14 Wedges

Professor Romm has observed that “a wedge is a mind-bogglingly large amount of activity.” And, he wants to us doing 14 wedges post haste (which is Rommulan for “keep paddling”), before it is too late.

Pachauri
Who says it soon could be too late? Why that sober guy, Rajendra Pachauri. In November 2007, the head of the quite cautious IPCC said: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

“If we could do the 14 wedges in four decades,” advises Romm, “[then] we should be able to keep CO2 concentrations to under 450 ppm.”

If we could do them faster, concentrations could stay even lower. We’d probably need to do this by 2030 to have a shot at getting back to 350 this century… Or as I told Technology Review, “The point is, whatever technology we’ve got now — that’s what we are stuck with to avoid catastrophic warming.”

In his post, Romm describes what the entire planet must achieve (which, of course, as we all know, means it won’t get done because everybody will think somebody else was taking care of it):

  • 1 wedge of vehicle efficiency — all cars 60 mpg, with no increase in miles traveled per vehicle.
  • 1 of wind for power — one million large (2 MW peak) wind turbines
  • 1 of wind for vehicles –another 2000 GW wind. Most cars must be plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles.
  • 3 of concentrated solar thermal – ~5000 GW peak.
  • 3 of efficiency — one each for buildings, industry, and cogeneration/heat-recovery for a total of 15 to 20 million GW-hrs.
  • 1 of coal with carbon capture and storage — 800 GW of coal with CCS
  • 1 of nuclear power — 700 GW plus 10 Yucca mountains for storage
  • 1 of solar photo voltaics — 2000 GW peak [or less PV and some geothermal, tidal, and ocean thermal]
  • 1 of cellulosic biofuels — using one-sixth of the world’s cropland [or less land if yields significantly increase or algae-to-biofuels proves commercial at large scale].
  • 2 of forestry — End all tropical deforestation. Plant new trees over an area the size of the continental U.S.
  • 1 of soils — Apply no-till farming to all existing croplands.

Delaying the starting date increases the required annual rate of reductions
“Wait-and-see policies erroneously presume climate change can be reversed quickly should harm become evident, underestimating substantial delays in the climate’s response to anthropogenic forcing.” John Sterman

“That should do the trick,” (you can imagine him standing back, brushing off his hands) … “I have thrown in a couple extra wedges since I have no doubt that everybody will find something objectionable in at least 2 of these wedges.” Go read the post, if you want to read how Romm critiques his own suggestions, although I should warn you, he is getting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld.

In addition, the post generated considerable commentary on Climate Progress, to include contributions from such luminaries as Bill McKibben and Ken Levenson. Unfortunately, the commentary degenerated into a discussion of the pros and cons of nuclear power. From my perspective, the emphasis on nuclear power exemplified a principle weakness in the post. In offerring solutions, Romm seemed to ignore “solving one problem at the expense of exacerbating another.”

There is some weasel language toward the end of the post. He states that the wedges are conceptually useful rather than analytically rigorous. Obviously we need to be do something, and further delay, even for further analysis is still delay. Inaction is fraught with the greatest risk.

Yet, just as we need a momentous change in policy that exemplifies a commitment to life-affirming action, we also need to do the right thing. There needs to be a greater commitment to scientific analysis, so that we avoid those unintended consequences that could reduce or override the expected benefits.

Other Possibly Related AG Posts Automatically Generated

4 Comments

  1. jcwinnie
    Posted 2008-4-23 at 8:34 pm | Permalink
    Vehicle efficiency

    Agreed, with the addition of grams per CO2 equivalent as a further standard besides distance per dollars. 120 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilometer is a good start with 100 gCO2e being a better target sooner rather than later.

    Wind power

    Agreed, with an upgrading of the Grid to better handle more renewable energy, too.

    Big Electric, Little ICE

    Booyah! And, please tell me where could I find some affordable batteries to replace the dead ones in my electric car.

    Solar thermoelectric

    Excellent, but how does that get the crackers on board?

    Efficiency

    Yup, to include better mass transit and shipping those bananas by rail.

    CCS

    Yer momma

    Nuclear power

    Yer momma’s momma’s …n (where n = 15 generations) momma

    Photo voltaics

    Yes, and as with wind, we need to foster distributed power

    Waste to energy

    Maybe, it depends upon whether 3Es are met

    End deforestation

    Do it for the orang-utans

    Back to the Soil

    Funny, you don’t look like an edaphologist.

    Orang-utan family

  2. jcwinnie
    Posted 2008-4-24 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    What the world needs now is a wedge without “significant spontaneous decarbonization of the global economy”, it’s the only thing that there is just too little of.

    Imagine we’re in a world of 8 GtC that has gone mad for old coal, so emissions are rising 3% per year. Assume no “significant spontaneous decarbonization of the global economy” (i.e. we stay mad for old coal for decades). That means the BAU projection for 2050 is about 28 GtC. But we need to be at 4 GtC for the 450 ppm path. So we need to cut 24 GtC off of BAU (Business As Usual), which is 24/1.77 = 14 wedges!!

    That’s right. If we use Princeton’s BAU assumption of steady decarbonization of coal plants, which returns us to their BAU assumption of 1.5% annual increase in carbon emissions, we need 14 wedges to get down to 4 GtC in 2050. And, if we use Pielke’s assumption that does not allow “significant spontaneous decarbonization,” which means that BAU is 3% annual increase in carbon emissions, we still need the same exact 14 wedges to get down to 4 GtC.

    In Princeton’s world, those 14 wedges are worth 1 GtC/yr each in 2050 because they replace efficient, futuristic, decarbonized coal plants. In Pielke’s world, those 14 wedges are worth 1.77 GtC/yr each in 2050 because they replace traditional, inefficient, undecarbonized coal plants.

  3. jcwinnie
    Posted 2008-4-29 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    To meet soaring energy demand, we would need a massive influx of alternative fuels, which would mean equally massive investment — in the trillions of dollars — to ensure that the newest possibilities move rapidly from laboratory to full-scale commercial production; but that, sad to say, is not in the cards. Instead, the major energy firms (backed by lavish U.S. government subsidies and tax breaks) are putting their mega-windfall profits from rising energy prices into vastly expensive (and environmentally questionable) schemes to extract oil and gas from Alaska and the Arctic, or to drill in the deep and difficult waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. The result? A few more barrels of oil or cubic feet of natural gas at exorbitant prices (with accompanying ecological damage), while nonpetroleum alternatives limp along pitifully.

    [ISBN-0805080643]
    Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy ASIN: 0805080643

    Whether the forecast by Michael T. Klare is on target or not and whether enough right action is taken or not, the next few years are going to be rough. Paul Walton of The Daily News writes:

    Food prices are soaring, and in the poorest nations of the world — in parts of the Caribbean, South East Asia and Africa — the cost of basic foodstuffs means that the line of subsistence is being eradicated. The next stop for these people is starvation.

    The estimate is that 100 million people will see their current means to buy food siginificantly curtailed, if not eradicated.

    This is not about a lack of food. We’ve seen famines before, and they are never about a shortage of food for all. Those who starve in famines are generally those who can no longer afford to pay rising food prices.

    As with prior famines, the one upcoming is not so much about food as money. Poor harvests happen, and no one is saying there is a lack of wheat or rice. What is happening is that the effect of poor crops, whether in rice or wheat, is being exacerbated by the global energy crisis.

    Wheat alone has risen in price by 130% since March last year.

    This is not a new problem. Parts of ancient Rome, even Rome itself, saw food riots from time to time. The French Revloution, brewing for years, finally exploded only after bread prices rose, followed by famine and starvation.

    It’s not difficult to put together the pieces that have led us down this path again. The question is what this crisis will look like. Different nations have already seen food riots, and the warning bells are going off. But they may be ringing too late.

    It’s one thing to be short on oil, significant curtailments will allow our infrastructure to continue operating. There are certain things we can do without.

    The British between 1939 and 1945 made significant concessions; they lived through food rationing, blackouts and bathing in cold water.

    But the only thing that Winston Churchill and his advisors really worried about was if food imports were cut off. And that is what the Germans were aiming for. Both sides knew that when the amount of daily calorie intake fell below a certain threshold, nothing could contain social unrest.

    But the allies managed to defeat the prowling submarines and the plucky English made their way to the spring of 1945 on erstatz coffee and spam.

    What the growing food shortage will look like here is not difficult to tell. More and more people will be forced to live on cheap processed foods. Currently it is those on social assistance and the working poor forced to live on carbohydrates and cellulose.

    The fact is that protein is expensive, and the result in North America will be that good food will get more expensive in comparison to food that fills the stomach but has little or no nutrition.

    Perhaps no one in this city or others in Canada will starve as may happen in the developing world, as we watch famine set in. But for an increasing number of people, fresh fruits and vegetables and meat will become for the most part out of reach.

    Without food and water, socieities fall apart. A lot can go by the wayside before reaching that point. It’s very difficult to see the headlines coming across the wire and not to become gloomy.

    One thing the British had during the Second World War was a positive outlook. They had Churchill, they had tradition and a strong social fabric that allowed them to triumph over incredible odds.

  4. jcwinnie
    Posted 2008-4-29 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    A similar, albeit less upbeat story, is told by historian John W. Dower in his monumental work, “Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II”. The Japanese described it as Enduring the Unendurable.

    [ISBN-0393046869]
    Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II ASIN: 0393046869

3 Trackbacks

  1. [...] When the IPCC recently recommended what they perceived as currently commercially available technologies and practices for the transport sector that are key to the mitigation of GHG emissions, the ICE paradigm prevailed. The panel of experts only perceived electric vehicles with more powerful and reliable batteries as becoming commercially available by 2030, a timeline for which climate scientists warn that such changes in lifestyles, behavior patterns and management practices will be too late. [...]

  2. By After Gutenberg » 13 Pillars to post on 2008-11-28 at 9:57 pm

    [...] While still irksome, I much prefer the 14 Wedges of Professor Romm. [...]

  3. [...] And, it is even more important since 8 years of Bush have
    left us desperately fighting to save the planet from catastrophic
    5-7°C warming by 2100. With much higher global emissions than 8
    years ago, and a lost decade of inefficient, polluting
    infrastructure built at a cost of many trillions of dollars, we now
    have much less time. [...]

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE