The future of climate change
We installed rooftop solar on our house in St. Louis ten years ago. Half of the cost was paid by Ameren and we got a 30% tax rebate on the balance. By the time we moved to Rhode Island last year and sold the house, we still hadn’t made back our investment even in nominal dollars. I’m OK with that, since at the time of installation, 80% of our electricity was generated by burning coal. Our donation to the planet.
Rooftop solar was an object of curiosity among my friends. When they asked, I told them that first they should have an energy audit of their house and implement the recommendations, which might save them 10% or more of their energy costs without the investment in solar panels, wiring, etc. People are beguiled by technology, but plain old conservation can make a huge difference.
While there’s a lot of discussion about EVs and renewables these days, it’s really too late for the planet now. If all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions ceased tomorrow and all humans switched to green energy (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal, nuclear), it would still be too late to avert the pending disaster. The major anthropogenic greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and methane. Carbon dioxide has a half-life in the atmosphere of about 120 years. The half-life of methane is only about ten years, but methane is about 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Global warming is decreasing surface albedo wherever large expanses of snow and ice once covered the planet: the Arctic Ocean, the Antarctic landmass and surrounding seas, glaciers and ice covering Greenland, North America, the Himalayas and Siberia. Radiation that was once reflected is now absorbed. Permafrost melting will liberate more carbon dioxide. Thawing of clathrates in warming oceans will liberate methane.
It’s not coastal flooding, loss of fresh water and arable land and intolerable heat that will do human civilization in. It’s resource wars, as humans who can no longer survive where they find themselves will fight for their survival against the rest of humanity that has the resources they are losing. The violence presaging these resource wars is already happening in Syria, on the Iran-Afghanistan border and in Central America. It’s only a matter of time before India—which has field-tested nuclear weapons—joins the struggle. I tremble for our children and grandchildren.
There are only two ways to mitigate this horrific future: global carbon capture and geoengineering. Carbon capture has been proven to work on a small, local scale at the source of generation (power plants, over-the-road diesel trucks), but carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is far more dilute, so the challenge of scale-up to reverse atmospheric carbon is still unmet. Geoengineering (solar energy management, weather modification) on a global scale is feasible with present-day technology, but comes with risks in terms of control and predictability and will require unprecedented levels of international cooperation.
It is easy to carp about the challenges and risks of climate change mitigation, but the alternative is the destruction of human civilization as we know it. Conservation and green energy are certainly worthwhile, but absent a way to *reverse* the consequences of greenhouse gases *already* in the atmosphere, it will be too little, too late.
Programming note: Nonwithstanding the use of personal pronouns in the first two paragraphs, the subject of this post is the climate change crisis, not me. Comments about the subject of the post are welcome. Comments that attempt to hijack the thread by making me the topic will be deleted.
In general I agree with you. However, I believe that in these arguments we tend to confuse “Human Civilization” with “The Planet”. Barring some Venus like runaway meltdown, something that I believe is a possibility but not the most likely outcome, there will be devastation of individual eco-systems and many species will perish. But one of the most vulnerable is really this civilization. I mean Covid should have illustrated to us how fragile modern civilization is. But I wish we’d refrain from this generalized “death of the planet” rhetoric. The planet is going to be just fine. There will be winners and losers. Ecosystems and species will be destroyed. New ones will move in to take their place. The reactionaries have always wanted to make this about a choice. Modern civilization or nature. But ironically, if we make the choice they advocate, essentially business as usual, the planet will be fine. We will not.
@SW,
Agreed. That’s why I only refer to humans, humanity and human civilization.
SW
there are other inhabitants on this planet besides us. From that perspective the planet is already half dead. If you think “the planet” means only that rock in space, yes it would take more work than we are currently capable of to “destroy the planet’
But I believe the normal uses of language allow us to understand what destroy the planet means. Even if humans survive they will be living on a destroyed planet.
Personally, I could do without quite so much “human civilization” myself.
On the rare occasion I find myself engaging with creationists and christianists I have found it a more effective metaphor to agree: we mere humans cannot ‘destroy’ the planet, cannot ‘destroy the world’. The four billion year old ball of rock that has not only seen ice and desert ages and five extinctions before but just happens to be the only one we know of we can live on. What we can destroy is the only part of it we can live in.
By that same measure, we’re not even ‘destroying the atmosphere’ ~ we’re just changing it so we can’t live in it …
I’d be willing to bet my last nickel that I don’t have that carbon capture is probably not the solution; because, if it were, the fossil fuel folks would have it up and running.
@Ken,
Since global atmospheric carbon capture technology at scale doesn’t exist, I don’t see how fossil fuel folks would have it running. Remora is a company that does carbon capture for over-the-road diesel trucks at point of source, and I’m told they have contracts with trucking companies, not with fossil fuel companies. Of course, if it is profitable, a fossil fuel company may buy Remora.
In any case, I can’t see any reason why corporations that make money supplying fossil fuels would invest in carbon capture unless there is money to be made. Can you? Ultimately, global carbon capture will have to be government-funded.
Joel, I think that the greatest impediment to more decisive action to date has been due to the $$worth of reserves from both the fossils and the 401k group. That; if there was any way in hell to forestall Climate Change (prolong the use of fossil fuels), they would have been all over it like a chicken on a Junebug.
@Ken,
You’re overthinking this. The fossil fuel industry, like all corporations, has a time horizon based on the next quarter’s returns. Prolonging the use of fossil fuels is, as far as I can tell, based on the global price of extraction vs the price of alternatives. I see no evidence that the fossil fuel industry cares about climate change or even acknowledges anthropogenic climate change. Can you point to any evidence that it does?
Oil reserves are an estimate of the amount of crude oil located in a particular economic region with the potential of being extracted. The oil industry estimates that there are1.73 trillion barrels of oil reserves in the world.
Say the profit margin is $20/barrel — ($20 x 1.73 trillion barrels) ~ $35 trillion
https://www.statista.com/statistics/215897/proved-oil-reserves-by-leading-world-gas-and-oil-companies/
ExxonMobil’s 19 billion bs are worth ~ $380 billion of its ~ $420 billion total net worth
BP’s 17 billion bs are worth ~$340 billion is more than its ~$106 “ “
Chevron’s 11 billion bs are worth ~$220 billion of its ~$296 “ “
Role of the American Petroleum Inst. (API):
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/19/big-oil-climate-crisis-lobby-group-api
Most of the buzz words being used by media and repeated by the public; e.g., job losses, cow farts, unaffordable, economic collapse, …. are straight out of the mouth of the API. API is totally funded by the industry, does the lobbying, shields the oil cos, allows them to pretend that they are for things that they have the API lobby against.
https://www.api.org/-/media/files/statistics/who-owns-us-oil-and-natural-gas-companies-shapiro-pham-study.pdf
Oil reserves are an estimate of the amount of crude oil located in a particular economic region with the potential of being extracted. The oil industry estimates that there are1.73 trillion barrels of oil reserves in the world.
Say the profit margin is $20/barrel — ($20 x 1.73 trillion barrels) ~ $35 trillion
https://www.statista.com/statistics/215897/proved-oil-reserves-by-leading-world-gas-and-oil-companies/
ExxonMobil’s 19 billion bs are worth ~ $380 billion of its ~ $420 billion total net worth
BP’s 17 billion bs are worth ~$340 billion is more than its ~$106 “ “
Chevron’s 11 billion bs are worth ~$220 billion of its ~$296 “ “
Role of the American Petroleum Inst. (API):
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/19/big-oil-climate-crisis-lobby-group-api
Most of the buzz words being used by media and repeated by the public; e.g., job losses, cow farts, unaffordable, economic collapse, …. are straight out of the mouth of the API. API is totally funded by the industry, does the lobbying, shields the oil cos, allows them to pretend that they are for things that they have the API lobby against.
https://www.api.org/-/media/files/statistics/who-owns-us-oil-and-natural-gas-companies-shapiro-pham-study.pdf
@Joel, just a couple points…
the simple physics of solids, liquids and gases tells us that carbon capture won’t be the solution; you burn a liter of gasoline, you have 1000 liters of CO2; you’ll never get that 1000 liters back into a bottle as easily as it was to burn the gasoline…
but with subsidies, big oil IS big in carbon capture: Occidental leads, Exxon just acquired one of the biggest companies for $4.9 billion of stock ..they’re using it for “enhanced oil recovery” ie, injecting the CO2 down into old wells to push more oil out… if they get an optimum return, they’ll push out a barrel of oil for every barrel of CO2 they inject….the kicker: if all that oil is eventually burned, we might see as much 1000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere as they pushed down the well…
one of the geoengineering schemes most frequently discussed involves dumping sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere, to block a small portion of the sunlight from reaching the ground…there’s a stark irony in that, since the world spent a decade a generation ago to install scrubbers on most coal burning plants, to remove the sulfur dioxide emissions; now we want to put them back out there…i once read that the sulfur dioxide emissions from burning high sulfur coal would mitigate half the climate impact of the carbon dioxide emissions…but instead of taking advantage of that natural offset, we took the sulfur out and made the greenhouse effect worse…
@rjs,
I’ll have a post up later today on carbon capture/geoengineering. There are many approaches. None are without risks. But doing nothing is fraught with risk, and just ending emissions isn’t enough.
“the simple physics of solids, liquids and gases tells us that carbon capture won’t be the solution”
LOL! Maybe you need to explain simple physics to these folks:
https://climeworks.com/
that natural offset?
why did i never thnk of that?
So, we’ve messed up the planet with technology. Now let’s really mess it up with planet-change Big Technology. All because we can’t give up big cars and long drives in the country back and forth to work. Or learn how to build buildings that don’t require huge amounts of fossil fueled heating and cooling.
I am old enough to remember when highly respected scientists were pointing out that their mathematics showed that we should use our bomb on Russia before the Russians could build one of their own. Fortunately at the time we still had menin charge who were not overawed by scientific authority.
I have considered putting solar panels on my roof, but I wonder how that would work when it’s snow-covered (usually, sometimes, less than usual lately) in winter, and very expensive.
Cost-effective? Payoff period would be much longer than the time we have left to us.
We’ve also had roof-repair issues all too frequently that make the whole idea all the more unlikely.
But our town did hook up most residents (who didn’t opt out) with an electricity plan that encourages renewable power generation, so I like to think that suffices.
I believe the idea with the ‘renewable’ energy plan is to preferentially purchase electric power from the wind-farms off our coast, which would be ideal.
@Fred,
Of course, we had many snowfalls during the nine years we had rooftop solar. I could monitor output in real time, and the reduction due to snow cover was modest. Like most people, we have a sloping roof, so not much snow accumulates and it slides off pretty soon.
As I posted, it wasn’t cost-effective for us. I have no evidence that having 22 solar panels that saved about $600/year in electric bills improved the sale price of the house when we moved.
There was a story in the Globe last year that I pulled up recently about a family that paid $24K for about 16 panels on their roof, to take advantage of rebates and tax breaks. The rebates were delayed about a year, the system was not ‘approved’ for a year, due to goof-ups by the utility company. It took intervention from the Globe to get this fixed.
As for us, we had a high-efficiency natural gas boiler installed, got a pretty good rebate and lower gas bills, just before it became very un-PC to be using natural gas. So it goes. (We also have a gas-powered backup generator.)
Evidently, we are baaad people. Our gas bills are almost as high as our cable tv-internet access-telephone bills, but less than they had been. Much higher than our electricity bills.
@Fred,
The upfront cost of 22 panels, wiring, metering and labor for us in 2013 was $24K. After discounts, we were in the tank for about $7500. Still didn’t make it back in nominal dollars after nine years. Our contribution to the planet.
We had gas range, oven, water heater, furnace and dryer in St. Louis. I do miss the gas stovetop. OTOH, 95% of electricity in Rhode Island is generated by burning natural gas. So all the Teslas here run on methane.
Y’know, it seems to me that burning methane is much less of a problem than leaking methane (including bovine farts). Burning it just leads to more CO2. Unburned methane is a very serious greenhouse gas, far worse than CO2.
Methane escaping into the atmosphere is a byproduct of oil production.
Producers try to burn it, with some success. This looks awful, but it’s better than NOT burning it. And a lot also comes from cattle herds.
So, if we stop drilling for oil, and also extracting natural gas, and go vegan, we’ll have less of a problem with methane, a very potent greenhouse gas.
Maybe when meat is grown in vats, that will help also.
Methane
Wikipedia: Methane … is … the main constituent of natural gas. The relative abundance of methane on Earth makes it an economically attractive fuel, although capturing and storing it poses technical challenges due to its gaseous state under normal conditions for temperature and pressure.
Naturally occurring methane is found both below ground and under the seafloor and is formed by both geological and biological processes. …
It is a little known fact that before the end of the last ice age there were eight billion cows on the planet, all of them sitting around campfires eating beans and farting as hard as they could while singing cowboy songs and dreaming of melting the glaciers to reveal vast new territories of green pastures where they could live like cows in clover.
whatever happened to that dream?
now, of course, due to an unintended consequence, all those farts are making the planet too hot and dry to grow grass,