Posted on 15 February 2022 by Evan

Tag line

How fast can we slow down?

Elevator Statement

You are a city planner leading a land-use transition project to convert a densely-packed neighborhood into a major road. You have three options.

• 100-year plan: buy up houses as they come up for sale and remove them. When only a few houses remain, condemn them, move the families, and build the road.

• 10-year plan: rely less on buying, more on condemnation, forcibly moving families.

• 1-year plan: rely completely on condemning houses, forcibly moving families.

Aligning the land-use transition —as much as possible— with the natural cycle of people periodically moving out of the neighborhood, minimizes the pain. Unfortunately, the longer we wait to act the less likely this option becomes.

Climate Science

Many plans are being proposed for ramping down GHG emissions to reach net zero by 2050. Beyond the technical issues of what to do, it is unclear how long it will take to implement solutions being proposed and how much resistance will be encountered. In recent decades the deployment of renewable energy has risen rapidly around the world, giving hope that we are turning a significant page in the fight against Global Warming and Climate Change (GW/CC). Are these early successes an indication of how rapidly we will reach net zero, or merely reminders of how easy it is to pick low-hanging fruit? Will the realization of net-zero emissions be controlled by technological or sociological limits?

Co-existence is easy and fast: replacement is hard and slow

Wind turbines are sprouting up here and there. Texas is the largest US oil and gas producing state. Yet in 2020, 20% of its electricity generation was from wind (read here). Why is wind power popular in a state known for fossil-fuel production? Because wind turbines make financial sense to the power companies running them and for the land-owners hosting them. It is a financial issue, because states like Texas are not known for actively encouraging renewable energy over fossil fuels. Apparently, however, there is tolerance for their co-existence.

Locating wind turbines where there are business opportunities is one thing. Deploying renewable energy with the goal of displacing existing fossil-fuel plants on a decadal time scale is another. There are simply too many vested interests to untangle for there not to be resistance. The faster we decarbonize the energy sector, the more resistance we can expect. Sociological “speed limits” may dictate how rapidly we decarbonize civilization. Read here about opposition to renewable energy facilities in the United States.

Globally, the rise of renewable energy appears to be co-existing with fossil-fuel power plants rather than displacing them, with incremental replacement and early retirement of some coal plants. This is evidenced by the steady, upward acceleration of the Keeling Curve which up to 2021 reveals no hint of the rapid growth of renewable energy.

Crossing the Chasm

It is difficult to forecast deep penetration of a product or technology into society based on  rapid penetration into a population of early adopters. Even though renewable energy has ramped up rapidly in the last couple of decades, supplementing traditional power-generation and transportation with renewables is one thing: supplanting them is quite another. Reaching net zero is not about a quick ramp-up, but instead about deep penetration that requires crossing the chasm between early adopters and the broader population. This not only takes time, it demands a different approach. Early adopters seek out new tech. But many in the broader population will be slow to embrace new tech, preferring that which is known and comfortable. Trusted role models can help others feel comfortable supporting new initiatives and new tech: whether in the voting booth or in the markets.

Other headwinds slowing down rapid, deep penetration

• Preparing new technology for wide deployment takes time.

• Deploying new technology takes time, because of limitations of funds and materials. Batteries and electric motors require materials that exist in limited supplies and often come with political and sociological overtones that further limit their supply. There may be material limitations on how rapidly we can deploy new technologies.

• Those with vested interests in propagating our dependence on fossil fuels will often oppose the transition to renewable energy.

• Supply-chain issues related to the Covid pandemic illustrate how unanticipated bottlenecks can occur, increase costs, and slow things down.

Baseline Emissions

Burning fossil fuels in vehicles, buildings, and power plants is perhaps the most recognized link between human activity and GW/CC. Many people probably think that once we pivot to a renewable-energy based society that the GW/CC problem is mostly solved, and what remains is a “mopping-up” activity. But much of the remaining problem comes from agricultural-based emissions, many of which are not easily eliminated. These Baseline Emissions on their own constitute unacceptable GHG emission rates (read here). To achieve net-zero emissions, we will likely need Negative Emissions Technology (NET) to counter Baseline Emissions.

Whether or not we can deploy sufficient NET systems by 2050 to counter Baseline Emissions is an open question for a couple of reasons. As of 2022, NET is not ready for widespread deployment. Another problem is that NET has no immediate benefit, and therefore presents itself as a new tax. We will pay for NET deployment and operation, but will receive no immediate benefit. There will certainly be push-back from those required to pay for its operating costs year after year after year.

Laissez-faire attitude and competing interests

If you live in an area not yet strongly affected by climate change, you may be less supportive of efforts to reach net-zero than scientists and policy-makers who are well aware of the dangers, or those with first-hand experience of the dangers. News reports are not as compelling to take action as is personal loss. Even those personally affected by GW/CC will not necessarily support action to combat it, especially if it means de-emphasizing other issues about which they are passionate. Dealing with GW/CC is a long-term issue with no immediate benefit. Other issues about which a person is passionate likely have much shorter time horizons and more immediate “payback”.

Lifestyle to which we’ve become accustomed

Many were born into a high-carbon lifestyle and learned later about its threat to life on Earth. Good people transitioning their lifestyles and habits takes time. Accelerating such transitions demands strong impetus and consistent support.

Achieving net-zero emissions is more about revolution than evolution (watch video here). To summon the courage to not only change our lifestyle, but to encourage others to do the same, requires reliable information and trusted role models to motivate us. Courage is needed to endure the scorn and derision faced from skeptics within our social spheres. This is difficult. The message that we can transition to net-zero without some level of sacrifice, pain, and adjustment does not properly prepare us for the task ahead, which requires decades of consistent, hard work to accomplish. If net-zero is achievable, it will take time, effort, and perseverance to pivot from high- to low-carbon lifestyles. You can help by educating yourself about GW/CC and then discussing these issues with your friends.

You must become a trusted role model.

So, what do we do?

By reading this long-winded post and making it this far down the page you're already doing more than most, and you're obviously interested in doing the right thing.

Tackling the climate issue in a matter of decades requires broad public support for the initiates presented by policy makers. You can help by talking about GW/CC with others.

• Explain that it’s an inter-generational issue vital for the well-being of your friends' children and grandchildren.
• Explain that in wealthy, developed countries that we must reduce consumption and not expect renewable energy sources to maintain our current lifestyles.
• Encourage your friends to support the initiatives that will come. There are armies of scientists and engineers working on the technical issues, but they need broad public support for their ideas to become solutions.
• Support politicians in the voting booths who support climate initiatives.

It takes time to educate people and to get everyone on board for a common cause, especially in an age of “Alternative Facts” and proliferation of conspiracy theories. Appealing misinformation spreads like wildfire: truth often diffuses slowly. We need your help to spread the truth.

Thanks for your support by reading this blog. Tell us in the Comments section below your ideas for how we can reduce GHG emissions.

Let’s get this done!