Best target? Best policies?
With the Copenhagen Conference fast approaching, what targets should be aimed for? What are the best targets? What policies can best achieve such targets?
Many suggest that emissions should be reduced by 80% by 2050. However, such a remote 2050 target lacks substance, especially if earlier targets remain largely undefined. As illustrated below, cutting emissions quickly will result in a lot less emissions ending up in the atmosphere over the years, compared to making large cuts only after emissions were to peak in 2030.
This stresses the importance of focusing on early targets. It is particularly important to set targets for the year 2020, as this is close enough to make politicians act now, while a decade should also be enough time for policies to be implemented and take effect. In fact, it is quite feasible to target an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
Targeting energy-related emissions
In the U.S., most emissions are energy related. As the Environmental Protection Agency's inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks shows, well over 80% of U.S. emissions are caused by fossil fuel - the mining of fossil fuel and burning it, e.g. in power plants and in transportation.
So, by switching to electric vehicles, appliances and equipment, and by producing electricity in clean and safe ways, such as with wind and solar power, an 80% cut in emissions could be achieved.
This could be best achieved by combining fees and rebates in the form of feebates, i.e. by imposing fees on fuel, flights, engines and combustion ovens, and by each time using the proceeds of these fees to fund local rebates on clean and safe alternatives.
Targeting other emissions
Agriculture, forestry, waste and wastewater are jointly responsible for over one third of all global greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC, 2007). 
It makes sense to also target these areas with feebates, in particular fees on fertilizers and on livestock products, funding local rebates on biochar.
This would make dramatic cuts in methane and nitrous oxide emissions, and also reduce CO2, since application of biochar is carbon-negative.
Buildings are already targeted in many countries, often focusing on achieving energy efficiency. Feebates could help out here as well, such as this Oregon feebate program.
Finally, there are some gases that could be phased out altogether, since there are alternatives available, as I discussed earlier.
Further reducing greenhouse gases
In conclusion, achieving an 80% cut in emissions by 2020 is well possible and it will also kickstart some of the methods and technologies necessary to further reduce greenhouse gases.
We do need to further reduce greenhouse gases. Past emissions have already set in motion feedbacks that could set off a runaway greenhouse effect feeding on itself. Cutting emissions by 80% means that atmospheric CO2 will still keep rising.
James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist, says in Target CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? that atmospheric CO2 should be reduced to 350 ppm. This means that we should not only aim to reduce emissions, we should additionally remove CO2 from the atmosphere in order to get CO2 down to levels as pictured on the graph on the right.
The above feebates can do just that. Apart from reducing emissions, they can also remove some of the greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the past. Carbon-negative practices, such as afforestation, biochar burial and using wood instead of bricks, will take some of that CO2 out of the atmosphere. Furthermore, fees on aviation could fund devices that remove CO2 from ambient air. The carbon thus removed could be used to produce synthetic renewable fuel to power airplanes. The above feebates would kickstart the methods and technologies necessary to achieve such reductions.
Further policies
We should also look at policies to help people, flora and fauna adapt to climate change. Furthermore, we should consider geoengineering methods to artificially reflect more sunshine back into space and to deal with ocean acidification, such as by adding lime to seawater, as discussed at this geoengineering blog and group.
In conclusion, we should respond to the challenges posed by climate change by making a joint commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. This can best be achieved by means of a comprehensive plan that includes a package of feebate policies. In order to make things work, we should start implementing these policies as soon as possible.
Related posts by Sam Carana
Towards a Sustainable Economy
Biochar
Carbon-negative building
Green Refrigerators and Air Conditioners
Funding of carbon air capture
An 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 19
We should stop allowing the agenda to be set by those who seek diversions from the task at hand, which is to choose the most appropriate policies to respond to the challenges posed by climate change.
I was kidding there, really I was. But I would just like to point out that many many americans think that way, even the ones who accept reality and will tell you that climate change is real, and is driven by fossil fuel burning. There is intellectual accepance of a notion, and then there is deep visceral acceptance, and too many of us have not arrived yet at the second of those.
Reducing our dependence on oil imports will improve our financial position. Many people will benefit from the creation of numerous jobs and investment opportunities in clean and safe ways to produce electricity and in upgrading the electric grid. This will revitalize our car industry. Healthwise, huge improvements could be achieved with such cuts in emissions. Moreover, the alternative would be to keep paying for the rising cost of importing and transporting fuel, and for the cost of mining and dealing with waste, as well as paying for the cost to offset and mitigate the damage inflicted on the environment.
The American car industry is in tatters, because people have been listening to the wrong messages. Many other industries have also fallen behind, because of politicians sabotaging innovative green designs, in favor of old and obsolete polluting ones.
I'm convinced that people are getting the message, Chris, and that they will choose for a cleaner future, rather than to sink away in the pollution of the past.
I believe we need FAR more mephasis on the economic and financial advantages of reductions, many of which you have mentioned here. The political gains alone of reducing reliance upon oil from some of the world's nastiest regimes would justify alternatives.
Good post, as usual. Thanks
The turbine has a life expenctancy of 30 years.
I see an industry about to explode on the scene.
The College of Southern Idaho has classes on how to fix these turbines in what is expected to be a big market.