Post No. 25: Climate Change

The other day I was watching the semi-final women’s tennis match of the U.S. Open when it was interrupted by a group of protesters in the stands. Written on their shirts were the words “End Fossil Fuels Now”. This got me thinking about the issue of climate change and how we as a society are approaching it.

There is no doubt that climate around the world is changing. For example Europe is having summers hotter than ever before. Many who have easily lived without air conditioning are now feeling it is a necessity. We are having more intense tornadoes, floods and forest fires in North America. Perhaps there is a natural trend that is causing some of these changes, but it is indisputable that, since the beginning of the industrial age, tremendous amounts of excessive carbon dioxide has been emitted due to the burning of fossil fuels and the increase in human population. I suggest it is also indisputable that greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, has the effect of trapping heat within our atmosphere so that it is less likely to evaporate into space.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critical to maintaining the earth’s goldilocks temperature that is just right for us humans to flourish. However, the excessive carbon dioxide emitted by our industrial society appears to be creating the climate change we all observe to be more extreme. Most scientists project that climate change will only get worse and that it will become increasingly more problematic causing extreme flooding and other extreme weather events. Whether or not one agrees that this is a crisis that must be addressed now, let’s assume this is true. Then let’s explore the main sources of human emitted carbon dioxide and what might be done about it. As you will read further, I suggest that the answer is not just a simplistic “End fossil fuels now” approach. Rather a more common sense approach is to look at the main human drivers of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases such as methane), where they are, and what we might do about them. And yes, fossil fuels do pollute the atmosphere, some more than others, but we live on a big globe and this post goes beyond a simple slogan. It should be noted before we begin that there has always been natural sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In fact, our planet needs a certain amount of greenhouse gases to keep it within a normal temperature range. It’s just that the accumulation of greenhouse gases from our industrial society, that remain in the atmosphere for years has brought us to the point we are now. All the data I describe in this post comes from verified sources such as the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), NASA, Wikipedia, Environmental Protection Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency.

Assuming we are in the midst of a climate crisis, and that humans have contributed to the change in climate by the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, how big is our human contribution to greenhouse gases? By most estimates it is quite large, although the actual percentage comparison varies greatly. So where are the larger human sources of these emissions and what might we do to reduce them.

First, let’s look at the countries that create the most greenhouse gas emissions so we can begin to focus on possible solutions. China is by far the largest, emitting twice as much per year than the U.S. The top six countries, China, United States, European Union, India, Russia and Japan emit over two-thirds of the world’s greenhouse gases. Here is a breakdown of percentages by country/region:

China: 30 percent

United States: 15 percent

European Union: 9 percent

India: 7 percent

Russia: 5 percent

Japan: 4 percent

With the above in mind let’s delve deeper into the issue.

The largest single sector contributing to carbon dioxide emissions is the electricity power generation sector. These are the power plants that provide the energy for electricity in our homes, electric cars and other uses. It is estimated that power plants contribute from a quarter to a third of all emissions worldwide. Most of the other sources of greenhouse gases come from the transportation, industrial process and agriculture sectors. Thus, we need to look at these sectors that contribute a majority of human sourced greenhouse gas emissions. Going electric would benefit all three sectors, but there is a big caveat in using electric that will be discussed shortly.

Considering the above statistics, two obvious solutions seem to pop up:

1. Go electric

2. Generate electricity with much fewer emissions.

Given that transportation, industrial process and agricultural sectors account for about two thirds of all greenhouse gas emissions, using electric power in these sectors where feasible is the way to go. Of course this assumes that the generation of the electricity itself does not cause major emissions of carbon dioxide. This leads us to look more closely at electric power generation and how different countries are going about it differently.

Sixty percent of all power plants in the United States are powered by fossil fuels. No wonder those protesters wore shirts with “End fossil fuels now” written on them. Yet, we need to look a little closer. Only twenty percent of U.S power plants use coal, the biggest emitter by source of carbon dioxide. Forty percent are powered by natural gas, a fuel that emits half the greenhouse gases that coal emits. In addition, there have been no new coal plants built in the U.S. in the last decade. There are also no plans to build new coal plants. Thus, in the United States, coal power plants are destined to go into the dustbin of history. So, in the U.S., with the use of natural gas, renewables and nuclear, U.S. power plants will soon have emissions of about twenty percent compared to those countries with coal power plants. The U.S. is very fortunate to have an abundance of natural gas, the cleanest form of fossil fuel. Yet, because 40 percent of our current electricity generation is powered by natural gas, we still have a way to go, despite it being much better than coal (half as many carbon dioxide emissions).

China’s electricity production consists of about two-thirds coal and the remainder renewables or nuclear. Compared to the United States, their electricity generating power plants produce about six times the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere (Partly because they produce twice the amount of electricity). Also, very surprisingly, last year China approved two new coal power plants per week! Despite having small increases in using renewables, China seems to be going in the wrong direction when it comes to lessening greenhouse gas emissions.

India is producing about 60 percent of its electricity from coal and nearly 38 percent from renewables. But India, like China, continues to produce many more coal power plants each year. Their demand for electricity continues to increase significantly each year and they see coal as their main option to meet this demand. Renewables help a lot but they are still dependent on coal. They plan to continue to build many more coal power plants despite all the comforting words about renewables.

Considering what is happening in China and India, it is not surprising that worldwide the production of electricity by coal continues to increase each year. It has doubled in the past two decades.

Now we come to the part about what should be done. As described previously, the first step is to go electric.

Step One: Go Electric

Imagine the following scenario and how it would cut greenhouse grass emissions by more than half:

Cars, buses, trucks, trains, boats, etc. virtually all electric

Industrial and agricultural sectors go electric as far as feasible

Step Two: Produce all electricity by renewables or nuclear power.

There are two considerations for Step Two to come to fruition:

1) Recognize that renewables do not have the capacity to replace fossil fuels or meet the increasing demand for electricity throughout the world. Just look at China and India and realize how they are forced to build many new coal powered plants every year to meet their demand, despite the perception that they are all about renewables. It should also be noted that renewables have a significant environmental impact even though they are emission free. With thousands and thousands of acres of giant wind mills and solar farms, the impact on the environment and wildlife is considerable.

2) Nuclear does have the capacity to replace all the fossil fuel powered electricity generating plants. There are two problems with nuclear that, I believe, can be overcome. First is that it has a long lead time and requires a much larger capital investment upfront to build a nuclear plant. Second is that people are currently afraid of nuclear because of the accidents at Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Despite the fact that these accidents occurred over a forty year time span, people are still afraid. Fear alone is what is stopping the buildout of these plants. To illustrate the absurdity of the fear consider the behavior of France vs. Germany. France produces 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear. Germany, next door, dismantled all its nuclear plants after the Fukushima problem due to a TIDAL WAVE. I don’t think Germany has to worry about tidal waves! Crazier still is that Germany replaced its nuclear plants with coal plants!!! Alles ist nicht normal aus Deutschland.

For those who are reluctant to generate electricity via nuclear power, ask yourself this question:

“What is riskier: electricity generated by nuclear power or climate change”.

If climate change is risker, then call your congressman or congresswoman and voice your opinions about going nuclear.

To conclude, emission-free power generation powering an industrial society run primarily on electricity is the main solution to climate change. Emission-free power generation will not happen without significantly ramping up nuclear power generating plants. The U.S. should begin the process of converting their coal plants to nuclear and lead the world in advocating for nuclear energy as a solution.

Lastly, there is one other climate issue that is not caused by humans but is something humans may be able to mitigate: FOREST FIRES. Forest fires are bad for the environment in two major ways. First, burning wood emits carbon dioxide into the air at levels similar to burning coal. Second, forests are huge carbon sinks since they take carbon dioxide out of the air and produce oxygen. As an example of the huge amount of carbon emissions produced by forest fires, estimates are that the forest fires in California in 2020 produced carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to over half the fossil fuel emissions in California for the entire year! This does not take into account the loss of the carbon sink from the burnt forest. Of course, forests will renew and comeback - but it takes many years. To illustrate the absurdity of some climate actors, there are actually several power plants in Europe fueled by wood. After all it is a renewable source of energy and one can get climate credits for using such a source! What I am suggesting is that mitigating forest fires should be a main focus in combating climate change. I don’t know the answer, but I’m sure there are some smart people out there that have some ideas about how to prevent or lessen the severity of some of these forest fires. Complicating the picture is that climate change itself is thought to be a factor in many of our forest fires. Perhaps we should enlist Smokey the Bear to help us out!

To conclude this lengthy post that started because of a tennis match, here is a summary of what I am suggesting:

. Climate change is real

. Human industrial society has over the last two centuries been a major contributor

. Humans can start to turn this around by three main approaches

. Go electric as much as possible

. Generate electricity by renewables and nuclear only

. Mitigate forest fires to the extent possible

My suggestion will not work very well without making a concerted push to advocate for nuclear power plants. In the United States we should immediately begin the process of pushing for more nuclear reactors. But guess what … we are behind China and India in this effort. China currently has 21 nuclear reactors under construction. Even India has eight reactors under construction. The U.S. has one. The U.S. needs to step up and lead. The fact that China and India are also taking this path should make our job easier. I’m hoping an administration capable of leading is able to take the helm and make this happen.

Thanks for reading my humble opinions.