It's Time for Plan B

In my last two articles about the environment, I argued that there has been some promising news in the environmental front. Indeed there has. The United States has, shockingly, reduced its emissions by about 3 percent, on track to meet our goal of a 17 percent reduction (and faster than any other developed nation), thanks largely to the expanded use of natural gas (and the fall of oil and coal in the market), a huge investment from the federal government in green tax cuts and renewable energy, and higher fuel standards (and, unfortunately, the effects of the recession). Still, the bad news keeps coming: China has increased its CO2 emissions by about 3 percent, and globally, emissions and temperatures keep going up. It's unlikely that Congress will enact any kind of cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax. Plan A--assume that the public will understand the seriousness of the problem, governments will show some spine, businesses will act more responsibly, and that treaties will actually work--has failed. We need a Plan B. Here are three possible steps to at least consider:

1. Geoengineering

When President Lyndon Johnson was first presented with a report on the global warming problem, the authors didn't even consider reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, the report called for spreading tiny particles across the ocean's surface to reflect sunlight. This is solar radiation management, an example of geoengineering. The most common example of SRM is cool roofing, painting roofs white to reflect the heat. This is vital because buildings are more than a third of American energy use. The Department of Energy has already begun implementing cools roofs to its buildings and other buildings across the country and it appears that both the Chinese and the Americans, the two worst polluters, are interested in geoengineering projects.

But to many scientists, geoengineering is at best a tool to use with carbon reduction, and at worst, a possibility of leading to unintended consequences. More controversial and less scientifically tested geoengineering projects include manipulating the Earth's environment through ocean iron fertilization, which could have enormous and devastating consequences. Consider how Matthews and Turner put it: "Given our current level of understanding of the climate system, it is likely that the result of at least some geoengineering efforts would follow previous ecological examples where increased human intervention has led to an overall increase in negative environmental consequences." That's why many proponents of the controversial measure argue that it should be used sparingly and alongside carbon emission reduction, not as a replacement of more serious action. Look at how one scientist put it: Given the total failure of the human race to tackle this problem with the urgency that the science has demanded, geoengineering seems to be inevitable.

2. Let the states lead the way

Unfortunately, our Congress is missing in action (how shocking). Instead of tackling this problem, they're making sure Meals on Wheels isn't funded. The President seems to be committed to the issue and is expected to announce even more actions, with plans to possibly include regulations of existing power plants, increase renewable energy, and improve energy efficiency. Unfortunately, he has been left at the alter by Congress. Fortunately, though, some states are taking action. The most obvious is California, which in 2006 passed a major environmental law to achieve a massive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. For those who argue that environmentalism will sink an economy, when Governor Jerry Brown (D) came into office, California had a $27 billion deficit and 12.4 percent unemployment. Thanks to his leadership, the state now has an $850 million surplus and a reduction in unemployment by three percent. While most other states don't have as nearly an aggressive approach as California does, at least other states are taking action. My state of Ohio, for example, has a law mandating that a quarter of our energy be from renewable sources by 2025. Most other states, even Texas, have these renewable portfolio standards. Hopefully the states will continue to lead, because our Congress is missing.    

(In some cases, it's the local communities who are taking the lead. My home town of Medina sorts through everything its residents throw away. The results: 60 percent of waste is recycled, as opposed to less than 10 percent for traditional curve pick-up methods.)

3. Ignore the dismissive, alarm the concerned 

We don't have an engaged public on the issue. The Yale Forestry and Environmental Studies reports that there are essentially six different types of Americans regarding opinions on climate policies: the alarmed, the concerned, the cautious, the disengaged, the doubtful, and the dismissive. I believe that the 15 percent of doubters' minds can be changed. However, the American media has given such a large audience to the 10 percent of Americans who are dismissive of the science, the folks who say ridiculous things like "it's only 70 degrees this week in June, so there can't be global warming." That portion of America is unreachable, and we should stop treating this like a classic "there's-two-sides-to-every-debate" argument. (And no, for the millionth time, there is no scientific disagreement about global warming.) While it's encouraging that the 12 percent of those who are alarmed are very much engaged in solving the problem, we need to figure out a way to alarm those who are concerned and those who are cautious, which together constitute slightly more than half of the public. Otherwise, while we may have won the argument regarding the science, we may never win the argument on aggressive action.