How can we globally stop Climate Change?

 There have been protests in many cities all over the world. In London they brought the city to a virtual standstill for weeks, on a beach in Sydney they buried their heads in sand and in Dublin there was a march of a human forest covered with leaves. With the Australian bushfires huge numbers took again to the streets in Sydney to protest. The reason for the protests is the perceived lack of adequate action by governments.

So besides changing our light bulbs and insulating our homes, how can we stop climate change? There are critical voices who say that climate has always changed and that this is nothing new or nothing to worry about. Although that has been a convenient opinion for big business and politicians for many years, the scientific community hold human kind responsible has been growing and now large communities accept this and call for action. So what can be done? One of the biggest drivers of climate change is carbon dioxide (CO2). When released into the atmosphere CO2 traps heat from the sun raising earth's temperature. And we are releasing every year more CO2. Since the 1990's human beings have produced the same amount of CO2 emissions as in all of humanity's history prior. This comes with population growth, but also with our desire for an ever more comfortable but industrialised lifestyle.

2025, 2050, or?

Scientists advice and many protesters want governments to commit to reduce CO2 to net zero by 2025, but governments felt 2050 was already very ambitious. And still, there are many people thinking both targets are impossible. Is it?

In the United Kingdom (UK) the government passed a law committing to reach Net Zero CO2 by 2050. Some regional authorities (councils) in the country have declared a climate emergency. Some have done this to show the government that the community wants more. Others are suspected to have done this to pacify the community. Although there is globally less division on the issue of climate change there are still huge questions on the, "well, now what?". What can we do to change and how quickly can the planet get to "Carbon Zero" or "Net Zero" as it is referred to??

The biggest source of carbon dioxide from human activities is the burning of fossil fuels. Coal, natural gas and petroleum, used for transportation, manufacturing, construction, household, business, etc. Anything that uses energy. About 85% of anything that uses energy worldwide comes from fossil fuels.

Electricity

Perhaps one of the biggest to tackle is electricity production. About a third of fossil fuels is burnt to produce electricity. If we could get rid of the coal and gas fired power stations we would have taken a big step. However, such a BIG step is not that easy. The world uses about 12000 million metric tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) a year. There are about 11000 days until 2050. So we would need to replace 1 Mtoe per day until 2050. One Mtoe of energy production (non fossil fuel) is about one Nuclear Power Plant or a wind farm with about 1,500 large wind turbines. So that means worldwide we need to build and get operational 1,500 wind turbines a day for the next 30 years. This is not impossible but a large undertaking seen that only few countries are actively expanding their alternative energy productions. And most of those are not even aggressive enough.

And then we should not forget that there are still over 2 billion people on the planet who do not have modern energy supply. They too would like to improve their quality of life to match the developed countries. And then we have to consider the global population growth. So to keep that in mind we should built about 1.5 to 2 Mtoe in alternative energy production a day for the next 30 years (two nuclear power plants or 3,000 wind turbines a day). To compare, there are currently about 400 nuclear power plants in the whole world and if that was our only option we would need around 22,000 nuclear power plants by 2050 to become Net Zero.

Other Energy Alternatives

It has already been proven that we can source a large portion of our energy needs from Solar and Wind. However, we haven't yet figured out how we can get this above 50%. Using the current technologies for Wind and Solar we can't use these renewable energies to build wind turbines and solar panels. To build these we need massive amounts of concentrated energy in order to create steel, concrete, etc. We haven't yet figured out how to increase the energy from Solar and Wind enough for this. And what happens when the wind stops or it gets cloudy? Solar and Wind certainly help in our reductions but much more is needed. Luckily new technologies are emerging. The current scope of used or potential technologies are; solar panels, solar thermal, solar aircraft, space solar, solar updraft, wind, geo-thermal, hot-dry-rock, hydro, tidal, waves, salinity, ocean thermal, bio, artificial photosynthesis, and more.

One of the biggest challenges will be to create sufficient energy to satisfy heavy industry. But alternative or green energy production is not the only solution. Changing industrial machinery and applications to use less energy will bring the two closer together. A small example is how we went from petroleum and gas lamps to electrical bulbs and only recently to LEDs which require much less in energy. And with LEDs getting more effective they are now suitable for a range of industrial applications.

Global/Regional Energy Trade

To give and example, the UK imports about 60% of its energy from overseas. It's reliance on imported energy is in fact growing. The good news is that consumption is down and renewables are up. From 1998 to 2015 consumption dropped by 17%. However, energy from renewables and waste sources (mostly not Carbon Neutral) went only up by 9%. With Brexit and critics in mind it is fair enough to point out that the EU as a whole imports more energy than it exports. The changes brought the UK more in line with the rest of Europe, although still at the lower end. The UK is now the 12th most dependent on imported energy. In 2015 the UK’s main types of imported fuel were crude oil, natural gas and petroleum products (for example, petrol and diesel). The UK also imported electricity and coal and other types of solid fuel (like wood) in smaller amounts. These came from Norway, Netherlands, France, OPEC, Russia and the rest of the world. Wood pellets from Canada is an example of energy from the rest of the world which is not Carbon Neutral, although in 2016 this dropped by 24%.

According to some climate change scientists it's unlikely that we can have carbon neutral energy supply by 2050. It is seen as too ambitious and it's expected that we won't get there until 2100. This only relates to a Net Zero energy supply and there are other Carbon emissions we can tackle.

Transport

After electricity production the next biggest CO2 emissions come from transport. Transport pollutions counts for about a quarter of global CO2 emissions.

• Rail                                       1%
• Heavy goods vehicles    28%
• Shipping                              12%
• Aviation                             10%
• Cars, motorcycles, etc  49%

 The technology is there. People are sometimes waiting for costs to come down but technologically it is possible to make quick changes. Part of the answer is said to be switching from petrol and diesel vehicles to electric. And the good news is that this is already happening. Worldwide there are now about 5 million electric vehicles and 2 million of those were sold in 2018. Still very low if you realise that about 90 million vehicles are sold globally every year. Electrical vehicles are still very expensive compared to fossil vehicles and sales are still mainly in Europe, China and the US. And even then the sales are mostly concentrated in specific cities. Globally half of the electrical cars are sold in just 25 cities. Meanwhile fossil car ownership may be reducing in Europe and the USA, but it is going up globally, especially in countries like India, Indonesia, and some Latin American countries.

Does driving an electric car really help reduce emissions?

As with the production of wind turbines and solar panels, electrical car production requires a lot of fossil energy and are thus certainly not clean in production. In addition, they are only Net Zero/green if they are powered by cleaner/greener electricity. And as we know the electricity supply through most sockets still comes largely from fossil sources. As such electrical cars only move the emissions upstream to the power plants. So, when you buy an electrical car for environmental reasons please ensure your energy supply comes from green/renewable energies otherwise they are just as bad as a petrol or diesel car. And the same for electrical trains powered by fossil fuel plants. Although there is no CO2 coming from the train, it is coming from its fossil power plant.

Does taking the train or bus help reduce emissions?

Yes, but again, it depends on how they are powered. Here we can see good and quick changes to really go Net Zero (after production). As of 2017 the Dutch railways buys 100% renewable electricity which powers its trains, busses and stations. This comes from an energy company using supplies from wind farms. Half of these wind farms are in the Netherlands, the other half comes from Sweden 33%, Finland 15% and Belgium 2%. So why not all from within the Netherlands? Well, at the time it would have taken most or all of the countries wind energy to just cover the national railway. The green energy suppliers were of course happy with such a huge customer, but commercially there was a lot of reliance on just one customer. This shows you the scale and technical and commercial complexity for transitioning public transport. Luckily electricity is a cross border commodity.

Everything going electric?

Not all forms of transport can convert to electric. Heavy goods vehicles and aviation pose big engineering problems. However, there are technologies developed for aviation with electric for short haul flights and advanced bio fuels for long haul flights. But these technologies aren't available tomorrow. Still aviation can probably go Net Zero reasonably quickly.

Hydrogen

Hydrogen is one of the alternatives that seem to be practical, efficient and increasingly economically effective. We will certainly hear more from it and see more applications. However, unfortunately countries and investors are hesitant as they see this as needing more of a transition. "Going electrical" seemed to have the preference as we are more familiar with it and have (part) infrastructure in place with our electrical grids etc.

Globally the CO2 emissions from transport is still growing so unless there are drastic changes requiring technologies which are probably not available yet we won't make Net Zero transport by 2050. Therefore, governments can't just rely on one technology (electric) and need to embrace a multi disciplinary approach to carbon neutral transport.

Can we pay for it?

We should not ignore the many other aspects of the world when looking at Climate Change. We have already seen how change will costs us a lot of investment. Currently the world is economically changing. The so called western and developed countries are economically struggling. This amongst others due to its history of moving (self sufficient) industry away, ageing populations and capital moving into private and commercial hands. Although these countries are still much better off than some their treasuries are struggling, saving accounts are depleted, debt is high, and their economies often rely on the free market systems in place.

Developing countries

Although Climate Change is a global phenomenon there are some countries who suffer more and earlier of its effects than others. Especially African countries seems to feel the brunt of it. Of course there are others such as island countries in the Pacific and Indian ocean. We now know that before we see further changes in sea levels rising we can expect weather patterns and in fact seasons to change. Draught and associated issues are on the increase worldwide.

 How do we deal with the climate change challenge and a Net Zero target while many countries have a history of exploitation and are economically behind many of the so called developed countries? How do we tackle this monstrous problem without exacerbating the problem of global poverty and inequality? To take climate change seriously you would need to increase your budget by about 500% and many developing countries are already struggling with basics developmental needs such as food, water, healthcare and shelter. With quite a few of them having large international debts they are very hesitant to invest.

Many developing countries don't see that climate change is their problem, at least not of their making. It's been calculated that the entire African continent contributes to about 2 to 3% of global CO2 emissions. Meanwhile it is the most vulnerable continent to climate change and this is seen as very unfair. Meanwhile the demand for energy is growing and power plants can't keep up. Resulting in regular power cuts in many of the larger cities. Meanwhile the population of Africa is expected to double by 2050. The good news is that governments in Africa are willing to adapt and embrace the new low or no carbon technologies. But with the caveat that costs are subsidised by the developed countries.

Developing countries often don't have much existing infrastructure to replace and are could more quickly modernise and industrialise by using renewable energy. However, the upfront costs are much higher than the traditional forms of energy. The World bank and the IMF has provided some but little in investment loans or aid to developing countries. At least not enough to make big and drastic changes.

Let's look at an example in (public) transport. The costs for a 0.75 MW solar farm supplying a new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System in Marrakech was around 57 million USD. (Note that the same can now be done for less). Except for its construction this GEF/UNDP project ,supplied by Chinese company Yangtse and managed by the Spanish company Alsa, is now a truly Net Zero system. Or is it? The solar farm supplies the energy for the new electric busses to run. With one line of 10 electric buses it reduced overal public transport emissions by about 9%. However, scaling up the Net Zero public transport infrastructure further new capital is required. For 48 new electric buses covering a further 4 lines and for the installation of a solar farm with a capacity of 5.7 MW a further 82 million USD (695 million MAD for buses, 83 million MAD for solar power plants, or a total of 778 million MAD) is needed.

Where developed countries need to learn to kick off their cars and renew their public transport systems the developing countries can largely skip this industrial step and immediately go to Net Zero public (mono-)rail, busses and shared services. With less of infrastructure to start with some scientists think Africa may be able to be Carbon Neutral by 2065. However, most African countries don't have this on their agenda or giving it any priority. The challenge is for the developing countries to sponsor a multitude of large projects.

Not enough?

It is likely that despite the efforts in many developed and developing countries CO2 emissions from industries, energy and transport will continue to increase. So if we can't stop the emissions then perhaps we can remove CO2 from the air?

This kind of technology was probably first used in submarines where CO2 (also a toxin to humans) was taken from the air by so called scrubbers. Carbon capture is already in place with some power stations, more or less filtering the exhausts. Currently about 90% of the carbon emitted can be captured from coal fired power stations. Coal Capture Systems (CCS)are thus already a very effective technology for cement, steel and power plants.

Unfortunately worldwide there are only about 40 larger power plants with CCS in place and the uptake is thus very small. Canada, Norway and some other countries have demonstration plants. In Norway this removes 1 million tons of CO2 per year. It may sound a lot of volume but globally we emit about 35 billion tons of CO2. Reason for the lack of usage is that the technology is expensive and it doesn't work in all industrial settings. In addition captured carbon is a worthless waste product. However, there are new ideas and methods to reuse this carbon and make it commercially interesting. What is unfortunate is that this shows that without a commercial benefit even successful technologies are not likely to be adapted.

What else!

While these technologies everything will help and improve the situation, it is likely not enough, or at least not in time. In most places around the world the vast majority of Research and Development investment still goes into fossil fuels. Although there widespread recognition that there is a need for change, the reality is that 85% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuel sources. And you can't just unplug people, turn their lights off. Therefore governments need to realise that all the above, and more is needed. Those are drastic changes for any country, let alone the world. I order to reach the targets at 2025, 2050, 2065 or 2100 we need to consider how to totally overthrow our values and society's systems.

Other things we can do is privatising energy production and public transport. Revamp countries with more self sufficient agriculture and economies. Reducing the carbon footprint of any product or service means a return to local trades. Decentralise the economies of major cities to other cities and villages. Repopulate rural areas and grow lots of trees. Invest heavily in new carbon neutral technologies. In order for that all to work we may even need to look at stepping away from free markets and capitalist driven economies.

UN to get rid of the GDP?

When countries join the United Nations (UN) they have to subscribe to the System of National Accounts. These accounts are used to measure the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which largely ignores social and environmental aspects. Some of the things GDP doesn't measure are; health, infant mortality, suicide rates, crime, poverty, infrastructure, income disparity,... and you guessed it,... environmental health. Although many of these things are measured elsewhere they don't add into what the world and governments see as success.

Rather than growing our polluting consumerism and enterprises we should throw GDP out of the window. Rather we should maybe look at Bhutan's system of Gross National Happiness (GNH) as a measure of success and wellbeing. GNH looks at; 'sustainable' and equitable socio-economic development, environmental 'conservation', preservation and promotion of culture, good governance. There are plenty of alternatives of measuring a country's success or health; Gross Sustainable Development Product (GSDP), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), United Nations Human Development Index (UNHDI), and Fordham Index of Social Health (FISH).

However we do this, our use of GDP as a value and primary target is counterproductive to the wellbeing of the planet and us all. We need to rethink our economics and values. 

Think Positive!

There is so much more that comes with the changes needed. I haven't discussed production, farming, waste, and so much more. All the above challenges may seem overwhelming and maybe even impossible. However, the one thing I do believe is that it is possible. We can do all this, and more. We can even make an effort to get closer to an Utopia. Even without envisioning an Utopia we will get closer to it. Think positive! It can be done, all it takes is committing to try our utmost. We can do that!