Starbucks and CI's National Day of Discussion on Climate Change

Thanks Jen, it is great to see so many folks sending in questions about what they and others can do to tackle climate change.

Oscar,
Given the need for large-scale actions now, not years from now, it is very important to get involved with a group to help change policies and regulations that result in accelerating climate change solutions. This is important at the community level (over 400 mayors have committed their cities to meeting or exceeding the Kyoto Treaty reduction targets), at the state level (getting utilities to focus on energy efficiency, solar, wind, geothermal, and biowastes) and at the national level (getting adoption of a cap on emissions).

For your personal actions from day to day, take a look at the suggested “Turning the Tide” actions at Web sites like Center for a New American Dream (www.newdream.org).

Given the lower historical releases of GHG emissions of not only China, but India and scores of other developing countries relative to the USA and other developed nations, they certainly have a reasonable position in arguing that “You did it when you were developing, now it's our turn.” As a recent National Academy of Sciences article pointed out, "Together, the developing and least-developed economies (forming 80% of the world’s population) accounted for 73% of global emissions growth in 2004 but only 41% of global emissions and only 23% of global cumulative emissions since the mid-18th century. The results have implications for global equity." At the same time, just China's double-digit annual growth, fueled with more coal-burning than any other nation in the world, rapidly moved them to the dubious status of the number-one global GHG emitter, surpassing the USA in 2007.

This assumes, however, that China, India, and other developing nations continue to pursue economic prosperity and well-being in "business-as-usual" fashion, or building the future like "the past writ large." There is no ironclad economic law, technical inevitability, or writ-in-stone social, political, or market barrier that makes this undesirable future destined or fated. On the contrary, mounting evidence and accumulating experience provide a compelling case that these nations can join developed nations while eliminating massive poverty (now greater numbers than at any time in human history), developing vibrant economies with clean air and safe water, and achieving this with steadily declining levels of GHG emissions.

A number of recent public and private assessments show it’s technologically feasible, economically attractive, and socially positive to achieve. Reaching this preferable future will require what the International Energy Agency calls "aggressive innovation" mapping; their own scenarios show this can result in approximately three-quarters of GHG emission reductions from energy being achieved by delivering energy services through 2030 more efficiently.

How? It is achievable by using our technical ingenuity and scientific knowledge to satisfy the major fraction of growing energy, water, and resource demands through better know-how applied in designing, manufacturing, and operating energy-consuming devices. Solid-state electronics and space-age materials have given rise to a vast pool of cost-saving efficiency opportunities. These range from constructing zero net energy efficient buildings and green neighborhoods to manufacturing higher performance, lower energy consuming and polluting "smarter" appliances, computers, consumer electronics, lights, industrial drive motor systems, machinery, vehicles, and utility smartgrids. There are also highly innovative market-based policies, incentives, and regulatory changes being used in many localities that, adopted more widely, can accelerate these climate-friendly opportunities.

Most interestingly, the IEA/OECD notes, "The costs of mitigating climate change are not that large. Some studies show less than 1% of world Gross Domestic Product (GDP) loss in 2030 to achieve emission reductions consistent with even some of the most aggressive long-term climate stabilization goals. This is a small difference (less than a tenth of a %) in the projected annual growth rate in GDP in 2030." This difference is more than made up by the value and benefits accruing from improved air and water quality, reduced number of climate-triggered disasters, and improved health and productivity.

Specific to China, there is no doubt that China’s past three decades of double-digit economic growth are incurring massive costs, calculated by the World Bank to be 8% of China’s annual gross domestic product (GDP). These costs are projected to double by 2020, resulting in some $400 billion in annual health and environmental damages — if business as usual continues. But this bleak reality and even darker future are being challenged by Chinese leaders. They recently have enacted laws that, for the first time ever, set as the nation’s top priorities aggressive pursuit of the 4Es (efficiency of energy, water, resources, and land), pollution prevention, waste reduction, and rapid growth of renewable energy. China has set a goal of reducing the energy intensity per dollar of GDP by 4% per year through 2010 (compared to the world average of 1% per year).

Are these ambitious laws and goals—which exceed current U.S. efforts—for real? More explicitly, don’t the entrenched bureaucracy and national industries with vested interests in capturing the $15 trillion of revenues from the planned construction of coal, large-scale hydro and nuclear power plants pose an obvious barrier to the success of these goals?

Encouraging signs, many newly emerging, lead a number of analysts to believe that positive changes are on the cusp of reshaping the energy paradigm in China. Given the colossal opportunities of the 4Es to deliver energy and water services at a cost several times lower than much of the current supply-expansion plans, one of the most exciting changes afoot is several provinces’ adoption of integrated energy resource planning (IRP). For more than a decade, the Energy Foundation China Program and the Natural Resources Defense Council China program have been building understanding among Chinese ministry officials for implementing a more complete IRP process that enables aggregated demand-side efficiency options to compete with new power plants. Through this concept, an “Efficiency Power Plant” (EPP)—a bundle of investments in energy-conserving technologies—fills the same power needs as a conventional power plant by saving electricity rather than producing it. Shanghai and Beijing provinces have joined Jiangsu province, the first to innovate, in adopting IRP.

The fundamental strength of IRP with EPPs is the transparency it brings to decisions now often made without comparison of costs, risks, and benefits against the full portfolio of options. For example, 60% of China’s electricity is consumed by industrial drive systems — motors, pumps, compressors, and fans. Utility incentive programs in many U.S. states have shown that efficiency upgrades to these systems can achieve 30% savings at five times less cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) than building new generation to power the inefficient ones.

Worldwide, an initiative for transforming the motor market would save 2 trillion kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, equal to the output of one-fourth of all coal plants to be built through 2030, while reducing global energy bills by $240 billion per decade. Chinese motor experts are fully engaged in this process, hosting the 2007 conference of the recently launched SEEEM initiative (Standards for Energy Efficiency of Electric Motor Systems). Potential savings in China are worth $100 billion per decade by eliminating the need for 378 billion kWhs of energy per year—equivalent to 63 EPPs each 1,000 megawatts (MW) in size. This initiative also would avoid the shipment of 147 million tons of coal each year in nearly 1.5 million railroad cars, prevent the annual release of 420 million tons of CO₂, 2.3 million tons of sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide pollutants, and eliminate the need for 9.5 trillion gallons of water per year to cool the coal plants.

Spearheading the IRP/EPP regulatory innovation in China for the Energy Foundation during the past six years has been David Moskovitz, former commissioner of the Maine Public Utilities Commission and cofounder of the Regulatory Assistance Project. For nearly two decades, Moskovitz and a cadre of other utility and policy innovators have championed a paradigm shift in utility thinking, effectively turning many utilities’ opposition to efficiency into excitement for promoting EPPs. This shift is achieved by departing from the traditional method of setting utility earnings based on revenue growth. EPPs reduce utility revenues, hence earnings under the conventional model. By decoupling earnings from revenues and allowing recovery of lost earnings due to revenue declines, regulators give utilities an incentive for helping customers to capture EPP opportunities. So although revenues go down, earnings increase, and while customer utility rates increase to cover utility earnings, their bills decrease.

Dorene,
A century of policies, subsidies, regulations, and rules have been built around fossil and nuclear resources, and large hydro. These all need to be changed if we are to successfully promote climate solutions like comprehensive efficiency gains and solar, wind, geothermal, and biowastes.

A dozen or so individual states have taken faster action than the federal government, but it appears things are picking up steam. This is most obvious in wind power. Now operational in more than 70 countries, wind power has been the fastest-growing source of renewable energy. Worldwide, wind power expanded more than 15-fold over the course of a decade, from 4,800 megawatts (MW) in 1995 to installed wind capacity of 74,000 MW by the end of 2006. The wind market grew a record 41% in 2005, and despite supply-chain constraints, in 2006 achieved an impressive 32% growth. Some 150,000 people now employed in the global wind industry were responsible for the $23 billion in new generating equipment installed in 2006.

Europe still leads the market, with nearly 50,000 MW of installed capacity, representing 65% of the global total and producing roughly 100 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity. This capacity is equal to 3.3% of total EU electricity consumption.

The countries with the highest total installed capacity are Germany (20,621 MW), Spain (11,615 MW), the United States (11,603 MW), India (6,270 MW) and Denmark (3,136 MW). Thirteen countries around the world have more than 1,000 MW of wind capacity, with France and Canada reaching this threshold in 2006.

The cost of wind power has fallen dramatically as the world market has expanded. Today’s wind turbine produces 180 times more electricity per year at less than half the cost per unit (kWh) than its counterpart of two decades ago. At good locations, wind can compete with the cost of either coal or gas-fired power.

Wind energy has the potential to become a major source of global electricity supply. But will politicians establish the policies required to make this potential a reality? The indefatigable conservationist David Brower would remind citizens, “Politicians are like weather vanes, and our job is to make the wind blow.” Nothing could be truer in the case of ensuring politicians make judicious policy and regulatory decisions that seize opportunities presented by economically attractive, ecologically sustainable wind power. It will take more folks to get involved in sustaining changes that are feasible and possible. For example, President Bush’s 2008 budget request for wind R&D once again proposes a funding cut. This policy failure continues the misguided practices of the past. The IEA estimates that between 1974 and 2002, 92% of all R&D funding ($267 billion) was spent on nonrenewable energy sources, largely fossil fuel and nuclear technologies, compared to 8% ($23 billion) for all renewable technologies. And conventional energy sources still receive an estimated $250 billion in subsidies per year worldwide.

In testimony before the Senate, the American Wind Energy Association recently urged that the 2008 wind R&D budget be increased by 250%, which would keep us on course for the vision described above. Let’s heed David Brower’s sage advice and drive political weather vanes in the right direction.

There is no doubt whatsoever that climate change is now demonstrating adverse effects on species geographic distribution, and is anticipated to accelerate this process more and more rapidly if humans fail to slow, halt, and reverse the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Ecology professor Camille Parmesan has been monitoring these changes worldwide and recently published a large-scale assessment of the many changes.

“Climate change is one of the most serious threats to Earth’s biodiversity,” says Jay Malcolm, lead author of a recent study, and assistant forestry professor at the University of Toronto. “We now have strong scientific evidence that global warming will result in catastrophic species loss across the planet.”

The world's climate system is changing faster than many species can adapt. The International Panel on Climate Change’s IPCC Third Assessment Report noted that the present atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and possibly not for millions of years. The current rate of CO₂ increase is unprecedented during at least the past 20,000 years. According to the Consensus Statement released in 2003 by the prestigious American Geophysical Union, “the average global temperature is now warmer than it has been at any point in the last twenty centuries, and, if current trends continue, by the end of the century it will likely be hotter than at any point in the last two million years.” The global average temperature is rising 15 to 60 times faster than the historical natural rate.

The CO₂ emissions are also having adverse impacts on the pH chemistry of seawater and aquatic organisms and ecosystems. The 29 billion tons of CO₂ released annually are lowering the ocean’s pH and acidifying the ocean, which is particularly detrimental to coral reefs and organisms that secrete shell material made of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), such as coccolithophorids (phytoplankton). Because the human release of CO₂ is rising faster than natural CO₂ increases in the past, the ocean will be acidified to a much greater extent than has occurred naturally in the past 800,000 years.

Climate change is already affecting more than half of Earth's wild species, and scientists expect the impacts to increase. Coral reefs are extremely vulnerable to sea temperature rise. More than 16% of the planet’s coral reefs have been severely damaged in recent years because of unusually high water temperatures, and many have died. Most coral reefs worldwide could go extinct this century if atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ are not quickly stabilized.

Global warming has caused the loss of some 12 billion cubic meters of snow from Peruvian Andes glaciers, where 70% of the world’s tropical region ice fields are located. The fate of these glaciers will affect water supplies and ecological habitats across the vast Amazon region.

The disappearance of 20 species of frogs and toads, including the endemic golden toad from the highland cloud forests in Costa Rica, has been linked to a 30-year warming trend and a severe reduction in dry-season mists. Meanwhile, species from lower elevations are invading the forests.

GHGs, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂eq), now stands at 430 parts per million (ppm) and rising 2 ppm per year. Coral reefs already are being adversely affected by the rise in sea surface temperature resulting from the increase in atmospheric CO₂eq. Rising sea temperature, coupled with the strong El Nino of 1998, was devastating to much of the world's coral reefs. High water temperatures caused coral bleaching and subsequent death or adverse change to 16% of world reefs overall and up to 46 in parts of the Indian Ocean. At 450ppm, marine ecologists project massive die-off of most of the world's coral reefs.

If humanity continues emitting GHGs in a "business-as-usual" manner, this increase will put the vast, lush tropical Amazon rain forest at risk of collapse. Brazilian government studies indicate a 4-8 degree Centrigrade increase in temperatures will likely trigger a shift from dense rain forest to drier savanna ecosystems, as well as affecting agriculture and hydroelectric power generation. Fires, already a major concern in the region, would also become more frequent and intense. The Pantanal, the world's largest, most biologically rich wetlands, is at risk from climate change, especially affected by higher temperatures and worsening droughts.

A rise in global average temperature between 2-3 degree C puts at great risk the complete loss of the Sundarbans, Bangladesh's magnificent mangroves and wetlands, along with tragic consequences to millions of Bangladeshis who will face sea level rise and storm surge on the one hand, and disastrous floods from rapid glacier melting in the Himalayas and river flooding on the other hand.

Of course, this dire future is not fated, and the good news is that there are technically feasible and economically attractive solutions to climate change, as well as viable and workable land pattern mechanisms that can protect and restore nature's biodiversity while economic development steadily advances.

Speaking at the recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, James Hansen warned, “The Earth’s climate is nearing, but has not yet passed, the tipping point, beyond which it will be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.” He urges more scientists to speak out, since “action must be prompt, otherwise CO₂-producing infrastructure that may be built within a decade will make it impractical to keep further global warming under 1°C.” And the evidence, says Hansen, “shows with reasonable clarity that the level of additional global warming that would put us into dangerous territory is about 1°C, not 2 or 3°C.” (Access Hansen’s December 2005 presentation at www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf).

Earth systems scientist James Lovelock, well known for his Gaia hypothesis—which postulates that the temperature and composition of the Earth’s surface are actively controlled by life on the planet—believes we have already hit the tipping point. His new, lean book, Revenge of Gaia, brims with the rage and anger of an Old Testament prophet. Given his brilliance on Earth systems dynamics and its myriad feedback mechanisms, his assessment of the “pathology” of our planetary fever due to excess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is worth heeding. It is the combination of immense fossil fuel emissions and vast forest destruction that worry him most, as it increases the risk of accelerating massive emissions due to ocean algae die-off and the transformation of moist rain forest into scrublands. Ocean algae are a key mechanism in absorbing and sinking atmospheric carbon dioxide to the bottom of the ocean. Lovelock’s sense of urgency for globally rapid actions to dramatically reduce GHG emissions is laudable, given most scientists’ reluctance to take a stand.

For an eye-opening account of what unchecked global warming is likely to cause in the future, see Professor Peter D. Ward's fascinating recounting of what global warming has done to the planet throughout its long history, as paleo-science has discovered in recent decades: Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future (2007).

As one can imagine, as the global temperature rises it will alter the planet's hydrological cycle—evapo-transpiration rates, rainfall patterns, soil moisture, droughts, wildfires, floods, snowfall and snow melt, glacier loss, sea level rise, and salt water intrusion to groundwater. An outstanding organization and Web site that discusses these climate threats and risks to water systems, and offers solutions and recommendations, is Peter Gleick and his colleagues at Pacific Institute (http://www.pacinst.org/topics/).

Peter was the lead author of the report from the Water Sector Assessment Team for the National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/water/default.htm).

In the U.S., 30% of emissions are due to vehicles and 40% due to coal-fired power plants. Several recent comprehensive reports show that by far the best opportunities available are energy-efficiency improvements in vehicles and in the myriad devices that consume electricity, natural gas, and water. For example, the recent American Solar Energy Society's report, Tackling Climate Change in the U.S. (www.ases.org), concludes that half the CO₂ reductions can be met through efficiency gains that help cut energy bills at the same time. The other half can be met through a combination of wind, biowastes, geothermal, concentrated solar power (high temperature solar-thermal-electric systems), and solar photovoltaics (PV). They estimate the following range of costs:

• Efficiency gains – 0 to 3 ¢/kWh;
• Wind – terrestrial– 3 to 7 ¢/kWh;
• Biopower – 5 to 8 ¢/kWh;
• Geothermal – 5 to 10 ¢/kWh;
• Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) – 6 to 16 ¢/kWh; and
• Solar Photovoltaics (PV) 6 to 28 ¢/kWh.

For comparison, current national average cost of electricity is 8 cents/kWh, and two of the most-touted solutions by many members of Congress—carbon capture and storage (CCS) from coal-fired power plants and next-generation nuclear reactors—are projected to deliver electricity at 9 cents/kWh for coal plus CCS and 9 to 12 cents/kWh for nuclear. In terms of vehicles, one of the most exciting developments now emerging are plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) connected to the electric grid (Vehicle-to-Grid, or V2G). V2G, combining PHEVs and all-electric vehicles (EVs) to an increasingly smarter grid network offer multiple benefits that make it one of the most compelling 21st century technical innovations to pursue. According to a recent Department of Energy report (www.pnl.gov/) the U.S. existing electricity infrastructure has sufficient available capacity to fuel 84% of the nation’s cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs (198 million), or 73% of the light duty fleet (about 217 million vehicles) for a daily drive of 33 miles on average (about the national average daily per capita driving pattern). Here are the benefits:

• Energy and national security potential: A shift from gasoline to PHEVs could reduce gasoline consumption by 85 billion gallons per year, which is equivalent to 52% of U.S. oil imports (6.5 million barrels per day).
• Oil monetary savings potential: About $240 billion per year in gas pump savings.
• Avoided emissions potential (emissions ratio of electric to gas vehicle): 27% decline in GHG emissions, 100% urban CO, 99% urban VOC, 90% urban NOx, 40% urban PM10, 80% SOx; but, 18% higher national PM10 and doubling of SOx nationwide (from higher coal generation).
• Cashback potential: FERC Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff is spearheading the concept of cashback for PHEV ancillary services.

PHEV/EV's can provide valuable services for sustaining and enhancing efficient grid management, including: ancillary services (spinning reserve and regulation); dispatchable reactive power; peak demand services (demand response); reduced operating and planning reserves; distribution/substation level support; reduced line losses; improved power plant efficiency; improved load factor; storage and integration of renewables—wind and PV; emergency power supply (e.g., one cashback PHEV could power four houses @ average load 1.5 kW/house); electric transit power support; and the possibility of powering traction spikes for local rail. In terms of your own actions, be sure to purchase the most energy-efficient products, i.e., EnergyStar compliant products (www.energystar.gov), and the greenest cars. Check out the Web site www.greenercars.org/.

There is a strong recognition among most organizations such as CI, the Alliance for Climate Protection, and others working on climate solutions that more results can be achieved more rapidly by working together. CI already does this in its collaborations with organizations in the developing country biodiversity hotspots where we work, providing one-third of CI's annual funds to these groups for furthering mutual goals and outcomes.

In China, CI is working with the Energy Foundation, NRDC, the Regulatory Assistance Project, and myriad other national and local Chinese organizations in advocating climate solutions that result in triple bottom (economic, ecological, equity) win-win-win outcomes.

This is becoming much easier with the emergence of very powerful Internet-based Web 2.0 tools that enable mass collaboration, multimedia displays, specialized wikis, peer-to-peer production initiatives, map mash-ups, shareware, etc. I highly recommend two recent books that describe in detail the implications of this rapidly evolving phenomenon: Yale Law Professor Yochai Benkler's book, The Wealth of Networks, and Don Tapscott's book, Wikinomics (www.wikinomics.com/).

You are absolutely right about the myriad free services that ecosystems provide humanity (which most humans take for granted and often have little awareness of these tens of trillions of dollars of annual irreplaceable services) are facing serious alteration by climate change.

One of the most powerful climate adaptation and mitigation options available to humans worldwide right now is to protect and restore the diverse native species and intact ecosystems that currently remain around the planet. These complex ecosystems are far more resilient to climate-triggered, weather-related disasters (droughts, wildfires, storms, hurricanes, floods, pest attacks) than are the simplified landscapes resulting from burning down these forests, mangroves, grasslands, peat lands, and wetlands.

Tropical forests the combined size of Ireland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland continue to be burned down each year – 14 million hectares (35 million acres). Burning tropical forests releases some 7 billion tons of CO₂ each year, accounting for 20% of total global GHG emissions. In the wake of these burnings, biologists estimate 1,800 species populations per hour go extinct – 16 million per year.

Tropical forest loss in Indonesia and Brazil, alone, accounts for the bulk of released emissions. In fact, if annual emissions in just these two countries continue to 2012 they will undermine 80% of all the GHG reductions achieved by the signatory nations to the Kyoto Treaty on Climate Change.

In addition to destroying critical habitat for threatened species, tropical forest loss undermines the sustainable livelihoods for local communities relying on the ecosystem services delivered by healthy forests. To make matters worse, as atmospheric emissions rise, dynamic feedback loops are expected to greatly accelerate the impacts of these closely interconnected problems.

For example, with the destruction of naturally resilient intact ecosystems, and typical replacement with simplified monoculture landscapes, the poorest segments of humanity (the local communities that depend upon the forest for food, shelter, and many basic needs) become vulnerable to climate disruptions, such as droughts, wildfires, storms, floods, and the spread of pests and pathogens.

Designing robust and cost-effective actions that simultaneously address these diverse but closely interrelated global, regional, and local problems is one of humanity’s greatest challenges. Preventing the loss of carbon stored in tropical forests, mangroves, grasslands, peatlands and wetlands holds great promise for simultaneously mitigating climate change, slowing species extinctions, alleviating poverty (through carbon project employment and offset revenues), and for locally buffering some of the disruptive impacts associated with climate variability.

According to IPCC estimates, 360 billion tons of CO₂ emission reductions are available through land-based carbon mitigation opportunities – roughly 25% of the total global reductions needed in the next several decades. This can be achieved by protecting several hundred million hectares of tropical rain forest currently threatened with destruction, by restoring fragmented, degraded landscapes into biodiversity corridors, and promoting sustainable and productively managed agro-ecosystems that preserve forest cover.

Land tenure reforms in the developing world over the past decade have resulted in the doubling of the percentage of forest under community control. Indigenous communities now legally own or administer 380 million hectares of forest, three times as much as by individuals and private firms. Indigenous groups, in particular, inhabit enormous areas of intact rain forests that are constantly threatened by illegal logging, mining, and clearing for ranching and agriculture. Establishing creditable and tradable emissions offsets for actions that prevent deforestation could provide an essential source of income for indigenous groups that safeguard the land, carbon, and biodiversity against persistent encroachments.

Furthermore, such projects have the potential to cost-effectively address a number of the critically important Millennium Development Goals, including eradicating extreme poverty and ensuring sustainable development.

Mary, check out the Center for New American Dream Web site (www.newdream.org) and specifically their initiative “Turning the Tide.” They suggest 10 actions a person can take to reduce their carbon footprint. This includes driving less and bicycling/walking/using transit more. Eating less beef, and eating more grains, vegetables, and fruits; replacing incandescent lamps with compact fluorescent lamps; etc.

Certainly if you can install a solar water heat (which pays back in 3 to 5 years in most states), that is a good option. A more immediate option is to install efficient showerheads and water faucet aerators, which provide a 1-year payback.

Most importantly, get involved in getting your local city climate neutral, or joining an organization advocating energy efficiency and solar policies.

There are several encouraging initiatives focused on these opportunities. Through the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, 39 developing countries with carbon- and biodiversity-rich rain forests, but cash-poor communities, are formally offering voluntary carbon emission reductions by conserving forests in exchange for access to international markets for emissions trading. The Rainforest Coalition developed and tabled this proposal at the UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal, COP-11, Agenda Item 6. On December 9, 2005, the climate negotiating Parties agreed to begin a process of further “consideration” with the objective of finalizing recommendations by COP-13 in Indonesia in late 2007.

A parallel initiative is the development of the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity standards. The CCB standards are a peer-reviewed, rigorous method for enabling independent evaluation of land-based projects designed to achieve real results and multiple benefits – carbon reductions, helping local communities, and protecting threatened biodiversity. The standards have been applied to projects in countries as diverse as Madagascar, Ecuador, the Philippines, and China.

It has been very encouraging to see protection of threatened ecosystems being forcefully supported by the likes of Nobel Economist Joseph Stiglitz, and strong recommendations included in the recent, highly regarded Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change.

Key findings of the highly regarded Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change note:

1. Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has the potential to offer significant reductions fairly quickly. It also helps preserve biodiversity and protect soil and water quality. Encouraging new forests, and enhancing the potential of soils to store carbon, offer further opportunities to reverse emissions from land use change.

2. Action to preserve the remaining areas of natural forest is urgent. Large-scale pilot schemes are required to explore effective approaches to combining national action and international support.

3. Policies on deforestation should be shaped and led by the nation where the forests stand, but there should be strong help from the international community, which benefits from their actions.

4. At a national level, establishing and enforcing clear property rights to forestland, and determining the rights and responsibilities of landowners, communities, and loggers, is key to effective forest management. This should involve local communities and take account of their interests and social structures, work with development goals, and reinforce the process of protecting the forests.

5. Compensation from the international community should be provided and take account of the opportunity costs of alternative uses of the land, the costs of administering and enforcing protection, and managing the transition. Research carried out for this report indicates that the opportunity cost of forest protection in 8 countries responsible for 70% of emissions from land use could be around $5 billion annually, initially, although over time marginal costs would rise.

6. Carbon markets could play an important role in providing such incentives in the longer term. But there are short-term risks of destabilizing the crucial process of building strong carbon markets if deforestation is integrated without agreements that increase demand for emissions reductions and an understanding of the scale of transfers likely to be involved.

7. Low cost per ton CO₂. Research commissioned by the Stern Review suggests that the direct yields from land converted to farming, including proceeds from the sale of timber, are equivalent to less than $1 per ton of CO₂ in many areas currently losing forest, and usually well below $5 per ton.

8. The opportunity costs to national GDP would be somewhat higher, as these would include value-added activities in country and export tariffs. Other modeling studies, using alternative methodologies, have suggested that, while there are significant opportunities to protect forests in some regions at low costs, the marginal abatement cost curve could rise from low values up to around $30 per ton of CO₂ were deforestation to be eliminated completely.

9. Opportunity costs of action essentially reflect the different returns on land depending on its use. The NPV of income 25 ranges from $2 per hectare for pastoral use to over $1,000 for soy and oil palm, with one-off returns of $236 to $1,035 from selling timber. A study undertaken for the Stern Report estimates that these returns in 8 countries, responsible for 70% of emissions from land use, are $5 billion a year including one-off timber sales.

10. This level of financial incentive would offset lost agricultural income to producers, although it would not reflect the full value chain within the country. Nor would it reflect the possible response of existing timber markets to reduced supply, given the current margin between producers and final market value.

11. Nevertheless, the high carbon density of each hectare of forest that would be preserved (up to the equivalent of 1000t CO₂) suggests that reducing deforestation offers a major opportunity to reduce emissions at relatively low cost. Assuming a carbon price of $35-50, a hectare containing 500t CO₂ would be worth $17,500 to $25,000 in terms of the carbon contained if it were kept as forest, a large difference compared with the opportunity costs at the low end of the range.

Paul,

I am less aware of the salt impact from glacier melt than two other very insidious impacts on marine life:
1) ocean acidification from fossil fuel combustion and release of carbon dioxide; and
2) increased sea surface temperature.

The CO₂ emissions are also having adverse impacts on the pH chemistry of seawater and aquatic organisms and ecosystems. The 29 billion tons of CO₂ released annually are lowering the ocean’s pH and acidifying the ocean, which is particularly detrimental to coral reefs and organisms that secrete shell material made of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), such as coccolithophorids (phytoplankton). Because the human release of CO₂ is rising faster than natural CO₂ increases in the past, the ocean will be acidified to a much greater extent than has occurred naturally in the past 800,000 years.

Climate change is already affecting more than half of Earth's wild species, and scientists expect the impacts to increase. Coral reefs are extremely vulnerable to sea temperature rise. More than 16% of the planet’s coral reefs have been severely damaged in recent years because of unusually high water temperatures, and many have died. Most coral reefs worldwide could go extinct this century if atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ are not quickly stabilized.

Jose Antonio,

It is inevitable that the USA will join with other nations in setting a cap on global emissions. The Kyoto Treaty was a first start toward international negotiations toward action, even though the first commitment period will achieve 1% reduction or less. In fact, the massive deforestation occurring in Brazil and Indonesia will undermine 80% of the reductions to be achieved by the Kyoto Treaty by 2012.

It is encouraging to see over 400 U.S. mayors and nearly 20 states enacting carbon reduction targets for their cities and states. It is important when the U.S. sets a cap that it includes opportunities to work with developing countries to reverse emissions from burning down tropical forests, which account for 20 % of TOTAL global GHG emissions. As both the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change and Nobel Economist Joseph Stiglitz argue, cash-poor developing countries are carbon rich and could finance considerable economic development by avoiding deforestation and selling the "climate services" to developed countries in need of reducing their emissions. It would result in a win-win-win outcome for climate, biodiversity, and alleviating poverty.

Hello Xiaoli,
Human activities are clearly responsible for a significant fraction of global warming. This was recently confirmed in the International Panel on Climate Change's 4th Assessment report (www.ipcc.ch), which can be read online or downloaded. Also visit one of the best climate Web sites available, www.realclimate.org, operated by some of the most respected climate scientists in the world.

Troy,

You express a question wondered by many. It is still feasible to reverse humanity's current course towards catastrophe. And it can be done while eliminating poverty, growing the global economy so that there is well-being for all humans, while protecting species from being driven to extinction. Having said that, this is only going to happen if more citizens become informed, engaged, and persistent. This is so much easier with the ubiquitous access to the Internet and with the emergence of Web 2.0 tools that enable setting up specialized wikipedias, engaging in peer-to-peer production, mass collaborations, etc. See The Wealth of Networks by Yochai Benkler, and Wikinomics by Don Tapscott.

In terms of solutions, see Amory Lovins’ recent publications addressing how to solve climate and save money at the same time: www.rmi.org/.

Ruth,
This is an excellent question. Conservation International has been engaged in conversations on promoting just such an initiative. There are opportunities for restoring and protecting adjacent biodiversity-rich habitat that would achieve carbon benefits and biodiversity benefits at the same time. With other organizations, we have helped to develop robust Climate, Community, and Biodiversity standards (www.climate-standards.org) that enables independent verification that real benefits have been achieved in all three areas.

Yes, indeed, Maxx, I'm with you on that!

Absolutely. Here are 10 actions I share with my colleagues and friends.

1. Walk, bike, transit, and ride-share more. Drive solo less! If you live within an hour’s bicycle ride to your work site (~10 to 15 miles), join the several percent of Americans who bike to work one or more days a week. Many workers bicycle commute more than 5,000 miles a year. More and more cities are requiring buildings to provide onsite bike racks and a changing room with showers.

From a fuel-efficiency perspective, bicycling is unrivaled. A bicyclist gets 2,500 miles per gallon based on the extra kilocalories of food required for pedaling, essentially eliminating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and air pollutants and requiring a fraction of land to be converted to roads and parking spaces. As H.G. Wells memorably noted, “Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.”

2. Practice “sustainable cuisine” by increasing the percentage of your meals that are free of meat and fish, replacing them with meals made from grains, breads, beans (legumes), fresh vegetables, and fruits, as well as shifting to animal proteins with lower “ecological footprints.” As poet-essayist-farmer Wendell Berry poignantly noted, “How we eat determines how the Earth is used.”

The American diet is notorious for the high percentage derived from animals, which stands in sharp contrast to most people in the world whose diets are overwhelmingly plant-based. A meat-based diet requires up to ten times the land area to feed a person relative to a plant-based diet. Moreover, as people’s incomes rise they typically shift to eating more animal foods. Much of the 13 million hectares of tropical forest lost each year is converted to agricultural uses, permanently destroying essential habitat for biodiversity while releasing 2 billion tons of GHGs into the atmosphere. More and more of this land is used to raise cattle and animal feed.

3. Maintain a highly energy-, water- and space-conserving residence. The energy we consume to maintain our residences comprise a major source of GHG emissions (nearly 40% of total U.S. emissions). The EPA maintains an outstanding Web site (www.energystar.gov/) on how to buy an EnergyStar-labeled building, upgrade your existing building’s energy efficiency to EnergyStar level, and where to purchase high-efficiency appliances, office equipment, and consumer electronics that are EnergyStar labeled (i.e., among the top 25% most efficient). Taking advantage of EnergyStar-compliant products provides a very good return on your purchase, typically providing a 30% return or better on investment through lower utility bills (twice as good as the average Dow Jones stock market return).

The Department of Energy (DOE) has developed a site for tenants that describes a number of low-cost energy efficient options for hot water use, kitchens, refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, and window air conditioners, including a 106-page book you can download, Your Energy Savings – A Resident’s Handbook (www.eere.energy.gov/)

In addition, you can urge the building owner to upgrade the building to EnergyStar status. The EnergyStar Web site provides good resources to help make the case for doing this.

4. If you own a residence with a lawn, replace part or all of it with natural habitat and garden. Tens of millions of houses in America collectively maintain 20 million acres of lawns. As the eminent Yale forest ecologist, F. Herbert Bormann, and his colleagues detailed in Redesigning the American Lawn:
• A lawnmower pollutes as much in one hour as does driving an automobile for 350 miles.
• 30 to 60% of urban fresh water is used for watering lawns (depending on city).
• Over $5 billion per year is spent on fossil fuel-derived fertilizers for U.S. lawns.
• 67 million pounds of synthetic pesticides are used on U.S. lawns each year.
• 60,000 to 70,000 severe accidents result from lawnmowers annually.
• 580 million gallons of gasoline are used for lawnmowers each year (releasing 10 billion pounds of the greenhouse gas, CO₂, or 4.7 million tons).
• $25 billion per year is spent for the lawn care industry. People living in the USA also spend an estimated $1.5 to $2 billion per year on lawn pesticides.
• Up to 3% of the pesticides applied to lawns may be tracked into homes on the feet of those walking over a sprayed area.

For those willing and able consumers who have the space and time to grow some fraction of their food needs, gardening offers the opportunity to substantially shrink your carbon-related food footprint. According to one estimate, as much energy is expended per kilogram of food in driving to and from the shopping market as is expended in getting the food from the farm to the store (Pimentel and Pimentel, eds., Food, Energy, and Society, 1996, Univ. Press of Colorado).

Gardeners can now obtain very high yields on very small plots by taking advantage of the ongoing advancements and innovations in micro-scale organic gardening methods, which produce several times more food per square meter than conventional agriculture, but with no petrochemical fertilizers or pesticides and a fraction of the water used in conventional gardening or farming (see www.growbiointensive.org/).

5. Reduce your paper waste by eliminating unwanted mail order catalogs, and when purchasing any paper products, select 100% post-consumer waste (PCW) content, whenever possible.

6. Recycle all electronic wastes, as well as computer diskettes, CD discs, videos, and batteries, and shift to using less hazardous, rechargeable Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries.

7. Drink fresh water as a part of sustainable cuisine, increase the percentage of your daily beverages with bottle-free freshwater, and routinely use reusable mugs.

8. Maximize recycling, including all your aluminum cans, glass jars and bottles, plastic bottles, newspapers, and mixed paper, and shop with reusable tote bags.

9. Consider other conservation actions you can take around the home and in the community, whether as a parent, consumer, taxpayer, ratepayer, voter, or concerned citizen.

10. Offset your climate impact footprint by contributing to biodiversity protection. Humanity needs to prevent the release of one trillion tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions this century, just to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at twice the pre-industrial level. Deforestation of some 13 million hectares a year currently accounts for one-fourth of global GHG emissions. Preventing this destruction, as well as ecologically restoring these degraded lands, could help achieve 25% of the GHG emission reductions needed by 2050. Capturing and promoting this critical opportunity is why conservation carbon offset programs have been established.

The U.S. per capita average of GHG emissions is roughly 7 tons of carbon annually (equal to about 25 tons of carbon dioxide, CO₂, per year). This is about four times the world average, 10 times that of the average Chinese person, and 20 times that of the average Indian or African. Many of us no doubt have larger carbon footprints (e.g., if we have a bigger-than-average house, fly a lot, drive a SUV, eat mainly meat), and some of us have smaller carbon footprints (e.g., have a small living space, infrequently fly, often bicycle and walk, eat vegetarian meals).

Over an 80-year span, then, on average, a person will release ~2,000 tons of CO₂ emissions. How much would it cost a person to offset these lifetime GHG emissions? Donating to a conservation carbon offset program at $10 per ton of CO₂ reduced, would amount to 68 cents per day -- roughly the cost of a candy bar each day. Use CI's carbon calculator to check out your footprint.

CI has identified coffee as an important commodity to biodiversity and conservation because coffee is grown in some of the Earth’s most biologically diverse and environmentally sensitive regions. Coffee can be a threat to these regions. However, coffee, if grown and processed in an environmentally friendly manner, can be a tool for conservation and sustainable livelihoods.

CI has been working in coffee-growing regions to promote Conservation Coffee. Conservation Coffee is grown, processed, and marketed in a way that promotes biodiversity conservation while improving the livelihood of coffee farmers and coffee-growing communities. The manner in which coffee is grown can have a significant impact on plants, animals, and entire ecosystems. In addition to providing critical habitat for numerous species, Conservation Coffee farms contain a variety of other useful products, such as fruits, nuts, fibers, and fuel, which also offer benefits to farmers and their families. Conservation Coffee is a program developed and managed by Conservation International.

Farmers participating in the Conservation Coffee program have gained access to sources of much needed credit – money they require to purchase farming equipment and supplies as well as to harvest, process, and export their coffee to Starbucks and others. CI has also been providing training in business planning and marketing so the participating cooperatives can learn to effectively compete within the international market.

Markets for this type are coffee are critically important. By paying a premium price for this shade-grown coffee, providing technical assistance, and helping in managing the export process, Starbucks contributes to improving the well-being of coffee farmers and encourages them to grow high-quality coffee and preserve the forest environment.

You can learn more here.

Joey,

It does seem we as a society have a pessimistic attitude about what individuals can effectively do on these global problems of unprecedented historical magnitude. Yet, as the anthropologist Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

With the Internet today, any individual has greater access to information in greater detail on solutions than even most top scientists and government leaders had access to just a decade ago.

Any individual is now able to join up with groups at the local to national level on topics they are most interested about, via the Internet. One that I highly recommend is the Center for A New American Dream (www.newdream.org), but there are so many others.

Good question Kristian.

All companies and industries can be a positive force for the environment by making specific changes in their business practices, incorporating biodiversity considerations into their operations, and by investing in the environment. My colleagues at Conservation International's Center for Environmental Leadership in Business have written and are working on this issue related to the tourism industry, and for more information see the Web site at www.celb.org.

Thank you Jennifer. And many, many thanks to all of you who have taken time to send in your questions. It is just heartening and wonderful to see such curiosity and interest. I look forward to doing this again at some future point.

Cheers,

Michael