you before, a "feebate" (I hate coined words!) policy is not going to get off the ground. It needs another approach to be effective.
As to what action should be taken, clearly measures should be aimed at discouraging what causes emissions, while encouraging clean and safe alternatives. Yes, there are different technologies - in regard to generation of electricity, e.g., there are different technologies such as solar, wind and geothermal energy, but what the best mix is, that's something that each area should work out for themselves. One area may put a heavy emphasis on solar, while another area may decide to import all its electricity.
Similarly, it makes most sense to let people choose what specific car they want to buy, as long as there is an effective framework in place that offers incentives to those who make the best choices in regard to emissions, with disincentives for a bad choice.
I am convinced that a framework of feebate policies is most effective, but I can see that some places will take a more dictatorial approach, forcing everyone into one specific technology, while other areas will wait too long with taking action and consequently face trade sanctions. Some places may not like feebates and some places will even take measures that turn out to be counter-productive, and they will consequently face trade sanctions as well, until they clean up their act and do reach their targets. But by and large, countries around the world will do the right thing, also because the outcome for each country hinges on the outcome in other countries. I just hope that the US will take a leadership role in this regard, which will also enable the US to join and benefit from the economic opportunities around the world in this area. The US has a tradition of democracy, open media, free enterprise and market mechanisms, and I would be both disappointed and surprised if voters would put the US onto another pathway.
Technologies such as solar, wind and geothermal energy have been around for decades and the suggestion that we should wait until cheaper technologies come along is contradicted by the economic studies into this question. Various studies into the economics of global warming conclude that, the longer we wait with taking action, the more costly the necessary action will become. So, even if the choice for a specific technology may turn out - in hindsight - to be slightly more expensive than another one, it's still better to choose either one of them now. As I said, market mechanisms can best sort out what works best where.
I agree with the concept you are espousing, totally. And I agree that several technologies are readily available to apply such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydroelectric and geothermal. Some of these are limited in the areas where they can be utilized. Tides are there for the harnessing.
And yes, market mechanisms will sort a lot of it out. However, it is market mechanisms holding back the more rapid application of these things at the present time.
I disagree, James, market mechanisms aren't holding back a more rapid shift to clean and safe alternatives, it is the political support received by those who don't deserve it that is doing that, which btw includes nuclear. Had market mechanisms been able to sort things out, we wouldn't be in the problems we're in.
It is the marketing mechanisms that produce the political support problem. The current energy companies want to continue to have a captive market and they are the ones pulling the political strings. So it is the marketing mechanisms that are the impediment.
The market is what it is. It cannot be changed overnight by any politician. And it has developed into a virtual monopoly. Standard oil was once broken into many smaller companies because of the anti trust laws. When Regan became president that law simply slipped from the books and now we have an oil company former executive as a setting vice president. That's free enterprise for you!
Sorry, James, I was talking about market mechanisms, not marketing. Those who are lobbying for undeserved political favors will be exposed by vigilant media - the Internet is increasingly successful in this regard. People become increasingly aware of what tricks are being played and what happens with our tax dollar. As I said, had market mechanisms been able to sort things out more over the years, we wouldn't be in the problems we're in.
James: "The market is what it is. It cannot be changed overnight by any politician. And it has developed into a virtual monopoly. Standard oil was once broken into many smaller companies because of the anti trust laws. When Regan became president that law simply slipped from the books and now we have an oil company former executive as a setting vice president. That's free enterprise for you!"
Market mechanisms should be accompanied by strong anti-trust and cartel legislation. I strongly support stricter application of such legislation and I quite frankly don't know any supporter of the environment who doesn't. While specific companies may cause problems, you shouldn't blame all enterprise for the failure of legislators to legislate. I have to say it again, James, had market mechanisms - accompanied by strong anti-trust and cartel legislation - been able to sort things out, we wouldn't be in the problems we're in.
They say it is good to have faith. When it comes to the free market you are promoting, I have no faith! The "free market" proved what it would do, given the opportunity in feudal England. That's why we forced the Magna Carta on King John! To start getting something out of government for the common person.
And I don't blame all business by any means! There are many very good and responsible business. I've worked for a lot of business and I've found over the years that the ratio of really ethical and responsible business to the others is probably 1 to 10! And when they become so big that on vice president doesn't even know another, the only response or reward is for what is believed to advance the bottom line.
I agree with you about anti-trust legislation! But I also recognize that such control takes business out of the free enterprise category.
Appreciate the response comments!
Feudalism isn't market mechanisms, in many respects it's the opposite, it's the concentration of power in the hands of a single person or elite. I have to say it again, James, market mechanisms should be accompanied by strong anti-trust and cartel legislation - had market mechanisms been able to sort things out, we wouldn't be in the problems we're in.
James: "...such control takes business out of the free enterprise category."
The opposite, market mechanisms go hand in hand with strong anti-trust and cartel provisions. Cartels and monopolies do not allow market mechanisms to function and they prevent access to markets for new enterprises. Where market mechanisms are functional, trade takes place without coercion.
The problem is that government supports specific companies that pollute the environment. The problem is not with business in general, but with legislators who fail to put in place an adequate policy framework to avoid such pollution. That's a political problem and it requires political solutions. If politicians are too prone to be bribed, then perhaps we should incorporate such a policy framework (including anti-trust and cartel provisions) into the Constitution, but you shouldn't blame market mechanisms for the failure of politicians and legislators to take adequate action.