The B-Green Collaborative was founded on the belief that Green Energy is critical to our future. We see three major driving forces for the conversion to Green Energy – three legs to the stool in ‘Obama speak’. They are (1) the global issue of avoiding dramatic climate change, (2) the national need for energy independence and (3) economic stimulus.

In the initial issues of the B-Green Collaborative magazine, we will address each leg of the stool one issue at a time, starting with climate change – arguably the most important.

Changes in the Earth’s climate are nothing new. Throughout human history our climate has gone through many natural cycles. What is new, of course, is the idea that changes in our climate can be anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. Many factors can impact our climate, and not all of them are fully understood by today’s scientists. However, it is indisputable that our climate is impacted by the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) in our atmosphere. GHGs, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and others, absorb warming, infrared radiation emitted from the earth’s surface that would otherwise leave our atmosphere. Retention of this heat causes the earth’s surface temperature to rise. Scientists know that prior to the industrial revolution GHG levels remained relatively constant. Our atmospheric CO₂ level stayed near 280 ppm (parts per million) for thousands of years. However, in recent years, as fossil fuels became the energy source for our transportation and electricity and as globalization increased the number of people burning fossil fuels, the level of CO₂ and other GHGs in our atmosphere swelled to a dangerous 387 ppm.

Much has been written recently about humanity’s impact on our climate, with many accepting the global warming arguments and others believing the arguments fall short. One of the most influential, reputable and scientifically rigorous reports is the recent 2007 Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC includes hundreds of scientists from all over the globe in an organization established jointly by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). This is a wonderful report for those who have time to read it. Some statements made in the report are worth quoting.

1. “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”
2. “Global atmospheric concentrations of CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O (GHGs of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) have markedly increased as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values…”
3. “Global increases in CO concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use…”
4. “There is very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming…” (italics in the IPCC have a quantitative definition, such that very high confidence implies a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct)

There is a great amount of quantitative information in this report. For instance, a graph of global average surface temperature shows a rise of 1.4 ^oF since 1860, with most of it occurring over the past 50 years. It also shows the sea level rising nearly 7 inches since 1870, again with an accelerated rate over the past 50 years.

The rise in average surface temperature of 1.4 ^oF may not sound significant to a layperson, but it can have a huge impact and, in truth, does not tell the whole story. Looking deeper, the IPCC reports temperature changes since 1970 for different regions of the earth. During this period, while the global average surface temperature rose 1.1 ^oF, much of the ocean surface temperatures barely increased in the South Pacific and the Atlantic, particularly off the east coast of the U.S. However, other areas such as much of Canada, Siberian Russia and Greenland increased as much as 3.0 ^oF. Northern Alaska experienced the greatest warming trend during this period, as much as 6.0 ^oF. This very recent increase in temperature gradients across the globe portends trouble and is partially responsible for why more severe and unusual weather patterns, such as the 2003 European heat wave and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, have been attributed by many to global warming.

Global temp changes since 1970 (from IPCC Fig 1.2)

One of the IPCC conclusions (quote #3 above) is related to both the rapid increase in carbon dioxide and the growing quantity of GHGs anthropogenically filling our atmosphere each year. Graphing the carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere over the past 10,000 years shows the level increasing like a rocket in the last 1% of the curve. Global anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalents (this measure takes into account the weighted effects of other GHG such as methane, which is a much more effective heat absorber) emitted in 2004 was 49 billion tons, of which 60% was produced by the burning of fossil fuels. Since 1970, when annual global anthropogenic emissions were 28.7 billion tons, the total annual emissions have increased 70%, which is approximately the same rate of growth as the world population.

The IPCC report goes on to predict global temperature increases and the relative effects on our climate and weather. Depending on the model, IPCC predicts temperatures by the last decade of the 21st century will have increased anywhere from 2.0 ^oF to 11.5 ^oF compared to the period 1980 -1999. Over the same period and range of models, IPCC predicts a sea level rise of between 7 inches and 23 inches. The models, of course, depend on us: how much our population grows, how many people leave poverty and start burning fossil fuels and how successful we are at addressing these issues. Ignore climate change, look the other way or make excuses, and the higher end of these projections is likely to be the outcome.

Source: National Academies Report 2008 “Understanding and Responding To Climate Change”

Models created by others suggest that the IPCC models are much too conservative. Dr. Chu, our Secretary of Energy and a Nobel laureate, has indicated that the IPCC report’s lack of inclusion of the effect of methane release from the warming Artic permafrost causes a significant underestimate of the warming forecast (this subject deserves more attention and we will review it in a future issue).

The report dryly predicts the future impacts of global warming: more droughts, reduced freshwater availability, loss of biodiversity, more weather extremes, and crop disruption. The likely impact on human life and economic hardships would be anything but dry.

The case made by the IPCC is strong but it is not airtight. Those who want to find flaws will find them – after all ‘very high confidence’ is not certainty. It is true that other panels and reports, such as the 2008 National Academies report on Climate Change, make similar conclusions, but climate is anything but simple to predict. Many of us on an unusually cold day have said “what global warming?” to express our disaffection with the harsh weather. Some in colder climates may even secretly harbor an interest in benefiting from global warming. Solutions to global warming would certainly threaten jobs at coal mining operations and disrupt automotive factories, making for uneven political support for an intangible global warming theory. Others would argue that yes, the globe is warming due to human behavior, but as optimists believe our traditional level of ingenuity will address the problem and that no special efforts or economic incentives are needed.

B-Green Collaborative believes there is enough confidence in the current data and model predictions to necessitate worldwide efforts to bring the GHG levels back down. To those who argue we shouldn’t address global warming until it is 100% certain (the next IPCC report is due out in 2014), we say that inertial forces behind continued accumulation of GHGs in our atmosphere are so great that waiting would make the GHG recovery much more difficult. To those concerned about jobs tied to the production or use of fossil fuels, we say new and better jobs will come. To those concerned about the higher cost of gasoline or electricity we say it is much better to make small and regular investments in the earth’s future, than have to bare the burden of a sudden $81 B bill from another Hurricane Katrina or the cost to relocate a whole city dependent upon water from snow capped mountains that have suddenly become dry. Finally, in the highly remote possibility that our climate does not warm or even cools despite the increases in GHG, the two other legs of the stool, energy independence and economic stimulus still make renewable energy and energy efficiency worthy goals.

B-GC

For further reading, the B-GC recommends, ‘Hot, Flat and Crowded’ by Thomas L. Friedman, in addition to the IPCC Synthesis Report, 2007 and the National Academies Report.