Global Climate Change

NYU CGA, Professor William Hewitt

Combating Climate Change, a New Agreement

Chris Leishear

May 7, 2013

Final Research Paper, 5/7/13

Chris Leishear, Global Climate Change, NYU CGA

Dangerous anthropogenic interference, or DAI, is the phenomenon that mankind is

currently witnessing whereby human activities (both historic and current) such as land use

changes, industrial and economic processes (manufacturing, transportation, energy production

etc.) and building construction and management are taking place at such a scale, as to

dramatically alter what had been a fairly stable climate/oceanic/earth interaction system by

emitting greenhouse gases (GHG), most notably, carbon dioxide (CO2). The dangers come in

many forms including more intense storms, severe droughts that lead to increased wildfires and

decreased agricultural yields, enhanced forest susceptibility to pests and disease, rising sea

waters, a change in disease vectors (malarial mosquitoes migrating to higher elevations,

increases in dengue fever etc.), and warming and acidifying oceans that decrease the health of

the reefs that protect coasts from erosion and provide fish habitat. CO2 levels in the atmosphere

will soon surpass 400ppm. Regardless of the modeling scenario used, levels will continue to rise

so it is only a question of at what rate? Further, even if emissions were stabilized today, or even

started to decline, given naturally occurring lags in the system, we will continue to see the effects

of climate change for decades.

The countries party to the 18th COP (Convention of the Parties) to the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed last year in Doha to have a fully negotiated

new agreement by 2015 that would take effect in 2020. While some progress has been made

toward reducing greenhouse gases, given the rate of increase in C02 levels in our atmosphere,

the costly and dramatic changes we are now seeing, and the burgeoning populations of the

developing world (China, India) who want a similar quality of life as the developed world (i.e.

more energy consumption), action must be immediate and the agreement must be enforceable

and cover all parties from the biggest countries to the most rural and poor of individuals. This is

a team fight and the team needs everyone to join the fray.

The goals for the new agreement must be 1) meaningful and 2) achievable because if they

are not tied to meaningful objectives and are too vague, they will not create the sense of urgency

required. If they are unrealistic to achieve, they will be ignored and the members either will not

sign up the agreement, or will do so half-heartedly as a symbolic token, decreasing the

agreement’s efficacy in reducing GHG. Enforcement mechanisms need to be present and could

include (naturally) fines, but also withdraws of technology and human capital aid that would

otherwise help developing countries with their goals. Publicity and praise go a long way in

driving behavior, even at a national level, and the progress should be publicized annually.

Incentives could include trade agreements (of sustainably developed products and services)

among members and advance travel “treaties” where certain volumes of eco-minded vacationers

are guaranteed in advance to “reward” countries that are meeting their emissions reduction goals

or overcoming a particularly difficult environmental challenge. On a personal note, my father

chooses vacation destinations based on a country’s behavior (i.e. a willingness to adopt more

Western values), and “rewards” the country in question with his patronage for 2-3 weeks of

vacation and travel spending. He and his wife just completed their “rewards” for Myanmar

(formally Burma).

A level of objectivity across the agreement is a requirement so that neither developing,

nor developed, countries feel that they have an undue burden of emissions reduction. If the

blame, or “stigma” of climate change is placed on one group or another, or even one country

(China, or the USA), this will create resentment, defensiveness, and a lack of cooperation, when

it is exactly political cooperation and trust at this moment that is required. The principle of

“common but differentiated responsibilities” has to be front and center as a guiding tenet

throughout the new agreement. While the bulk of greenhouse gases emitted since the Industrial

Revolution have come from Western Europe, the US and Japan, the developing world (China)

has now dethroned the West (US) as the top annual emitter, and if current trajectories continue

will remain so for a long time. Everyone must accept responsibility while not transferring blame

and make reasonable sacrifices whether towards transitioning from a hydrocarbon-based

transportation system to electric vehicles (US), or refraining from building additional coal fired

power plants (China) in order to reduce GHG.

Quantifiable goals should be put in place as otherwise vague objectives are prone to

dilution or “watering” down. With adequate data, comes monitoring. When data is monitored,

measurable progress, or the lack thereof, can be reported regularly and used as a barometer of

success. Poorly performing countries can look to their more successful counterparts to see what

programs, methods or technologies are driving the successful emissions reduction. Thus a

“piggybacking” of technology transfer can take place which has proven to highly effective, for

example, in enabling telecommunication access in the developing world. Rather than build out a

cumbersome (and expensive) landline based phone system, replete with miles of cables and

forests of telephone poles, much of the developing world skipped that technology and leapt to

cellular (digital) transmission.

It is a well known business axiom that “what gets measured gets managed1” (hence the IT

world’s focus on big data). As a project manager, whether I track budgets, billable hours,

training, network connectivity, trouble tickets or transactions per second, once a variable is given

focus, it can be managed and driven towards better performance. Progress, or lack thereof,

cannot be tracked if there are no data points and quantifiable objectives to pursue. Non-

quantified goals are nebulous at best, and progress cannot be tracked, nor compared, so it is

difficult to develop what consultants call “best practices”, which can then be leveraged industry

wide, or globally in this case.

For example if one of the objectives of the COP in their effort to reduce GHG, is to

reduce the average “food mile”, (distance food travels from farm to store2) the different methods

and practices to achieve this reduction can be compared if there is data that establishes a “food

mile baseline” and monthly or annual mileage averages going forward from that baseline. One

Swedish study documented that the average Swedish breakfast of apple, bread, butter, cheese

coffee, cream, orange juice and sugar traveled 24,000 miles to reach the table (or the distance

around the Earth)3. Different cities have different characteristics that may determine the success

or failure of various incentives to decrease food miles. Eating “local” (within 100 miles) may

not necessarily be the key, as rail transportation is 10 times more efficient than truck for

transporting freight, from a GHG emissions perspective. Data can track and monitor these

supply chains, determine the most efficient, and allow grocers, and consumers, to shop based on

decreased food miles and efficient supply chains (since 1,000 miles of rail transport is equivalent

to 100 miles of truck transport). A labeling system that includes food miles could greatly change

consumer behavior and purchases to the benefit of GHG reduction. One such initiative is

currently underway in Europe4.

But measuring the outcomes, and understanding how they were achieved allows for other

cities and regions to “cherry pick” the practices that might work best in their locale. If the goal is

simply stated as “support local farmers” then there is no method to determine whether or not

there is a decrease in food miles, GHG or an increase in local farm revenues. Even if there were

improvements, how it was achieved, and how effective it was compared to other methods, was

not tracked, so any lessons learned could not be applied elsewhere, negating the efficacy of

supporting local farmers. But when the goal is changed to “decrease food miles (or inefficiency

in the supply chain) 25% per capita annually for 5 years” these are very hard numbers that

concrete data can measure and track.

Quantifying data and objectives has the added goal of taking advantage of mankind’s

innate competitiveness and enjoyment of games that would further assist the reduction of GHG.

This is also known as the “Prius effect” whereby drivers ease off the gas pedal in response to real

time data from dashboard monitors to minimize fuel usage. Driving then becomes a bit of a

game and this can be applied to other areas such as residential, or even building, energy

management. Smart meters for electricity usage now link behavior to usage5 and should be

mandatory in all new construction and encouraged via rebates and tax incentives in existing

buildings. Numerous studies conclude that when it comes to energy “if we can see it, we will try

to save it”. This is the idea behind Google’s Power Meter that monitors and measures residential

energy usage in real time, allowing for immediate adjustments in energy usage6. It’s been

documented that neighbors and friends start vying with one another to minimize energy usage

(and maximize savings) with such real time and visual data.

The Carbon Disclosure Project’s aim is to measure, disseminate, and therefore allow for

the management of greenhouse gases. The CDP gathers emissions data from three thousand

corporations worldwide and shares it with government, academia and the private sector7. These

efforts are needed worldwide, as after measurement, comes monitoring. After monitoring,

comes management, which leads towards innovation and improvement (reduction) of GHG.

This leads to the dissemination of best practices and the leveraging of successful programs and

technology worldwide, further accelerating reductions of GHG.

One of the greatest success stories in the environmental movement is illustrative of the

potential forward progress that awaits us on regulating carbon emissions. In the 1980s S02

emissions from coal burning plants manifested themselves in “acid rain” that was sterilizing the

waters of the Northeast United States. Not only can I remember reading articles in National

Geographic, World, and Ranger Rick about acid rain creating lakes without fish but I can

remember optimistically trying to fish those lakes for trout in upstate New York on a weekend

visits to West Point and Saratoga Springs.

Despite industry protests of high costs, a new market based solution was quickly

hammered out in the US Congress to reduce the dangerous emissions. The solution was to set an

“emissions cap” for coal burners. Rather than regulating the industry (often seen as anti-

American), the legislation provided coal burners with the freedom to pursue reductions how they

saw fit (switching to lower sulfur coal sourced from the American West, installing scrubbers to

further burn and mitigate emissions etc.). The legislators had the foresight to build an incentive

into the ruling for over compliance such that if emissions were under the cap, the difference

generated EPA granted allowances that could be traded, sold or deposited against future caps. In

the first phase of the effort, the regulated plants reduced emissions 40% beyond the required

caps, or about seven million tons, which was a 40% reduction from 1980s levels! By 2004, the

Department of Energy estimated that the emissions cut constituted less than 1% of the $151

billion in operating expenses for the power industry8.

A second and equally successful campaign also proves illustrative to the COP as they

grapple with wrestling down emissions. During my teenage years, I can remember annual

warnings in the newspapers (I was a paperboy for the Washington Star and later the Washington

Post) of a growing hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica that eventually grew to threaten New

Zealand. Halocarbons, a family of industrial chemicals, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

were eating away the protective layer of ozone found in the stratosphere. The world quickly

came together in an unprecedented effort to combat the alarming increase in the size of the ozone

hole. The Montreal Protocol provided guidelines for the regulation of the CFCs that were

breaking down the ozone. Manufacturing practices were changed, alternative chemicals to the

CFCs were found or developed, and as a result, the ozone hole has been decreasing steadily for

two decades and in 2012 the hole was reported to be at its smallest level in the last 20 years9.

The hole is projected to be completely healed (closed) in 50-100 years10.

The two victories that the reduction in acid rain and the Montreal Protocol represent

provide hope that despite the disparate interests, lobbies, and political dysfunctions across the

world, a global problem of the magnitude as carbon emissions reduction can be solved. While

there are certainly more and bigger players, special interests, and more political dysfunctions due

to the larger global nature, there is also more data, more urgency, and precedents set (emissions

caps a la acid rain, Montreal protocol) to enable us to overcome the challenge of CO2 in our

atmosphere.

Perhaps the greatest tool to drive CO2 reduction would be a market signal through the

creation of a price on carbon. This could be crafted so as to be revenue neutral which is the only

way that such a “signal” would pass thru much of world’s (and the USA in particular) governing

bodies. The “price” on carbon would drive corporate and governmental behaviors towards GHG

reduction while a portion of the revenues created could be used to support R&D initiatives in

clean technology, abatement and adaptation programs, and technology transfer to the developing

world. In the long run, any costs of a carbon price would be offset by savings from improved

public health (cleaner air and water), decreased insurance premiums (decreased storm damage),

decreased food prices, and on and on.

A worldwide price on carbon would go a long way towards reducing GHG but

realistically, in the absence of a truly overarching governing body this would be extremely

difficult to enact. Fortunately, the world is not awaiting some leadership body from above to

impose carbon pricing; rather, a bottom up approach is manifesting itself worldwide.

The International Emissions Trading Association reports that regional and global

programs for emissions trading are not only increasing, but thriving, and that “emissions trading

continues to be the policy instrument of choice for reducing emissions across the world”. The

Western Climate Initiative, a partnership between the state of California and the province of

Quebec has committed to ambitious targets that exceed that of the European Union’s ETS

(Emissions Trading Scheme) and of RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a coalition of

911NE United states). The report goes on to detail that both Japan and China are gaining speed in

their progress to regulate emissions. China is implementing seven regional pilots prior to a

national rollout in 2015 while Japan is supporting emissions reduction projects to offset their

domestic greenhouse gas emissions using the Bilateral Offset Crediting Mechanism (BOCM) in

conjunction to phase out nuclear generation by 203012.

George Soros, in the meantime, opines that the failure of the Cancun climate change

conference to set an international price on carbon is actually a good thing. He cites the “bottom-

up” approach that is emerging to price carbon on a localized scale as is more suitable for the

individual traits of that particular marketplace. A “multiplicity of prices for carbon emissions is

more appropriate for the task of reducing carbon emissions because there is a multiplicity of

sectors and methods which each produce a unique cost curve”. Soros goes on to detail the rise of

individual countries and programs making unilateral commitments that are not dependent on

other parties. For example, the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

program (REDD) which creates financial value for the carbon stored in forests, is now charged

with treating Indonesian rain forest as a natural resource to be preserved and restored. Carbon

can be priced based either on the restoration of forests or for avoiding carbon emissions by

preserving forests. In this manner, carbon pricing from the bottom up, as opposed to a global

organization, sets the example for other sectors and nations worldwide13.

While a “bottom up” approach captures the groundswell of more localized efforts, it is

also important to have governments and corporations facilitate action through establishing

effective policies, programs and lending initiatives. For example, six of the world’s largest

banks are signatories to the Carbon Principles which seek to “reduce the regulatory and financial

risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions” and to encourage the power sector to decrease

emissions by enhancing energy efficiency and investment in “demand reduction”, i.e.

conservation efforts. By setting a regulatory and financial framework from above, and having

local or regional efforts drive action from below, there is a convergence of action, leadership,

and ultimately results, that “meets in the middle” to produce the desired outcome of reducing

GHG.

Since we are currently experiencing dangerous anthropogenic interference, adaptation has

to be a significant part of the agreement, in particular, programs and processes that assist

populations of low lying islands and coastal areas who are most vulnerable to rising sea levels,

from the Pacific islands such as Tuvalu, to the indigenous coastal communities in the Arctic, to

the urban slums of Bangladesh. For better or worse, the increasingly destructive pattern of more

intense storms, severe droughts, wildfires and infestations is bringing attention to what needs to

be done in the here and now to live with these effects. Trigger events, as costly in dollars as they

are in human lives, such as Superstorm Sandy, or last year’s flooding in Pakistan, capture our

attention and warrant immediate action. The cost of adaptation rises disproportionately with

temperature14. So in order to prevent massive outlays of dollars in a reactive mode to more

intense storms, adaptation needs to occur now, and not be postponed. Immediacy will save lives,

property, and money. Too often the effect from trigger events is short lived, but it seems that

with each new “trigger” event, the world pays a little more attention, effects a little more change,

and the message is retained a little longer.

From a climate adaptation and abatement standpoint, no single nation has the history, or

the response against the possibility of floods, as the Netherlands has. In order to live with the

omnipresent threat of flooding from rising seas and greater storms, and catapulted by the North

Sea flood of 1953 that saw nearly 2,000 dead, the Dutch take living with flood risk very

seriously. In fact, after the great flood of 1953 they took preparation to the next level with the

construction of their “Deltaworks”, an impressive and complex maze of dams, sluices, and

barriers of levies and defenses to “fight” the sea. The crown jewel of the Deltaworks is the pair of

sea gates at Maeslantkering15, each larger than the Eiffel Tower on its side, guarding the port city of

Rotterdam, which is located some 20 feet below sea level16.

Using a host of incentives such as free street parking, promotional leases and large tax

breaks, the Dutch witnessed an eight fold growth of their electric vehicle (EV) fleet in 2012.

While this represents less than 1% of new car sales17 the Dutch transition to an all electric fleet

will maintain this exponential momentum for several reasons 1) the range anxiety that plagues

Americans is not an issue because of Holland’s small size, 2) the Dutch have a historically

progressive society that has typically been enthusiastic about environmental initiatives, 3) the

infrastructure to support EVs in their county continues to get built out and 4) continued

improvements in electric vehicles and battery storage make it even more attractive to convert

from petrol based cars.

Not only are the Dutch pushing mitigation and abatement measures to help curtail GHG,

they also have a “full court press” on in order to develop their adaptive capacities and strategy

for global warming. Sixty percent of The Netherlands GDP is produced below sea level and

while much of this investment is protected by their hardened infrastructure, the Dutch are now

acquiescing to the unyielding nature of the sea’s relentless rise, by actually planning for flooding

and allowing for inundation in their zoning and land use legislation thru the “Living with Water”

program18. Farmlands, greenspace, and recreational areas (soccer fields) are increasingly being

zoned and designed as “catch basins” that will flood on purpose in an effort to alleviate pressures

on their complex of flood defenses. In lieu of flood control the new philosophy in the

Netherlands is controlled flooding.

In one example, a program called “Room for the River” has invested $3 billion into

projects that lower dikes and create room for rising waters. The program recently “bought out” a

group of farmers to use their land as a spillway to hold periodic flood waters. In another

example, a two mile long seaside boulevard was created in lieu of a levy; the design accounts for

a pedestrian bridge that would harmlessly break up when confronted by rising waters. In an

interesting about face, the Dutch have added controlled flooding to their bag of survival and

adaptation tricks against a rising sea.

The City of Rotterdam unveiled the world’s first floating pavilion on June 26, 2011, in

response to city objectives to reduce CO2 emissions and to ensure that the city remains “climate

change resilient in the future”. Construction occurred on the water, as opposed to a dry dock,

and the pavilion serves as an active exhibition and reception space focusing on Rotterdam’s

water management, climate change and energy needs. Standing 12 meters high, the pavilion has

the square footage of four tennis courts and can host 500 visitors. The adjacent plaza and dome

(see below), seat 150 guests. Building materials included polystyrene sheets fastened to

prefabricated concrete slabs. The pavilion domes are ETFE foil, a transparent material 100 times

lighter than glass. A thermal storage system provides the energy, using layers of water for

insulation and solar heating for hot water. Rain is harvested and waste water is purified19.

http://inhabitat.com/rotterdams-floating-pavilion-is-an-experimental-climate-proof-development/

Waterstudio.NL, a Dutch architecture firm has a master plan, Het Nieuwe Water (the

New Water Project)20 that entails 600 floating houses built on reclaimed land between the Hague,

North Sea and Rotterdam. Once construction is completed in 2017, the surrounding levees will

be breached and the homes water bound21

http://inhabitat.com/the-citadel-europes-first-floating-apartment-complex/

According to DeltaSync, a design and research company specializing in floating

urbanization, “from single homes to office blocks and even roads, the construction of floating

cities could make low-lying nations habitable amid dramatically rising sea levels and storm

surges22”. Further, “living on water offers great opportunities for flexible and sustainable

housing. Water homes can be manufactured at a distant location, transported over water (by

tanker or tug), reorganized and re-used at different locations.”

Education is paramount in the global initiative to combat climate change. Environmental

sciences should be integrated earlier into school curriculums and environmental responsibility

should be taught as a part of our civic duty and as a moral obligation. There are wide gulfs

between countries regarding civic and environmental obligations. For example, China’s

National People’s Congress declared in 1981 that all citizens have a duty to plant three trees a

year. High school students have to plant one tree as a requirement for graduation23 and “green

education” is built into the Chinese academic year. In the United States, I’ve never heard of tree

planting as a requisite to graduate, and sadly, I would guess that most US citizens plant three

trees in their lifetime, not a year.

We may not have the same authoritarian luxury (in this case) of mandating tree planting

and green education, but we do have uniquely American forms of “green education” at the local

level. The good food movement has two examples of teachers who not only drive GHG

emissions down but proselytize to their communities, educating school children and adults alike

in gardening, composting, eating healthy diets and the value of labor and exercise. The first

“green hero” is Will Allen, a Milwaukee based urban agriculture advocate who converted three

acres of vacant lots into 14 greenhouses that produce $250,000 worth of food annually. Allen

converts millions of pounds of food waste thru composting (and lots of worms) into nutrient rich

soil that provides healthful foods to 10,000 urbanites24. His endeavors also provide employment

for several dozen community members and education in “intensive polyculture” to local schools

and church groups which includes youth mentoring. His efforts have not gone unnoticed, having

received a $100,000 grant from the Ford Foundation in 2005, a $500,000 “genius” grant from the

MacArthur foundation in 2008, and in 2009 a $400,000 grant from the Kellogg Foundation.

Another tireless defender of “street farming” who promulgates healthy eating, sustainable

gardening, and decreased fossil fuel expenditures (both in food miles and the non-use of

synthetic fertilizers) is Ron Finley. Mr. Finley recently spoke of his “guerilla gardening” at last

years TED conference. His brand of urban agriculture goes so far as to plant vegetable gardens

in the median strips and vacant lots of his South Central, Los Angeles home25 despite not owning

the land. These two men, and probably dozens of others with their own brands of living

sustainably, not only decrease emissions by dramatically reducing food miles, but lead by

example, lives centered on sustainable agriculture. Further, they promote healthy diets in regions

with poor access to quality foods, and convert food waste into soil, decreasing emissions further

by denying garbage dumps the waste that would otherwise decompose into methane. Instead,

they feed millions of red wigglers, tilapia and perch who in turn replenish the soil that feeds

thousands.

There are several initiatives that can be undertaken to improve our ability to account for

environmental damage. As previously noted “if it is measured, it can be managed”, and this

should apply to our national (and global) system of accounting and measuring economic output.

Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, has long been used nationally and internationally to measure

the value of productivity in goods and services. However, it is woefully inadequate for capturing

the cost of ecological damage (destruction of wetlands, fisheries, watersheds, biological diversity

etc.) and public health concerns from water and air pollution etc. GDP is deeply flawed as it

essentially counts natural disasters and social ills as a positive contribution to the growth of

GDP.

The cost of repairs and rehabilitation from storm damage, flood destruction, crop failures

etc. are viewed as a good thing because they generate more cash transactions (sales) and more

consumption26. Social problems such as divorce, theft, and violent crime are also considered a

“plus” for the economy as measured by GDP because money is spent on divorce lawyers, buying

two homes instead of one (post-divorce), security systems to prevent theft, massive prison

systems and even therapy to rehabilitate and calm the frayed nerves of our consumer driven

society. This sort of “growth” as practiced today in the worldwide economy is neither sustainable

nor good. There are other alternatives available.

The GPI or Genuine Progress Indicator is one alternative that would better price

environmental and social externalities into our economy. For example, GPI subtracts negative

aspects such as resource depletion, the cost of crime, wetlands loss etc. from the measure of

progress. Another potential alternative to capturing the net value of economic activity is the

HDI, Human Development Index, which looks at the well being of the population rather than

taking a macro view of an economy.

Ecological economist Herman Daly advocates the move towards a steady state economy

(SSE), where the macro economy is not the whole, but rather a “subsystem” of a larger, finite

and non-growing ecosystem. SSE essentially states that economic growth should not exceed a

constant level of resource use that is deemed ecologically sustainable for future generations.

SSE is where the economy is neither growing nor receding. The economy could have a growing

population with declining per capita income, or vice versa, but not both, owing to the

unsustainability of both population and income growth. In the view of an SSE economist,

wetlands would have an assigned value based on their services provided as water filters and

purifiers, fish nurseries, and storm surge barriers, versus the simple dollar value of future crop

yields if they were drained and farmed. SSE recognizes that there are biophysical limits to

growth that include finite resource supplies, and that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy

law, where the availability of useful energy always declines) works against a worldwide

population that wants to consume ever more, when only finite supplies of resources are

available27.

There is a gross distortion on the true market value of many goods in the world caused by

an over reliance and outdated usage of subsidies, particularly regarding agricultural products and

fossil fuels. This country (and the world) needs to accelerate the transition of subsidies from oil

and gas to renewable energy and research. “Oil and gas business benefitted hugely from tax

breaks that go back to the 1920s (oil depletion allowances) and were intended to encourage

production in what was considered a risky game”28. Subsidies for fossil fuels have run as high as

$12B a year in the early 1980s, yet the failure of one federal loan of $500M to PV manufacturer

Solyndra sparked political outrage. Robert Semple astutely comments on his Oct. 15, 2011 piece

in the New York Times (NYT) that “one case hardly discredits the whole idea of government

support for energy innovation”. He further points out that land grants helped build the coal

industry, New Deal spending created hydroelectric dams and Department of Defense spending

got our nuclear program rolling. Private capital may be good at identifying and incubating new

technologies, but bringing those technologies to commercial scale often requires significant

public capital29.

Paul Crouser points out in the NYT’s Sunday Dialogue on Energy Incentives (November

6, 2011) “we are giving billions of dollars in annual subsidies to an oil industry that earns an

average of about $100 billion in profits a year”. The Department of Energy’s “20 Percent Wind

by 2030” study states the wind industry promises to support 500,000 American jobs less than 20

years from now30. Yet subsidies for renewables are not politically popular and do not occur at

the scale required to truly advance them to the next generation of technology that will get us

cleanly and safely towards meeting the world’s energy needs.

Unfortunately, there is no panacea to climate change, and the obstacles are numerous and

daunting. The new agreement will be difficult to craft, and very complex calculus will have to

be devised so that everyone is treated fairly and no-one is assigned a disproportionate share of

the solution (although over-achievers will not be scorned!). It will be a truly complex algorithm,

how to assign GHG reduction goals and credits. The politics will be intense, with special

interests, splinter groups, and individuals wielding asymmetrical power and miring the process in

the ugliness of backstabbing, deal cutting, resentment and abuse. However, with the continued

destructive onslaught of climate change events perhaps it is not too naïve to think that countries,

industries, community groups and their leaders can put aside differences and agree upon some

common solutions to steer us towards reductions in our GHG emissions such as education,

carbon pricing, an overhaul of how we value goods and services (to include externalities), and

individual behavior changes.

We can each take responsibility and change behaviors at home. Question your next

purchase as a “want” or a “need” and stop ogling your neighbors new car, clothes and outdoor

kitchen (keeping up with the Jones is slowly killing us), but rather admire their ability to keep an

older car running (unless it’s an EV), to knit their own clothes or maintain and repair their own

house. Start a garden, recycle more, compost, mulch, and even plow under your grass

lawn….certainly don’t use synthetic fertilizer. It’s going to take a village, a mighty big, global

village, but a village at the end of the day that is composed of billions of individuals each

working towards a common goal. Soros was right, a “bottoms up” approach can make progress,

but everyone needs to be a part of the bottom to drive true success in managing our emissions

downward.

1 Hewitt, William F, A Newer World, Politics, Money, Technology and what’s really being done to solve the Climate Crisis (Durham, New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire Press, 2013), p. 128.

2 Worldwatch Institute, http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/definitions/Food-Miles.

3 http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/definitions/Food-Miles

4 http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/definitions/Food-Miles

5 Gore, Al, Our Choice, a Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis (New York, New York: Melcher Media, 2009), p. 389.

6 Gore, p. 389.

7 Hewitt, p. 129.

8 Gore, p. 344.

9 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/antarctic-ozone-hole-size-2012_n_2016713.html

10 Gore, p. 45-47.

11 http://www.rggi.org/

12 International Emissions Trading Association Press Release: IETA Greenhouse Gas Market 2012 Demonstrates Rise of Market Mechanisms Across Globe.

13 Soros, George, Seeing REDD on Climate Change, December 12, 2010.

14 Llewellyn, John and Chaix, Camille. Lehman Brothers, The Business of Climate Change II, The Business of Climate Change II September 20, 2007. p. 33.

15 http://www.deltawerken.com/Deltaworks/23.html%29

16 Rosenthal, Elizabeth, Plugging In, Dutch Put Electric Cars to the Test, New York Times, February 10, 2013.

17 Rosenthal, Elizabeth, Plugging In, Dutch Put Electric Cars to the Test, New York Times, February 10, 2013.

18 Llewellyn, John and Chaix, Camille. Lehman Brothers, The Business of Climate Change II, The Business of Climate Change II September 20, 2007. p. 33.

19 Ross, Kate. As Seas Rise, Future Floats, New York Times October 27th, 2010. Accessed from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/business/energy-environment/28iht-rbobfloat.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1323532992-ic/RpVTUegg4ud71TjNE7w

20 http://waterstudio.nl/videos/24,

21 Ross, Kate. As Seas Rise, Future Floats, New York Times October 27th, 2010.

22 Ross, Kate. As Seas Rise, Future Floats, New York Times October 27th, 2010.

23 Gore, p. 194.

24 Royte, Elizabeth, Street Farmer, New York Times Magazine July 5 2009.

25 Hochman, David. An Appleseed with Attitude. New York Times, May 5, 2013.

26 Cobb, Clifford, If the GDP is Up, Why is America Down? The Atlantic Monthly, October 1995.

27 Leishear, Chris. Class Notes from Maria Ivanova’s Sustainable Development class, NYU CGA. July 2011.

28 Semple Jr., Robert B. Oil and Gas Had Help Why Not Renewables? New York Times, October 15, 2011.

29 Semple Jr. Robert B.

30 Bode, Denise. Incentive on Energy, The New York Times Sunday Dialogue: November 6 2011.