When I started thinking about what to write this month, I thought about bemoaning the political insanity surrounding the national campaigns. But since everyone is talking about that, I doubt that anyone would be interested in my two cents worth on that topic. So, I chose something else.
A few days ago, I heard something about an annual Bill and Melinda Gates letter, so, I decided to look it up and read it. The letter was really geared to high school students. Bill’s portion of it focused on energy–the energy that impoverished areas of the world lack and that we take for granted every time we turn on a light, power up our computers, or adjust our thermostats. However, the generation of this energy that could help bring people out of poverty would increase greenhouse gas emissions. Then the letter talks about the anticipated consequences of climate change on the poorest people of the world and states, “Scientists say that to avoid these dramatic long-term changes to the climate, the world must cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 percent by 2050, and eliminate them entirely by the end of the century.” Bill says that we’re going to need a “miracle” to reach this target.
Bill presented an equation of P x S x E x C = CO2 the Kaya Identify, and indicated that one of the terms on the left would need to go to zero for CO2 to go to zero. P is population, S is the services used by each person, E is the energy needed to provide these services and C is the CO2 produced by that energy. Based on this equation, “C,” CO2 emitted from energy generation, would need to be eliminated on the left side to reduce CO2 on the right side to zero. This is because “C” is the only term on the left side of the equation that could ever realistically equal zero. However, this equation does not include a term for sequestration of CO2, which could be used to offset some continued emissions, while still achieving the target of zero net emissions.
Now, switching gears a bit, I recently received a survey from our good friend Senator Ted Gaines. He wanted to know if his constituents support paying a 16¢ – 76¢ hidden gas tax on every gallon of fuel to pay for projects such as California’s High-Speed Rail. Senator Gaines is concerned that “This project will push California over the fiscal cliff.” I decided to look into the math on this. Let’s say that the project will cost $100 billion. Let’s say we pay for it with bond financing over 30 years at a 6% interest rate. That would require a whopping $7.3 billion per year payment. It sounds huge. But it’s all of 0.3% of the State’s $2.3 trillion gross domestic product. If his constituents were asked, “Should 0.3% of California GDP be spent on transformative infrastructure to meet future transportation needs with a much smaller environmental impact than air travel?”, might the answers be different?
“Our task is epic and dramatic, monumental and clear. People have already engineered the Earth’s habitats. The time has come to learn how to do that without endangering most of the world’s species. Then we must merely re-engineer the entire Earth, but this time, responsibly.” (Rosenzweig 2005)
The miracle that we need may just be to move beyond political rhetoric, to have honest and productive conversations, and to implement a wide range of projects that contribute to the ultimate objective.
