Proposal to Address Global Warming
(The following article is to be updated very soon, and will continue to be updated over the next few weeks. Please continue to send in your helpful feedback and suggestions as we all work together to build a sustainable earth based culture. Thanks EVAN
Introduction
Global warming, climate change, ecological imbalance; whatever name you call it by, there is something happening that has not happened before, at least not in this particular way. Ice ages have come and gone, (usually every 100,000 years, with 12,000 year warm periods in between) and yes, we are due for one in a few hundred years, but right now that’s not what’s happening. Instead, the climate is becoming highly erratic and unstable, with an overall warming pattern that may be unprecedented. Scientists argue over “how much warming?” meanwhile, ancient glaciers are melting like an ice cube in a cup of hot tea.
It is a global problem, one which will eventually change every aspect of our lives. Left unaddressed, these changes will undermine and possibly destroy 10,000 years of civilization. However, if we work together and think together creatively, we can find solutions, by either using existing technology in a different way, developing new applications to some old discoveries and ideas, or coming up with technology that is not quite like anything seen before.
Whether you believe this problem is created by industry or by subtle changes in the earth’s crust and oceans, it has now been established beyond any reasonable doubt that humankind must now adapt to a highly unstable environment or face unacceptable consequences. This is what Al Gore has called “an inconvenient truth.” And that it is. It is regrettable and inconvenient for all of us. But we have to talk about it.
How The Paul Reveres of Global Warming Were Silenced
President Bill Clinton, in his State of the Union Address, January 27, 2000, said: "The greatest environmental challenge of the new century is global warming…If we fail to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, deadly heat waves and droughts will become more frequent, coastal areas will flood, and economies will be disrupted. That is going to happen, unless we act. Many people…still believe you cannot cut greenhouse gas emissions without slowing economic growth. In the Industrial Age that may well have been true. But in this digital economy, it is not true anymore. New technologies make it possible to cut harmful emissions and provide even more growth."
On Earth Day of 2000, the White House published a “White House Initiative On Global Climate Change” which stated, “Global mean sea level has risen 4 to 10 inches over the last 100 years, mainly because water expands when heated. The melting of glaciers, which has occurred worldwide over the last century, also contributes to the rise. Formerly frozen soils (permafrost) in the Alaskan and Siberian arctic have also begun to melt, damaging both ecosystems and infrastructure. Melting and tundra warming will also lead to decay of organic matter and the release of trapped carbon and methane, creating an additional source of greenhouse gases.”
The Luntz memo was written shortly thereafter, a report from Luntz Consulting to Republican campaign leaders, advising them to cast an aura of doubt and uncertainty around all the facts surrounding global warming or climate change. The Bush campaign did so, and the Clinton-Gore team only lasted seven more months after the Earth Day statement was made. Here is the “Global Warming” paragraph from the Lunz Memo.
“The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”
The Luntz Memo.2000
The Republican strategy, at least since the Luntz memo, has been to declare every theory about global warming to be “uncertain,” and therefore not worth the “inconvenience.” This wasn’t actually true, in fact some research documents that sounded like they were approaching certainty were edited to sound less certain. We now know that many top scientists have been certain about global warming for a long time, but were not able to tell us.[1] Now the inconvenience is much greater.
Since the change of administration in November of 2000, such words as “global warming” and even “climate change” have been cast in a derogatory light. “Unprovable!” became the battle cry from the right. The relative silence in the media on global warming lasted into 2004, until the pace of that warming greatly accelerated, which is good news if only because it made the un-provable suddenly provable.
Popular Science published an article in June of 2004 citing defense department research indicating that climate change could happen quickly and with disastrous results. This was partly in response to the movie “The Day After Tomorrow,” which had mixed reviews from environmental scientists due to its exaggerations of the possibilities. But it put ideas in the back voters’ minds, that there might be something Bush hasn’t been telling us. However, it did not sway the election in ’04.
Elizabeth Kolbert in The New Yorker ran a three part series last spring, (2005) mentioning the shrinking of the Arctic sea ice by 250 million acres since 1979; and the first thawing of the permafrost in 120,000 years.
The magazine New Scientist recently reported: “Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline.” And yet the Bush administration refused to change its policies, adhering to the Luntz memo, chapter and verse.
Solutions are Around the Corner
The danger is certain, but not simple. We cannot allow ourselves to become complacent or paralyzed by fear. We need to apply our best know-how to finding solutions that work. As individuals, we all need to do some soul searching concerning our role in what has happened, and perhaps get closer in touch with the earth for our spiritual nurturance, but as a species, that will not be enough. We can either resign ourselves to our “just desserts” or we can rethink technology to adapt to a new situation and heal the planet over time. This will help restore the life-generating power of the earth for those who know how to commune with it.
This is a holistic problem and will require holistic solutions. Experts from every field will need to be consulted and their findings synthesized by people with common sense and strong leadership. At the birth of the space program, much of the technology we needed was not yet available, and some basic problems were not worked out. In fact, we knew how to get a man to the moon long before we figured how to get him back; but that didn’t stop us from going into space. So the mission comes first, the means afterwards. If someone had asked that question in 1961, “How do we get them back from the moon and who’s going to figure it out?” the answer would have been, “We don’t know…yet!”
We face a similar conundrum. For us to imagine a world without carbon emissions is like someone from 1961 imagining himself standing on the moon, and yet eight years later, Neil Armstrong stood there, taking in the scenery. Some of the technology has not been invented yet, and some pieces of the puzzle have not been cut yet, so we will have to think creatively, using all our available brain power and spiritual insight. People have been making such breakthroughs for 10,000 years.
It is quite possible that the woman or man who will invent the machine or develop the theory that will get us into the clear in regards to global warming has not been born yet. If the environment disintegrates, it will become more and more difficult for mothers to give birth to healthy children, and more and more difficult for any of us to think clearly and use our brains at maximum capacity. Put these two probabilities together, and you can see that our first priority as a species is to find ways to use our current technology to keep the environment from disintegrating any further. We need to stop the increase of greenhouse gasses. In fact, we need to reverse the pattern and decrease the greenhouse gasses, both at the source and after the fact.
According to George Monbiot, a leading British environmentalist, “We could cut carbon emissions by 90 per cent by 2030..just within the realms of possibility..the tipping point is probably around 2025..just last year there was a new study saying British soil has become a source of carbon. Things can happen very quickly and far sooner than we are expecting…Last year there was a big conference in Exeter and what came out of that is we have only ten years in which we can take some meaningful action.”..If we do not do anything in that (timeframe) we might as well forget about it. Once we get to a certain point with global warming, its out of our hands.” George Monbiot, The Scotsman Jan 17th 2006.
In other words, we have a window of only a few years to take steps to solve this problem. After that time, our geopolitical structures will visibly begin to break down, and with it, our ability to form the extended multi-national networks of scientific and industrial cooperation that will be necessary to retool our cities and transportation systems. Therefore, it seems clear that we need to make a concerted effort to first use the technology we do have to cut carbon emissions by 50%. Some experts are already saying that we can save 20% through switching to already available green energy, and 20% more by reducing use, ie “conservation.” However, by pushing for 25% on both figures, we could reach 50% reduction of carbon emissions (CEs) and that seems to be the balance point between too much and too little.
To shoot for higher reductions right now seems impractical, inviting a possible loss of liberty for people and industry. It is difficult to visualize a total elimination of all carbon emissions in six years. We don’t have to; 50% will do for now. On the other hand, to shoot for reductions less than 50% seems a waste of effort and opportunity, as anything less would have too little impact to buy us time, and we need to buy time, because our best solutions are still “just around the corner.”
A Number of Challenges
Just as the space program was accomplished in stages, so will our carbon reduction program. We need to get to 50% of current levels by 2012, and then we need to have a lot of new technology ready to install at that time to bring us the rest of the way to 90% reductions in the following 12 years. As long as there is life on earth, it is not likely that there would be no carbon emissions at all, so 90% is reasonable, and will presumably reverse the warming effect. We must develop a technology to remove a great deal of the carbon emissions, soot, and methane from the atmosphere, while finding other low-carbon sources of energy that are not harmful to the environment. In the subsequent six years, between 2024 and 2030, we must put this new technology to the task and do what we can to help bring the earth back into its natural balance.
However, population growth must be stopped as well. We are currently at a global human population of 7 billion. For the last thirty years, scientists have been telling us that there is a limit to how many people can live on the earth. In the 1980s, numbers such as 8.5 and 9 billion were tossed around. By 2012, we could already be nearing this mark, and given the current rate of increase, we would certainly pass it by 2024. If we pass 9 billion in global population, even with the best innovations in technology, and everyone living lightly on the land, it is unlikely that there will be enough trees and plants to absorb the greenhouse gasses. Our health, and the ecosystem as well, will simply collapse.
Alvin Toffler wrote about this in his book The Population Bomb in the 1960s. Malthus had predicted problems with sustaining population in the 1700s, but he did not foresee the industrial revolution, which changed the calculus of survival for everyone. But what invention do we have that will allow over 9 billion people to have air to breathe, wood to burn, food to eat, and water to drink?[2] New York City is the home to the United Nations, and we need to let them hear our concerns on population issues. In fact, New York has kept its population levels stable for a long time.
Population is not the only factor pushing the ecosystem towards collapse. In addition, we would also need to stop clear-cutting forests worldwide, and also replace billions of acres of forest over the next 24 years. Over the long run, it seems likely that trees will turn out to be more effective than any manmade invention in regulating carbon emissions. We can start by encouraging citizens to plant trees. We can publish guidelines that will advise “brown thumbs” as to what trees to plant, where, and when, and how to take better care of existing trees and shrubs.
In New York City, rooftop tree gardens are going to be the next big thing. We will publish guidelines for these gardens as well, as engineers must make sure that buildings can carry the extra load. New apartment buildings will be made with balconies designed to carry an extra load as well, to accommodate more shrubs and bushes.
Many people are so busy trying to make a living and getting from pay check to pay check, that the problems of global warming seem overwhelming, intangible, and insoluble, and many also feel that whatever sacrifices they make would make little if any impact.
Anyone who thinks, “I can’t do anything about global warming!” think again. Everyone can plant a tree somewhere. Trees create oxygen and absorb CO2, a double benefit. Your car could probably burn less oil; and could probably use an extra tune up now and then. Your house or apartment could probably use more insulation. More indoor plants would help you regulate comfort levels inside your home with less wasted heat. Room by room heating might help you conserve energy in the winter. Lower your gas mileage by using your car air conditioner less often. And by all means turn off the heated pool. Make it your habit to keep track of your heating/cooling and gasoline costs and make it your goal to reduce those costs by 15% to 25%.
Certainly, it would help if we all retooled our personal habits, by taking more public transportation (NOT airplanes!) car pooling, turning off lights when not in use, turning down the heat in the winter, and so forth. These are not new ideas, but will become more important in coming years. But these alone will not be sufficient.
A Three Step Plan
PART ONE: E.A.T.
I call this part one of the plan E.A.T. (Your Greens). Without a workable plan in place to combat global warming, we may eventually find that there is no food to eat. Therefore I feel it is an appropriate reminder to place the three most important areas that need retooling in this order. The three branches of the plan are as follows:
Green Energy
Green Architecture
Green Transportation
We need to fund bold new initiatives in energy, architecture, and transportation, ones that are proven successful. We need to eliminate corruption and waste from politics and use that money to redesign our cities, creating new jobs for us, the ones struggling to make a living.
As you read over these three sections, think about ways you can help put them into action.
1. Green Energy
First of all, we need to solve the basic problem of energy. I for one am optimistic that we can continue to enjoy the fruits of technology, without destroying all the fruit that nature has provided, but that we must have a concrete plan to shift from fossil fuels to sustainable energy. The plan must have teeth, it must have a series of deadlines, and we need to make and meet those deadlines. We are not going to eliminate fossil fuels in six years, but we need to get to 50% in six years, (at least in test cities, with all others to follow in another six) and to 10% in 18 years. It is well publicized that we have already passed the Peak Oil point, and are now feeding off dwindling global oil reserves. We will save transportation fuels for part three.
First of all, solar power is the all-around favorite, and is already widely present, with a proven track record. Solar power comes in two forms, and is stored in two ways, one way it is stored in solar batteries, and is collected with solar panels. The second is collected in insulated windows and collected in ambient space. Our new technology will not only increase the efficiency of solar collectors (or “panels”) and their storage, but will find ways to store ambient warmth that is collected through greenhouse glasses, so that we can be cool when we want, and warm when we want. See Green Architecture.
Currently, solar panels have to be replaced every ten years, but an average house roof at our latitude can produce three kilowatts of electricity in a single summer. Electricity storage is still an issue requiring more research, but any building with a southern exposure can be equipped with solar panels. We need new laws governing the relationship between the utilities and their customers, encouraging alternative heating strategies with lower prices.
Wind turbines are unattractive to some, but they are one of the best alternatives to fossil fuels. Some of the first wind mills in North America were placed on Manhattan by the Dutch in 1626, and we can put them back. Wind power has been very successful upstate. We still need more research to better store and distribute the electrical energy they produce, but they could potentially generate 10% of our power. Wind turbine props could be made out of transparent material to lessen the impact on the horizon, and could also be built into the sides and tops of existing structures where they would be less intrusive. In addition, when better technology is developed, wind turbines can be dismantled, leaving little traces of their presence.
Nuclear power is a greener energy than fossil fuel, but is it really “green?” James Lovelock, who has spent the last 40 years thinking on all aspects of the Gaia theory which he developed and named, has come to the conclusion that nuclear power provides the only real path to reaching the necessary reductions in carbon emission levels in 6 to 12 years. Many hotly disagree, however, given the smallness of our “window of opportunity,” nuclear power may be a temporary solution that is worth the risk for now. Again, once we find better solutions, nuclear power plants will become obsolete. France’s power grid is mainly nuclear driven, and there have been few if any complaints. Of course, the problem is that nuclear plants, if damaged, do irreversible damage to the local ecosystem, but this damage does not, according to Lovelock, endanger species, (including ourselves) merely the individuals of that species.
Much more research should be done on nuclear energy in the following areas: 1. does nuclear power wastes cause genetic mutations? 2. what are the dangers from terrorism, and from accidental spillage of waste?
Water turbines have been in use for over a century, however those that dam up rivers are now out of favor and have too great an impact on the environment. Ocean turbines are a huge success, however, and promise a great deal of “green” energy for the future. These turbines would be placed under the ocean where they would have little environmental impact on sea life.
In England, the Severn Barrage, an energy scheme to harness the power of the Severn Estuary, which is similar in some ways to the Hudson River, was erected at a cost of 13 billion pounds, but promises to provide England with 6% or more of its energy, carbon-free.
Natural gas burns at 50% cleaner than other fossil fuels such as coal or oil. Its main ingredient is methane, the simplest of the hydrocarbons. However, leaks from pipelines of natural gas are very harmful to the atmosphere, and tend to undo the benefit. Leaking natural gas is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Leakage in the US has been at 1.5% for years, much of it from kitchen stoves. We need to increase public awareness about this problem and improve our methods of preventing leaks in pipelines in general.
As the earth is warming measurably, so permafrost is thawing, releasing more and more methane with each additional degree of warmth. This has just become a problem in the last two years. As the soil softens, it releases methane into the atmosphere, increasing the atmospheric temperature, and causing more soil to thaw, and more methane to be released. The same is true of glaciers and ice caps, which also contain trapped methane. This is a serious problem. There must be a way to capture this methane and turn it into heating fuel, we just haven’t had time to figure it out yet, and it may take years. However, by using all the resources and methods we have at our disposal to get CEs down to 50%, as a nation, that would reduce CEs globally by 12.5%, and that would slow down the thawing of methane enough to buy us time to learn how to capture it. Once we capture methane, we can break through the 50% threshold and lower CE’s greatly.
2. Green Architecture:
The first step in green architecture is to halt the building of new structures that are likely to house less than one person per two rooms. Co-housing has been returned to again and again as a solution for many urban problems. Heating the room you’re in is a reasonable proposition during a cold winter day, especially where you are working. Semi-heating another room where you eat, cook, and sleep (plus the bathroom) might also be considered more of a right than a luxury. But let’s face it, heating empty rooms with fossil fuels is going to go the way of the dinosaur pretty soon. Given what we know about carbon emissions, the first step in the green architecture revolution is to do more with less interior space. Since colonial times, it has been customary to have room by room heating systems called “fire places” that only heat the room you’re in. In winter, large home owners blocked off unused “summer rooms” that had no indoor plumbing, and these rooms received no heat at all. As there were no pipes to freeze and no one living there, it didn’t matter. Today we have “central heating,” with no room by room thermostats, and pipes in every room. We have to rethink this approach.
As mentioned before, a great form of solar energy is that collected by insulated windows and stored in the form of ambient heat. Considerable warmth can be collected in a room with a southern exposure greenhouse addition, warmth that can be channeled into an upper room, with vents to modulate room temperatures. At night, as the lower room cools, fans in the upper room (run by solar panels of course) will blow the upper warm air back down to the lower room. On unusually cold nights, when a fire is lit, the fans could run (on backup solar batteries) to push any rising hot air immediately back down to where the people are situated.
These simple energy saving solutions can be retrofitted into most of our existing forms of architecture. More insulation has been the trend for the past 15 years. But architects John and Nancy Jack Todd of Ocean Arks International, for the past 15 years have been working on designing and building startling new forms of architecture that boggle the mind with possibilities. They have developed internal systems that make each building a self-contained and self-sustaining environment in itself. They have taken the term sustainable resources to a new level of meaning, and their buildings stand in many countries across the globe, too few, however are in the United States, where each individual still produces 5.5 metric tons of carbon emissions per year. These buildings can collect energy, collect rainwater, recycle human waste into drinking water, and recycle other resources too numerous to mention.
Another buzz word that is coming up everywhere is “Junglification.” IE: “The junglification of New York, or of Chicago.” This refers to any situation in which buildings are designed or redesigned so that a large number of trees and plants can be placed both inside and outside the building, at all levels. These are not for “beautification,” but are functional air quality control units.
Makrand Bhoot, a young man born in the Bastar region of India, now living in Brooklyn, has won many awards for his problem-solving designs in “green architecture.” He designed cost-efficient co-housing units for Calcutta to help alleviate a serious problem with “sidewalk people” in that city, and it was very successful in creating a safe environment for the homeless. Thousands more of these units are now being made. Makrand is now working on designing new units for the resurrection of New Orleans. However, he has come up with ideas on how to redesign existing hotels and apartment buildings to be a home for more living trees, to take better advantage of the path of the sun, and at the same time, create less shadow for other buildings behind them, so that they can collect more “greenhouse” warmth. The concepts involved in envisioning not only a single urban building or skyscraper, but envisioning how they all relate to one another in air space is one that will be revolutionized in the coming years.
Ocean waters are rising, and this will affect New York City eventually, and as we rebuild we must keep this fact in mind. Holland has already produced floating apartment buildings so environmentally self-contained that when flood waters rise, they rise also, and float on the water, sustaining the residents inside if necessary, during that period. I don’t think we’ll have to go to that extreme, but good old fashioned Dutch dikes may come in useful in lower Manhattan.
One of the pioneers in “green architecture” is Douglas Cardinal, an Algonquin Indian, who designs buildings that follow natural forms in space, and also are aligned with sunrise and sunset, and take full advantage of natural light. His designs for the newest of the Smithsonian museums, on the Great Mall in Washington, D.C., the Museum of the American Indian, utilize many of these cutting edge innovations.
These solutions mentioned above are steps that are already being taken, but I feel that there are other reasons why green architecture provides the greatest source of hope for our cities. In New York in particular, but in urban locations in general, buildings are among the largest man-made objects on earth, and provide for us huge surfaces with which to interface with the atmosphere in a positive way. Some scientists have already suggested the possibility of placing giant “air cleaners” on tops of large buildings, fans that will vacuum large amounts of carbon emissions from the air. Perhaps these air cleaning properties could be built into the framework of the buildings, or even on the windows. In a city the size of New York, this could make a great difference in the atmosphere over a large area.
Nancy Jack Todd is the author of A Safe and Sustainable World (Washington D.C. Island Press, 2005) which has been described as a “hopeful environmental book.” She and husband John Todd have created heated buildings that create no carbon emissions, and has stated that it is possible that some day soon architects will be capable of designing buildings that erase existing carbon emissions as well. “I know it can be done!” she says with certainty.
3. Green Transportation
Another whole area of development would be source-level vacuums and air cleaners that erase carbon emissions as they leave the automobile, bus, train, boat, power plant, incinerator, and so forth. Some would be built into the roadways and trail rails. There are also biological and chemical processes that could reduce carbon emissions at source. Other air cleaners would be placed on the vehicles themselves. Several experts have stated flatly that we already had carbon emission-reducing converters in the 1980s and that they were discontinued for reasons that are still mysterious, and that we already have the technology to control carbon emissions from fossil-fuel driven cars.
But one way or another, we have to find other sources of energy for cars, clean sources, for we have already passed the “peak oil” point. Inventors since the 1950s have been coming up with alternate sources of energy for running cars. These inventions have passed the muster of the US Patent office, only to be bought up by big 3 auto makers. A search of the Patent Office will reveal hundreds of solutions that have never been tried commercially.
Can cars really run on solar power? What about harnessing wind power? What about methane? What about waste products? All of these have been brought to prototype, but none have become part of the infrastructure. Another area of research could be in zero temperature low-gravity physics. Monorails can be incredibly fuel efficient when the effect of gravity is greatly reduced using low temperature technology.
Hydrogen is highly unstable, and is not likely to produce a safe means of transportation any time in the near future. Electricity has been usable for twenty-five years as a source of energy for cars, but somehow the infrastructure for recharging all these cars was never put into place, and so consumers have been turned off by the inconvenience. What we need is a test site, a whole city in which it would be easy to recharge ones’ car battery at any street corner. We’ll address that in a minute.
No discussion of global warming would be complete without a mention of farming, which touches on transportation issues, but also on soil conservation. The following is from a paper by Chris Freimuth of Vassar College: “The process of converting to practices of sustainable agriculture must be a gradual one, and there are steps that individual farms may take in converting to more sustainable production methods. For example, low- or no-tillage practices increase carbon sequestration potential, and maintain high nutrient and organic content levels in the soil. Reducing soil tillage also cuts back on fossil fuel needs as there is no need for a tracker to till the fields. Farming techniques that reduce erosion are also useful in promoting carbon sequestration and maintaining soil health. Integrated pest management (IPM) is a design-based system that incorporates knowledge about local plants and pests, and plans the farm so that pest damage is more or less self-controlled. Increasing tree growth on and around the farm is a useful way to improve farm efficiency as well as sequester carbon, as natural forests are able to store between 20-40 times more carbon than most crops. Other practices such as drip irrigation methods, crop rotations, and using legumes as natural nitrogen fixers all help maintain crop productivity and buffer the negative affects of climate change. In addition to these, changing crop varieties or species may become a necessary way of coping with changes in temperature, precipitation, water availability, and soil condition. Creating and supporting local foods systems will also help decrease the need for fossil fuel input in the production and distribution of foods in New York.”
PART TWO
In part one we discussed three areas of life that we can focus on to reduce carbon emissions. Energy, Architecture, and Transportation. But so what? Who is in a position to organize the entire world in such an effort? No one. In fact, China and India are poised to head off in the opposite direction, and have recently built giant highways spanning thousands of miles for which there are currently not enough cars to fill. And these countries are right now in the process of building millions of cars a year to fill them, and these cars have gas tanks and will use fossil fuel.
In part two of this plan, we need to create a demo large enough and successful enough that the world will notice. We need to create a laboratory, a test model on a grand scale, one that by itself will have a significant effect in reducing global carbon emissions, a city that would host an infrastructure that would allow all taxis to recharge their electric batteries at any street corner, for example, a city that others would love to imitate. That test site would be New York City.
One City At A Time
Back in February, USA Today published an article describing how state and local governments all over the country were tired of waiting for help from Washington, and were taking it upon themselves to decrease or even stop the local production of CEs (carbon emissions) that aggravate global warming. That is an idea whose time has come and New York has to take the lead in that movement. New York is one of the largest states, and New York City is the largest and also one of the oldest cities in America. New York is the ninth most polluted city in America, following Dallas, Houston, and a number of California cities in the top ten. It could be among the cleanest.
We must respond to the threat of global warming, which is greater than terrorism in Iraq, or mad cow disease in Canada or communism in Venezuela, or plutonium experiments in Iran. This is a problem that may have started here in New York, and we can make it end here.
According to a press release from the Associate Press in 2005, " More than two dozen U.S. states have taken action individually to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, by ordering cuts in power-plant emissions, for example, and limiting state government purchases of fuel-inefficient sport utility vehicles. Most significantly, California regulators last September ordered the auto industry to trim exhaust levels on cars and light trucks in the state by 25% before 2016. Other states may follow if California's move survives a court challenge.” This trend is now growing. In the recent April 3rd issue of TIME magazine, the so-called “Seattle Initiative” now includes over 200 mayors in the US and Canada, networking together to come up with local solutions to a global problem.
We need to initiate visionary programs that would solve the problems of the 21st century proactively, not just enforce the rules of the last century. It is only in the past two or three years that the seriousness of global warming has increased enough to be our number one concern. Slight increases in temperatures are triggering other sources of warming, and the effect seems to be snowballing. The laws are already out of date, as are our methods. We need to have a bold vision similar to that of the Republican plan to land a man on Mars, only our plan will actually make sense, and it will work.
Here are some facts that every school child should know. It seems likely that hardly any of them know them:
The average US citizen produces 5.5 metric tons of carbon emissions a year. (The average citizen in London produces only 1.09 metric tons per year, one of the highest in Europe. Many UK cities’ citizens produce less than half a ton per year)
The US population, 274 million, is about 4.6% of the world’s population, but we produce between 24% and 26% of the carbon emissions that aggravate global warming and cause droughts around the world.
New York City Metro area, a tri-state region, contains an estimated 16.6 million people, most of whom go in and out of New York City on a given day or week. This figure represents about 6% of the US population, and presumably 6% of the emissions as well.
At the 5.5 mtCo2pc rate, the metro area produces 91.3 million metric tons of carbon emissions per year. This is 6% of the US total, but also .015% of the global emissions total (using the 25% figure as a benchmark).
New York City is one of the “wonders of the world,” one of the largest man-made objects on earth. It can be redesigned to be one of the most useful as well, as regards global warming. It took vision to build it, and we can rebuild it, based on the new emerging vision of what’s called “Green Architecture.” Here are some points to ponder.
New York City has hundreds of skyscrapers and tall buildings of all sizes. These buildings constitute the most concentrated manmade surface area in the United States, perhaps on earth. These surfaces can be harnessed to enhance the quality of life for all.
The “Green Architecture” movement via the LEED initiative has already developed the technology to turn this surface area into environmental gold. We just have to apply that technology. Instead of creating a “thermal island” in the atmosphere, Manhattan could create a “clear skies island” using these new methods. Instead of creating the most emissions, we could eventually eliminate emissions through developing fan/filter and other carbon-collecting technology.
We will have to find ways to cut down exhaust from trucks, busses, and cars, (existing technology can help quite a lot) but we can also redesign our roads to increase energy efficiency and possibly absorb pollution. These measures do not have to “ruin the American economy,” as Bush has told us. Yes, cars will have to be smaller and more efficient, and more of us will have to take public transportation, but it beats living on a space station on Mars, which is Bush’s solution.
There are already new “green” buildings going up, such as the Bank of America building at Bryant Park, near Times Square, which will revolutionize New York’s skyline in a positive way. They are not proving to be expensive and contain some amazing features, too complex to describe here. We need a hundred buildings like it, more buildings, better buildings, and that will take public support, government support, and support from the private sector.
The remarkable buildings of visionary architects such as John and Nancy Jack Todd, Makrand Bhoot, and Douglas Cardinal, are already in place all over the world. These are buildings that DO something about the problems facing our future, and they work.
With extensive solar panels, these buildings could produce energy to not only make New York City self-sufficient, but create a surplus for neighboring states to purchase. Architects are also working on utilizing the sunlight better by reducing building shadows, ie eliminating the “canyon effect.”
METRO AREAS
New York is still the trend-setter in almost every field of endeavor. If New York City can successfully tackle carbon emissions, its methods will be copied around the world. Let’s say the New York City metro area reduces CE’s by half. The number of people passing in and out of the metro area is about 6% of the US population. Reducing US emissions by 3% is okay, but if Chicago and LA metro areas follow, that would be about 8%, and if the seven next largest cities follow suit, that would be another 7%, all without help from Washington, D.C. If the US, following New York’s example, reduces its total carbon emissions by half, that would be an historic 1/8th reversal of these pollutants worldwide. This should slow down the release of methane enough to buy us time to learn how to capture the escaped methane and turn it into fuel, which burns 50% cleaner than other fossil fuels. In the delicate balances of climatology, that initial 1/8th could be enough to save our skins, and our lungs as well.
The next step would be for metro areas around the world to follow New York City’s example, and the examples of top US cities. Here are the sixteen top metro areas in the world. (Source: WorldAtlas.com)
LARGEST METRO AREAS IN THE WORLD Numbers shown are the population within the immediate surrounding area of the established border of the city, and also include the city limit population figures. Revised (09/05) Toyko, Japan 31.2 million New York City - Philadelphia area, USA 30.1 million Mexico City, Mexico 21.5 million Seoul, South Korea 20.15 million Sao Paulo, Brazil 19.9 million Jakarta, Indonesia 18.2 million Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, Japan 17.6 million New Delhi, India 17.36 million Mumbai, India (Bombay) 17.34 million Los Angeles, USA 16.7 million Cairo, Egypt 15.86 million Calcutta, India 14.3 million Manila, Philippines 14.1 million Shanghai, China 13.9 million Buenos Aires, Argentina 13.2 million Moscow, Russian Fed. 12.2 million
The New York to Philly corridor, with its 30.1 million people, represents the world’s second largest population cluster, and the highest producers of CEs (carbon emissions) on the face of the earth. This group currently produces 165.55 million metric tons of CE’s each year, 11% of the US total, .0275 of the world’s CEs. If the production of CEs could be reduced by half in this single region, it would have a better than 1% effect on global warming, and trim off 5.5% of the US production of CEs. A New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania cooperative effort would need to take place, but it’s something we can envision.
If the Los Angeles metro area followed suit, with its estimated 91.85 million metric tons of CEs per year, another 6% of the US total, that would be a help. If they followed New York’s example, and cut CE’s by 50%, that would be 3% additional improvement, nationally, and ¾ of a percent improvement globally.
Each of the metro areas on this global list produces a different per capita tonnage of CE’s each year, so there is no simple table of reductions, but if all followed New York’s example, (almost 300 million people living in 16 urban areas) the reduction in CEs would begin to reach 50% worldwide. If the world did reach 50% reduction, that would be one of the greatest achievements in the history of humankind, greater in some ways than landing a man on the moon. We can and must do it, and I want New York to lead the way.
THE SNOWBALL EFFECT IN REVERSE
There is one little problem? How do we get all these urban centers to comply with 50% reductions? Metro areas often cover several states, and are slow to come to agreements. But all city governments are controlled by one mayor, and all are under the watchful eye of one state governor. If all 50 US governors came together and another 200 mayors joined forces with the 200 who have already banded together to form the Seattle Initiative, CE’s could be reduced one city at a time, and the results would be extraordinary.
Here are the ten biggest US cities by population (here we are using exact populations, not metro areas, so the figures are more conservative. These are 1990 figures and have changed slightly) and their estimated metric tonnage based on the 5.5 mtpc estimate. This is not the exact per-city tonnage, but is based on these estimates. (Populations, source: www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html)
City Name population annual metric tonnage of CE’s
New York City, NY 7,323,000 40,276,500
Los Angeles, CA 3,485,000 19,167,500
Chicago, Ill. 2,784,000 15,312,000
Houston, Tex 1.631,000 8,970,500
Philadelphia, PA 1,586,000 8,723,000
San Diego, CA 1,111,000 6,110,500
Detroit, MI 1,028,000 5,654,000
Dallas, Tex 1,007,000 5,538,500
Phoenix, Az 983,000 5,406,500
San Antonio, Tex 936,000 5,148,000
Total populations 21,874,000 120,307,000
The populations of these ten cities equal approximately 8% of the US population. Unlike metro areas, these cities are all under the control of mayors and governors, and do not need tri-state commissions to affect sweeping environmental changes. A 50% reduction could reduce CE’s nationally by 4%, which is a 1% reduction in global warming. Mayors in cities in other countries are already successful in greatly reducing carbon emissions in their towns. Sweden has made it their goal to reduce carbon emissions to 10% in the near future. The United States will have no credibility with those cities worldwide that are falling behind until our own house has been repaired.
PART THREE:
The last aspect of this three part plan has three parts in itself. Any plan that will work must be in stages, as right now there is a delicate balance between what is effective and what is envisionable. The first stage must be “do-able,” and also must buy us time to work out long-term solutions. This also relates to the problem discussed in the beginning of this paper, which is that some of the technological solutions needed are not invented yet, and the inventors may not even be born yet for all we know. For this reason, we need to think in three stages, a three part timetable, so that we can sustain our existence long enough to figure out how to make ourselves useful around here, and make our way of life indefinitely sustainable once again.
2006 to 2012: In this first six year period, we need to reorient ourselves to be good stewards of the earth, and even more than that, to see ourselves as a part of nature, as kin to animals, and not lords over them. In the Koran that stewardship is described as on a trial basis, which is closer to the world we now live in. During this period, we need to utilize all existing technology (in energy, architecture and transportation) to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by the end of the period. If New York City can reach this goal, other urban areas will not only follow, but will learn from our mistakes, and reach that goal shortly afterwards. There are over 200 cities across the United States that have leadership in place ready and willing to take on such a task. They are not waiting for approval from Washington DC.
2013-2024: During this twelve year period, New York City needs to develop and put in place technology that will reduce our carbon emissions by 90%, from current levels. During this time period two other things must happen: other cities around the world must follow New York’s example, especially Los Angeles, and we must be also working on the groundwork for stage three technology, which is corrective technology that reduces existing greenhouse gasses, soot, and methane in the atmosphere around the world. During this time period, countries must voluntarily begin reducing carbon emissions by 90%. How far behind the test model they will be is anyone’s guess, but reason suggests that they must reach this goal by 2030, the end of the third phase.
2025-2030: During this six year phase, we will need to have a global cooperative network in place that will engage in one of the most ambitious programs in human history, to use technology to correct all carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses in earth’s atmosphere. This will require technology we don’t currently have, but we certainly have pieces of it. We just have to be sure we’re right. We only have one atmosphere.
This is a first draft. It is flawed, it has holes the size of the ozone layer. To all who read it, I extend an open invitation to send in your corrections, additions, comments, etc. to rezman7777@earthlink.net. We can email each other and build an “Earthwatch” network that will come up with a plan that will some day inspire those who will bring it to completion. Never has it been more appropriate to believe and have faith in the old axiom, “If the people lead, the leaders will follow!”
[1] Dr. Charles David Keeling, a Scripps marine chemist was the first to confirm the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 1957. It has risen more than 14% since that time. (Scripps Oceanographic Society)
The Luntz-Memoists have long said that climate change always happens anyway, but at a very slow pace. However, the Scripps Oceanographic Society of England recently discovered that the last ice age ended abruptly 15,000 years ago, as temperatures rose 16 degrees in less than two decades. However, James Lovelock, author of “Revenge of Gaia” noted that it can also take a long time to normalize: “She (Gaia) has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years.” Many have commented that the earth has been gradually warming since then, but that it has warmed up more in the last 100 years than in the previous 10,000.
[2] In cases of deer overpopulation, it is not unusual for the numbers to increase rapidly until 90% of the deer die at one time, a term we know as “decimation.” Scientists have warned that this could happen to us.
Introduction
Global warming, climate change, ecological imbalance; whatever name you call it by, there is something happening that has not happened before, at least not in this particular way. Ice ages have come and gone, (usually every 100,000 years, with 12,000 year warm periods in between) and yes, we are due for one in a few hundred years, but right now that’s not what’s happening. Instead, the climate is becoming highly erratic and unstable, with an overall warming pattern that may be unprecedented. Scientists argue over “how much warming?” meanwhile, ancient glaciers are melting like an ice cube in a cup of hot tea.
It is a global problem, one which will eventually change every aspect of our lives. Left unaddressed, these changes will undermine and possibly destroy 10,000 years of civilization. However, if we work together and think together creatively, we can find solutions, by either using existing technology in a different way, developing new applications to some old discoveries and ideas, or coming up with technology that is not quite like anything seen before.
Whether you believe this problem is created by industry or by subtle changes in the earth’s crust and oceans, it has now been established beyond any reasonable doubt that humankind must now adapt to a highly unstable environment or face unacceptable consequences. This is what Al Gore has called “an inconvenient truth.” And that it is. It is regrettable and inconvenient for all of us. But we have to talk about it.
How The Paul Reveres of Global Warming Were Silenced
President Bill Clinton, in his State of the Union Address, January 27, 2000, said: "The greatest environmental challenge of the new century is global warming…If we fail to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, deadly heat waves and droughts will become more frequent, coastal areas will flood, and economies will be disrupted. That is going to happen, unless we act. Many people…still believe you cannot cut greenhouse gas emissions without slowing economic growth. In the Industrial Age that may well have been true. But in this digital economy, it is not true anymore. New technologies make it possible to cut harmful emissions and provide even more growth."
On Earth Day of 2000, the White House published a “White House Initiative On Global Climate Change” which stated, “Global mean sea level has risen 4 to 10 inches over the last 100 years, mainly because water expands when heated. The melting of glaciers, which has occurred worldwide over the last century, also contributes to the rise. Formerly frozen soils (permafrost) in the Alaskan and Siberian arctic have also begun to melt, damaging both ecosystems and infrastructure. Melting and tundra warming will also lead to decay of organic matter and the release of trapped carbon and methane, creating an additional source of greenhouse gases.”
The Luntz memo was written shortly thereafter, a report from Luntz Consulting to Republican campaign leaders, advising them to cast an aura of doubt and uncertainty around all the facts surrounding global warming or climate change. The Bush campaign did so, and the Clinton-Gore team only lasted seven more months after the Earth Day statement was made. Here is the “Global Warming” paragraph from the Lunz Memo.
“The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”
The Luntz Memo.2000
The Republican strategy, at least since the Luntz memo, has been to declare every theory about global warming to be “uncertain,” and therefore not worth the “inconvenience.” This wasn’t actually true, in fact some research documents that sounded like they were approaching certainty were edited to sound less certain. We now know that many top scientists have been certain about global warming for a long time, but were not able to tell us.[1] Now the inconvenience is much greater.
Since the change of administration in November of 2000, such words as “global warming” and even “climate change” have been cast in a derogatory light. “Unprovable!” became the battle cry from the right. The relative silence in the media on global warming lasted into 2004, until the pace of that warming greatly accelerated, which is good news if only because it made the un-provable suddenly provable.
Popular Science published an article in June of 2004 citing defense department research indicating that climate change could happen quickly and with disastrous results. This was partly in response to the movie “The Day After Tomorrow,” which had mixed reviews from environmental scientists due to its exaggerations of the possibilities. But it put ideas in the back voters’ minds, that there might be something Bush hasn’t been telling us. However, it did not sway the election in ’04.
Elizabeth Kolbert in The New Yorker ran a three part series last spring, (2005) mentioning the shrinking of the Arctic sea ice by 250 million acres since 1979; and the first thawing of the permafrost in 120,000 years.
The magazine New Scientist recently reported: “Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline.” And yet the Bush administration refused to change its policies, adhering to the Luntz memo, chapter and verse.
Solutions are Around the Corner
The danger is certain, but not simple. We cannot allow ourselves to become complacent or paralyzed by fear. We need to apply our best know-how to finding solutions that work. As individuals, we all need to do some soul searching concerning our role in what has happened, and perhaps get closer in touch with the earth for our spiritual nurturance, but as a species, that will not be enough. We can either resign ourselves to our “just desserts” or we can rethink technology to adapt to a new situation and heal the planet over time. This will help restore the life-generating power of the earth for those who know how to commune with it.
This is a holistic problem and will require holistic solutions. Experts from every field will need to be consulted and their findings synthesized by people with common sense and strong leadership. At the birth of the space program, much of the technology we needed was not yet available, and some basic problems were not worked out. In fact, we knew how to get a man to the moon long before we figured how to get him back; but that didn’t stop us from going into space. So the mission comes first, the means afterwards. If someone had asked that question in 1961, “How do we get them back from the moon and who’s going to figure it out?” the answer would have been, “We don’t know…yet!”
We face a similar conundrum. For us to imagine a world without carbon emissions is like someone from 1961 imagining himself standing on the moon, and yet eight years later, Neil Armstrong stood there, taking in the scenery. Some of the technology has not been invented yet, and some pieces of the puzzle have not been cut yet, so we will have to think creatively, using all our available brain power and spiritual insight. People have been making such breakthroughs for 10,000 years.
It is quite possible that the woman or man who will invent the machine or develop the theory that will get us into the clear in regards to global warming has not been born yet. If the environment disintegrates, it will become more and more difficult for mothers to give birth to healthy children, and more and more difficult for any of us to think clearly and use our brains at maximum capacity. Put these two probabilities together, and you can see that our first priority as a species is to find ways to use our current technology to keep the environment from disintegrating any further. We need to stop the increase of greenhouse gasses. In fact, we need to reverse the pattern and decrease the greenhouse gasses, both at the source and after the fact.
According to George Monbiot, a leading British environmentalist, “We could cut carbon emissions by 90 per cent by 2030..just within the realms of possibility..the tipping point is probably around 2025..just last year there was a new study saying British soil has become a source of carbon. Things can happen very quickly and far sooner than we are expecting…Last year there was a big conference in Exeter and what came out of that is we have only ten years in which we can take some meaningful action.”..If we do not do anything in that (timeframe) we might as well forget about it. Once we get to a certain point with global warming, its out of our hands.” George Monbiot, The Scotsman Jan 17th 2006.
In other words, we have a window of only a few years to take steps to solve this problem. After that time, our geopolitical structures will visibly begin to break down, and with it, our ability to form the extended multi-national networks of scientific and industrial cooperation that will be necessary to retool our cities and transportation systems. Therefore, it seems clear that we need to make a concerted effort to first use the technology we do have to cut carbon emissions by 50%. Some experts are already saying that we can save 20% through switching to already available green energy, and 20% more by reducing use, ie “conservation.” However, by pushing for 25% on both figures, we could reach 50% reduction of carbon emissions (CEs) and that seems to be the balance point between too much and too little.
To shoot for higher reductions right now seems impractical, inviting a possible loss of liberty for people and industry. It is difficult to visualize a total elimination of all carbon emissions in six years. We don’t have to; 50% will do for now. On the other hand, to shoot for reductions less than 50% seems a waste of effort and opportunity, as anything less would have too little impact to buy us time, and we need to buy time, because our best solutions are still “just around the corner.”
A Number of Challenges
Just as the space program was accomplished in stages, so will our carbon reduction program. We need to get to 50% of current levels by 2012, and then we need to have a lot of new technology ready to install at that time to bring us the rest of the way to 90% reductions in the following 12 years. As long as there is life on earth, it is not likely that there would be no carbon emissions at all, so 90% is reasonable, and will presumably reverse the warming effect. We must develop a technology to remove a great deal of the carbon emissions, soot, and methane from the atmosphere, while finding other low-carbon sources of energy that are not harmful to the environment. In the subsequent six years, between 2024 and 2030, we must put this new technology to the task and do what we can to help bring the earth back into its natural balance.
However, population growth must be stopped as well. We are currently at a global human population of 7 billion. For the last thirty years, scientists have been telling us that there is a limit to how many people can live on the earth. In the 1980s, numbers such as 8.5 and 9 billion were tossed around. By 2012, we could already be nearing this mark, and given the current rate of increase, we would certainly pass it by 2024. If we pass 9 billion in global population, even with the best innovations in technology, and everyone living lightly on the land, it is unlikely that there will be enough trees and plants to absorb the greenhouse gasses. Our health, and the ecosystem as well, will simply collapse.
Alvin Toffler wrote about this in his book The Population Bomb in the 1960s. Malthus had predicted problems with sustaining population in the 1700s, but he did not foresee the industrial revolution, which changed the calculus of survival for everyone. But what invention do we have that will allow over 9 billion people to have air to breathe, wood to burn, food to eat, and water to drink?[2] New York City is the home to the United Nations, and we need to let them hear our concerns on population issues. In fact, New York has kept its population levels stable for a long time.
Population is not the only factor pushing the ecosystem towards collapse. In addition, we would also need to stop clear-cutting forests worldwide, and also replace billions of acres of forest over the next 24 years. Over the long run, it seems likely that trees will turn out to be more effective than any manmade invention in regulating carbon emissions. We can start by encouraging citizens to plant trees. We can publish guidelines that will advise “brown thumbs” as to what trees to plant, where, and when, and how to take better care of existing trees and shrubs.
In New York City, rooftop tree gardens are going to be the next big thing. We will publish guidelines for these gardens as well, as engineers must make sure that buildings can carry the extra load. New apartment buildings will be made with balconies designed to carry an extra load as well, to accommodate more shrubs and bushes.
Many people are so busy trying to make a living and getting from pay check to pay check, that the problems of global warming seem overwhelming, intangible, and insoluble, and many also feel that whatever sacrifices they make would make little if any impact.
Anyone who thinks, “I can’t do anything about global warming!” think again. Everyone can plant a tree somewhere. Trees create oxygen and absorb CO2, a double benefit. Your car could probably burn less oil; and could probably use an extra tune up now and then. Your house or apartment could probably use more insulation. More indoor plants would help you regulate comfort levels inside your home with less wasted heat. Room by room heating might help you conserve energy in the winter. Lower your gas mileage by using your car air conditioner less often. And by all means turn off the heated pool. Make it your habit to keep track of your heating/cooling and gasoline costs and make it your goal to reduce those costs by 15% to 25%.
Certainly, it would help if we all retooled our personal habits, by taking more public transportation (NOT airplanes!) car pooling, turning off lights when not in use, turning down the heat in the winter, and so forth. These are not new ideas, but will become more important in coming years. But these alone will not be sufficient.
A Three Step Plan
PART ONE: E.A.T.
I call this part one of the plan E.A.T. (Your Greens). Without a workable plan in place to combat global warming, we may eventually find that there is no food to eat. Therefore I feel it is an appropriate reminder to place the three most important areas that need retooling in this order. The three branches of the plan are as follows:
Green Energy
Green Architecture
Green Transportation
We need to fund bold new initiatives in energy, architecture, and transportation, ones that are proven successful. We need to eliminate corruption and waste from politics and use that money to redesign our cities, creating new jobs for us, the ones struggling to make a living.
As you read over these three sections, think about ways you can help put them into action.
1. Green Energy
First of all, we need to solve the basic problem of energy. I for one am optimistic that we can continue to enjoy the fruits of technology, without destroying all the fruit that nature has provided, but that we must have a concrete plan to shift from fossil fuels to sustainable energy. The plan must have teeth, it must have a series of deadlines, and we need to make and meet those deadlines. We are not going to eliminate fossil fuels in six years, but we need to get to 50% in six years, (at least in test cities, with all others to follow in another six) and to 10% in 18 years. It is well publicized that we have already passed the Peak Oil point, and are now feeding off dwindling global oil reserves. We will save transportation fuels for part three.
First of all, solar power is the all-around favorite, and is already widely present, with a proven track record. Solar power comes in two forms, and is stored in two ways, one way it is stored in solar batteries, and is collected with solar panels. The second is collected in insulated windows and collected in ambient space. Our new technology will not only increase the efficiency of solar collectors (or “panels”) and their storage, but will find ways to store ambient warmth that is collected through greenhouse glasses, so that we can be cool when we want, and warm when we want. See Green Architecture.
Currently, solar panels have to be replaced every ten years, but an average house roof at our latitude can produce three kilowatts of electricity in a single summer. Electricity storage is still an issue requiring more research, but any building with a southern exposure can be equipped with solar panels. We need new laws governing the relationship between the utilities and their customers, encouraging alternative heating strategies with lower prices.
Wind turbines are unattractive to some, but they are one of the best alternatives to fossil fuels. Some of the first wind mills in North America were placed on Manhattan by the Dutch in 1626, and we can put them back. Wind power has been very successful upstate. We still need more research to better store and distribute the electrical energy they produce, but they could potentially generate 10% of our power. Wind turbine props could be made out of transparent material to lessen the impact on the horizon, and could also be built into the sides and tops of existing structures where they would be less intrusive. In addition, when better technology is developed, wind turbines can be dismantled, leaving little traces of their presence.
Nuclear power is a greener energy than fossil fuel, but is it really “green?” James Lovelock, who has spent the last 40 years thinking on all aspects of the Gaia theory which he developed and named, has come to the conclusion that nuclear power provides the only real path to reaching the necessary reductions in carbon emission levels in 6 to 12 years. Many hotly disagree, however, given the smallness of our “window of opportunity,” nuclear power may be a temporary solution that is worth the risk for now. Again, once we find better solutions, nuclear power plants will become obsolete. France’s power grid is mainly nuclear driven, and there have been few if any complaints. Of course, the problem is that nuclear plants, if damaged, do irreversible damage to the local ecosystem, but this damage does not, according to Lovelock, endanger species, (including ourselves) merely the individuals of that species.
Much more research should be done on nuclear energy in the following areas: 1. does nuclear power wastes cause genetic mutations? 2. what are the dangers from terrorism, and from accidental spillage of waste?
Water turbines have been in use for over a century, however those that dam up rivers are now out of favor and have too great an impact on the environment. Ocean turbines are a huge success, however, and promise a great deal of “green” energy for the future. These turbines would be placed under the ocean where they would have little environmental impact on sea life.
In England, the Severn Barrage, an energy scheme to harness the power of the Severn Estuary, which is similar in some ways to the Hudson River, was erected at a cost of 13 billion pounds, but promises to provide England with 6% or more of its energy, carbon-free.
Natural gas burns at 50% cleaner than other fossil fuels such as coal or oil. Its main ingredient is methane, the simplest of the hydrocarbons. However, leaks from pipelines of natural gas are very harmful to the atmosphere, and tend to undo the benefit. Leaking natural gas is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Leakage in the US has been at 1.5% for years, much of it from kitchen stoves. We need to increase public awareness about this problem and improve our methods of preventing leaks in pipelines in general.
As the earth is warming measurably, so permafrost is thawing, releasing more and more methane with each additional degree of warmth. This has just become a problem in the last two years. As the soil softens, it releases methane into the atmosphere, increasing the atmospheric temperature, and causing more soil to thaw, and more methane to be released. The same is true of glaciers and ice caps, which also contain trapped methane. This is a serious problem. There must be a way to capture this methane and turn it into heating fuel, we just haven’t had time to figure it out yet, and it may take years. However, by using all the resources and methods we have at our disposal to get CEs down to 50%, as a nation, that would reduce CEs globally by 12.5%, and that would slow down the thawing of methane enough to buy us time to learn how to capture it. Once we capture methane, we can break through the 50% threshold and lower CE’s greatly.
2. Green Architecture:
The first step in green architecture is to halt the building of new structures that are likely to house less than one person per two rooms. Co-housing has been returned to again and again as a solution for many urban problems. Heating the room you’re in is a reasonable proposition during a cold winter day, especially where you are working. Semi-heating another room where you eat, cook, and sleep (plus the bathroom) might also be considered more of a right than a luxury. But let’s face it, heating empty rooms with fossil fuels is going to go the way of the dinosaur pretty soon. Given what we know about carbon emissions, the first step in the green architecture revolution is to do more with less interior space. Since colonial times, it has been customary to have room by room heating systems called “fire places” that only heat the room you’re in. In winter, large home owners blocked off unused “summer rooms” that had no indoor plumbing, and these rooms received no heat at all. As there were no pipes to freeze and no one living there, it didn’t matter. Today we have “central heating,” with no room by room thermostats, and pipes in every room. We have to rethink this approach.
As mentioned before, a great form of solar energy is that collected by insulated windows and stored in the form of ambient heat. Considerable warmth can be collected in a room with a southern exposure greenhouse addition, warmth that can be channeled into an upper room, with vents to modulate room temperatures. At night, as the lower room cools, fans in the upper room (run by solar panels of course) will blow the upper warm air back down to the lower room. On unusually cold nights, when a fire is lit, the fans could run (on backup solar batteries) to push any rising hot air immediately back down to where the people are situated.
These simple energy saving solutions can be retrofitted into most of our existing forms of architecture. More insulation has been the trend for the past 15 years. But architects John and Nancy Jack Todd of Ocean Arks International, for the past 15 years have been working on designing and building startling new forms of architecture that boggle the mind with possibilities. They have developed internal systems that make each building a self-contained and self-sustaining environment in itself. They have taken the term sustainable resources to a new level of meaning, and their buildings stand in many countries across the globe, too few, however are in the United States, where each individual still produces 5.5 metric tons of carbon emissions per year. These buildings can collect energy, collect rainwater, recycle human waste into drinking water, and recycle other resources too numerous to mention.
Another buzz word that is coming up everywhere is “Junglification.” IE: “The junglification of New York, or of Chicago.” This refers to any situation in which buildings are designed or redesigned so that a large number of trees and plants can be placed both inside and outside the building, at all levels. These are not for “beautification,” but are functional air quality control units.
Makrand Bhoot, a young man born in the Bastar region of India, now living in Brooklyn, has won many awards for his problem-solving designs in “green architecture.” He designed cost-efficient co-housing units for Calcutta to help alleviate a serious problem with “sidewalk people” in that city, and it was very successful in creating a safe environment for the homeless. Thousands more of these units are now being made. Makrand is now working on designing new units for the resurrection of New Orleans. However, he has come up with ideas on how to redesign existing hotels and apartment buildings to be a home for more living trees, to take better advantage of the path of the sun, and at the same time, create less shadow for other buildings behind them, so that they can collect more “greenhouse” warmth. The concepts involved in envisioning not only a single urban building or skyscraper, but envisioning how they all relate to one another in air space is one that will be revolutionized in the coming years.
Ocean waters are rising, and this will affect New York City eventually, and as we rebuild we must keep this fact in mind. Holland has already produced floating apartment buildings so environmentally self-contained that when flood waters rise, they rise also, and float on the water, sustaining the residents inside if necessary, during that period. I don’t think we’ll have to go to that extreme, but good old fashioned Dutch dikes may come in useful in lower Manhattan.
One of the pioneers in “green architecture” is Douglas Cardinal, an Algonquin Indian, who designs buildings that follow natural forms in space, and also are aligned with sunrise and sunset, and take full advantage of natural light. His designs for the newest of the Smithsonian museums, on the Great Mall in Washington, D.C., the Museum of the American Indian, utilize many of these cutting edge innovations.
These solutions mentioned above are steps that are already being taken, but I feel that there are other reasons why green architecture provides the greatest source of hope for our cities. In New York in particular, but in urban locations in general, buildings are among the largest man-made objects on earth, and provide for us huge surfaces with which to interface with the atmosphere in a positive way. Some scientists have already suggested the possibility of placing giant “air cleaners” on tops of large buildings, fans that will vacuum large amounts of carbon emissions from the air. Perhaps these air cleaning properties could be built into the framework of the buildings, or even on the windows. In a city the size of New York, this could make a great difference in the atmosphere over a large area.
Nancy Jack Todd is the author of A Safe and Sustainable World (Washington D.C. Island Press, 2005) which has been described as a “hopeful environmental book.” She and husband John Todd have created heated buildings that create no carbon emissions, and has stated that it is possible that some day soon architects will be capable of designing buildings that erase existing carbon emissions as well. “I know it can be done!” she says with certainty.
3. Green Transportation
Another whole area of development would be source-level vacuums and air cleaners that erase carbon emissions as they leave the automobile, bus, train, boat, power plant, incinerator, and so forth. Some would be built into the roadways and trail rails. There are also biological and chemical processes that could reduce carbon emissions at source. Other air cleaners would be placed on the vehicles themselves. Several experts have stated flatly that we already had carbon emission-reducing converters in the 1980s and that they were discontinued for reasons that are still mysterious, and that we already have the technology to control carbon emissions from fossil-fuel driven cars.
But one way or another, we have to find other sources of energy for cars, clean sources, for we have already passed the “peak oil” point. Inventors since the 1950s have been coming up with alternate sources of energy for running cars. These inventions have passed the muster of the US Patent office, only to be bought up by big 3 auto makers. A search of the Patent Office will reveal hundreds of solutions that have never been tried commercially.
Can cars really run on solar power? What about harnessing wind power? What about methane? What about waste products? All of these have been brought to prototype, but none have become part of the infrastructure. Another area of research could be in zero temperature low-gravity physics. Monorails can be incredibly fuel efficient when the effect of gravity is greatly reduced using low temperature technology.
Hydrogen is highly unstable, and is not likely to produce a safe means of transportation any time in the near future. Electricity has been usable for twenty-five years as a source of energy for cars, but somehow the infrastructure for recharging all these cars was never put into place, and so consumers have been turned off by the inconvenience. What we need is a test site, a whole city in which it would be easy to recharge ones’ car battery at any street corner. We’ll address that in a minute.
No discussion of global warming would be complete without a mention of farming, which touches on transportation issues, but also on soil conservation. The following is from a paper by Chris Freimuth of Vassar College: “The process of converting to practices of sustainable agriculture must be a gradual one, and there are steps that individual farms may take in converting to more sustainable production methods. For example, low- or no-tillage practices increase carbon sequestration potential, and maintain high nutrient and organic content levels in the soil. Reducing soil tillage also cuts back on fossil fuel needs as there is no need for a tracker to till the fields. Farming techniques that reduce erosion are also useful in promoting carbon sequestration and maintaining soil health. Integrated pest management (IPM) is a design-based system that incorporates knowledge about local plants and pests, and plans the farm so that pest damage is more or less self-controlled. Increasing tree growth on and around the farm is a useful way to improve farm efficiency as well as sequester carbon, as natural forests are able to store between 20-40 times more carbon than most crops. Other practices such as drip irrigation methods, crop rotations, and using legumes as natural nitrogen fixers all help maintain crop productivity and buffer the negative affects of climate change. In addition to these, changing crop varieties or species may become a necessary way of coping with changes in temperature, precipitation, water availability, and soil condition. Creating and supporting local foods systems will also help decrease the need for fossil fuel input in the production and distribution of foods in New York.”
PART TWO
In part one we discussed three areas of life that we can focus on to reduce carbon emissions. Energy, Architecture, and Transportation. But so what? Who is in a position to organize the entire world in such an effort? No one. In fact, China and India are poised to head off in the opposite direction, and have recently built giant highways spanning thousands of miles for which there are currently not enough cars to fill. And these countries are right now in the process of building millions of cars a year to fill them, and these cars have gas tanks and will use fossil fuel.
In part two of this plan, we need to create a demo large enough and successful enough that the world will notice. We need to create a laboratory, a test model on a grand scale, one that by itself will have a significant effect in reducing global carbon emissions, a city that would host an infrastructure that would allow all taxis to recharge their electric batteries at any street corner, for example, a city that others would love to imitate. That test site would be New York City.
One City At A Time
Back in February, USA Today published an article describing how state and local governments all over the country were tired of waiting for help from Washington, and were taking it upon themselves to decrease or even stop the local production of CEs (carbon emissions) that aggravate global warming. That is an idea whose time has come and New York has to take the lead in that movement. New York is one of the largest states, and New York City is the largest and also one of the oldest cities in America. New York is the ninth most polluted city in America, following Dallas, Houston, and a number of California cities in the top ten. It could be among the cleanest.
We must respond to the threat of global warming, which is greater than terrorism in Iraq, or mad cow disease in Canada or communism in Venezuela, or plutonium experiments in Iran. This is a problem that may have started here in New York, and we can make it end here.
According to a press release from the Associate Press in 2005, " More than two dozen U.S. states have taken action individually to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, by ordering cuts in power-plant emissions, for example, and limiting state government purchases of fuel-inefficient sport utility vehicles. Most significantly, California regulators last September ordered the auto industry to trim exhaust levels on cars and light trucks in the state by 25% before 2016. Other states may follow if California's move survives a court challenge.” This trend is now growing. In the recent April 3rd issue of TIME magazine, the so-called “Seattle Initiative” now includes over 200 mayors in the US and Canada, networking together to come up with local solutions to a global problem.
We need to initiate visionary programs that would solve the problems of the 21st century proactively, not just enforce the rules of the last century. It is only in the past two or three years that the seriousness of global warming has increased enough to be our number one concern. Slight increases in temperatures are triggering other sources of warming, and the effect seems to be snowballing. The laws are already out of date, as are our methods. We need to have a bold vision similar to that of the Republican plan to land a man on Mars, only our plan will actually make sense, and it will work.
Here are some facts that every school child should know. It seems likely that hardly any of them know them:
The average US citizen produces 5.5 metric tons of carbon emissions a year. (The average citizen in London produces only 1.09 metric tons per year, one of the highest in Europe. Many UK cities’ citizens produce less than half a ton per year)
The US population, 274 million, is about 4.6% of the world’s population, but we produce between 24% and 26% of the carbon emissions that aggravate global warming and cause droughts around the world.
New York City Metro area, a tri-state region, contains an estimated 16.6 million people, most of whom go in and out of New York City on a given day or week. This figure represents about 6% of the US population, and presumably 6% of the emissions as well.
At the 5.5 mtCo2pc rate, the metro area produces 91.3 million metric tons of carbon emissions per year. This is 6% of the US total, but also .015% of the global emissions total (using the 25% figure as a benchmark).
New York City is one of the “wonders of the world,” one of the largest man-made objects on earth. It can be redesigned to be one of the most useful as well, as regards global warming. It took vision to build it, and we can rebuild it, based on the new emerging vision of what’s called “Green Architecture.” Here are some points to ponder.
New York City has hundreds of skyscrapers and tall buildings of all sizes. These buildings constitute the most concentrated manmade surface area in the United States, perhaps on earth. These surfaces can be harnessed to enhance the quality of life for all.
The “Green Architecture” movement via the LEED initiative has already developed the technology to turn this surface area into environmental gold. We just have to apply that technology. Instead of creating a “thermal island” in the atmosphere, Manhattan could create a “clear skies island” using these new methods. Instead of creating the most emissions, we could eventually eliminate emissions through developing fan/filter and other carbon-collecting technology.
We will have to find ways to cut down exhaust from trucks, busses, and cars, (existing technology can help quite a lot) but we can also redesign our roads to increase energy efficiency and possibly absorb pollution. These measures do not have to “ruin the American economy,” as Bush has told us. Yes, cars will have to be smaller and more efficient, and more of us will have to take public transportation, but it beats living on a space station on Mars, which is Bush’s solution.
There are already new “green” buildings going up, such as the Bank of America building at Bryant Park, near Times Square, which will revolutionize New York’s skyline in a positive way. They are not proving to be expensive and contain some amazing features, too complex to describe here. We need a hundred buildings like it, more buildings, better buildings, and that will take public support, government support, and support from the private sector.
The remarkable buildings of visionary architects such as John and Nancy Jack Todd, Makrand Bhoot, and Douglas Cardinal, are already in place all over the world. These are buildings that DO something about the problems facing our future, and they work.
With extensive solar panels, these buildings could produce energy to not only make New York City self-sufficient, but create a surplus for neighboring states to purchase. Architects are also working on utilizing the sunlight better by reducing building shadows, ie eliminating the “canyon effect.”
METRO AREAS
New York is still the trend-setter in almost every field of endeavor. If New York City can successfully tackle carbon emissions, its methods will be copied around the world. Let’s say the New York City metro area reduces CE’s by half. The number of people passing in and out of the metro area is about 6% of the US population. Reducing US emissions by 3% is okay, but if Chicago and LA metro areas follow, that would be about 8%, and if the seven next largest cities follow suit, that would be another 7%, all without help from Washington, D.C. If the US, following New York’s example, reduces its total carbon emissions by half, that would be an historic 1/8th reversal of these pollutants worldwide. This should slow down the release of methane enough to buy us time to learn how to capture the escaped methane and turn it into fuel, which burns 50% cleaner than other fossil fuels. In the delicate balances of climatology, that initial 1/8th could be enough to save our skins, and our lungs as well.
The next step would be for metro areas around the world to follow New York City’s example, and the examples of top US cities. Here are the sixteen top metro areas in the world. (Source: WorldAtlas.com)
LARGEST METRO AREAS IN THE WORLD Numbers shown are the population within the immediate surrounding area of the established border of the city, and also include the city limit population figures. Revised (09/05) Toyko, Japan 31.2 million New York City - Philadelphia area, USA 30.1 million Mexico City, Mexico 21.5 million Seoul, South Korea 20.15 million Sao Paulo, Brazil 19.9 million Jakarta, Indonesia 18.2 million Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto, Japan 17.6 million New Delhi, India 17.36 million Mumbai, India (Bombay) 17.34 million Los Angeles, USA 16.7 million Cairo, Egypt 15.86 million Calcutta, India 14.3 million Manila, Philippines 14.1 million Shanghai, China 13.9 million Buenos Aires, Argentina 13.2 million Moscow, Russian Fed. 12.2 million
The New York to Philly corridor, with its 30.1 million people, represents the world’s second largest population cluster, and the highest producers of CEs (carbon emissions) on the face of the earth. This group currently produces 165.55 million metric tons of CE’s each year, 11% of the US total, .0275 of the world’s CEs. If the production of CEs could be reduced by half in this single region, it would have a better than 1% effect on global warming, and trim off 5.5% of the US production of CEs. A New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania cooperative effort would need to take place, but it’s something we can envision.
If the Los Angeles metro area followed suit, with its estimated 91.85 million metric tons of CEs per year, another 6% of the US total, that would be a help. If they followed New York’s example, and cut CE’s by 50%, that would be 3% additional improvement, nationally, and ¾ of a percent improvement globally.
Each of the metro areas on this global list produces a different per capita tonnage of CE’s each year, so there is no simple table of reductions, but if all followed New York’s example, (almost 300 million people living in 16 urban areas) the reduction in CEs would begin to reach 50% worldwide. If the world did reach 50% reduction, that would be one of the greatest achievements in the history of humankind, greater in some ways than landing a man on the moon. We can and must do it, and I want New York to lead the way.
THE SNOWBALL EFFECT IN REVERSE
There is one little problem? How do we get all these urban centers to comply with 50% reductions? Metro areas often cover several states, and are slow to come to agreements. But all city governments are controlled by one mayor, and all are under the watchful eye of one state governor. If all 50 US governors came together and another 200 mayors joined forces with the 200 who have already banded together to form the Seattle Initiative, CE’s could be reduced one city at a time, and the results would be extraordinary.
Here are the ten biggest US cities by population (here we are using exact populations, not metro areas, so the figures are more conservative. These are 1990 figures and have changed slightly) and their estimated metric tonnage based on the 5.5 mtpc estimate. This is not the exact per-city tonnage, but is based on these estimates. (Populations, source: www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html)
City Name population annual metric tonnage of CE’s
New York City, NY 7,323,000 40,276,500
Los Angeles, CA 3,485,000 19,167,500
Chicago, Ill. 2,784,000 15,312,000
Houston, Tex 1.631,000 8,970,500
Philadelphia, PA 1,586,000 8,723,000
San Diego, CA 1,111,000 6,110,500
Detroit, MI 1,028,000 5,654,000
Dallas, Tex 1,007,000 5,538,500
Phoenix, Az 983,000 5,406,500
San Antonio, Tex 936,000 5,148,000
Total populations 21,874,000 120,307,000
The populations of these ten cities equal approximately 8% of the US population. Unlike metro areas, these cities are all under the control of mayors and governors, and do not need tri-state commissions to affect sweeping environmental changes. A 50% reduction could reduce CE’s nationally by 4%, which is a 1% reduction in global warming. Mayors in cities in other countries are already successful in greatly reducing carbon emissions in their towns. Sweden has made it their goal to reduce carbon emissions to 10% in the near future. The United States will have no credibility with those cities worldwide that are falling behind until our own house has been repaired.
PART THREE:
The last aspect of this three part plan has three parts in itself. Any plan that will work must be in stages, as right now there is a delicate balance between what is effective and what is envisionable. The first stage must be “do-able,” and also must buy us time to work out long-term solutions. This also relates to the problem discussed in the beginning of this paper, which is that some of the technological solutions needed are not invented yet, and the inventors may not even be born yet for all we know. For this reason, we need to think in three stages, a three part timetable, so that we can sustain our existence long enough to figure out how to make ourselves useful around here, and make our way of life indefinitely sustainable once again.
2006 to 2012: In this first six year period, we need to reorient ourselves to be good stewards of the earth, and even more than that, to see ourselves as a part of nature, as kin to animals, and not lords over them. In the Koran that stewardship is described as on a trial basis, which is closer to the world we now live in. During this period, we need to utilize all existing technology (in energy, architecture and transportation) to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by the end of the period. If New York City can reach this goal, other urban areas will not only follow, but will learn from our mistakes, and reach that goal shortly afterwards. There are over 200 cities across the United States that have leadership in place ready and willing to take on such a task. They are not waiting for approval from Washington DC.
2013-2024: During this twelve year period, New York City needs to develop and put in place technology that will reduce our carbon emissions by 90%, from current levels. During this time period two other things must happen: other cities around the world must follow New York’s example, especially Los Angeles, and we must be also working on the groundwork for stage three technology, which is corrective technology that reduces existing greenhouse gasses, soot, and methane in the atmosphere around the world. During this time period, countries must voluntarily begin reducing carbon emissions by 90%. How far behind the test model they will be is anyone’s guess, but reason suggests that they must reach this goal by 2030, the end of the third phase.
2025-2030: During this six year phase, we will need to have a global cooperative network in place that will engage in one of the most ambitious programs in human history, to use technology to correct all carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses in earth’s atmosphere. This will require technology we don’t currently have, but we certainly have pieces of it. We just have to be sure we’re right. We only have one atmosphere.
This is a first draft. It is flawed, it has holes the size of the ozone layer. To all who read it, I extend an open invitation to send in your corrections, additions, comments, etc. to rezman7777@earthlink.net. We can email each other and build an “Earthwatch” network that will come up with a plan that will some day inspire those who will bring it to completion. Never has it been more appropriate to believe and have faith in the old axiom, “If the people lead, the leaders will follow!”
[1] Dr. Charles David Keeling, a Scripps marine chemist was the first to confirm the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 1957. It has risen more than 14% since that time. (Scripps Oceanographic Society)
The Luntz-Memoists have long said that climate change always happens anyway, but at a very slow pace. However, the Scripps Oceanographic Society of England recently discovered that the last ice age ended abruptly 15,000 years ago, as temperatures rose 16 degrees in less than two decades. However, James Lovelock, author of “Revenge of Gaia” noted that it can also take a long time to normalize: “She (Gaia) has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years.” Many have commented that the earth has been gradually warming since then, but that it has warmed up more in the last 100 years than in the previous 10,000.
[2] In cases of deer overpopulation, it is not unusual for the numbers to increase rapidly until 90% of the deer die at one time, a term we know as “decimation.” Scientists have warned that this could happen to us.
posted by evan pritchard at
9:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home