By Rona Fried
After two years of negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen finale, few of us are waiting with baited breath for the outcome.
Maybe it’s too much to ask for hundreds of countries to successfully negotiate complex issues – even with such high stakes, the challenge is just too great.
If we add up all the commitments made at Copenhagen, the sum total is about half of what’s necessary to stave off climate change. This graph from the Climate Action Tracker shows that countries’ reduction proposals leave us with a temperature increase of 3.9°C, equivalent to 770 ppm of carbon dioxide (CO2). Science tells us catastrophic climate change will occur if we exceed 1.5°C – 350 ppm of CO2.
Unfortunately, the US continues to hold the world back. Under President Obama’s leadership, we’re finally moving ahead with serious commitments to energy efficiency, green manufacturing and renewable energy. But our specific GHG emission reduction targets are pathetic – and an embarrassment.
As the world’s leading polluter for the past century (and the creator of climate change), the US should take a strong leadership position on emission cuts – 40% by 2020, not a measly 3% by 2020 below 1990 levels. How can we even say it with a straight face? How can we continue to tell other countries to do their share when we refuse to do ours? Because US politics is so divided these days and Congress is so grid-locked, it will be a miracle if we can reach even a 3% commitment in the Climate Change Bill – the next huge legislative battle looming in 2010.
Does it Matter?
Of course it matters, but there’s a chance it could become a moot point. More than enough studies show that 30-40% emission cuts will naturally flow from nationwide energy efficiency upgrades, greener buildings and ramping up renewable energy sources. The US is getting on course to make serious progress in these areas thanks to the Obama Administration – regardless of whether Congress agrees to significant emission cuts, they will happen anyway! Actions speak louder than words – although our words are still too soft on this subject, our actions are getting louder.
And, as we all know, once industries hit critical mass, momentum carries them forward. The foundation is finally being laid – millions of homes and businesses are getting a tune-up and solar and wind plants are rising across the US. Significant funds are flowing in to green tech R&D, the smart grid is in motion, solar prices are dropping dramatically. Once these technologies are entrenched in our economy, it will be too late for status quo-defenders to once again turn back the clock.
But perhaps we should shift the dialog from the negative focus of who will reduce emissions by how much – which leads to never ending bickering – to how we can elevate civilization on Planet Earth to one that we all want to be a part of? Rather than competing for who should reduce emissions the most, why don’t we compete on who can scale up the fastest on delivering a sustainable economy for all?
What our civilization needs most is:
– clean air and water
– healthy ecosystems, especially forests and oceans
– energy independence
– livable cities
– healthy people
And these will be the results of transitioning to a green economy. Poisoning the earth’s air and water is catastrophic for the health of all species that share this planet – not only have we seen dramatic increases in human diseases, placing huge strains on our health care systems, we are witnessing the greatest species extinction in millions of years. Go to Beijing and breathe the air. Rivers have few fish, forests have few animals, people can’t drink the water …
Clearly, there’s good reason to move beyond 18th and 19th century technologies even without deciding the climate change debate.
Suburbia, our complete dependence on the automobile, and cheap airline flights have separated families and friends and fragmented previously strong communities. The term "neighbor" doesn’t mean much anymore, people feel isolated and alone. Portland, Oregon, for example, reduced carbon emissions despite growing population by 18%, largely due to land-use and transportation strategies that emphasize infill locations, walkable neighborhoods, and transit-oriented development.
Our voracious desire to consume the world’s fossil fuel resources has fueled wars in the Mid East and created the enemies we face today. Energy independence is critically important, regardless of one’s position on climate change.
The more human population swells, the more trash the planet must absorb, the fewer places left for any life form other than humans. We simply must clean up our act and re-create a world worth living in – climate change or not.
A new CBS poll shows only 37% of Americans think government action on climate change is a high priority; they want the focus on the economy, and in particular, jobs. Of course, a plethora of reports show that transitioning to a sustainable economy will provide those jobs, as does Low Carbon Jobs in an Interconnected World, just released.
How can you create completely new industries and change the course of energy use without creating jobs? How can you create and market new green chemicals, processes and products and not create jobs at the same time? How can you clean up the air and water, while bringing back collapsing fisheries without creating jobs? How can you bring solar and other green technologies to the developing world without creating jobs? And how can we convert to small-scale, locally based organic food supplies without creating jobs?
Business is On Board for Good Reason
Leading corporations believe they have or can create the technologies and tools we need for this transition – and lead them to a new era of growth – if we’d only stop arguing about it and create the certainty they need to charge full steam ahead.
That’s why dozens of leading companies like Nike and Johnson Controls are at Copenhagen advocating for a strong international treaty that reduces pollution and accelerates clean technology innovation. They’re not there to fight it – they’re there to make it happen because political uncertainty is stifling their businesses.
Even without emission reduction mandates and without compelling incentives toward creating the products and processes that will lead to a green economy, a slew of corporations are greening their buildings, drastically reducing energy use and producing greener products. Nike’s new distribution center in Tennessee is one example among thousands – it uses 50% less energy than similar conventional buildings, and Nike is spreading the savings to factories in China and Vietnam.
One of the bones of contention in Copenhagen is China’s reluctance to verify its emission reductions. But China’s Meteorological Administration has already purchased a greenhouse gas analyzer from California -based Picarro, a start-up in a brand new industry – carbon tracking. In contrast to current methods for measuring emissions, which rely on estimates based on energy and fuel consumption, Picarro’s patented technology accurately measures emissions. Laser beams detect changes in wavelength signals in the air, indicating concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Picarro raised $22 million in venture capital and is rapidly hiring employees, including scientists, physicists, engineers, sales reps, and technical service people. And competitors are already lining up. LI-COR Biosciences, Agilent Technologies, Thermo Scientific and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography are all developing similar technologies.
Another example is the transition from fossil fuel-based plastics to greener plastics. Kodak and Novomer are building a pilot plant to produce plastic wrap that’s healthier for people, preserves food better, while reducing reliance on petroleum and finding uses for carbon dioxide.
The product, polypropylene carbonate, consists of 50% fossil fuels and 50% CO2. Using 100% petroleum to produce plastic currently consumes about 10% of the oil in the U.S. If Novomer’s process was widely accepted, fuel consumption would drop 5%. Imagine if all kinds of plastic could be created without any fossil fuels?
What’s missing are strong incentives for companies to move in that direction.
The point is, the world absolutely must reduce carbon emissions so the earth’s temperature rises no more than 1.5°C – we’ve already surpassed that level. Politics as usual isn’t getting us there and we’re out of time to waste.
The totality of human commerce has brought the earth’s species to its knees – cutting down the world’s forests, acidifying the oceans and threatening most every species – including us – with extinction. For every point that we reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, we will improve conditions on earth. Viewed another way, for every incentive we provide to protect our biodiversity and create healthy products, we enhance life on earth.
I don’t care which way we take to get there, we just have to get there.
++++
Rona Fried, Ph.D. is CEO of SustainableBusiness.com
Loading...