Source: World Resources Institute, http://earthtrends.wri.org/images/GHG_emissions_by_sector2.jpg -Globally, most emissions come in the form of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use, primarily from human activity. CO2 emissions from land use changes such as deforestation, decay of biomass, or wildfires also account for a high percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions. - Methane, or CH4, is the third highest greenhouse gas emission and this comes from both human-related and natural sources. Human-related activities include fossil fuel production, livestock and manure management, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. It is estimated that more than 50 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities (U.S. EPA). Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. (EPA, Sources and Emissions, http://www.epa.gov/outreach/sources.html). -Nitrous Oxide, or N2O, is also a greenhouse gas that is produced by both natural and human-related sources. Some human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, and combustion of fossil fuel. It is produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests (EPA, Sources and Emissions, http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html). -F gases, or flourocarbons, include the manmade, ozone depleting gases HFC ’s, CFC’s, and HCFC’s and are banned or regulated by the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Protocol. The major applications that use F-gases are refrigeration, air conditioning, foam blowing agents, aerosols, fire protection and solvents.
From original 350 powerpoint -According to Jim Hansen and other scientists the main things we need to do right away are to stop coal use by 2030, dramatically reduce the use of petroleum and natural gas, and improve agricultural and forestry practices -If we manage to accomplish these things, we could get back to 350ppm by mid-century
From original 350 powerpoint
From the GP Energy [R]evolution powerpoint. NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ATTRIBUTE! < reveal nuclear, coal, oil, gas segments> By 2050, we will no longer need any dirty, deadly nuclear energy, and we will have phased out coal almost completely. Our oil and natural gas consumption will be slashed. <reveal all renewable energy segments> To provide our energy needs – and keep in mind this is not only for electricity, but also for heating/cooling and transport – we will instead use a host of renewable energies... <reveal efficiency segment>... and we will use our energy in smarter, more efficient ways than we do today. The amount of saved energy via efficiency measures here is compared with the IEA (International Energy Agency) BAU (Business As Usual) scenario, which projects large growth rates. However, with an Energy [R]evolution, global energy demand can be stabilized on today's levels – even with a continued growth of energy demand in developing countries. ==== Source: Energy [R]evolution Figure 6.11, page 72 Note on limits: All of these technologies could be expanded to significantly greater capacity than shown here before reach absolute physical limits – unlike oil and coal which will simply run out one day. The amounts shown in this Energy [R]evolution scenario are determined based on considerations for cost, sustainability, and energy distribution, using currently available technologies. Important note on ‘energy’ versus ‘electricity’: This is the total energy demand – not only electricity. It also includes energy demand for heat and transport. For the ‘electricity demand’ graph on its own, see figure 6.6, page 68 of the Energy Revolution report.
Picture from Ipswich, Massachusetts Utilities website. http://www.ipswichutilities.org/Default.aspx?Page=ENERGY_WHY
Image is from original 350 ppt; factoid about wind power is from “IPCC briefing notes final.doc”
From Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution. Their script below. ****** Solar panels. Here’s how they work: The red and grey parts you see here are two layers of a silicon semiconductor, one negatively charged, and one positively charged. When light hits the panel – even just in small amounts – electrons move from one layer to the other, creating electric current. Photovoltaic or PV, as this kind of energy production is called, is extremely versatile… ===== More on ‘PV’: Energy [R]evolution page 54.
Factoid comes from “IPCC briefing notes final.doc” Definition: Reaching grid parity means that it is as cheap or cheaper to produce your own solar energy by putting panels on, say, your house roof, as it is to buy energy from your electric company through the power grid.
from OurFragileEarth.ppt. -Eating locally means contributing to your community ’s economy and reducing your carbon footprint by eating foods that don’t have to be shipped from long distances. -Meat production requires a tremendous amount of resources. Cows are also responsible for producing large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Roughly one-fifth of the world's land is used for grazing. That ’s twice the area used for growing crops. X million acres have been cleared for raising cattle in the Amazon alone (or equivalent stat)
Greenpeace notes on this topic: The technological evolution in private vehicles is moving from gas guzzlers, to light cars with efficient combustion engines, to hybrids, to plug-in-hybrids and finally to electric ‘e-cars’. In some countries, the acceptance of this technological change will require cultural shifts, so that it’s no longer seen as desirable to drive a gas-guzzler (like a Hummer). To reduce aviation demand, technologies like videoconferencing can reduce the need for business travel, and high-speed trains and cultural shifts so that holidays are closer to home will also be important. Creating this sort of cultural change takes time, but it’s vitally important. More information on transport: Energy [R]evolution Chapter 11 Notes on vehicle electrification: In the Energy [R]evolution, the transition to electric vehicles does cause an increase in electricity consumption. However, because electric vehicles are more efficient than combustion engines, and also because electric systems transition to more renewable systems over time, this increase in electricity consumption pays off, and results in lower primary energy demand. Another example of efficiency in action – the ‘electric jeepney’ in the Philippines. These vehicles are the normal form of public transportation in the Philippines, and very inefficient - a regular 16 seater consumes the same amount of diesel as a large 54 seater bus. This electric one – a joint project of Greenpeace and the Climate Friendly Cities initiative – travels 55km on a single charge, with zero emissions – this is enough to run its route 17 times each day. When the project is complete, this electric jeepney will be charged with electricity created from biodegradable household wastes, in a local biodigester facility. See: Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC), ‘About Us’ http://www.ejeepney.org/?q=content/about-us Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC), ‘We’re in Top Gear http://www.ejeepney.org/content/we%E2%80%99re-top-gear Greenpeace International, ‘The magic of the Filipino jeepney’ (07/05/2007) http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/filipino-jeepney-green-energy-050707 YouTube, E-Jeepney ’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpAEUgcBqFU&NR=1
Images from Greenpeace energy revolution ppt. their script notes: ****** Homes with solar panels for electricity and hot water, as well as local combined heat-and-power units, would produce more energy than they need, and provide their excess energy and heat produced during the day… … to office buildings in cities, which would also produce some of their own electricity and hot water during the week. In evenings and on weekends (when the offices are mostly empty) the energy and heat would be transferred to other areas. A wind-farm, either on or offshore, can feed large amounts of electricity into a flexible grid to ensure that there is still energy when the sun isn’t shining. Another community might be totally self-sufficient and have its own, local micro-grid, which will only connect to the larger grid in the event of a local energy shortage. A central combined heat-and-power plant could run on concentrating solar, geothermal, biogas produced from a city’s local sewage plant, or from biomass feedstock from local farmers’ crop waste. This would supply both electricity and heat to the grid... … for use in domestic houses, for people’s plug-in electric vehicles, and for industrial processes. Industrial plants (which could also include urban industries such as server-farms or data-centres for the internet) will produce as much of their own energy as possible, and re-cycle their waste heat into their own heating/cooling processes and into the heating network. The most important thing to note is that energy production happens everywhere in the community, not just at a central coal or nuclear-fired power-station that everyone draws on. If you want an analogy, think of the internet. In the early days of the web, information came from centralized sources and travelled one-way – from websites to readers. Today, with social media and easy online publishing, readers are publishers too. They’re sending information the other way; the web has become interactive. The same will have to happen with energy. Merge the logic of the internet with the energy network, and you get the kind of smart grids we need in order to accommodate the combination of decentralised and centralized renewable energies the Energy [R]evolution champions. Without smart grids, trying to share decentralised energy would be a bit like trying to post a status update without having Facebook or Twitter. ===== For more on the connections between the IT and energy industries, see Greenpeace ’s ‘Cool IT’ campaign: www.greenpeace.org/CoolIT For an example of an industry providing waste heat to nearby buildings: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/20/helsinki-data-centre-heat-homes
Stats from Price Of Oil at http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ Graph from the Environmental Law Institute ’s report “Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008” -Globally, the fossil fuel industry received approximately $600 billion in subsidies a year. U.S. federal subsidies for fossil fuel, from 2002 to 2008, were approximately $72.5 billion, over $10 billion a year. Meanwhile, renewables received less than $46 billion globally a year. Between 2002 and 2008, the U.S. gave $29 billion, or just over 4 billion a year and over half of that went to corn ethanol production. -By ending fossil fuel subsidies, we would have a greater chance of phasing out fossil fuels and investing that money in renewable energy research and development.
Original 350 slide AND IMPLEMENTING A THOUSAND MORE SOLUTIONS -And implementing a thousand more solutions that all add up to an energy revolution.
-Pic from USGS Handbook -Nuclear energy is not part of the Energy Revolution because uranium is not renewable and the dangers created by nuclear waste and radioactivity to humans and ecosystems are not possible to ignore (Union of Concerned Scientists, Nuclear Power Safety). -Unsustainable biofuels, such as ethanol produced from corn or sugar cane, or biodiesel from vegetable oil, create a dilemma when considering the vast amount of hunger and malnutrition in the world. These forms of biofuel increase the price of food, add to hunger, and create political instability. (http://www.oxfam.org/pressroom/pressrelease/2008-06-25/another-inconvenient-truth-biofuels-are-not-answer) -CCS, or carbon capture and storage, is a term that encompasses a number of technologies that can be used to capture CO2 from power plants and other industrial facilities; compress it; transport it mainly by pipeline to suitable locations; and inject it into deep subsurface geological formations for indefinite isolation from the atmosphere (World Resources Institute, http://www.wri.org/project/carbon-dioxide-capture-storage). However, this practice can cause contamination of water and harm to ecosystems (Greenpeace pdf, Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Potential Environmental Impacts).
Facts all come from from “IPCC briefing notes final.doc” -By 2008, renewable energy was 12.9% of global energy supply -In 2008 and 2009, investment in renewables was higher than investment in fossil fuels -And over 97% of global renewable potential is still untapped
Picture: 350 original slide, Bali, Indonesia
-According to the International Energy Agency, stabilizing at even 445 ppm would require a $45 trillion investment, which sounds like an unimaginably large amount of money — but spread over more than four decades and compared to the world ’s total wealth during that time, it is literally a drop in the bucket — 1.1% or one part in 90 of the world’s total wealth. -This cost is also insignificant when stacked up against the incalculable costs of climate change and the damage it will do to ecosystems the economy. (Climate Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/03/30/203888/global-warming-economics-low-cost-high-benefit/).
-In 2009, the U.S. spent about $1 billion a day on foreign oil. In 2008 the United States imported oil from 10 countries currently on the State Department ’s Travel Warning List, which lists countries that have “long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable.” These nations include Algeria, Chad, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Our reliance on oil from these countries could have serious implications for our national security, economy, and environment. (Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/oil_imports_security.html). -In addition, because fossil fuels are not renewable and will soon, if not already, hit their peaks, increasing their costs exponentially over time. The investment for a clean energy future is much less than the cost of continuing to use fossil fuels until 2050. (Climate Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/03/30/203888/global-warming-economics-low-cost-high-benefit/).
Stat is from “GCCA partner action pack IPCC report DRAFT 050511.doc” – comes initially from the IEA -The total cost of transitioning to a low-carbon economy by 2050 goes up by $500 billion with every year ’s delay
Source: Economics of 350: http://www.e3network.org/papers/Economics_of_350.pdf
From GP Energy [R]evolution ppt. OUR SCRIPT MUST TALK ABOUT JUST TRANSITION FOR PEOPLE WHO LOSE JOBS **** And under the Energy [R]evolution, there will be more jobs. By 2030, there will be over 8.5 million people employed in the renewable sector, compared to only 2.4 million in the scenario without any technological evolution. Jobs in the energy sector overall, including workers in conventional power plants, will increase to 11.9 million – greater than the 8.7 million jobs in a conventional scenario. So, if governments seize the opportunity to implement the Energy [R]evolution, 3.2 million or over 33% more jobs globally will be created in the power sector, and most of those jobs will be better for workers and for the climate. ===== Reference: Energy [R]evolution report, page 69-70, 138-139, and 143-148 A note on labour and fuel costs: R enewable energies provide more human jobs per unit of electricity than fossil fuels. Because renewables have no fuel costs, higher labour costs are balanced out, and overall, renewables become cheaper than fossil energy. More of the money that the energy-consumer pays for their electricity bills goes towards paying for someone ’s job, instead of for a destructive process of resource extraction.
Overall, changing the way in which we currently create and use electricity will make our communities healthier It will help prevent the spread of parasitic diseases like malaria and dengue fever which are carried by moist, warm climate loving mosquitoes.
Photo from 350 flickr account
-Big Oil and Big Coal will become a thing of the past as we turn towards renewable energy, which is why they ’re spending billions to stop the Energy Revolution -In recent years, we have seen an exponential increase in fossil fuel industries funding smear campaigns against politicians who support renewable energy. Also, many climate denialist authors, scientists, and organizations get a great deal of funding from Big Oil and Big Coal companies. For example: -Coal and oil lobby groups have spent $69.5 million on television ads specifically targeted against Obama clean energy policies in the mid-term elections (Center for American Progress Action Fund) -ExxonMobile gave over $1.2 million to climate denial organizations in 2009 (Greenpeace).
-In 2008, Denmark generated $13 billion in energy technology exports -In 2008, more Germans (278K) held renewable energy jobs than conventional energy jobs (238K)
These are some of the questions to ask ourselves in order to begin taking action against climate change. To learn more about the global movement towards an energy revolution, check out the “International” Module.
We know solutions exist.
Overview <ul><li>What are the current trends? </li></ul><ul><li>How do we move past fossil fuels? </li></ul><ul><li>Won ’t it be difficult? </li></ul><ul><li>What are we waiting for? </li></ul>
<ul><li>That means over 80% of our energy is coming from fossil fuels now </li></ul><ul><li>Fossil fuels that are </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Damaging our climate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Polluting our rivers and land </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Giving our children asthma </li></ul></ul>
Oil contamination in Ecuador Coal plant pollution causes asthma and lung cancer
It doesn ’t have to be that way “ The stone age did not end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil. ” Sheikh Zaki Yamani, Former Saudi Arabian Oil Minister
2 So how do we move past fossil fuels and solve the climate crisis?
Revolutionize our energy use <ul><li>Stop coal use by 2030 </li></ul><ul><li>Dramatically reduce the use of all other fossil fuels </li></ul><ul><li>Improve agricultural and forestry practices </li></ul>
PARTS PER MILLION CO2 YEAR Phaseout of coal by 2030 Improved forestry and soil Reduced oil/gas use GETTING TO 350ppm *Graph from Dr. James Hansen ’s paper on 350ppm. See sources.
the energy revolution Advanced Energy [R]evolution Scenario 2010 – primary energy demand Source: Energy [R]evolution Fig 6.11, p.72 Efficiency compared to ‘BAU’ Ocean Energy Solar Thermal Geothermal Biomass Wind Hydro Natural Gas Oil Coal Nuclear
Getting off fossil fuels means energy efficiency and conservation
IT MEANS PUTTING UP WIND TURBINES INSTEAD OF COAL PLANTS Did you know that wind power is already cost competitive with new coal power plants in good wind locations?
It means solar photovoltaic power on our houses Light (photons) Front Contact Grid Anti-Reflection Coating N-Type Semiconductor Boarder Layout P-Type Semiconductor Backcontact Image: Greenpeace
Did you know that solar photovoltaic will reach provide as much electricity as fossil fuels in many developed countries in the next 3 years ?
It means Concentrated Solar Power plants powering our industries
IT MEANS PLANTING TREES INSTEAD OF CLEAR-CUTTING RAINFORESTS
It means eating more local foods and less meat
It means better urban planning <ul><li>Public transportation </li></ul><ul><li>Bicycle paths </li></ul><ul><li>High-speed rail </li></ul><ul><li>Community gardens </li></ul>
It means fuel efficiency , hybrids , and electric cars
It means a Smart Grid <ul><li>A grid that stores power when renewables like wind and solar are at their peak </li></ul><ul><li>A grid that allows you to track your own energy usage and cut costs </li></ul>Houses with Solar Panels Offices with Solar Panels Wind Farm Isolated Microgrid Central Power Plant Industrial Plant
It means ending taxpayer handouts to coal, oil and gas corporations <ul><li>Globally, the fossil fuel industry received approximately $600 billion in subsidies a year </li></ul><ul><li>Meanwhile, renewables received less than $46 billion </li></ul>
It does NOT mean… <ul><li>Nuclear </li></ul><ul><li>Unsustainable biofuels </li></ul><ul><li>“ Clean coal” </li></ul>
This isn ’t futuristic; ALL of these technologies are available NOW
3 Won ’t the transition to a low-emission economy be too difficult? No! Is it really worth it? Yes!
A Clean Energy Revolution Costs Real Money… <ul><li>$45 Trillion! </li></ul>
<ul><li>$1 billion a day = </li></ul><ul><li>$365 billion a year </li></ul>
And every year we delay ambitious action costs billions <ul><li>$500 billion more with every year ’s delay </li></ul>
A clean energy revolution to get to 350ppm, in the end, will cost far less than the costs of climate impacts like floods, droughts, and extreme weather.
A Clean Energy Revolution has a lot of other benefits as well - it will create millions of new jobs E[R] Without E[R] Source: Energy [R]evolution, p69-70 Conventional Power Plants Renewables employment in 2030
What are YOU doing to be a part of the CLEAN ENERGY REVOLUTION?
What can we do to get our government to build a clean energy revolution?
More Information <ul><li>IPCC </li></ul><ul><li>EPA </li></ul><ul><li>UNEP </li></ul><ul><li>Oxfam International </li></ul><ul><li>Climate Progress </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental Law Institute </li></ul><ul><li>International Energy Agency </li></ul><ul><li>Greenpeace Energy Revolution Report </li></ul><ul><li>Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities </li></ul><ul><li>Price of Oil </li></ul><ul><li>Center for American Progress </li></ul><ul><li>World Energy Outlook </li></ul>