what will it take to reach this goal? the intergovernmental panel on climate change, a coalition of climate scientists from around the globe, have laid out the maximum amount of co2 that can be emitted into the atmosphere while still maintaining the 2°c increase in temperature. this threshold is called the carbon budget.

what is the carbon budget?

to understand the carbon budget that the ipcc has created, we must understand the timeline of carbon pollution.

according to the union of concerned scientists, the estimated total carbon released in the atmosphere between 1751 and 2014 was 1,480 gigatons. of this, 743 gigatons (or 50.2%) of all emissions came after 1988.

the mercator institute of research on global commons and climate change has estimated that we have about 760 gigatons left in our carbon budget as of 2017. they also estimate at present, the world is still emitting 40 gigatons a year. if nations around the world do not commit to the objectives in the paris climate agreement, we are looking at an exhaustion of our carbon budget in just 19 years.

the ipcc has estimated that we’ve currently spent over half of our carbon budget which stands at 2,240 gigatons of carbon, putting us on track to see over 2°c of warming within the next three decades if we stay on our current course.

using the ipcc model for the carbon budget, carbon brief has concluded that as of 2017, we only have 4 years left until we inevitably surpass 1.5°c of global warming. however, their analysis also showed that as of 2016, emission rates have been slowing down, suggesting signs of peaking.

why all the fuss about 2°c?

there is a common consensus within the scientific community that we must limit the remainder of our carbon budget to stay within 2°c in warming. when climate scientists were first figuring out the effects of co2 on the atmosphere back in the 1970’s – “early calculations suggested that if we doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over pre-industrial levels, the earth would warm somewhere between 1.5°c and 4.5°c,” according to vox.

the next question was: how much of this warming can humans tolerate with minimal danger to human life? temperature graphing has shown throughout human history, humans have lived within a temperature range that fluctuates between -1/1° celsius. it becomes increasingly worrisome to think of a world where temperatures are more than double the upper limit that humans have ever experienced.

the scientific community has a wide range of assessments calculating the risks global warming could pose to human life.

we’ve already seen the increased risks that our current carbon output has produced:

wildfires tend to be associated with hotter, drier weather, meaning that an increased climate is prone to producing more wildfires.

the oceans, at the current level they are rising, will put millions of lives at risk. as ocean surges continue to wreak havoc on our coastal cities, mass migrations are sure to ensue, causing political and economic turmoil for the more than 1 billion people living in low-lying areas.

increasing ocean temperatures have been linked to higher frequencies of more intense hurricanes. severe rainfall occurrences will increase along the eastern coast of the u.s  as a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture: “we think that harvey type of rainfalls will become noticeably more frequent as the century goes on,” said kerry emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at mit.

extreme droughts in areas like california and the midwest, are expected to increase as temperatures rise, resulting in severe agricultural damage and water shortages around the world.

these extreme weather related events already are becoming more frequent, and the earth hasn’t even reached the 1.5° c mark yet. if we can’t keep temperatures from surpassing 2°c, the risks to human life are only going to get worse.

we’ve got to make the budget but how?

“it is still not too late to limit the warming. staying below 2°c requires social, financial, and technical actions by 2020 on a global scale,” said veerabhadran ramanathan, chair of the committee and distinguished professor at the scripps institution of oceanography in san diego.

elsewhere in the united states, social action is being taken by governors, mayors, public officials, and educational and business leaders who have signed on to the we are still in pact. this agreement represents one third of the u.s. population and their mission is to meet the goals set out in the paris climate agreement, even if the federal government does not intend to.

and according to the new york times, the united states already has delivered $1 billion of the $3 billion in financial aid it has agreed to pay under the paris climate agreement, to assist poor nations in the fight against climate change.

technological action also is on the rise as negative emissions technologies, such as biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (beccs for short), are receiving increased attention in the climate science community.

ultimately though, we need global cooperation to combat climate change, and the paris climate agreement was a great first step. we have the means to reach the carbon budget, we just need the political will and global pressure to keep the earth on track to staying under 2°c.

planet forward: can you tell us a little bit about your work at the delaware riverkeeper network and how you got involved in this group?

maya van rossum: my official title is the delaware riverkeeper. my job is to be the voice of the delaware river. what that means is that i work hard to make sure that any time decisions are being made, or actions are being taken that would impact the delaware river or any of its contributory streams, that the delaware river has a voice in the room. [i make sure] its needs and goals of protecting it are given the highest priority in the decisions that are being made. now of course that’s not the job of one person. there’s no one person that can protect an entire river or, certainly, an entire river’s watershed. it really requires a community effort. and so, i do have a wonderful community that works with me. i have a staff of 20 at the delaware riverkeeper network… and then we have nearly 20,000 members throughout the watershed that help us fight the good fight for the river.

planet forward: in your book, you talked a lot about the failures of the pennsylvania department of environmental protection. can you tell us why these environmental agencies tend to fail at fulfilling their basic duties? would you equate these failings to regulatory capture [that is, where a regulatory agency doesn’t act in the public interest]?

van rossum: so it’s not just in the commonwealth of pennsylvania, it’s really every environmental agency at the state level and at the federal level across the nation. they are not doing anything and everything that needs to be done to protect our natural resources, [and] in order to protect people’s health safety and the quality of their lives. a fundamental reason why that’s the case is because the laws in the united states of america, whether we’re talking local, state, or federal law, are not written to prevent environmental degradation or to protect people’s rights to a healthy environment. [these laws] are actually written to allow pollution. they just put in place a process to identify: how much, when, and where that pollution or environmental degradation will be allowed. the implications for community health, individual health, and individual and community quality of life isn’t given independent consideration in that legal process. it’s presumed that people’s right to a healthy environment or the concept of the right to a healthy environment will be protected by virtue of the fact that you’re going to regulate the how, when, and where environmental degradation takes place. it’s not really considered, legally, on its own as an overall concept that needs to be achieved. in some cases, such as the federal energy regulatory commission, regulatory capture is absolutely taking place. that is a federal agency responsible for reviewing and approving pipelines and fracking infrastructure projects. in over 30 years, ferc has only denied one pipeline project brought before its commissioners for approval. there are a handful of ways we can demonstrate that that agency really does suffer from regulatory capture. and i’m sure there are others depending on the state you’re talking about. however, broadly speaking you don’t have to have regulatory capture for agencies to day in and day out be making decisions that really side with industries ability to pollute, over the health and safety of people.

pf: you also talk about the overbearing power that industries and corporations have when it comes to forming policy in the united states. do you think the u.s. has reached a point in our democracy where it is dominated by oligarchical forces, especially after citizens united v. fec?

van rossum: i think we’ve reached a very problematic situation in the united states, were people’s rights, people’s needs, people’s voices really are subservient to the desires, goals, and greedy nature of industry. many politicians prioritize their own political careers and desires to advance and make money, over their obligation to protect the health and safety of people and the environmental resources we depend upon. i think that the u.s., for a long time, has been suffering from this reality that people are subservient to the goals and desires of industry, who [are able to] capture politicians. i do think that it is getting worse and worse every year. part of it is because of legal decisions such as citizens united that make it easier for industry to co-op with politicians and hold the power of the purse over their heads — if they want to continue their political careers. that being said, i think we’re at a tipping point, a moment in which the overreach by industry and self-serving politicians, is now blatantly obvious to an increasing number of people. no longer are people counting on their representatives to do the right thing and prioritize people’s needs over industry’s needs. people are now trying to find ways to hold government officials accountable. so while rallies, protests, and certainly voting are important ways to do that, i think that the passage of constitutional provisions to protect our environmental rights is a high priority way to hold government accountable for protecting people’s right to a health environment.

pf: can you tell us more about this constitutional approach to environmentalism and why that would be more constructive than our current legislative approach?

van rossum: so our constitutions, whether you’re talking about the state constitution or federal constitution, are above the law. so when you have a constitutional right, like the right of free speech, it’s a higher level of protection. government officials have to prove they are complying with the law but also have to prove they are complying with the constitution. in the case of the environment, if you have a situation where an industrial operator is spewing pollution into a waterway, and the people downstream are upset about it, these citizens may not be able to do anything because the operator has a permit to pollute backed by standing law. but if there’s a constitutional provision in place, the industrial operator and the government official stating that they complied with the law on the books is not good enough. [a constitutional right] is another layer of review and another obligation for protection. if a constitutional right to a healthy environment is violated, or a person believes their right has been violated, they can go to the courts to vindicate their right. they do not need a law written by a legislature… they can go straight to the courts.

pf: if a concerned citizen does notice environmental degradation occurring in their community, how should they go about defending their right to a clean and healthy environment?

van rossum: if you’re seeing pollution, you’re going to want to contact your local regulators. this might be your local town or the police if it’s a significant danger. all state agencies and federal agencies have pollution hotlines you can contact to request for a survey of damage that may be taking place. you may even have a constitutional issue if you live in pennsylvania or montana which do have constitutional protections for the environment. if your state doesn’t have a constitutional protection, then you’re really going to have to count on your regulatory agencies or state law. and if these avenues fail, that might just inspire a person to fight for a constitutional right for a clean environment within their state.

while burns helped host a workshop for ngos on carbon dioxide removal/negative emissions at the george washington university, planet forward sat down with him to discuss the paris climate agreement and other climate change policies. read on to see an edited version of our conversation:

planet forward: how did you become involved in climate policy research?

wil burns: i started off working on the impacts of climate change on small island states, specifically how small island states might either adapt to climate change or how they might use legal mechanisms to try to “press” the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases to reduce their emissions. then, about 12 years ago, i became interested in climate geoengineering. i had just happened to read an article, [while] on a plane, from usa today and i thought it was an interesting topic for teaching because it’s a topic that’s an interface of law and science and ethics and technology and politics.

while teaching about this i got excited about doing more research and ultimately, at john hopkins, simon nicholson from american university and i decided that there should be a think tank that would try to ensure that if we do decide to look at climate geoengineering as a society, that we include all of the stakeholders … that was one of the fears we had, so the purpose of these kind of forums are to ensure that other stakeholders like ngos and the general public — who would be affected by these technologies — are a part of the conversation.

pf: while human ingenuity seems almost endless, do you think it’s harmful to rely solely on technology to confront the challenges that global warming poses?

burns: well, i certainly think it’s harmful to rely on technologies that seek to mask the warming that’s associated with emissions. for example, [there is] one kind of geoengineering, which is carbon-dioxide removal. there’s another kind called solar radiation management. the effort there [with the solar radiation management] is to just reduce the amount of incoming sunlight. so if there’s less solar radiation to be trapped by the greenhouse gases, it reduces the warming. but that’s a short term sort of palliative [technique]. and the long term, if emissions continue to rise, it will at some point overwhelm those options. plus, those options are extremely risky for a number of other reasons. so, i think that type of technological hubris is wrong. i think the kind of technologies we’re looking at have potentially a supplementary role, but in many ways it’s because they have risks [so] they’re not necessarily permanent either. the best thing we need to do is reduce our emissions. but in a lot of cases when you think about reducing emissions through things like renewable energy or energy efficiency methods, there’s certainly a role for technology in that context also. solar, geothermal, wind power are based on technology also, so there is a role for technology.

pf: how hopeful are you then that geoengineering technology can reduce the worst case scenarios that climate change could produce?

burns: i think the jury is definitely out. i think that, ultimately, carbon dioxide removal strategies, things like bioenergy and carbon capture (beccs) or direct air capture will have a modest role to play. but even a modest role is good. the difference between, for example, a temperature increase of 3.0 and 2.5 degrees or 2.5 to 2.0 can be substantial in terms of the impacts on ecosystems or human institutions. even if the role is relatively modest, which i think it will [be], it could be important. carbon capture involves trapping the carbon dioxide at its emission source, transporting it to a storage location — usually deep underground — and isolating it. this means we could potentially grab excess co2 right from the power plant, creating greener energy. 

pf: you’ve done a lot of research on the paris climate agreement. what are some steps that countries are currently taking? and do you think the paris climate agreement is effective?

burns: well, again, the jury is going to be out on the paris until we start seeing whether the pledges that are made are implemented, first of all. then when the parties reassess their claims they have a process called “stock-taking” where they’re supposed to say: are we on path to meet this goal to holding temperatures well below 2.0° celsius and if we’re not are we willing to escalate what we’re willing to do? the good news about paris is that we’re clearly bending the temperature increase trajectory. we used to talk about maybe 4.0° or 5.0° celsius of increased temperatures by the end of the century. we’re increasingly talking about somewhere between 2.7° to 3.5°/3.7°, so that’s the good news. the bad news is that’s still way beyond where we want to be and way beyond paris says we’re going to be. if the current pledges of paris are all totally implemented faithfully, we go from 47 gigatons of carbon-dioxide annually to 58. so we slow down the rate of increase but we keep increasing. we can’t do that because if you think of it as water in a bathtub, the water is going up more slowly but eventually the bathtub will overfill. so the real test for paris is going to be: when we start these assessments and we realize we’re not where we need to be, are parties willing to escalate? one of the hopes you have with an agreement like paris is, [it’s] an international agreement in which countries come together, start to learn from each other, start to collaborate more because treaties can foster cooperation. and you hope by doing that parties start to learn that reducing emissions can be done more cheaply than they thought, they realize other countries are actually complying with what they said, and that impels them to do more also, and ultimately reduces emissions more than they have.

pf: the trump administration has decided they will be pulling the u.s. out of paris. how complicated is it to pull out of the paris climate agreement? and if we successfully do pull out, how complicated will it be for a following administration to put the united states back into the agreement?

burns: in terms of the first question, it’s complicated to get out. one of the reasons that we do that is we don’t want other countries that have relied on an agreement and then other parties that have joined just suddenly pulling out because they then have to respond themselves and decide if they’re going to withdraw or if it’s going to change the nature of their commitments. so we make it a slow process. the way paris works is, you can’t give notice of your intention to withdraw, until three years after you ratified paris. so we couldn’t give notice that we actually intended to withdraw from paris until three years from november, 2016. then it takes another year before it takes effect and goes into force. since the trump administration has announced its intention to withdraw, it can’t legally actually announce that intention until three years from november of last year, and can’t withdraw until a year after that. our effective date of withdrawing from paris is pretty much after the next election.

pf: so we could possibly have a new administration in office by that time?

burns: we could. if we announce in three years [after ratification] that we’re withdrawing, it will probably happen and it’d be very difficult to reverse it at that point. now getting back in, is potentially a relatively simple process in the sense that, what we did with the paris agreement is we entered by something called an “executive agreement,” instead of going to the senate. the reason we were able to get the treaty bypassed from ratification by two thirds of the senate, is because we said we could do this under executive agreement. and we could do this because the commitments we made under paris were no more than what we were already doing in terms of national legislation or regulations or current treaty obligations. so the argument we made was, since paris is voluntary, we had already agreed under the framework convention on climate change (which we’re a party to), that we would reduce our emissions to a level that wouldn’t cause dangerous anthropogenic impacts. we said that paris just defines what “dangerous” is. we aren’t required to do more than what we were before and we had domestic regulations called the clean power plan to reduce our emissions, and those commitments would be tracked by what we were committing to under paris. so if we did that again, and we came back in under an executive agreement, it could be done relatively quickly.

pf: if the united states were to implement policies such as a cap-and-trade system, how would that significantly reduce our risks to climate change?

burns: well, it depends. if you were to implement either a cap-and-trade system, or a carbon tax or a command-and-control system (reducing emissions by a fixed amount), the key is how much you decide to reduce your emissions. that’s the first question. one of the things we’ve seen under a lot of cap-and-trade programs in the world is that the cap hasn’t been set low enough to reduce emissions that much or put a price on carbon that drives the trading. so that’s a political commitment. the second problem is that even though the united states is a major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, the bottom line is that we are only one emitter. we’re about 16% of the world’s emissions. so even if we were to massively reduce our emissions, it wouldn’t bring down our temperature trajectory that much. one thing that would be very important is, it would have some impact because we’re a major emitter, but perhaps more importantly it would signal to other countries that the largest economy in the world had the resolve to do it. a lot of other countries in the world compete with the united states… so other countries would be willing to do more because they [wouldn’t want to] be put at a competitive disadvantage in terms [of their] industry.

pf: what are some policies we could implement on a global scale that could greatly reduce the risks of climate change?

burns: i think one thing we could do that could make a very large difference is to eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels development. we spend hundreds of billions of dollars “incentivizing” fossil fuel production and there’s no reason to provide incentives most of the time. there’s enough profit being made that countries would do it anyway. what it does is it eliminates the level playing field for fossil fuels and alternatives. we subsidize in a lot of countries’ renewables also, but at a much lower level. we’re privileging fossil fuels at a time when we keep saying: renewable energy should compete in the open marketplace. but we don’t have a free and open marketplace. so eliminating those hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and creating more of a level playing field would really help. we also need to substantially increase our research and development for potential technological breakthroughs in terms of energy. one of the things we know is that the stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stone. it [ended] because there were massive improvements based on technological breakthroughs. the same thing could be said here. if we put more funding into renewables for example, their cost could probably come down so much that we wouldn’t have the political battles that we have now because it’d become simply a question of economic imperative to shift away from fossil fuels. we’ve seen the cost curves for renewables drop dramatically to the point they’re at parity, or lower than fossil fuels. if we were to spend more on research and development, there [are] probably a lot more breakthroughs that would help make that transition more quickly.

planet forward: how did you come to pursue a career in climate change assessment?

katharine mach: my research background when i was a graduate student was focused on the oceans. i was looking at the way crashing waves shape what grows in the ecosystems right along the edge of the water. it was very challenging and exciting work. basically saying – what’s environmental risk in the world right now? how does that shift as the climate warms and extreme temperatures play out and waves potentially change in terms of when they are crashing? however, what i didn’t like about that was some of the biggest issues regarding the ocean were acidification, overfishing, pollution, and climate change – and these were all left out. so, when i went for my ph.d. i did something a little bit wild and i jumped to the ippc, not really knowing what it was going to be like as a postdoctoral research associate. it was incredible, i was working with experts from around the world – physicists, moral philosophers, people looking at food security – every continent, every discipline, coming together trying to figure out what’s the state of knowledge of all aspects of the climate challenge and how can you make that knowledge relevant in real time to societies in the decision-making processes. i was fascinated by assessment; i really liked how it was a full state of knowledge, what we know and what we don’t and how that requires a lot of interactions among people to figure out what are the strengths and weaknesses of different lines of evidence. from there i shifted my focus to figuring out how to do assessment well.  

pf: what are some economic risks, that you’ve seen through your assessments, that will be a result of the effects of global warming?

mach: one easy entry point for thinking about damages in a changing climate are the economic losses associated with extreme events. increasingly we can look event by event, whether it’s a heatwave, heavy rain event, or even complex things like fires and cyclones and understand the ways in which our emissions of heat trapping gases are driving up the risks. these types of events carry with them huge financial price tags. in the u.s. last year, there were 15 events that caused each a billion dollars in losses. this year, the total damages from all of the events we’ve seen unfolding are going to be vast.  so, we can add those up event by event [and determine] how much more likely were those types of occurrences due to climate change? there’s increasing work in understanding what climate change means for economic impacts overall. it’s an exciting area of science, in that some of that work hadn’t really been massively updated since the 1990’s and so now it is. what we see is there are countries in the world right now that are ‘cold countries.’ if they get warmer, their economies might actually improve, such as in norway. there are other countries that are already so hot that further warming will drive their economies down, which is the case for many of the countries in the tropics, which are also some of the poorest countries presently.  

pf: do you find it difficult in your studies to assess the economic risks of loss to biodiversity?  how do you determine the value of a species in economic terms?

mach: so one thing that we often say in the space of assessment is that there’s no one way to assess the risks in a changing climate. that essentially means that there are impacts for you and i in our current world and then there are impacts that our children and grandchildren might have many years into the future. how we prioritize those impacts, based on our current experience, there is no right answer for how that unfolds. the same thing goes for people in the world presently: we’ve got the rich and the poor simplistically cut; different people will put different priorities on outcomes across that socio-economic spectrum. the same goes for nature. some might argue that nature should have value that is intrinsic to life while others will say the value of nature should be tied to the services directly applied to people. there is no one right answer in that space.

pf: can you briefly describe the three different approaches to negative emissions and tell us which approach you think is most likely to be implemented on a mass scale?

mach: so i think of the spectrum of carbon-dioxide removal as having two poles. on one pole we have biology and on the other we have engineering. i’m going to describe three [categories], one at the end of each of these poles and one that lies in the middle. the first [category] are approaches that are tightly linked to stewardship. so if we better manage our forests, they can hold more carbon. if we better manage our agricultural fields, the soils can take in more carbon. we know how to do these types of approaches and in some cases know how to do them really well. for example, california’s forest offset program is the first legally enforceable program in forest offsets. it’s happening at 5 million tons per year at a relatively cheap cost of $10 a ton. the second [category] is still biologically based in terms of how carbon is taken out of the atmosphere but it’s more engineered. this could be anything from bio-char, to building with biomass, or bioenergy paired with carbon capture and storage (beccs). these are approaches that are more expensive, not quite ready but could in many cases play an increasing role depending how in particular we decide to value the role of carbon in that equation. the third category [that includes] direct air capture, is a fully engineered approach. with this approach you are using carbon capture and storage to get carbon into geological formations underground. looking across this spectrum of approaches, we have an order of magnitude differences in current cost: about $10, $100, $1000 per ton [respectively]. we are looking at different levels of engineering complexity, different spatial footprints for each approach. direct air capture might make a whole lot of sense once we have abundant clean energy but until we have a lot of energy to put into the “capture” part of the equation it’s hard to imagine bringing it rapidly to scale. i see all of these [approaches] providing a lot of different opportunities for industries at the millions and to many millions tons scale. the real question moving forward is which ones, if any, can we get to the billion tons scale.

pf: how far out are we from developing these technologies and utilizing them?  how many years of development do we need in order to utilize these technologies in a way that is fully beneficial?

mach: for that first category we know how to do a lot of that now. managing forests well, utilizing cover crops or compost additions in agricultural management are things that are available now. so the question is how do we create a financial signal – either through conservation or climate policy to make it a reality. in the beccs space [second category] we see a number of plants at demonstration scale, about 1 million tons per year, we are starting to figure out how to make this happen. some of our work at stanford has tried to look at near-term, low cost, and commercially available opportunities in that space. for example, bio refineries that are working on a yearly basis to produce ethanol are a low cost option in capturing co2. direct air capture [third category], we are also starting to see prototype scale projects. for example there is a company now in switzerland that is using direct air capture to filter co2 into greenhouse agriculture as a way to get plants to grow faster. it’s hard to say exactly how long the [timeframe] is, recognizing for direct air capture you need a lot of energy to make it happen and across that spectrum you need some way to price carbon so we can make these policies translate into reality.

pf: while human ingenuity seems almost endless in this day and age, do you think it’s harmful for us to rely on technology alone to confront the challenges of global warming?

mach: responding to climate change is something that we as people, have never seen the likes of. on the one hand we need to transform our energy and land systems globally, at a rate and scale that we have never done proactively. let’s say that we are phenomenally successful and we figure out abundant clean energy storage, grid integration, efficiency, pulling some co2 out of the atmosphere, we grapple [the challenges of] land, and we meet the budget of limiting warming to under 2 degrees celsius. even if we are unbelievably successful in the realm of reducing our emissions of heat trapping gases, we still have more warming in the pipeline. it will very likely be twice as much warming as we’ve already seen to date. and that warming carries real risks that will be unfolding in every part of the world… no matter what aspect of risk you look at, it’s unfolding around the world and we will also have to prepare for those types of impacts.  

pf: what are some policies that we could adopt today that would greatly reduce our risks of climate change?

mach: i think the exciting thing is that there is a huge amount of momentum already in the climate change response space. that ranges from the fact that we are seeing increasing deployments of clean energy technologies around the world, we’re seeing very ambitious pledges towards electric vehicles, whether it be countries or companies and we’re seeing adaptation on every single continent. here in the u.s. it is mostly states that are starting to figure out all sorts of different options. in terms of becoming more prepared for impacts or adaptation, one real challenge is what is happening in risk assessment and planning. we are just starting to actually implement actions and we are also just starting to really figure out: once we’ve implemented actions, are they going to be effective? the most compelling options for policies in the near term are figuring out: how can we take some of this really ambitious progress so far and crank up “how fast, how much” and grapple with all of those barriers from finances, to making our legal system work, for something that is really different from how we’ve acted to date.  

pf: my final question for you is: what do you think the biggest barrier is for the federal government of the united states from passing comprehensive climate change legislation?  

mach: in the u.s. we have had the climate narrative get swept up in a whole lot of ideology and fear. i think in some ways the best way to think about federal action moving forward in the u.s. is to recognize that we already see so much action at the city level, state level, and by the private-sector. those are the enabling factors that at some point are going to make it easy for congress to take action.  

here are five things we talked about at the event:

1. we’ve been treating the median climate change outcome as a worst case scenario, when there is still half a bell curve of scenarios that could be worse.

the paris climate accord set a goal to keep global climate conditions from surpassing 2° celsius. however, failing to reach this goal will result in disastrous consequences — and this was the focus of wallace-wells’ article. within the climate conversation wallace-wells said there seems to be a lack of urgency. modeling shows that if emissions continue to rise at the same rate, by the end of the century the world could face temperatures as high as 6° celsius above pre-industrial levels. when climate change scenarios are brought up, we often assume countries will react. however, there is the probability that the world community will not act, or act quickly enough. wallace-wells wanted to emphasize that current conversations do not go far enough in assessing the real risks of climate change. 

2. the world will not be saved by your decision to not eat beef.

“ultimately, the world will not be saved by personal consumption choices,” wallace-wells said. “it will be saved by political decisions and frameworks of cooperation between governments around the world.”  so why does wallace-wells think government intervention is the only way we’re going to see real solutions to climate change? because governments have the ability to change and enforce behavior. while it’s great that we as environmentalists are looking out for the planet in our daily decisions, that alone is not enough. everyone will be affected and, as such, our behaviors need to be adjusted to reduce our impact on a much larger scale.

3. it’s more important to convince those who already care about climate to care more, than it is to convince climate-deniers to believe in the cause.

the likelihood of a climate-denier whole-heartedly taking on the issue of climate change is slim to none. wallace-wells said it is more productive to convince those who do understand the problem, to be more concerned about the issue. in a recent gallup poll, only 33% of americans were worried about climate change a “great deal.” getting americans to take action on climate change is difficult, as it’s not an issue that affects our day-to-day lifestyles. as environmentalists, we need to do a better job communicating the risks of climate change. 

4. it’s not an information issue, it’s an engagement issue.

we need to re-frame how we engage people on climate change. while climate scientists are great when it comes research and data analysis, they are not the best communicators. it is the job of those who are engaged, to use storytelling as a way to spread awareness on the immense risks the future holds, due to climate change. while “the inhabitable earth” received criticism, wallace-wells utilized the power of story to concern people about the issue.

5. a single generation of people has caused the earth to shift from stability to instability. it’s our generation that is going to fix it. 

greenhouse gas emissions started as a result of the industrial revolution. however, it wasn’t until after world war ii that global emissions began to skyrocket. unfortunately, we are talking about a single generation that neglected to consider the impacts of pollution. it’s now up to our generation, to learn from the mistakes of the past and find a solution.  a sustainable future depends on the actions we take today. 

to middle class americans, installing solar panels may seem out of their financial range. however, the cost of solar has gone down in recent years. scientific american reports that prices for solar panels have fallen between 5-12% in 2015. this price drop includes everything from hardware to installation. however, the biggest contributor to the price drop was the decline in cost for inverters, which convert direct current (dc) electricity to alternating current (ac) electricity, the electric standard for homes.

however, market factors aren’t the sole contributors in the cost decline. the government has played a significant role in making solar more affordable for american households by subsidizing solar through tax credits. currently, homeowners can receive a tax credit at 30% of the cost of the system. state governments have also set up programs to fund solar installation. new york state for example, allows for a tax credit of up to $5,000. other state policies can include rebates, tax exemptions, and even property tax exemptions!

the price on solar

so how much does it cost to install solar panels on a residential home? just like any home project, prices can differ depending on a variety of factors. the biggest determinant is how many kilo-watts the homeowner wants installed. also,the suppliers and/or installers in different regions can charge varying rates. solar power rocks has a feature on their website that connects customers with trusted solar installers in their area to get a quote on pricing.

the final cost of installation can depend dramatically on what state programs your region offers. however, according to energy sage, the average gross cost found in 2017, prior to tax credits, is $16,800. after tax credits the cost can vary between $10,045 and $13,475.

considering that the price of solar panels is about the cost of a new roof, homeowners may be wary about taking on solar. and while savings vary greatly state by state, there seems to be a common trend: the long term investment can save a homeowner thousands. according to solar to the people, the average savings for homeowners can be upwards of $10,000 over a 20 year period. in some states the savings can be even larger. energy sage calculated that over a 20 year period, homeowners who installed a 5 kilowatt system in texas saved $14,221; maryland saved $20,446; new york saved $28,466; and massachusetts saved $30,243!

an investment in energy security 

why should people wait 20 years for the financial benefit of solar power? choosing to install solar panels does not necessarily mean your home is completely off the grid. many households, decide to use net metering to monitor costs. net metering is a system that sells your generated power back to the utility company during peak periods of production. this allows you to utilize grid electricity when your household isn’t producing enough electricity, like at nighttime. if you live in an area where solar is very efficient, the utility company may even pay you for your extra electricity.

moving forward with new innovation 

the future is looking hopeful for solar power. just this year, tesla announced its newest innovation in solar: the tesla solar roof. tesla has designed roof-shingles that have solar panels built inside them. they look like ordinary roof shingles and are “more than three times stronger than standard roofing tiles” according to tesla. the company is so confident in the durability of their solar roof that they offer a “lifetime of your house” warranty.

tesla also offers their powerwall battery. this battery stores any excess energy produced to be used during nighttime or cloudy periods. in theory, the tesla solar roof could make your home fully self-sufficient.

tesla’s roof doesn’t come without significant costs. forbes indicates that a 70% solar roof from tesla will set a homeowner back by $51,200, before the optional powerwall battery, which will cost an additional $7,000. however the 70% solar roof over 30 years will generate $73,500 in electric, meaning a net profit of $31,200 over that period. it is also important to note that this cost is before all federal, state, and local solar programs are factored in. the 30% tax credit offered by the federal government would show savings of $17,460 on this same purchase.

the solar industry is making its way into becoming a fierce competitor in the energy sector. with assistance from the government, solar is starting to catch up with more traditional sources of energy. innovations like the tesla solar roof may be out of reach for most middle class families, however this is just the start of a revolutionary industry. as more competitors enter the market, we will continue to see a sharp decline in the cost of solar. it doesn’t seem so far-fetched to imagine solar roof tiles as standard for new homes in the near future. 

planet forward: you’re a teacher here at george washington university?

susan anenberg: yes, i just started as an associate professor here about a month ago. i’m currently developing a new course on global air pollution, climate change, health impacts, and public policy. that will be taught this summer for the first time.

pf: what made you want to pursue a career in health and environmental science?

anenberg: i was an undergrad at northwestern university, and i was pre-med and working nights at an emergency room. i realized that i was seeing the same patients over and over again at the hospital. it occurred to me that if we can take care of some of the more underlying factors that affect people’s health, on a population basis, rather than an individual basis, we would do more than just treating the symptoms and actually prevent the health impacts from occurring in the first place. so that’s what led me to want to be involved with public health. i was also personally interested in climate change and global air pollution, which were both rising in prominence at the time. i realized i could kind of marry the two together and work toward improving public health by tackling climate change and air pollution.

pf: i myself live in buffalo, ny, which has a high rate of cancer within the area, as well as a high rate of air pollution. do you think that air pollution rates have a strong correlation to the cancer rates within a community?

anenberg: i do. air pollution has been studied, and studied, and studied over the last say, 40 years or more throughout this country and the world. i always joke that fine particles in the air and ground level ozone, two very ubiquitous and common pollutants, are probably the most studied pollutants in environmental health because they go back to the 1970s in terms of linking pollutants with health. time and time again we see results coming out of these studies from individual cities, multiple cities, and even multiple countries showing that these pollutants are associated with higher rates of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease. we are even seeing some novel health outcomes that are now being associated with air pollution exposure, including diabetes and neurological disorders.

pf: so what particles or chemicals would you consider to be the largest contributors to health implications in mass populations?

anenberg: it appears that particles in the atmosphere caused by incomplete combustion of fuel — those that are released during incomplete combustion of fuels, which could be anything from vehicles burning gasoline or diesel, to a coal-fired power plant, to the fireplace that you use to heat your home — are the most strongly associated with health impacts and really dominate the burden of disease caused by these environmental pollutants. 

pf: in regards to your research with the epa, what did you work on and how extensive is the regulatory process? it seems that there is a public misconception that the epa simply pushes out environmental regulations on whatever it feels like, with discussion going no further than a lunch conversation. 

anenberg: actually, it is incredibly complicated. in fact, when i started at the epa i was a graduate student doing my ph.d., and i was realizing during this time how hard it was to do research and to get published in academic literature, you have to go through a peer-review process, and it’s not an easy thing. i thought when i joined the epa, it was just going to be easy to construct policy, and it was not going to be as hard as conducting scientific research. boy was i wrong! it is really hard to develop new policy in this country. i think that there is good reason for that. these are very costly regulations that the epa handles, but they have massive public health benefits, so they are very essential to have in place. the process is extremely complicated, it starts with a very, very thorough review of the scientific literature including toxicology, epidemiology, and an entire body of literature that has examined the influence of pollutants on public health. this is called an integrated science assessment, which typically runs about a 1,000 pages for each individual pollutant. based on the results of the assessment, the epa then produces a risk and exposure assessment, which is on the order of about 500 pages, where they very thoroughly assess the influence of current levels of air pollution in the atmosphere on public health, so how much are populations around the country experiencing risk from air pollution. and then following that 500 page document, there is a regulatory-impact analysis.

pf: which would be a cost-benefit analysis, correct?

anenberg: yes, that is a cost-benefit analysis where they try to estimate the full cost and health benefits resulting from lowering an air-quality standard. in total, the process takes years to complete and produces thousands of pages of analysis. and at every step along the way there are multiple levels of public review and public comment periods where people from all walks of life come to meet with the epa to bring their research and perspective into it. in total, it’s just a very comprehensive and thorough process that the epa does not take lightly.

pf: and you obviously think these emission regulations are important?

anenberg: absolutely. air pollution is currently considered to be the worst environmental health risk factor on a global scale. it is a massive public health problem that affects developing countries and developed countries alike and is essential to manage, which can ensure that people are living healthy lives.

pf: when we talk about the effects of climate change, we often talk about the economic implications. however, how do you think climate change will affect our health on a global scale?

anenberg: that’s a great question. health has not been a key element around the discussions of climate change over the last 20 to 30 years. i think that’s a shame because there are a lot of different pathways by which climate will affect health. the situation is changing now. the u.s. government, under the obama administration, started addressing the health impacts of climate change and has written several very high profile, comprehensive reports about the health effects of climate change. but more can be done. one way to do that would be to build health into cost-benefit analyses that relate to regulating greenhouse gases, rather than just the ecosystem and economic impacts. some of the ways climate change will affect health is very varied. it can influence heat related stress, vector-borne diseases, air quality. [climate change could] make it harder to achieve the low levels of air pollution necessary to ensure people are living healthy lives. it could lead to more dust in the atmosphere, more wildfires — there are just a lot of different ways climate change might influence health. we know very little about it at this point but it is growing in momentum.

pf: it seems that for a long time the environment has been viewed as this sort of waste sink. do you think this attitude over the past couple of decades is changing? why or why not?

anenberg: i do think so. i think there is now recognition that to lead healthy lives we have to take care of our planet. this is the only planet we live on. there is this new frame of thinking that has evolved over just the past few years that some call “one health” or “planetary health” that taking care of our environment is really essential to safeguarding public health. this can be through making sure we are growing the right crops and making sure these crops are able to grow so we can sustain nutrition for people around the world. it could be ensuring that our glaciers aren’t melting so quickly that people are losing their access to clean water used for drinking water and irrigation. so, our public health is very intertwined with the state of the environment and i do think that is entering the conscience of the public as well.

pf: thank you. my final question here is for citizens concerned about the health and climate effects in their own communities. what is the best way to address these grievances?

anenberg: one of my favorite aspects of working on the issue of climate change, is that it is so multi-faceted. there are so many different way you can approach it. you can take the legal angle, you can come from a scientific standpoint — looking at climate science and how climate change will affect ecosystems and public health in your community. you can be a community organizer, you can run for public office. you can bring an economic skill set [to the issue]. there are just so many different angles to address this problem, and we need so many different [experts] to address it, because it is such a large problem. i think the opportunities for engagement are just endless.

that’s pretty heavy news to stomach with your burger, but the evidence is mounting. according to the food and agriculture organization of the un, 14.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions come from the production of livestock.  

our current world population is hovering around 7.5 billion people, but more than 800 million of which are dealing with hunger – or, one in nine. and even more — one in three — are suffering from malnutrition.

this seemingly contradicts reports, like this study from mcgill university and university of minnesota, that show we grow enough food to feed 10 billion people.

you may wonder how those going hungry can get their piece of the agriculture pie — and where all that extra food is going.

researchgate reports that a majority of crops such as wheat and corn, are used in the creation of biofuels and the cultivation of livestock. from an outsider’s point of view, it appears wealthy countries have prioritized the meat and automobile industries over feeding those in need.  

perhaps surprisingly, it’s not the availability of food that causes world hunger but, rather, poverty. the un-fao also found that most of the world’s poor population lives in rural areas in which they are subsistence farmers, meaning they only produce enough for their family to survive — and that’s only if everything goes right during the growing season.

demand and resource usage

so how does eating meat contribute to global poverty and, hence, global hunger? it comes down to supply and demand. as developed countries and developing countries continue to demand more meat, farmers will need to utilize more land to fulfill these needs.  

the un-fao reports 33% of all cropland is used for livestock feed, as well as 26% of all the earth’s ice-free land is used for grazing purposes. to provide the heavily demanded animal products, the livestock industry also uses one third of the earth’s freshwater supply, according to the proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the united states of america.

as more land and water is utilized to create animal products, that creates a scarcity in land and water for poor people in developing countries. this scarcity causes the prices of land and water to increase, making it harder for poor populations to gain access to these resources.   

if the western world wants to solve the problem of world hunger, we must correct our own eating habits first. the more meat we demand on a regular basis means that there is less food and water available on the earth. it takes about 1,799 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef — the equivalent of about 22 bathtubs full of water, or more than three weeks of baths every day — according to food tank. in comparison, the 108 gallons of water it takes to make one pound of corn doesn’t seem so bad.

the meat industry isn’t just a strain on the water supply, it is also a strain on the atmosphere as well. one ton of methane gas has the same greenhouse effect as 23 tons of carbon dioxide. and according to the conversation: “around 1.6-2.7 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases each year, mostly methane, are produced from livestock digestion. another 1.3-2.0 billion tonnes of nitrous oxide come from producing feed for livestock. and the final 1.6 billion tonnes comes from land use changes, such as clearing for animal pastures.”

what can we do about it?

in a perfect world, upon learning this, everyone would eat a vegan diet to use less of the earth’s resources, and increase the availability of said resources to those who are starving, while simultaneously cutting greenhouse gas emissions. of course, worldwide veganism is an unrealistic goal — not to mention this would cause other economic issues, based on the all the industries this change would impact.

instead, individuals could try to minimize their consumption of meat. americans, here’s a thought: maybe we don’t need beef every single day, let alone put bacon on everything.

again, we go back to supply and demand. if consumers demand less meat, those resources could be directed toward other food avenues, which increases the chances of starving populations to obtain food security.

world governments also could be taking action. a scientific analysis published in the journal nature climate change, suggests implementing an emissions tax on the meat industry would change consumption patterns.

but influencing human behavior is a difficult task. egalitarians may take personal responsibility for the impact our eating habits have on others and the earth. however, it is just as unrealistic to expect a worldwide adoption of veganism as it is to assume most individuals would consider their daily actions through an egalitarian lens.  

however, if we truly want to help ease world hunger and reduce our impact on climate change, we must modify our eating habits on an international scale – and having governments around the world adopt emissions taxes on meat is one way to help accomplish that change. 

prior to the industrial revolution, most societies did not consume meat on a daily basis, unless you’re family was amongst the elite class. only in the modern era of human consumption have we forgotten that meat is supposed to be a luxury, not a necessity. world hunger and climate change are strong reminders that such indulgences do not come without consequence.

however, it seems that many state and local politicians in the united states still intend on confronting climate change, even if the federal government is falling short. governors from washington, california, and new york have pulled together to form the u.s climate alliance. the alliance now has 13 u.s. states plus puerto rico, who are committed to upholding the stipulations agreed upon in the paris climate agreement.

for environmentalists, this is inspiring news. according to the official u.s climate alliance website, the alliance represents 1/3 of the u.s. population, contributes $7.6 trillion to u.s. gdp, and represents 1.3 million clean energy jobs. the alliance has stated that it is “committed to supporting the international agreement, and are pursuing aggressive climate action to make progress toward its goals.”

what does this mean in regards to climate change?

as laid out in the paris climate agreement, the central goal demands: “holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees c above pre-industrial levels…” the agreement stipulates that each country come up with its own plan to combat climate change, with the united nations periodically meeting to keep countries on track with the global goal.

under the obama administration, the united states had specified that it planned on cutting domestic greenhouse gas emissions between 26-28% of 2005 levels by the year 2025. the united states also agreed to deliver $3 billion in aid to less-developed countries to assist them in reaching their climate goals. according to the new york times, the united states has already paid $1 billion of the pledged aid.

however if the trump administration does carry-through with its withdrawal, rhodium group has estimated that under trump, the united states is still expected to see a 17-19% decrease in emissions from 2005 levels.

local governments taking action

the actions by the trump administration aren’t stopping state officials from taking global action. jerry brown, governor of california went to china in early june to discuss climate change with president xi jinping.

during the six day trip, governor brown visited the provinces of jiangsu and sichuan before making his way to beijing for the clean energy ministerial conference. the conference unites both private and public delegations to focus on solutions towards three key goals: improve energy efficiency, enhance clean energy supply, and expand clean energy access.

the meeting between governor brown and president jinping demonstrates that china is now regarding climate change as a serious threat and is determined to work with the global community, even if the trump administration is not.

governor cuomo of new york is partnering with the worker institute at cornell university, to work towards the creation of 40,000 clean energy jobs by 2020. this is in an effort to achieve the statewide goal of reaching 50% of electricity from renewables by 2030. you can check out new york’s full initiative program here.

corporations taking the lead

support for action on climate change doesn’t stop at the state level. shortly after the trump administration’s announcement, a group called we are still in was formed. this group consists of 2,200 leaders around the country from city halls, state houses, boardrooms, and college campuses. we are still in represents leaders who are committed to upholding the agreements set forth in the paris climate accord.

here’s what hannah jones, the vice president of nike had to say: “we are deeply disappointed by the recent shift in climate policy…we will continue to honor our commitments on climate, including reaching 100% renewable energy in all nike owned or operated facilities around the world by 2025.”

we reached out to new york’s erie county executive, mark poloncarz a signatory of we are still in. we asked what efforts erie county is making to reach the 26-28% decrease in carbon output: “currently 70% of electricity that is generated in erie county comes from hydroelectric sources, so our goal has always been to have more renewable energy sources not just for county government but for our residents.”

the county executive said that the county is aiming towards making its facilities more environmentally friendly. some of the efforts include making county buildings more energy efficient and installing solar panels. poloncarz also indicated that they now purchase more energy efficient vehicles. 

it is enlightening news to hear that state and local governments are stepping up to combat climate change. we often forget the impact our state and local actions can have on the world. as more people begin to understand the threats of climate change, it seems inevitable that local and state governments are going to act in the effort to create a sustainable world.  mark poloncarz ended with hopeful statement: “if the federal government is not going to act, local governments can, and they do have the power to make a difference so that’s what we’re doing.”

according to the institute for energy research, a 2015 study showed that roughly 10% of the total u.s. energy supply comes from renewable sources. many cities already have plans to convert to 100% renewables in the near future — and four cities already have been successful in doing so.

why make the switch? with climate central reporting that the 10 hottest years globally, all of which have occurred since 1998, we have reached a pivotal moment in history. it’s becoming more and more obvious that human activities have caused a dramatic change in the global climate. some of the damage already may be done but it is up to our generation to put us on a better path. and luckily, we are starting to see these changes happen here in the u.s.

greensburg, kansas

the first u.s. city to reach 100% clean energy was greensburg, kansas. however, it took a traumatic incident in order for this city to evolve. with a population of only 771 people, according to the u.s. census bureau, greensburg is as small-town-america as it gets. the name may sound familiar because in 2007 the town was hit by a major tornado, which destroyed 95% of the town and resulted in 11 deaths.

during reconstruction, the city council decided that the entire town would be run on green-energy, adopting the motto: “rebuilding…stronger. better. greener.” as of 2013, the city’s energy comes from a 12.5 megawatt wind facility.

the story of greensburg is somewhat symbolic. it paints a picture of what the future holds if humans around the world continue down a path of environmental exploitation. with the disappearance of the polar ice caps and destruction of the world’s coral reefs, humans have no choice now but to evolve.

aspen, colorado

another small city that has reached 100% clean energy comes as no surprise: aspen, colorado. as a ski resort town, aspen’s entire economic success rides on the environment. aspen’s utilities and environmental initiatives director david hornbacher said, “…we are powered by the forces of nature, predominantly water and wind with a touch of solar and landfill gas.”

the aspen times reports that prior to the switch to clean energy, the town already was running on 75% to 80% renewable energy.

burlington, vermont

burlington, vermont — a city of more than 42,000 — also has achieved 100% renewable energy. according to the boston globe, the burlington electric department had purchased a hydroelectric plant on the winooski river. the burlington electric department with the washington electric cooperative collectively now supply the city with 100% renewable sources.

the manager for burlington electric, ken dolan, said, “the transition in thought from 2004 to 2008 was ‘we want to do this’ to ‘this actually makes economic sense for us to do this.’”

the boston globe also reports vermont is on a statewide mission to push for 90% renewable energy for electric, heating, and transportation by 2050.

georgetown, texas

looking toward texas, it would seem very unlikely that this oil-rich state would harbor one of the largest cities to reach 100% renewable energy, however georgetown, home to some 67,000, has done just that.

a city that lies about 30 miles north of austin, decided to make the switch after their power contract was up in 2012, according to ari shapiro from npr. shapiro reported city managers came to realize that wind and solar energy are much more predictable in prices, compared to that of oil and gas.

surprisingly, the switch to renewables was due in part to rick perry, who implemented changes to texas’ electrical grid, allowing georgetown to receive its energy from wind farms in west texas.

georgetown mayor dale ross said in the npr interview, “it’s a great economic development tool because there’s a lot of high-quality companies in this country that have robust green energy policies.”

so while the switch to renewables was motivated by economic factors, georgetown demonstrates that renewable energy can be a better economic decision than fossil fuel sources.

the switch to renewable energy is not an easy one. each u.s. city has its own unique circumstances and there is not one set path in seeking green sustainability. greensburg, aspen, burlington, and georgetown have showed us that the switch is not impossible, and in some cases it’s even beneficial for the town’s economy.

according to business insider, san diego, san francisco, and san jose in california; rochester, minnesota; grand rapids, michigan; and east hampton, new york, all have adopted plans to make the switch to 100% renewable energy within the next 20 years. what all these cities have in common is that the push to go green is local. while the federal government may not be passing renewable energy legislation anytime soon, citizens can motivate their local governments to begin the switch themselves.