Going on A Budget to Save The Planet

By Francesca Rheannon

On October 24, people all over the world will be observing the first International Day of Climate Action. Its aim is to build support for getting the CO2 in the atmosphere down to 350 ppm. We take a look at the latest science, an innovative solution, and what government, individuals and businesses are doing recently that could help the world get to that target.

The eminent climate expert James Hansen and other climate scientists have given us the "most important number on the planet": 350 parts per million of atmospheric CO2. That's the limit we must get down to if we are to avoid global temperatures rising above 2 °C, thereby tipping the planet into runaway climate change and destroying civilization as we know it.

We've already shot past the mark: current concentrations of CO2 are above 385 ppm -- and trending relentlessly upward. The planet could go to double the safe limit -- 4 °C -- as early as 2060, according to a new government-backed study from the UK reported on by the journal Nature. (You can find Nature's terrific series on climate science, "The Road to Copenhagen", here.)

We've got much less time than we thought, according to another new study by the German government's climate advisory council, the WGBU. Unless the U.S., as the largest per capita emitter, cuts carbon emissions one hundred percent by 2020, "the world economy is on the way towards CO2 insolvency," the report says. Other developed nations get another ten years, China and India fifteen, and the rest of the world until 2050 -- to cut emissions down to zero.

WBGU Vice Chairman Dirk Messner told reporters, "For approximately two thirds of all countries a 'business-as-usual' policy is no longer an option. In order to avoid dangerous climatic changes it is absolutely essential to set all countries on a course for transformation to a low-carbon economy immediately."

OK, I know it's almost Halloween, but this is really scary stuff. How on earth are we going to get to the goal on time? The WGBU report offers what it calls the "budget approach". The idea is deceptively simple: figure out a global cap for carbon dioxide emissions (from fossil fuels), give every human being the same right to emit carbon, and divvy up the permits according to population. At the current world population level of 7 billion, that would mean an annual per person quota of 2.8 tons per person annually (the U.S. average is 20 tons per person).

Each country would thus have a national "budget" to guide its development of "sustainable and verifiable strategies for a low carbon economy." It's "straightforward, transparent, fair," the report states.

But with pessimism rising for a successful agreement at the upcoming UN climate talks in Copenhagen, how on earth is the political - not to speak economic - will going to be corralled for such drastic and swift reductions? The authors of the report, titled "Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach," say it provides a framework of reference for climate policymakers at the upcoming talks and will require negotiating only a "small number of political parameters for determining the national budgets." The report also said that the developed nations would have to support poorer countries' efforts to curb emissions.

The political parameters may be small in number, but they won't be easy. Representatives of the world's 17 largest economies met in London October 18 to craft an agreement on financing carbon reduction efforts. Most of the negotiators felt action had to be taken at the highest levels of government in order to bring some robust support to the table at the UN climate talks. They pressed the Obama Administration to come up with a plan, but the administration countered that it was waiting on Congress to act.

The Waxman-Markey bill that was reported out of committee this past summer has carbon emission targets that fall far short of what the WBGU says is necessary. But some say its progressively tightening carbon cap will send a loud signal to banks and VCs that fossil fuels are going the way of the dinosaurs.

The newly unveiled Kerry-Boxer bill has more ambitious reduction targets (while still falling short of the WBGU mark) and gives a key power back to the US government to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act -- something Waxman-Markey was widely criticized for stripping away. Both bills would provide support to consumers and businesses to cut their emissions.

Getting to zero net emissions by 2020 is a challenge Antioch University in New England has already taken up. The university just announced it has been able to reduce campus electricity use by a cumulative 19 percent, saving a nice chunk of change in the process. And it didn't need expensive high tech to do it; rather, picking off the low-hanging fruit of efficiency measures did the trick.

Globally, transport accounts for around a quarter of total CO2 emissions. The kind of smart use of low tech that Antioch used is also helping cut emissions - and costs - to commercial fleets. The Environmental Defense Fund unveiled its "Fuel-Smart Driving Tools" to help fleets train drivers on fuel-efficient practices.

Getting to 100 percent reduction in carbon emissions in time to stave off planetary disaster won't be easy - but as I remind my mother when she complains about getting old, what's the alternative?