OVERDUE CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING ADJUSTMENT

Planet earth is not getting the climate change results planned or paid for and the needed changes are not complex. The science now is far better than the planning and that should be changed as soon as possible. I do not see a single country with a well designed and implemented climate change plan. The primary problem with current company, state, country, or global climate change plans is that they are not long term cost/benefit results based plans.

There are good goals that have set. For example US President Joe Biden recently announced a goal to achieve a 50-52% reduction from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas pollution by 2030. Now we need the most cost effective plan to assure we make that goal a reality. The current United States plan is very disjointed and not cost effective. I would like to suggest we focus on two facets that would make a big difference in achieving that goal and to see better and quicker results.

Do first things first! We have heard for many years that as a country and planet we should “Reduce Before You Produce”. This was also pointed out with the negawatt concept. The cost of reducing a watt of energy use is lower than the cost of producing the watt. Imagine you are planning to get a solar array for your home. First do everything you can to reduce your power usage then right size your renewal energy.  Look at this graph:

This is a global cost curve evaluating greenhouse gas abatement measures. The very best measure is insulation improvements at an over 150% payback! This should be the first and most utilized measure for energy demand and carbon emission reduction. Now there is a great retrofit option to insulate glazing on buildings and homes where most of the energy is lost through heat gain, heat loss, and infiltration. Today’s insulation improvements will quickly pay for themselves then fund more insulation improvements!

The second measure is also very effective and underutilized. “Tropical forests are incredibly effective at storing carbon, providing at least a third of the mitigation action needed to prevent the worst climate change scenarios. Yet nature-based solutions receive only 3% of all climate funding. Restoring degraded forests could create as many as 39 jobs per million dollars spent — that's a job-creation rate more than six times higher than the oil and gas industry.”

Currently there are far more renewable energy rebate programs being enacted than energy demand/carbon emission reduction or nature based carbon storage rebate programs. Maximize energy demand reduction and carbon storage programs, then maximize renewable energy programs and we can meet or exceed goals sooner. Look at the options and make the plans based upon maximizing sustainability first for better results.