The Stabilization Triangle - a helpful tool
This entry was posted on 5/7/2008 8:58 PM and is filed under Tax Shifting,Global Warming,Elected representatives,Communication,Action.
Princeton University has been sponsored by BP and Ford since 2000 to "develop solutions to the greenhouse problem." Named the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI), one of the most valuable products of the venture is the Stabilization Triangle - comparing carbon emitted on our current path to that of a 0% increase (flat path) between 2005 and 2055 creates a triangle. If we can stay on the flat path, and then reduce carbon emissions after 2055, "we can steer a safer course."
Particularly valuable is how they break this triangle into eight wedges of one billion tons of carbon per year. Reduce our carbon emitted by eight wedges and we could be home free. (one problem - not a fault of CMI's - is that when they started, seven wedges were needed; it's now eight because of global inaction)
The value here is the "Journey of a 1000 miles starts with a single step" thing. Breaking a huge problem like global warming into eight wedges makes the problem at least approachable.
On this two-page summary, they describe the concept and list 15 strategies (with specific quantities) to "get" one wedge. A federal tax shift will forward at least seven of the strategies, three strategies are dubious, and two are just bad ideas. Some notes:
- Numbers one through four are increasing efficiency; can't go wrong here, but an incentive is needed.
- Numbers six through eight are Carbon Capture and Storage. Sure this is being done, but a major U.S. demonstration project was canceled in January 2008 (FutureGen), it's expensive, and even if it works in the short-term, I don't believe it's a sustainable solution (for example, #6 requires capturing and storing the emissions from 800 coal electric plants (a good and sustainable idea?)).
Number nine is adding double the current global nuclear capacity to replace coal-based electricity. Where will the high-level waste be safely stored for at least tens of thousands of years? How much will it cost?
Numbers 10 through 12 - wind and solar. Right on. I believe that when we begin paying the external costs of our energy use at the time we use it, renewable energy will be the clear winner. Number 11 - Install 700 times the current capacity of solar electricity. Infinitely doable -- let's build 1,400 times and get two wedges. All that's needed is financial incentive.
Number 13 - Increase ethanol production 50 times by creating biomass plantations with area equal to 1/6th of world cropland. Ouch. How do you think that will go over with the people without enough food NOW that are rioting? From the San Francisco Chronicle - Troops fired into tens of thousands of rioting Somalis on Monday, killing two people in the latest eruption of violence over soaring food prices around the world.
~ ~ ~ ~
If we wait before taking significant action, we'll need 9 or 10 'wedges' in a shorter period of time and the whole thing becomes a joke. It's time for independent scientists and economists to team up and promote the best solutions to both the public and federal representatives. They've got the cred.
Pretty cool how economists banded together to trash McCain and Clinton's proposed gasoline tax holiday. I believe it was a factor in Senator Clinton's poor results in North Carolina and Indiana yesterday - people are smarter than she gives them credit for.
