Reducing emissions is not enough and decarbonizing is actually not that hard. We need to start with rebuilding the energy paradigm. There's enough solar, wind and geothermal to do the conversion. We still need carbon as a raw material for all kinds of things including rubber and plastics but also fertilizer. It's too valuable to burn. We also don't have a choice we've hit Peak Oil and dwindling supply combined with increasing demand means the free market is finding substitutes. We need a plan to remove 1 trillion tons of carbon from the environment AND to supplement ecosystem services for the 10 billion people expected at mid-century. It's all in "The Age of Sustainability."
1
Jerry Brown has been speaking about these kinds of things all his life as the problems have only gotten worse. I suppose a few more speeches can’t do any harm.
2
I do not know what Jerry Brown will say but I do know what the New York Times fails to tell its readers, day after day, week after week, year after year.
The Times fails to:
Provide even one single article about the advanced technology on display in Linköping, Sweden (my city) and Copenhagen, Denmark. There for all to see are plants that use the best renewable energy fuel on earth, solid waste, a fuel that does not have to be mined or transported across continents. Use of this fuel ends the use of landfills in SE and DK. The bitter irony is that it is an American company, Babcock and Wilcox that is building the Völund plant in Copenhagen, a plant that even has a ski slope on top.
Provide even one correct article explaining the large-scale use of Ground-Source Geothermal Heat Pump systems (GSG) to heat and cool the Bloomberg Center on Roosevelt Island or dorms and buildings at Champlain College and Saint Michaels College in Burlington, VT.
These systems are the best there are, readily available, time tested but you will never read about them in the Times. Will you be breaking your silence at ClimateTECH? I hope so. Meanwhile you can see pictures of the two waste-to-energy plants at:
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
2
I want to thank the New York Times for initiating and hosting this conference. It's a venue for adding to the positive conversation on this topic. It is also a place to challenge the lies being spread by deniers.
3
If Brown stopped spewing a lot of hot air perhaps it would help stop some of global warming. He has always been out of touch with the Earth.
reading these comments it's apparent that many times readers have cut through the PC rhetoric and know exactly what the major problem facing humanity is, and it ain't trump or everyone is not driving a Prius. It's 7.7 billion people. There is no techno solution, lifestyle change, wishful thinking (signing worthless agreements) or increasing immigration to the u.s. (This is a particular favorite of the times) that is going to solve the GW problem, or almost any other problem, that humanity faces without addressing population. How long will it take the so called free press and our, and I use the term loosely, leaders to open their eyes and acknowledge what is so obvious to anyone who cares to look?
2
I see some negative reader comments on this article and almost want to say a slogan I've mostly deplored: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. We need every good tech innovator, journalist, politician, millionaire or billionaire, entrepreneur, military, and individual, old or young, to do what they can, as much as they can, and as fast as they can. Saving the Earth ~ for the grandkids for Heaven's sake! ~ could unite us in a common cause. Good grief we need some common ground and it's the planet we stand on.
Thank You, THANK YOU, NYT, for this feature.
I vote that the scientific community sit this one out. Let the braintrust within the climate change-denial crowd figure it out for themselves.
1
Lisa,
Dr. James Powell, the inventor of superconducting Maglev technology, now a retired but still active scientist from Brookhaven National Lab on Long Island has been working on the solution to global warming and the reality that fossil energy is finite. In his book, "Silent Earth", he describes a technology solution to global warming and preventing runaway greenhouse gas emissions from the thawing Arctic permafrost. This is serious stuff, that can do grave harm to our food supply and our quality of life.
Powell's solution is to construct a system of space solar satellites in geosynchronous orbit fired from Superconducting Maglev Launch tubes that run up the side of a tall mountain. He has selected one on the Southern Coast of Alaska to test the system. This Maglev Launch can send a lot of tonnage to space at 1% of the cost of a chemical rocket and from our calculations can generate solar power to Earth grids for 2 cents a kilowatt hour. With this cheap electricity to the whole world we can do some wondrous technical things like: desalinate water very cheaply, make synthetic jet fuel from CO2 in air and H2 in water. and virtually power nearly all of our transport for logistics and passenger travel. His Maglev transport system has been developed by Japan and it holds the World speed record for "trains" at 371 mph. He has been trying to persuade our government to compete his system to build out an Interstate Maglev System. See www.magneticglide.com for the concept.
1
Living in the Bay Area, I would have more confidence this problem could be addressed if so many people - even in the most liberal cities - didn't drive gas guzzlers. People in rich, liberal areas drive cars and SUV's that average MPGs in the teens. Swallow your ego and refuse to buy a car that gets less than 50 mpg.
Our household uses less than half the electricity of the average US household; half the fuel too. We could go to 25% relatively easily. At some point, though, coordinated action is needed.
1
We could change our footprint in low tech ways until there is more feasible high tech.
1. Reduce Methane (fewer cows) eat less meat and dairy
2. Make roads safe for bicyclists (healthier, carbon free affordable transport, save money on highways - look at Denmark & Copenhagen)
3. All the reuse, recycle, upcycling changes to the economy
4. More reforestation projects
What we need is the will to change! and political support!
2
Technology will indeed save us from fossil fuels. Meanwhile, I wish Texas would have to pay for their own flood repairs after their poor decisions on land use zoning and on oil and gas production. Reminds me of the cigarette industry 30 years ago. Dying. Sad.
We all have our thoughts about how to limit global warming. One child policies, banning of coal, carbon taxes, vegetarian diets, a 'Marshall Plan' for solar energy, etc. With the state of our society, though, what are mechanisms where any of these could ever occur? There are two major factors going against us:
First, for the most part, the planet is controlled more by international corporations than by wise and benevolent governments, These corporations are programmed for growth, and will do whatever it takes to get the policies they desire. Second, reducing our consumptive lifestyle goes against human and animal nature. Like every other creature we are programmed to procreate, consume and improve our lot in life. We are not really programmed for mutual sacrifice for the planet's good.
I believe, though, the reduction in carbon emissions will come soon enough with the next recession. We are so deep in debt, and have played out all our stimulus options, that the next bank crash will have absolutely devastating effects on our infinitely linked, globally complex economy. This will reduce emissions more than any Paris Climate Accord.
1
Glad to hear that not all leaders are concerned with first trying to convince everyone else that we have a problem before acting. That is pretty much the definition of leadership. That being said, we are already too late unless we develop and deploy the technology to actively remove CO2 from the air. The New Yorker (Elizabeth Kolbert) had a recent article nicely outlining this.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal...
1
JeffB, the problem with Carbon Engineering's approach is that it requires energy to remove carbon from the air. Where does that energy come from? If comes from burning fossil fuels, we're only making our problem worse. They are currently burning fossil methane ("natural gas") to pull carbon from the air and improve lower grades of liquid fuels, but all of the fossil carbon will end up in the atmosphere. No free ride.
Last year Chinese entrepreneurs converted a coal plant to a high-temperature gas reactor (HTGR) nuclear plant. HTGRs, besides generating lots of clean electricity, are capable of stripping hydrogen atoms from water. The combination of clean electricity, elemental hydrogen, and atmospheric carbon removal opens the door to combining carbon in the air with water to make synthetic, "clean" gasoline. I've been in conversations with CE engineers; they're enthusiastic about the idea. Now, we just need $10 billion in investment to get it off the ground.
It's promising not only from a tech standpoint - converting coal plants in the Southeastern US to synthetic gasoline plants would revolutionize clean transportation, and reinvigorate a suffering economy.
Thus does a famously hyper-liberal, near-Jesuit-priest declare his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020: he doubles-down on today’s version of the liberal credo, climate change mitigation, when all the older forms of that credo from FDR down have failed so miserably to level society and summon the great Kumbaya.
Two and three years ago in this forum my biggest concern for the White House and 2016 was Moonbeam, with or without Linda Ronstadt. He would have been an extremely formidable opponent to HRC or anyone else just for the Democratic nomination of 2016, and equally formidable against Republican opponents FAR more credible than Donald Trump. But, like Andrew Cuomo, he punted and the punt was caught at his own 30-yard-line. There but for the grace of fearing a Clinton went a Democratic Oval Office.
He still would be an extremely formidable opponent to all comers, except that he’s now 79, and will be 82 in November of 2020. Maybe 82 becomes the new 50 – at 62, I find the thought encouraging. Maybe I WON’T need to consider Viagra when Medicare finally kicks in.
But far more than Moonbeam’s participation in holding up the banner of Paris, I find Bill Gates’s exhortations and the active participation of X in finding big-technology solutions to global warming VERY encouraging. GAME ON!
However, Moonbeam had better move fast. Politically, he doesn’t have 700 years, either.
Poor attempt at humour!
Guess who:
From Kaintuck at least, poor excuse for spelling!
Brown's analogy is gravely ill-considered, given the actual, simple, measurable, profitable and accelerating measures being taken every single minute in every state, including the ones you write off as "fossil-fuel dependent". Decarbonizing isn't like climbing Everest at all. It's being achieved by countless simple decisions being made by countless people, businesses, institutions, cities and states. It's accelerating. The tech is improving. Expert practice is easier every day to achieve.
Your coverage of the whole issue verges on irresponsible. A Trump Tweet story provokes hundreds of reader responses. This has been up all day, and 40 people bothered.
It's a little odd that no one is talking about a geoengineering solution. Lowering the population can be somewhat achieved by getting the poorest countries to economically develop, but that's easier said than done. The Jevons Paradox ensures that all fossil fuels will end up in the atmosphere. The world's greatest minds, plus meaningful investment, will be needed to actually address this problem, because all the hand-wringing in the world won't.
1
Geoengineering can be very dangerous, may not work and is expensive.
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-seeding-oceans-iron-confer-climate.html
I remember somebody did this and it did not work.
1
That is only one hypothetical solution out of countless possibilities. (Another more promising one is seeding the upper atmosphere with diamond crystals to increase the albedo against solar radiation.) And carbon reduction is enormously expensive, too.
vulcanalex, agree. To paraphrase: “A pound of prevention is...our only hope.”
The elephant in the room in any climate change discussion is almost always the most destructive source of green house gases...animal farming or CAFOs. It's never discussed seriously as a source of global warming or pollution, yet over 50% of the global greenhouse gases and water pollution are created by the world's obsession with meat and dairy products. Add in the rain forest destruction, resistance to antibiotics and preventable chronic disease (cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.) caused by CAFO products for good measure.
The Trump administration could easily exceed any Paris agreement goals with one very simple solution. Charge a 50% tax on these CAFO products and other refined foods to reduce chronic illnesses (sugar, oil, etc.) and simultaneously create an offsetting subsidy for whole plant-based foods. Adjust the tax and subsidy, if necessary, until the goals are met. At the same time, chronic disease rates would plummet and the Federal deficit, Medicare and Medicaid would be manageable. Not a bad payoff for giving up that hamburger and cheese, huh?
14
Less consumption of beef or pork, where a lot of bad runoff occurs on farms, can lower methane and land degradation if they are fed better grain which doesn't give them gas. Some small farmers are adopting this if only the mega conglomerate Archer Daniel Midland was listening. Humans are carnivores. Palm oil is not native to humans. Shareholders of these conglomerates must demand reform. We see the big selection at the store of antibiotic free chickens. COnsumer Reports were strong advocates of this successful movement. Antibiotic fed chickens and the growth of bacteria resistance means that chickens are more not less likely to carry salmonella.
1
Or any stupid state that wanted to do that could. I seem to remember a lot of cows in California.
James, animal husbandry is never discussed seriously as a source of global warming because it isn’t a serious source of global warming.
Every atom of carbon that makes up plants and animals was pulled from the air a short time before, then quickly returns. The same carbon goes ‘round and ‘round - CO2 from the air grows grass, animals eat the grass, animals die and decompose or are eaten, carbon goes back into the air. Over the time span of a hundred years or so there is no net change in atmospheric CO2.
Fossil fuels change everything. When we extract oil or coal, we’re introducing carbon which has been sequestered for 10 million years or more underground. Expelling it into the air is taking us back to a time before humans evolved, when temperatures were 10-20ºC hotter than they are now. It’s a climate which will be uninhabitable for most of the life on earth today - including humans - and will last for at least 100,000 years.
Because wind and solar energy are only capable of delivering a pitiably small fraction of the energy we get from fossil fuels, they will never replace it (solar is responsible for 1% of US electricity). Climatologists agree - the only way to halt global warming in time to make a difference is to build zero-carbon nuclear energy, as rapidly as we possibly can. And that Jerry Brown is pushing for closure of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, his state’s source of 2 billion watts of clean energy, shows he doesn’t have a clue how to fight global warming.
1
I live in a 500 square foot off grid home (all electrical from solar, composting toilet, hot water from solar etc.) I use about $35 a year on propane and get my water from a solar powered communal well. I grow a good portion of my food (flora and chickens) and essentially use no plastics that require recycle or garbage. Fortunately I do not have to commute for work, so my car is out only once a week, (I cycle into town as much as possible) My lifestyle and amenities rival that of any place on the planet. That said, I did all of this to live a far simpler but far richer life with the intended consequence of a very small ecological footprint. If folks took just one thing that could make a difference like don't drive one day a week, never buy bottled water, use own grocery bags etc. It would make a massive impact on the ecology. EVERY individual has the opportunity to be the change they want to see in the world. Government and corporations are not the answer. YOU are...
22
I believe one's ecological footprint is also very much linked to income. You can live a very frugal life but if you earn more than you spend, that money in your bank or 401K is invested in multinational corporations to grow the economy and emit carbon. Also, people brag about saving money on solar energy but use that savings to take carbon emitting vacations. Money is pretty much equivalent to energy use.
1
I have solar that generates more electricity than I use, drive my Prius a few miles a week, use recyclable bags, drink filtered water, and eat almost no meat. But I think governments need to be a big part of fighting global climate change. There are people in this country who think it's all a hoax, and as a former Republican majority leader said, "Every American has a right to drive a big SUV, and I'm goin' to get me one."
1
I used the money I'm saving on solar to buy another Prius. And there are plenty of profitable, socially aware of companies and funds in which to invest your money.
1
Lots of comments here on over population, but don't see many on how the U.S., with 5% consume 20% of the world's resources. That's four times the average footprint. It's somebody else's fault while we continue to enjoy our first world lifestyle.
7
Good point. It also means immigrants moving to the U.S., or other high-carbon countries, are going to greatly increase their carbon contribution. On the other hand, in nations like India, huge numbers of people want to add air conditioners, washing machines, and automobiles to their lifestyles. Which will up personal carbon contributions to near U.S. levels. We need a global one-child policy.
12
We are also over populated. And few if any want to give up that first world lifestyle.
7
Or better yet for those that can't afford to properly raise children none. Plenty in the US should have no children.
Fine, but with your climate change coverage deepening, don’t just talk to “Regulars” and “Names” from these fields. Find non-names with interesting stories about addressing this issue in unexpected places and in innovative ways, such as those trying to make change from inside of companies; students with bold projects; artists who reach people in alternative ways; politicians willing to sacrifice their office for this issue; visionaries and futurists; designers; social entrepreneurs; think tankers and plumbers; conservatives who sound like liberals on this issue (even if they can’t say “climate change,” or insist “It’s not because of Al Gore”); journalists with insight on reaching people; a minister who has gotten to their congregation; former deniers on what it took; someone from finance finding success with green bonds; people at airports charging their phones with bicycles; some city in the U.S. which sees a connection with drowning Pacific Island countries, and is trying to help; a farmer sequestering carbon in soil; someone thinking seriously about “Retreat” from the coastal areas, and how to make that feasible.
Surprise us. Find someone from the social services field linking in climate change; a Trump staffer currently in the closet on this issue; a cop willing to cite excess idling and how that plays out; a prominent athlete speaking out.
Finally, provide a dose of social scientists, who have things to tell us about changing behavior—and need to figure out much more.
5
How to "fix" global warming? Limit population growth and ensure that people are too poor to consume, which will limit production.
The proposed tax cut is a step in the right direction. The rich buy services, not goods, thereby lowering the overall carbon footprint. Therefore, a carbon tax also won't inconvenience their spending patterns
5
The first step to fixing a problem, is admitting you HAVE one.
9
Jerry Brown yes. Rahm Emanuel, why? He has little cred on anything- Chicago is a dumpster fire and he is holding a can of lighter fluid.
9
Unfortunately, (just like with addicts who need a 12-step program), it is likely that the environment is going to have to bottom out in a horrible manner before enough positive measures are taken to make a difference. I hope it won't be too late!
However, I really think that today, things should already be horrible enough to justify making these significant changes (polar ice at a minimum, billion-dollar weather events in the USA setting records every year, etc.), but unfortunately, facts don't seem to matter in today's political climate.
Best,
--Keith
@KeithDPatch
6
First of all, like the opioid crisis, the extinction crisis, the excess credit crisis the war crisis and the others: the climate crisis will solve itself.
Business as Usual = the temperatures will rise, agriculture will fail and the human race will be forced through (another) evolutionary keyhole. How many of our current 7+ billions will survive? Maybe a few thousand. Our finance, technology, management techniques --our fantasies and denial -- will simply be forgotten.
There is a race: can we rouse ourselves to make a serious effort to escape our onrushing destiny before solutions are forced upon us by events? Time is of the essence, there is no other issue.
Second, we can solve the problem with the tools we have in hand. We need to reduce our numbers, more importantly reduce the population of fuel gobbling machines (cars and airplanes) and the number of livestock animals we eat. We reduce these numbers by using money -- the tool in hand -- and paying people to do without; for instance, paying young girls not to have babies.
It takes little knowledge but rather discipline. It's out of fashion ... but the clock is ticking.
7
We will need massive technological investment to cool the planet - conversation won't be enough.
5
Like what??? You can't get around the laws of physics.
With the lack of scientists at this conference, it seems to be more of a PR exercise for King Canute :)
3
The whole debate is of no consequence. The root cause goes not just untreated, but unacknowledged.
The Earth's population is now 7.55 billion. It grows at better than 1% per year -- 83 million more in the last year. The average density, including uninhabitable polar reaches, deserts, is 200 people per sq.mi.
Given how many live in extreme or absolute poverty -- per the UN, 1 in 6 -- and cannot possibly reduce their carbon footprint, and that that fraction of humanity is growing even faster: No realizable reduction in human emission contribution as a cause of climate change can possibly keep up.
In short: Unless we agree, internationally, to absolute birth control, we are doomed. Not merely encouragement; control. The goal being the reduction of Earth’s population to, perhaps, 10% if what it is now. By any means necessary.
Are you ready to campaign for that?
All the rest is political, feel-good, posturing. A total waste of time.
20
The solution to fixing global warming is very easy: decrease human population, plain and simple. People cause global warming and human population has been increasing at an alarming rate over the past 40 years. Not only are we responsible for climate change, we are the main reason for habitat destruction leading to endangered animals and plants.
Population control should not be a taboo topic, it is a necessary one that society must consider. Many people fear Chinas one child policy and forcing individuals into abortions and that is a valid concern. But there are so many ways in which human rights are not violated that we could easily implement to control human population:
* Birth control should be free and easily accessible; they should for the most part be over the counter
* Families should not get tax credits for having children, they should be taxed heavier for every child that they have--children use social services, the more children you have, the more social services you use, it makes sense that families that have lots of kids pay more into the system
* Provide incentives for people to a) not have kids or only have 1 child, or b) adopt kids
23
SH: You use the term "birth control" to describe optional approaches individuals could use. That is not "control"; that is encouragement. It won't work; it's against nature for an adult male to not want his line to continue.
What is needed is not "incentives"; what is essential is true control.
It's not going to happen. Mankind is doomed to consume its own environment until there is nothing left.
What hypocrisy!
Brown needs to ban gasoline based cars by 2021. That's the minimum he needs to do. He needs to ban non-bio-degradable plastics as well. He needs to tax plane travel and fund wind power. He needs to slap a penalty on all carbon based industries and fund solar power.
Then we can start a discussion as to whether California is leading.
2
Sure ban something and get someone else elected that won't ban them.
First of all, chill.
Second of all use the resulting calm to consider who we voted for.
Third. Don't make that mistake again.
3
Lemme see if I've got this straight. The governor of a state with 40 million people and millions more coming and culture of cars, driving and sprawl is going to tell everybody how to solve GW without addressing basically any of these issues. And people wonder why most of us don't take the times and lefty politicians seriously any more than we do the goofs on the right.
4
Too many people. Let's hope that they discuss this burning topic.
Overpopulation always seems to be avoided for some reason.
If somehow the human population train is not slowed down, very soon,
the entire planet will be going off the tracks, guaranteed.
12
“Expert Opinion”
Stopping human population growth, and then gradually reducing the global human population to 2 billion, will fix global warming.
11
All the material advances by humans have been through science, technology and engineering, even medical engineering. Time we stopped demonising science and turn to them for solutions. In particular, wind power has a long way to go in terms of efficiency and those dreadful windmills do nothing for the local scenery and are limited use in combating climate change.
1
Ultimately the source of pollution is people. We have more people living than the atmosphere can support. Solar panels, windmills, cleaner power plants - all this helps, but unless we scale back the size of the human population we are lost.
28
so then you should support trump - b/c he is working real hard to reduce the size of human population
Nothing done in the US will have any significant effect on the climate of the planet, and there are no "energy miracles" that will alleviate our ongoing environmental disaster as the global population increases from 7.5 to some 10 billion carbon-generating human heaters during this century. The root cause of all global environmental problems is overpopulation, but as this article illustrates there is no leadership to address it. Humans have chosen quantity over quality; the inevitable results are now emerging.
26
what would you propose to "address" world population?
China has gone from 563 million to 1.3 billion people WITH a one child policy, which most of the developed world consider to be a horrible human rights violation. You want to impose a no child policy? a lottery to be allowed to have children? maybe a DNA test to test your qualifications for reproduction?
Or maybe we just kill everyone over 50?
surely you have a plan to "address it"
2
Jerry Brown and Rahm are lifetime politicians. What does they know about "innovation?" I mean, really .. the world's a mess, those with hands-on work experiences are needed.
How about say war and starvation for example.
"How to Fix Global Warming: We Talk to Tech Innovators, Entrepreneurs and Political Leaders"
But no scientists? Lets be clear none of the folks listed have the slightest interest in fixing global warming unless it can be made to serve their more important interests. For political leaders, that is gaining political power. For Tech Innovators, it is creative technology and for entrepreneurs it is creating profitable businesses. For the media, it is creating interesting stories that attract an audience for advertisers. Given that those interests, its hard to see how those folks leadership is going to end global warming.
19
Today is November 29th. The average high temperature at my location is 47 degress, and the average low is 29. It is currently (3 p.m.) 59 degrees, and tonight's low is predicted to be 42. Warm days in late November are not a rarity in Missouri, but it's been this way all month. Several days during the past week have been 70.
Anecdote is not data, but global warming is real. We *all* need to be part of fixing it. The scientists *are* working on it. At this point we are not going to "end" global warming; we are going to have to adapt the best we can. It's going to take everyone. Would you rather this Venn diagram of the population be part of the problem, or attempt to chime in on the solution?
10
Global warming is real. That is the problem. For most of these folks reality is not a major consideration because they live in a theatrical media world where appearance is reality. Consider for a moment how much carbon was expended getting all these "leaders" to a conference to discuss reducing carbon emissions.
I agree we all need to be part of the solution. But these folks aren't going to be. Experience shows they are far more likely to be prominent leaders in a failed effort, mostly pushing aside real solutions that are contrary to their interests. Can you imagine them leading a campaign to reduce airline travel, auto travel, home size and consumption in general? Not likely huh?
1
How about the world stops improving their economies. They are continuing to increase their emissions, a real problem would not allow that.