Six climate change solutions we can allagree on22 September 2017, by Renee Cho, Earth Institute, Columbia University

Credit: mrwynd

In the U.S., few issues seem to be as divisive asclimate change. Although the science isunequivocal, political polarization has taken climatechange hostage. Fortunately, there are solutionsthat people on both sides of the climate dividemight be able to agree on. We have shared valuesto build upon: All Americans want to feel safe andsecure in their homes and communities;Republicans, Democrats and Independents alikevalue clean air and water; people of every politicalpersuasion care about the environment andsupport energy security; and anyone who caresabout this country knows that economic growthand national security are essential. Here are sixsolutions that could help advance these goals.

1. Green infrastructure

When rain falls on streets, parking lots, or otherimpermeable surfaces, it cannot be absorbed. In

Houston, for example, rapid development hasresulted in large expanses of impervious surfacesand the destruction of wetlands. Theseexacerbated the flooding when Hurricane Harveypoured record amounts of rainfall onto Texas,causing tens of billions of dollars in damages.According to the advocacy group EnvironmentTexas, heavy rains in Houston have increased 167percent since 1950, but there are simple and cost-effective ways to absorb much of that water beforeit can cause damage. It's called green infrastructure.

Green infrastructure uses plants, trees and soils ongreen roofs, in trenches, and on green streets, tomanage excess stormwater in urban areas.

"It's an easily solvable problem by doing moreplanting, which then helps climate change," saidSteve Cohen, executive director of ColumbiaUniversity's Earth Institute.

As stormwater flows over parking lots andsidewalks, it picks up heavy metals, bacteria, andother pollutants. It carries those pollutants as itdrains into sewers and pipes, and ends up pollutingthe water bodies it enters. If the runoff containsnitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer, it cancause eutrophication, a type of water pollutionwherein algae bloom and then die, consumingoxygen and creating a "dead zone" where nothingcan live. The EPA estimates that eutrophicationcosts the U.S. over $2.2 billion each year inreduced property values and lost recreationalopportunities.

In urban areas, green infrastructure createspermeable expanses where water can be absorbedinstead of flooding the sewers. The vegetationfilters out pollutants, helps keep streets cooler,cleans the air, restores biodiversity, sequestersgreenhouse gases and increases property values,health, and well-being. Green roofs can reduce energy demand as well as cooling and heating

1 / 6

costs.

Restored and created ecosystems such asstreams, rivers, and wetlands are considered greeninfrastructure as well. While they perform the samefunctions as urban green infrastructure, they alsohelp prevent flooding and recharge aquifers.

Green infrastructure can be a cost-effective way toprotect clean water. As an example, the PortlandWater District in Maine is not required to filter itsdrinking water because it meets strict qualitystandards under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Itswater comes from Sebago Lake, which is fed andpurified by forested land. Because of increaseddevelopment, however, the community wasconcerned that it might have to begin filtering itswater. In comparing costs, the district found thatwhile a filtration system would cost between $100and $150 million, a 20-year investment in greeninfrastructure could save between $12 and $111million over that time. In 2013, the Portland WaterDistrict chose the natural infrastructure route. Inaddition to ensuring clean drinking water, thecommunity also benefitted from improved habitatfor salmon and carbon sequestration.

Green infrastructure at work. Credit: Columbia University

2. Modernization of the grid

The nation's electric grid includes more than 9,200electricity-generating units and over 600,000 miles

of transmission lines. Most of the transmission lines,which were constructed in the 1950s and 1960sand expected to last 50 years, are aging. TheAmerican Society of Civil Engineers has given theenergy infrastructure of the U.S. a miserable gradeof D+.

The grid needs to be modernized so that it can besmarter, more efficient, and more resilient toextreme weather; it needs to be able to betterintegrate renewable energy sources and be moresecure.

A modernized grid could ensure that importantcircuitry uses water-proof or weather-resistanttechnology. It could incorporate microgrids, smallerindependent systems that can operate even if thelarger system fails. Modernizing the grid would alsoenable it to better incorporate distributed energy,where power is generated by solar panels onhomes or buildings or wind turbines instead of bycentralized utilities; and a modernized grid woulddeploy energy storage technology to even out theintermittent nature of wind and solar energy.

In 2014, a study by the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission revealed that incapacitating just ninekey substations could cause a coast–to-coastblackout. A modernized grid would also provideincreased defense against cyber attacks. It wouldhave smart two-way communication enablingoperators to run the system more efficiently, whichwould mean lower costs for utilities and forcustomers; it would make it possible for the systemto identify outages and restore service morequickly.

"Modernizing the grid is extremely important for thegrowth of renewables because of where therenewables will be located geographically," saidMichael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center forClimate Change Law at Columbia Law School. "Asmart grid can also go a long way towardsaddressing the intermittency problem of wind andsolar, which will improve our overall electric systemreliability. It is especially important becausedecarbonization will also require moving to electricvehicles, and electrifying such direct fossil fuel usessuch as space heating and cooling and waterheating. All of this could double the demand for

2 / 6

electricity, compelling a great increase intransmission capacity."

3. Renewable energy

Houston is the nation's most important energy hubwith almost 5,000 energy-related firmsconcentrated in the area. According to the NewYork Times, nearly every oil and gas refinery inTexas and Louisiana was at least partially shutdown due to Hurricane Harvey. This is affecting gasprices across the U.S. and in global energymarkets. In the short-term, damaged gas and oilrefineries are releasing toxic pollutants into theenvironment, but the long-term impacts of thedamage they have sustained remains to be seen.

Renewable sources like wind and solar areconsidered decentralized or distributed systemsbecause they are made up of individual windturbines or solar arrays. As such, they are moreresilient and less vulnerable to large-scaledisruption than centralized utilities. They provide afree and inexhaustible supply of energy that emitsno global warming emissions or other pollutants.Because they are clean, they protect our air andwater and safeguard the environment.

And since renewable energy is plentiful, it frees theU.S. from being dependent on global supply anddemand for our oil prices. It offers true energyindependence for the U.S., thus "enhancing ourgeopolitical security," according to a recent paperby the Center for Naval Analysis Military AdvisoryBoard.

The aging grid in Texas. Credit: Columbia University

"Renewable energy is the future because of somevery simple facts," said Cohen. "The source ofrenewable energy, whether it's solar, wind orgeothermal, is free, so the technology is going toget cheaper as time goes on—it has been gettingcheaper and will only get less expensive. Fossilfuels are getting harder to extract. You damage theenvironment when you extract them, you have toship them from where you get them to where youuse them, and when you burn them, you createclimate change. It's really not the way you want todo things."

Over the last decade, the U.S. has generated eighttimes as much electricity from wind and solar as itdid in 2007. Between 2008 and 2015, utility scalesolar prices fell 64 percent; rooftop solar prices fell54 percent, and wind has fallen 41 percent. Areport from the Environment New York Researchand Policy Center predicts that solar prices will becheaper than coal by 2025.

That's not the only economic benefit. In 2014, solarpower created 50 percent more jobs than oil andgas pipeline construction and petroleum andnatural gas extraction combined; and as of 2015,solar energy employed more people than coalmining. Solar job growth has climbed 123 percentover the last six years and is continuing apace. In2016, 2.5 million Americans worked in "clean tech,"including renewable energy and energy efficiencytechnology.

4. Carbon pricing

In the U.S. and in much of the rest of the world,fossil fuels are heavily subsidized because the truecost of the impacts resulting from the carbondioxide emissions they generate—extreme heat,drought, floods, and health effects—are paid for bytaxpayers, not by the industries that produce theemissions. The International Monetary Fundestimated that globally, fossil fuels are receiving$5.3 trillion of subsidies due to costs thatgovernments (and ultimately taxpayers) end uppaying toward the impacts of air pollution, floods,

3 / 6

droughts, and storms exacerbated by climatechange. Most economists and policy experts agreethat the most effective and cheapest way to curbthe carbon dioxide emissions that are warming theplanet is to "put a price on carbon."

The Climate Leadership Council, founded byRepublican politicians, business leaders andeconomists, authored The Conservative Case forCarbon Dividends, a proposal for a revenue neutraltax on carbon. Major international businesses,including General Motors, ExxonMobil, BP,Johnson & Johnson support the idea.

Under this proposal, companies would pay a tax of$40 per ton of carbon (resulting in an approximately36-cent increase per gallon of gas), with the raterising over time. The tax would be collectedwherever fossil fuels enter the economy, forexample at a mine or port, and be levied on importsfrom countries that do not price carbon. Such a taxcould potentially raise $200 to $300 billion ayear—money which would be used to providemonthly dividends to American families, withapproximately $2000 going to an average family offour (these dividends would also grow over time).According to the Department of Treasury, thebottom 70 percent of Americans would receivemore in dividends than they would pay in higherenergy costs. The plan would also result in smallergovernment as the tax could eliminate the need formany of the Environmental Protection Agency'sregulations for carbon emissions.

"If you have a high enough tax and it's imposed inthe right way and free of loopholes, it can achievethe same emissions reductions as certain kinds ofregulations," said Gerrard. "A price on carbonmaximizes innovation and tends to find the lowest-cost method of achieving the objective. It alsopercolates through the economy and sends pricesignals to many sectors, thus it can have ultimatelya broader and more beneficial impact [on society]."

In other words, a clear and consistent policy wouldstimulate the private sector, encouraging businessand the financial community to invest in cleanenergy. Their investments would result in economicand job growth since clean energy is one of thefastest growing sectors of our economy.

The U.S. military, because it is concerned about theimpacts of sea level rise and storm surges on itsoperations and on national security, might wellfavor a carbon tax. In 2016, a bipartisan group ofnational security and military leaders issued aClimate Security Consensus Project Statement thatsaid the U.S. needs "a robust agenda to bothprevent and prepare for climate change risks, andavoid potentially unmanageable climate-drivenscenarios. Failing to do so will magnify and amplifyrisks to existing and future U.S. national securityobjectives."

Solar array at De Anza College in San Francisco. Credit:Darin Dingler

5. Carbon capture and storage

The term "clean coal" generally refers to carboncapture and storage. It involves capturing carbondioxide from coal-fired power plants, processingand transporting it, and storing it where ittheoretically will not leak, usually underground.

Carbon can be captured from fossil fuel powerplants before the fossil fuel is combusted through agasification process; post-combustion, the CO2 isseparated from the flue gas with a filter made froma solvent that absorbs CO2. After the CO2 iscaptured, it is compressed and transported viapipes to a storage site. Currently, it is mainly oil andgas companies that practice underground storage,or geological sequestration. In a process known asenhanced oil recovery, CO2 is injected intodepleted oil or gas reserves to drive the remaining

4 / 6

oil to the drilling site or improve its flow. In the U.S.,only the Petra Nova plant in Texas, which beganoperating in January, is capturing CO2 from coalburning and using it for enhanced oil recovery.

Most commercial efforts for carbon capture andsequestration have been plagued by years of delayand billions in cost overruns; moreover thetechnology does not eliminate all coal emissions.This is why the U.S. Energy Department has beentrying to develop more efficient and cost-effectivetechnology, stating, "The successful developmentof advanced CO2 capture technologies is critical tomaintaining the cost-effectiveness of fossil fuelbased power generation."

"If carbon capture and sequestration were effectiveand affordable," said Gerrard, "there would be a lotto say for it."

A bipartisan group in Congress is pushing for anextended and enhanced tax credit to encourage thedevelopment and utilization of carbon capture andsequestration.

6. Energy efficiency

Energy efficiency is the easiest and most cost-effective way to cut energy use and save peoplemoney.

"It's non-polluting," said Gerrard. "Much of it createsa lot of jobs. It's reliable, it's not intermittent, itdoesn't run out, it doesn't have siting controversies,and there's a lot of untapped potential."

Buildings are responsible for 32 percent of energyuse globally, and almost 80 percent of that energyis wasted due to lights and electronics left on orpoor insulation. Retrofitting buildings to betterconserve energy and make lighting more efficient isoften paid back in five to seven years, on average.Moreover, energy efficient buildings attractinvestors and are valued more highly than otherbuildings because they cost less to operate; theyalso have higher occupancy rates because tenantswant buildings with lower utility rates.

Energy efficiency allows utilities to save money bynot having to build more power plants, power lines,

and substations to produce energy, and this alsoultimately lowers electric rates for consumers.

Energy Star is a good example of the effectivenessof energy efficiency. The 25-year-old voluntaryprogram certifies products, buildings, and homesthat use less energy and produce fewergreenhouse gas emissions. It has savedbusinesses and families about $430 billion inenergy costs while costing only about $50 million ayear, and employing 290,000 workers whomanufacture Energy Star products and materials inthe U.S. The energy efficiency sector as a wholeemploys about 2.2 million people.

This story is republished courtesy of Earth Institute,Columbia University http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu.

Provided by Columbia University

5 / 6

APA citation: Six climate change solutions we can all agree on (2017, September 22) retrieved 15 July2018 from https://phys.org/news/2017-09-climate-solutions.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, nopart may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

6 / 6