The solution to human-induced climate change is finally in clear view. Thanks to rapid advances in zero-carbon energy technologies and sustainable food systems, the world can realistically end greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century at little or no incremental cost, and with decisive benefits for safety and health.
The main obstacle is inertia: Politicians continue to favor the fossil-fuel industry and traditional agriculture mainly because they do not know better or are on the take.
Most global warming, and a huge burden of air pollution, results from burning fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas. The other main source of environmental destruction is agriculture, including deforestation, excessive fertilizer use and methane emissions from livestock.
Illustration: Yusha
The energy system should shift from heavily polluting fossil fuels to clean, zero-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar power, and the food system should shift from feed grains and livestock to healthier and more nutritious products.
This combined energy-and-food transformation would cause net greenhouse gas emissions to fall to zero by mid-century and then move into the negative, as atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by forests and soils.
Reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century, followed by negative emissions, would likely secure the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C relative to Earth’s preindustrial temperature.
Alarmingly, warming has already reached 1.1°C and the global temperature is rising about 0.2°C each decade. That is why the world must reach net-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest.
The shift toward clean energy would prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths each year from air pollution, and the shift to healthy, environmentally sustainable diets could prevent about 10 million deaths per year.
A low-cost shift to clean energy is now feasible for every region of the world, owing to the plummeting costs of solar and wind power, and breakthroughs in energy storage.
The total system costs of renewable energy, including transmission and storage, are now roughly on par with fossil fuels. Yet fossil fuels still get government preferences through subsidies, as a result of incessant lobbying by Big Coal and Big Oil, and a lack of planning for renewable alternatives.
The key step is a massive increase in power generation from renewables, mainly wind and solar. Some downstream energy uses, such as automobile transport and home heating, would be directly electrified. Other downstream users — in industry, shipping, aviation and trucking — would rely on clean fuels produced by renewable electricity.
Clean, or zero-emission fuels include hydrogen, synthetic liquids and synthetic methane.
At the same time, farms should shift toward plant-based foods.
Asia’s continued construction of coal plants, together with ongoing deforestation in Southeast Asia, Africa and Brazil, is putting our climate, air and nutrition at huge and wholly unnecessary risk.
In the US, the promotion of fossil fuels by US President Donald Trump’s administration, despite the US’ vast renewable-energy potential, adds to the absurdity.
So does the renewed call by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to develop — that is, to deforest — the Amazon.
So, what to do?
The most urgent step is to educate governments and businesses. National governments should prepare technical engineering assessments of their countries’ potential to end greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century, while businesses and banks should urgently examine the technologically compelling case for clean, safe energy and food systems.
A new study shows that every world region has the wind, solar and hydropower potential to decarbonize the energy system.
Countries at higher latitudes, such as the US, Canada, northern European countries and Russia, could tap relatively more wind than tropical countries. All countries could shift to electric cars, and power trucks, ships, planes and factories on new zero-carbon fuels.
This energy transition would create millions more jobs than would be cut in the fossil-fuel industries.
Shareholders in companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron that refuse to acknowledge the coming energy transition are likely to pay a heavy price. Their ongoing fossil-fuel investments will become stranded assets.
Governments and utility commissions should require that all new power-generating capacity is zero carbon. As old fossil-fuel plants age and are shut down, they should be replaced by clean power generation on a competitive basis, for example through renewable-energy auctions.
In particular, China and India should stop building new coal-fired power plants at home, and capital-exporting countries such as China and Japan should stop financing new coal-fired plants in the rest of Asia, such as Pakistan and the Philippines.
Private-sector firms are likely to compete intensively to lower still further the costs of renewable energy systems, including power generation, energy storage and downstream uses such as electric vehicles, electric heating and cooking, and the new hydrogen economy.
Governments should set limits on emissions, and the private sector should compete to deliver low-cost solutions. Government and business together should finance new research and development to drive costs even lower.
The story with land use is the same. If Bolsonaro really thinks he is going to bring about a Brazilian economic boom by opening the Amazon to further deforestation for soybeans and cattle ranches, he should think again.
Such an effort would isolate Brazil and force the major downstream food companies, facing the threat of a massive global consumer backlash, to stop buying Brazilian products.
Consumer foods are going another way. The big news is that Burger King, in a new venture with Impossible Foods, is moving toward plant-based burgers.
Impossible burgers taste just like beef burgers, but smart chemistry using plant-based ingredients allows burger lovers to savor their meal while saving the planet.
By transforming our energy and food systems, we can enjoy low-cost power and healthy, satisfying diets without ruining the environment.
The high-school children striking for climate safety have done their homework. Politicians such as Trump and Bolsonaro need to do theirs or move out of the way.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of sustainable development and health policy and management at Columbia University in New York, and director of the school’s Center for Sustainable Development and of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS