Study Shows How the US Could Achieve 100% Renewable Energy by 2050

 Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics

A study points the way to a renewable energy reliant United States in just 35 years (Credit: Shutterstock)

By Chris Wood
Gizmag
A team of researchers led by Stanford University's professor Mark Z. Jacobson has produced an ambitious roadmap for converting the energy infrastructure of the US to run entirely on renewable energy in just 35 years. The study focuses on the wide-scale implementation of existing technologies such as wind, solar and geothermal solutions, claiming that the transition is both economically and technically possible within the given timeframe.
As a starting point, the researchers looked at current energy demands on a state-by-state basis, before calculating how those demands are likely to evolve over the next three and a half decades. Splitting the energy use into residential, commercial, industrial and transportation categories, the team then calculated fuel demands if current generation methods – oil, gas, coal, nuclear and renewables – were replaced with electricity.
That already sounds like a mammoth task, but its true complexity comes to light when you consider that for the purposes of the study, absolutely everything has to run on electricity. That means everything from homes and factories to every vehicle on the road.
As it turns out, while the calculations might be complex, the results are extremely promising.
"When we did this across all 50 states, we saw a 39 percent reduction in total end-use power demand by the year 2050," said Jacobson. "About 6 percentage points of that is gained through efficiency improvements to infrastructure, but the bulk is the result of replacing current sources and uses of combustion energy with electricity."
In order for each state to make the transition, it would focus on the use of the most easily available renewable sources. For example, some states get a lot more sunlight than others, some have a greater number of south-facing rooftops, while coastal states can make use of offshore wind farms, and for others geothermal energy is a good option.













Interestingly, the plan doesn't involve the construction of new hydroelectric dams, but does call for improved efficiency of existing facilities. It would also only require a maximum of 0.5 percent of any one state's land to be covered in wind turbines or solar panels.

The team looked at all of the above before laying out a roadmap for each state to become 80 percent reliant on clean, renewable energy by 2030, with a full transition achieved by 2050.
Some states are more prepared to make the change than others. For example, Washington state already draws some 70 percent of its current electricity from hydroelectric sources, and both Iowa and South Dakota use wind power for around 30 percent of their electricity needs.
So what would all of this cost? Well, according to the research, the initial bill would be fairly hefty, but thanks to the sunlight and wind being free, things would level out in the long run, roughly equaling the cost of the current infrastructure.
"When you account for the health and climate costs – as well as the rising price of fossil fuels – wind, water and solar are half the cost of conventional systems," said Jacobson. "A conversion of this scale would also create jobs, stabilize fuel prices, reduce pollution-related health problems and eliminate emissions from the United States. There is very little downside to a conversion, at least based on this science."
Not only would it be economically viable to make the switch, but it would also have some significant knock-on health benefits, as approximately 63,000 people currently die from air pollution-related cases in the US every year.
The researchers published the results of their study in the journal Energy and Environmental Sciences. There's also an interactive map available, detailing how each state would make use of available renewables.
Source: Stanford University

Beyond Obama's Plan: A New Economic Vision for Addressing Climate Change

Jeremy Rifkin                                                                                                                

Author, 'The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism'

                                                                     

Blogger Ref Link http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics

• 
  

Posted: 06/02/2014 10:38 am EDT Updated: 06/02/2014 6:59 pm EDT   HUFFINGTON POST            

           

       

• 
  

The White House today released its national climate plan for reducing CO2 emissions, warning that climate change is adversely affecting every region of the United States, with dire consequences for the economy. Unfortunately, the new initiatives by the US government to ward off rising temperatures are weak at best. What's sorely missing from the climate change debate is a new economic vision that can quickly transition the US and global economy out of carbon based energy and into renewable energies, while simultaneously increasing productivity and reducing the amount of the earth's resources used in the economic process, ensuring a more prosperous and sustainable society. That vision is now taking hold.

A powerful new technology revolution is evolving that will allow enterprises and prosumers to make and share their own green electricity, and an increasing array of sustainable physical products and services, at near zero marginal cost, just as billions of prosumers now do with information goods. (Marginal cost is the cost of producing an additional unit of a good or service after the fixed costs have been absorbed). The Communication Internet is converging with a fledgling Energy Internet and nascent automated Transport and Logistics Internet, creating a new technological infrastructure for society--a Third Industrial Revolution--that could fundamentally alter the global economy and usher in an ecological civilization in the first half of the 21st century. Billions of sensors are being attached to resource flows, warehouses, road systems, factory production lines, the electricity transmission grid, offices, homes, stores, and vehicles, continually monitoring their status and performance and feeding big data back to the Internet of Things. By 2030, it is estimated there will be more than 100 trillion sensors connecting the human and natural environment in a global distributed intelligent network.
Enterprises and prosumers will be able to connect to the Internet of Things (IoT) and use Big Data and analytics to develop predictive algorithms that can speed efficiency, increase productivity, reduce the use of natural resources, and lower the marginal cost of producing renewable energy and manufactured products to near zero. They will be able to share what they've made with others on an emerging Collaborative Commons that is beginning to flourish alongside the conventional capitalist marketplace.


Zero Marginal Cost Renewable Energy
For example, the bulk of the energy we use to heat our homes and run our appliances, power our businesses, drive our vehicles, and operate every part of the global economy will be generated at near zero marginal cost and be nearly free in the coming decades. That's already the case for several million early adopters who have transformed their homes and businesses into micro-power plants to harvest renewable energy on-site. Even before the fixed costs for the installation of solar and wind are paid back--often as little as 2 to 8 years--the marginal cost of the harvested energy is nearly free. Unlike fossil fuels and uranium for nuclear power, in which the commodity itself always costs something, the sun collected on rooftops and the wind travelling up the side of buildings are nearly free. The Internet of Things will enable prosumers to monitor their electricity usage in their buildings, optimize their energy efficiency, and share surplus green electricity with others on the Energy Internet.
The same exponential curves that drove the marginal cost of generating and distributing communication to near zero has touched off a similar revolution in the field of renewable energy. Richard Swanson, the founder of SunPower Corporation, observed the same doubling phenomena in solar that IT companies observed in computer chips. Swanson's law holds that the price of solar photovoltaic (PV) cells tends to drop by 20 percent for every doubling of industry capacity. Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell prices have fallen dramatically, from $60 a watt in 1976 to $0.66 a watt in 2013.
Solar cells are capturing more solar energy that strikes them while reducing the cost of harvesting the energy. Solar efficiencies for triple junction solar cells in the laboratory have reached 41 percent. Thin film has hit 20 percent efficiency in the laboratory. If this trend continues at the current pace--and most studies actually show an acceleration in exponentiality--solar energy will be as cheap as the current average retail price of electricity today by 2020 and half the price of coal electricity today by 2030.
The impact on society of near zero marginal cost solar energy is all the more pronounced when we consider the vast potential of these energy sources. The sun beams 470 exajoules of energy to Earth every 88 minutes--equaling the amount of energy human beings use in a year. If we could grab hold of one-tenth of 1 percent of the sun's energy that reaches Earth, it would give us six times the energy we now use across the global economy.
Like solar radiation, wind is ubiquitous and blows everywhere in the world--although its strength and frequency varies. A Stanford University study on global wind capacity concluded that if 20 percent of the world's available wind was harvested, it would generate seven times more electricity than we currently use to run the entire global economy. Wind capacity has been growing exponentially since the early 1990s and has already reached parity with conventionally generated electricity from fossil fuels and nuclear power in many regions of the world. In the past quarter century, wind-turbine productivity increased 100-fold and the average capacity per turbine grew by more than 1,000 percent. Increased performance and productivity has significantly reduced the cost of production, installation, and maintenance, leading to a growth rate of more than 30 percent per year between 1998 and 2007, or a doubling of capacity every two and a half years. Industry analysts forecast that the harvesting technology for solar and small wind power will be as cheap as cell phones and laptops within fifteen years.
Local, regional, and national governments around the world have instituted feed-in tariffs in the past few years, guaranteeing a premium price for renewable energy above the market value of other energies for a set period of usually 15 to 20 years to encourage early adopters to invest in the installation of wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and small hydro renewable energy generation and feed the new green electricity back to the transmission grid. Today, millions of business and homeowners in Europe are taking advantage of feed in tariffs and investing their own capital to install renewable energy harvesting technologies on site. While the up-front capital investment is significant, they are beginning to receive low-interest-rate green loans from banks and credit unions. The banks are more than willing to lend money at reduced interest rates because the premium price of the green energy being produced virtually ensures the loan will be honored.
Sixty-five countries have instituted feed-in tariffs, and over half of them are in the developing world. Feed-in tariffs have proven to be a powerful policy instrument in moving renewable energy online. Nearly two-thirds of the global wind and 87 percent of global photovoltaic capacity has been spurred by feed-in tariffs. Unfortunately, in the United States, only California, Vermont, Maine, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Rhode Island have implemented even cursory feed-in tariffs.
Naysayers argue that subsidies for green energy, in the form of feed-in tariffs, are too costly for society. The reality is that they merely speed up adoption and scale, encourage competition, and spur innovation, which further increases the efficiency of renewable energy harvesting technologies and lowers the cost of production and installation. In country after country, solar and wind energy is nearing parity or at parity with conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear power, allowing the government to begin phasing out tariffs. Meanwhile, the older fossil-fuel energies and nuclear power, although mature and well past their prime, continue to be subsidized at levels that far exceed the subsidies extended to renewable energy. Instituting robust feed in tariffs in all 50 states is a much more effective commercial incentive than carbon trading schemes to quickly usher in a post-carbon society.
Already, 27 percent of the electricity in Germany is being generated by renewable energy - mostly solar and wind--at near zero marginal cost and the percentage of green electricity is expected to exceed 35% by 2020. On Sunday, May 11th 2014, 75% of Germany's electricity demand was generated by renewable energy, a milestone for the world's most robust industrial economy per capita. So much near zero marginal cost electricity was being fed into the nation's power grid that electricity prices plunged into the negative category for much of the day. While the cost of subsidizing the new renewable energies places a relatively small short term burden on businesses and homeowners, in the mid- to long-term, Germany and other countries will enjoy near zero marginal cost energy and a dramatic increase in efficiency and productivity across the economy, resulting in sustainable economic growth far into the future.
It is particularly interesting to note that in Germany, which is setting the pace for transitioning into green electricity in Europe, the big traditional power and utility companies--E.ON, RWE, EnBW, Vattenfall Europe--owned only 7 percent of the renewable-energy capacity installed by the end of 2011. Individuals, however, "owned 40 percent of the renewable energy capacity, energy niche players 14 percent, farmers 11 percent, various energy-intensive industrial companies 9 percent, and financial companies 11 percent. Small regional utilities and international utilities owned another 7 percent." Nearly half of the German wind turbines are owned by residents of the regions. In other EU countries, the pattern is the same. Consumers are becoming prosumers and generating their own green electricity.
Gérard Mestrallet, CEO of GDF Suez--the French gas utility--says that just ten years ago the European energy market was dominated almost exclusively by a handful of regional monopolies. "Those days are gone forever," says Mestrallet, now that "some consumers have become producers." Peter Terium, CEO of RWE, the German-based energy company, acknowledges the massive shift taking place in Europe from centralized to distributed power, and says that the bigger power and utility companies "have to adjust to the fact that, in the longer term, earning capacity in conventional electricity generation will be markedly below what we've seen in recent years."
Had anyone suggested ten years ago that the big power and utility companies of Europe would begin to crumble as millions of small, distributed, renewable-energy micropower players began to generate their own green electricity for the grid, it would have been dismissed as fantasy by the powers that be. Not now. "It is a real revolution," says Mestrallet.
Nor is Europe alone. In December of 2013, the Chinese government leapt ahead of other countries, announcing that it is dedicating an initial $82 billion to establish a Third Industrial Revolution distributed "Energy Internet" that will serve as the centerpiece of an Internet of Things technology platform and infrastructure. Under the plan, millions of people in neighborhoods and communities across the country, as well as hundreds of thousands of businesses, will be able to produce their own solar- and wind-generated green electricity locally at near zero marginal cost, and share it on a national Energy Internet.
The Energy Internet, embedded in an Internet of Things platform will change the way power is generated and distributed in society. Already, millions of homeowners, businesses, and neighborhood producer and consumer cooperatives are harvesting clean renewable energy at near zero marginal cost. In the coming era, hundreds of millions of people will produce their own green electricity and share it at near zero marginal cost with each other on an Energy Internet, just as we now generate and share information online. When Internet communications manages green energy, every human being on Earth becomes his or her own source of power, both literally and figuratively. Zero marginal cost energy is "power to the people."


The Democratization of Manufacturing
While millions of people are now producing and sharing their own green electricity on an emerging Energy Internet, hundreds of thousands of hobbyists and thousands of startup companies are already printing out their own manufactured products using free software, and cheap recycled plastic, paper, and other locally available feedstock at near zero marginal cost. The additive manufacturing process, powered by electricity generated from renewable energy, uses one tenth of the materials of traditional factory production, resulting in a dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions and the use of the earth's resources. By 2020, prosumers will be able to share their 3D printed products with others on the Collaborative Commons by transporting them in driverless electric and fuel cell vehicles, powered by near zero marginal cost renewable energy, facilitated by an automated Logistics and Transport Internet.
China is setting the pace in the development of 3D printing. Beihang University is using 3D printing to manufacture sophisticated parts used in rockets and satellites. WinSun, another Chinese company, built ten small houses in less than 24 hours in 2014, using cheap recycled materials. The construction of the houses required very little human labor, and cost less than $5000 a piece to construct, making possible the production of millions of cheap homes at low or near zero marginal cost in China and other developing countries. Tiertime, China's largest producer of desktop 3D printers for use in small businesses and households, unveiled its newest model UP! in 2014. The company is competing head to head with America's leading producers of 3D printers, in the hopes of capturing much of the global market in the years ahead.
While Great Britain sparked the First Industrial Revolution, and the United States led the world into the Second Industrial Revolution, China has set its sights on leading the world into the Third Industrial Revolution by being the first superpower to build out an Internet of Things infrastructure and accompanying Collaborative Commons. In 2010, China seized the initiative over other countries, announcing its intention to erect an Internet of Things, focusing on the smart Energy Internet and an automated Logistics and Transport Internet, with the goal of meshing them with the Communication Internet to create the infrastructure for a Third Industrial Revolution. The Chinese government expects to invest $800 million on the initial build-out of the Internet of Things by 2015. The Chinese Ministry of Information and Technology forecasts that the IoT market will exceed $80 billion by 2015 and $166 billion by 2020.
The efficiency and productivity gains of the Third Industrial Revolution are likely to far outstrip those of the First and Second Industrial Revolutions. Several billion people and millions of organizations connected to the Internet of Things allows the human race to share their economic lives in a global Collaborative Commons, in ways previously unimaginable. This turning point in connectivity potentially exceeds even the integration of economic activity wrought by electrification and the accompanying spread of the telephone, radio and television in the 20th century. Cisco systems forecasts that by 2022, the Internet of Things will generate $14.4 trillion in cost efficiency savings and revenue. A General Electric study published in November 2012 concludes that the efficiency gains and productivity advances made possible by a smart industrial Internet could resound across virtually every economic sector by 2025, impacting "approximately one half of the global economy."


The Sharing Economy on the Collaborative Commons
Forty percent of the US population is already actively engaged in the sharing economy on the Collaborative Commons. 800,000 individuals in the US are now using car sharing services. In car sharing services, once the fixed costs are absorbed, the marginal cost of sharing the vehicle moves to near zero with each additional user.
Global transport currently accounts for fifteen percent of global warming emissions. Each car share vehicle eliminates 15 personally owned cars, resulting in a dramatic reduction in both CO2 emissions and the massive amount of material resources, energy, and labor that goes into manufacturing each automobile. In a recent study focused on the city of Ann Harbor, Michigan, Lawrence D. Burns, formerly the corporate vice president of research, development, and planning at General Motors, found that "about 80% fewer shared, coordinated vehicles would be needed than personally owned vehicles to provide the same level of mobility, with less investment." If we were to extrapolate Burns' study on a global scale, it is possible to envision car sharing services eliminating upwards of 800 million of the 1 billion privately owned cars now on the road, for a dramatic reduction in both CO2 emissions and the massive amount of material resources, energy, and labor that goes into manufacturing each automobile. If the remaining 200 million vehicles were powered by green electricity transmitted across the Energy Internet, carbon emissions in the transport sector would be reduced to near zero.
Buildings are another major contributor to climate change, accounting for approximately one third of global warming emissions. A significant percentage of these emissions come from hotels and resorts. (The travel and tourism sector is one of the largest industries in the world and represents nine percent of global GDP.) Now, millions of homeowners are sharing their apartments and houses with travelers via global online services like Airbnb and Couchsurfing, bypassing commercial hotels. For homeowners and apartment dwellers, whose fixed costs have already been absorbed, the marginal cost of opening up their homes to travelers is near zero. The big brick-and-mortar hotel chains, with their huge operating costs, simply can't compete with cheap short-term rentals or even free accommodations whose marginal costs of operation approach zero. In New York alone, Airbnb's 416,000 guests who stayed in apartments and houses between mid-2012 and mid-2013 cost the New York hotel industry 1 million lost room nights. As millions of homeowners open up their apartments and houses to travelers, we can expect a significant decline in the use of hotels and a corresponding decrease in CO2 emissions.
Millions of people are also redistributing their used clothing on the Collaborative Commons via online networks like ThredUP. The global textile industry is a major contributor to global warming, accounting for 10 percent of the total carbon impact. ThredUPs 385,000 visitors per month shared over 350,000 items in 2012, and orders are growing by a whopping 51% a month. More people sharing fewer clothes reduces the amount of new clothes purchased, resulting in fewer global warming gas emissions.
A younger generation is also sharing their tools, their children's toys, and countless other items on the Collaborative Commons. Freecycle, a redistribution network, gifted and passed along 700 million pounds of used items in the past year. If those items were stacked in garbage trucks, they would extend "the equivalent of over thirteen times the height of Mt. Everest."
In a zero marginal cost society, extreme productivity decreases the amount of information, energy, material resources, labor and logistics costs, necessary to produce and distribute economic goods and services, once fixed costs are absorbed. And the goods and services that are produced at near zero marginal cost are redistributed and shared over and over again on the Collaborative Commons, dramatically reducing the number of things sold, meaning fewer resources are used up and less global warming gases are emitted into the earth's atmosphere.
0 0 0
The nations of the world are far more likely to make commitments to CO2 reductions if pegged to the vast economic benefits that come from erecting an Internet of Things platform that can unleash extreme productivity, reduce the marginal cost of producing and distributing renewable energy, 3D printed goods, and services to near zero, and give rise to a sharing circular economy on the Collaborative Commons. If the Third Industrial Revolution becomes the centerpiece of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December 2015 in Paris, rather than a sideshow, humanity might yet snatch victory from defeat, turn the corner on climate change, and restore the planet to health.
Jeremy Rifkin is the author The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism. Mr. Rifkin is a principal architect of the European Union's long-term Third Industrial Revolution economic development plan, and an advisor on sustainable development to heads of state around the world. He is the president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, DC.

More:

Climate Change Collaborative Commons Barack Obama

Exclusive: Renewable energy from rivers and lakes could replace gas in homes

Jane Merrick  The Independent (UK)

Sunday 23 March 2014/Blogger Ref Link http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics

A revolutionary system using water-sourced heat pumps is being tested on a new development

 Millions of homes across the UK could be heated using a carbon-free technology that draws energy from rivers and lakes in a revolutionary system that could reduce household bills by 20 per cent.

The Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, has described the development as "game changing" in relation to Britain's need for renewable energy against the backdrop of insecurity in Russia, which supplies much of Europe's gas, and the political row at home over soaring fuel bills.
In the first system of its kind in the UK, a heat pump in the Thames will provide hot water for radiators, showers and taps in nearly 150 homes and a 140-room hotel and conference centre in south London, saving 500 tons of carbon emissions from being released every year into the atmosphere.
Mr Davey has asked officials at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) to draw up a nationwide map showing where renewable heat can be drawn from water to explore the potential of heat pumps. In theory, any body of water, including tidal rivers as well as standing water such as reservoirs and lakes, can be used as long as they are in the open and heated by the Sun. The Government has a target of 4.5 million heat pumps across Britain, although some will be using heat from air as well as water. David MacKay, the chief scientific adviser to Decc and professor of engineering at Cambridge University, has described a combination of heat pumps and low carbon electricity as the future of building heating.
Water-source heat pumps have been used on an individual domestic level and are popular in Japan and Scandinavia, but have not been developed on a larger scale and have not generated sufficiently hot water for everyday use. For the first time, scientists at Mitsubishi and Mike Spenser-Morris, a local developer and director of the Zero Carbon Partnership, have created a system that can generate 45C heat and can be used on a wider scale for mass housing developments.
The development is at Kingston Heights in Richmond Park in south London – a neighbouring constituency to Mr Davey's own – where Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has campaigned for greater use of environmentally friendly energy. The first residents will move in at the end of this month and benefit from the zero-carbon technology, with savings on their heating bills of up to 20 per cent.
The Mitsubishi "Ecodan" pump used at Kingston won the award for best new product or technology at the Climate Week Awards earlier this month and is seen as revolutionising the renewables industry. While the system is thought to have cost about £2.5m, the Government is set to unveil subsidies for domestic renewable heat production, known as "renewable heat incentives"; so in future the price tag could be much lower.
Water is drawn from two metres below the surface of the Thames, where latent heat from the sun is sustained at around 8C to 10C all year round. The water is filtered twice and fed through a pump, where the low-grade heat is harvested by heat exchangers, while the cooler water is pumped back into the river. The heat exchangers transfer the heat to a series of condensers, which boost the 8C to 10C heat to 45C hot water using a process of reverse refrigeration. This is used to heat domestic water piped into nearby homes. A small amount of electricity is used to power the system, but this is supplied by Ecotricity, which makes it technically zero carbon.
Speaking to The Independent on Sunday, Mr Davey said: "This is at a really early stage, but it is showing what is possible. You never have to buy any gas – there are upfront costs but relatively low running costs.
"I think this exemplifies that there are technological answers which will mean our reliance on gas in future decades can be reduced. Here you have over 100 homes, you have a hotel with nearly 200 bedrooms and a conference centre that won't be using gas. It will be using renewable heat from the nearby River Thames. This is a fantastic development. My department is exploring the potential for this sort of water-source heat pump across the UK, so we're going to map the whole of the UK for the potential.
"Obviously, the real concern is getting secure energy. We've seen the crisis in the Ukraine develop, and the dependency in the EU on imported gas is quite significant. There is a real strategic challenge for the UK and the EU about protecting our sources of energy and making our energy sources more secure. This is where energy security and action on climate change come together.
If you've got home-grown energy, then that is really secure. This is the long-term future, about how we reduce our carbon emissions and our dependency on imported fossil fuels."
Mr Davey said he supported George Osborne's decision to freeze the carbon tax on energy-intensive industries. But in a swipe at Tory Eurosceptics, the Energy Secretary said: "If you get engaged, if you work with European colleagues, you can get the British agenda on climate change. People who say we should be out of Europe are treacherous to Britain's future 

Your friend's email address

Your email address

Note: We do not store your email address(es) but your IP address will be logged to prevent abuse of this feature. Please read our Legal Terms & Policies

Climate Change Mitigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    

 

 

 

Climate change mitigation is action to decrease the intensity of radiative forcing in order to reduce the effects of global warming.^[2] In contrast, adaptation to global warming involves acting to tolerate the effects of global warming.^[2] Most often, climate change mitigation scenarios involve reductions in the concentrations of greenhouse gases, either by reducing their sources^[3] or by increasing their sinks.
The UN defines mitigation in the context of climate change, as a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases. Examples include using fossil fuels more efficiently for industrial processes or electricity generation, switching to renewable energy (solar energy or wind power), improving the insulation of buildings, and expanding forests and other "sinks" to remove greater amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.^[4] Some assert that also non-renewable sources of energy such as nuclear power should be seen as a way of reducing carbon emissions. The International Atomic Energy Agency advocates this approach.^[5] However, even while reporting to the UN, the IAEA is independent from it and in no way affiliated with the UNFCCC.
Scientific consensus on global warming, together with the precautionary principle and the fear of abrupt climate change^[6] is leading to increased effort to develop new technologies and sciences and carefully manage others in an attempt to mitigate global warming. Most means of mitigation appear effective only for preventing further warming, not at reversing existing warming.^[7] The Stern Review identifies several ways of mitigating climate change. These include reducing demand for emissions-intensive goods and services, increasing efficiency gains, increasing use and development of low-carbon technologies, and reducing fossil fuel emissions.^[8]
The energy policy of the European Union has set a target of limiting the global temperature rise to 2 °C (3.6 °F) compared to preindustrial levels, of which 0.8 °C has already taken place and another 0.5–0.7 °C is already committed.^[9] The 2 °C rise is typically associated in climate models with a carbon dioxide equivalent concentration of 400–500 ppm by volume; the current (April 2011) level of carbon dioxide alone is 393 ppm by volume, and rising at 1-3 ppm annually. Hence, to avoid a very likely breach of the 2 °C target, CO₂ levels would have to be stabilised very soon; this is generally regarded as unlikely, based on current programs in place to date.^[10][11] The importance of change is illustrated by the fact that world economic energy efficiency is presently improving at only half the rate of world economic growth.^[12]

Contents 1 Greenhouse gas concentrations and stabilization 2 Methods and means 2.1 Alternative energy sources 2.1.1 Renewable energy 2.1.2 Nuclear power 2.1.3 Carbon intensity of fossil fuels 2.1.3.1 Fuel switching 2.1.3.2 Carbon capture and storage 2.2 Energy efficiency and conservation 2.2.1 Transport 2.2.1.1 Urban planning 2.2.2 Building design 2.2.3 Eliminating waste methane 2.3 Sinks and negative emissions 2.3.1 Reforestation and avoided deforestation 2.3.2 Negative carbon dioxide emissions 2.4 Geoengineering 2.4.1 Carbon dioxide removal 2.4.1.1 Carbon air capture 2.4.2 Solar radiation management 2.4.2.1 Sulfate aerosols 2.5 Pacala and Socolow: 15 programs 2.6 Societal controls 2.6.1 Population 2.7 Non-CO2 greenhouse gases 3 Costs and benefits 3.1 Costs 3.2 Benefits 3.3 Sharing 3.3.1 Distributing emissions abatement costs 3.3.2 Specific proposals 4 Governmental and intergovernmental action 4.1 Kyoto Protocol 4.2 Successor to the Kyoto Protocol 4.3 Alternatives to the Kyoto Protocol and successor 4.3.1 Emissions tax 4.3.2 Making the emitting of CO2 illegal 4.4 Encouraging use changes 4.4.1 Subsidies 4.4.2 Carbon emissions trading 4.5 Implementation 4.5.1 Funding 4.5.2 Problems 4.5.3 Occurrence 4.6 Territorial policies 4.6.1 United States 4.6.2 Developing countries 5 Non-governmental approaches 5.1 Choices in personal actions and business operations 5.1.1 Air travel and shipment 5.2 Business opportunities and risks 5.3 Legal action 6 See also 6.1 By country 7 References 8 External links 8.1 European Union 8.2 USA 8.3 Academic 8.4 Commentary

[edit] Greenhouse gas concentrations and stabilization

See also: Greenhouse gas#Removal from the atmosphere and global warming potential

Stabilizing CO₂ emissions at their present level would not stabilize its concentration in the atmosphere^[13]

Stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ at a constant level would require emissions to be effectively eliminated^[13]

One of the issues often discussed in relation to climate change mitigation is the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has the ultimate objective of preventing "dangerous" anthropogenic (i.e., human) interference of the climate system. As is stated in Article 2 of the Convention, this requires that greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.^[14]
A distinction needs to be made between stabilizing GHG emissions and GHG concentrations. ^[15] The two are not the same. The most important GHG emitted by human activities is carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO₂).^[16] Stabilizing emissions of CO₂ at current levels would not lead to a stabilization in the atmospheric concentration of CO₂. In fact, stabilizing emissions at current levels would result in the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ continuing to rise over the 21st century and beyond (see the graphs opposite).
The reason for this is that human activities are adding CO₂ to the atmosphere far faster than natural processes can remove it (see carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere for a more complete explanation).^[13] This is analogous to a flow of water into a bathtub.^[17] So long as the tap runs water (analogous to the emission of carbon dioxide) into the tub faster than water escapes through the plughole (the natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere), then the level of water in the tub (analogous to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) will continue to rise.
Stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of the other greenhouse gases humans emit also depends on how fast their emissions are added to the atmosphere, and how fast the GHGs are removed. Stabilization for these gases is described in the later section on non-CO₂ GHGs.

[edit] Methods and means

The wind, Sun, and biomass are three renewable energy sources

At the core of most proposals is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through reducing energy waste and switching to cleaner energy sources. Frequently discussed energy conservation methods include increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles (often through hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric cars and improving conventional automobiles), individual-lifestyle changes and changing business practices. Newly developed technologies and currently available technologies including renewable energy (such as solar power, tidal and ocean energy, geothermal power, and wind power) and more controversially nuclear power and the use of carbon sinks, carbon credits, and taxation are aimed more precisely at countering continued greenhouse gas emissions. The ever-increasing global population and the planned growth of national GDPs based on current technologies are counter-productive to most of these proposals.^[18]

[edit] Alternative energy sources

[edit] Renewable energy

Main articles: Renewable energy and Renewable energy commercialization

Wind power: worldwide installed capacity^[19]

The PS10 Solar Power Tower in the foreground, with the PS20 in the background.

Roof-mounted close-coupled thermosiphon solar water heater.

Climate change concerns^[20][21][22] and the need to reduce carbon emissions are driving increasing growth in the renewable energy industries.^[23][24][25] Some 85 countries now have targets for their own renewable energy futures, and have enacted wide-ranging public policies to promote renewables.^[26][27] Low-carbon renewable energy replaces conventional fossil fuels in three main areas: power generation, hot water/ space heating, and transport fuels.^[28] Scientists have advanced a plan to power 100% of the world's energy with wind, hydroelectric, and solar power by the year 2030.^[29][30] The authors estimate the cost at USD 100 trillion, and wind turbines would occupy one percent of the earth's surface area.
In terms of power generation, renewable energy currently provides 18 percent of total electricity generation worldwide and this percentage is growing each year. Renewable power generators are spread across many countries, and wind power alone already provides a significant share of electricity in some areas: for example, 14 percent in the U.S. state of Iowa, 40 percent in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, and 20 percent in Denmark. Some countries get most of their power from renewables, including Iceland (100 percent), Brazil (85 percent), Austria (62 percent), New Zealand (65 percent), and Sweden (54 percent).^[31]
Solar water heating makes an important and growing contribution in many countries, most notably in China, which now has 70 percent of the global total (180 GWth). Worldwide, total installed solar water heating systems meet a portion of the water heating needs of over 70 million households. The use of biomass for heating continues to grow as well. In Sweden, national use of biomass energy has surpassed that of oil. Direct geothermal heating is also growing rapidly.^[31]
Renewable biofuels for transportation, such as ethanol fuel and biodiesel, have contributed to a significant decline in oil consumption in the United States since 2006. The 93 billion liters of biofuels produced worldwide in 2009 displaced the equivalent of an estimated 68 billion liters of gasoline, equal to about 5 percent of world gasoline production.^[31]

[edit] Nuclear power

Nuclear power plants produce electricity with about 66 g equivalent lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh, while renewable power generators produce electricity with 9.5-38 g carbon dioxide per kWh. Renewable electricity technologies are thus "two to seven times more effective than nuclear power plants on a per kWh basis at fighting climate change".^[32] However a more recent 2012 study by Yale University revealed Sovacool's high estimate to be off by nearly a factor of three^{[not in citation given]}, and the mean value from Nuclear power, depending on which Reactor design was analysed, arrives at a range from 11-25 g/kW·h for Nuclear Power^[33]

See also: Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions

Nuclear power currently produces 13-14% of the world's electricity. Since about 2001 the term nuclear renaissance has been used to refer to a possible nuclear power industry revival, driven by rising fossil fuel prices and new concerns about meeting greenhouse gas emission limits. At the same time, various barriers to a nuclear renaissance have been identified. These barriers include unfavourable economics compared to other sources of energy and slowness in addressing climate change.^{[34][35][36][37]}
New reactors under construction in Finland and France, which were meant to lead a nuclear renaissance, have been delayed and are running over-budget.^[38][39][40] China has 20 new reactors under construction,^[41] and there are also a considerable number of new reactors being built in South Korea, India, and Russia. At least 100 older and smaller reactors will "most probably be closed over the next 10-15 years".^[42]
Nuclear power brings with it important waste disposal, safety, and security risks which are unique among low-carbon energy sources.^[43] Public attitudes towards nuclear power remain ambiguous in many developed countries, with significant anti-nuclear opposition even when majority opinion is in favour.^[44] However some Nuclear reactor 'waste' byproducts are of high value and used in many radiopharmaceuticals, for example, Yttrium-90 and Technetium 99m have a wide and valuable use in Oncology and diagnostic medicine.^[45][46]

[edit] Carbon intensity of fossil fuels

See also: Emission intensity

Most mitigation proposals imply — rather than directly state — an eventual reduction in global fossil fuel production. Also proposed are direct quotas on global fossil fuel production.^[47][48]

[edit] Fuel switching

Natural gas (predominantly methane) combustion produces less greenhouses gases per energy unit gained than oil which in turn produces less than coal, principally because coal has a larger ratio of carbon to hydrogen. The combustion of natural gas emits almost 30 percent less carbon dioxide than oil, and just under 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal. In addition, there are also other environmental benefits.^[49]
A study performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Gas Research Institute (GRI) in 1997 sought to discover whether the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from increased natural gas (predominantly methane) use would be offset by a possible increased level of methane emissions from sources such as leaks and emissions. The study concluded that the reduction in emissions from increased natural gas use strongly outweighs the detrimental effects of increased methane emissions. Thus the increased use of natural gas in the place of other, dirtier fossil fuels can serve to lessen the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States.^[50]

[edit] Carbon capture and storage

Schematic showing both terrestrial and geological sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions from a coal-fired plant.

Main article: Carbon capture and storage

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a method to mitigate climate change by capturing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from large point sources such as power plants and subsequently storing it away safely instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CCS could contribute between 10% and 55% of the cumulative worldwide carbon-mitigation effort over the next 90 years. The International Energy Agency says CCS is "the most important single new technology for CO₂ savings" in power generation and industry.^[51] Though it requires up to 40% more energy to run a CCS coal power plant than a regular coal plant, CCS could potentially capture about 90% of all the carbon emitted by the plant.^[51] Norway, which first began storing CO₂, has cut its emissions by almost a million tons a year, or about 3% of the country's 1990 levels.^[51] As of late 2011, the total CO2 storage capacity of all 14 projects in operation or under construction is over 33 million tonnes a year. This is broadly equivalent to preventing the emissions from more than six million cars from entering the atmosphere each year.^[52]

[edit] Energy efficiency and conservation

Main articles: Efficient energy use and Energy conservation

A spiral-type integrated compact fluorescent lamp, use has grown among North American consumers since its introduction in the mid 1990s.^[53]

Efficient energy use, sometimes simply called "energy efficiency", is the goal of efforts to reduce the amount of energy required to provide products and services. For example, insulating a home allows a building to use less heating and cooling energy to achieve and maintain a comfortable temperature. Installing fluorescent lights or natural skylights reduces the amount of energy required to attain the same level of illumination compared to using traditional incandescent light bulbs. Compact fluorescent lights use two-thirds less energy and may last 6 to 10 times longer than incandescent lights.^[54]
Energy efficiency has proved to be a cost-effective strategy for building economies without necessarily growing energy consumption. For example, the state of California began implementing energy-efficiency measures in the mid-1970s, including building code and appliance standards with strict efficiency requirements. During the following years, California's energy consumption has remained approximately flat on a per capita basis while national U.S. consumption doubled. As part of its strategy, California implemented a "loading order" for new energy resources that puts energy efficiency first, renewable electricity supplies second, and new fossil-fired power plants last.^[55]
Energy conservation is broader than energy efficiency in that it encompasses using less energy to achieve a lesser energy service, for example through behavioural change, as well as encompassing energy efficiency. Examples of conservation without efficiency improvements would be heating a room less in winter, driving less, or working in a less brightly lit room. As with other definitions, the boundary between efficient energy use and energy conservation can be fuzzy, but both are important in environmental and economic terms. This is especially the case when actions are directed at the saving of fossil fuels.^[56]
Reducing energy use is seen as a key solution to the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, improved energy efficiency in buildings, industrial processes and transportation could reduce the world's energy needs in 2050 by one third, and help control global emissions of greenhouse gases.^[57]

[edit] Transport

Trial double-deck bus operating on a 95% ethanol fuel blend, in Reading, UK.

Bicycles have almost no carbon footprint compared to cars.

Main article: Sustainable transport

Modern energy efficient technologies, such as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and development of new technologies, such as hydrogen cars, may reduce the consumption of petroleum and emissions of carbon dioxide. A shift from air transport and truck transport to electric rail transport would reduce emissions significantly.^[58][59]
Increased use of biofuels (such as ethanol fuel and biodiesel that can be used in today's diesel and gasoline engines) could also reduce emissions if produced environmentally efficiently, especially in conjunction with regular hybrids and plug-in hybrids. For electric vehicles, the reduction of carbon emissions will improve further if the way the required electricity is generated is low-carbon (from renewable energy sources).
Effective urban planning to reduce sprawl would decrease Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), lowering emissions from transportation. Increased use of public transport can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometer.

[edit] Urban planning

Main article: Urban planning

Urban planning also has an effect on energy use. Between 1982 and 1997, the amount of land consumed for urban development in the United States increased by 47 percent while the nation's population grew by only 17 percent.^[60] Inefficient land use development practices have increased infrastructure costs as well as the amount of energy needed for transportation, community services, and buildings.
At the same time, a growing number of citizens and government officials have begun advocating a smarter approach to land use planning. These smart growth practices include compact community development, multiple transportation choices, mixed land uses, and practices to conserve green space. These programs offer environmental, economic, and quality-of-life benefits; and they also serve to reduce energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions.
Approaches such as New Urbanism and Transit-oriented development seek to reduce distances travelled, especially by private vehicles, encourage public transit and make walking and cycling more attractive options. This is achieved through medium-density, mixed-use planning and the concentration of housing within walking distance of town centers and transport nodes.
Smarter growth land use policies have both a direct and indirect effect on energy consuming behavior. For example, transportation energy usage, the number one user of petroleum fuels, could be significantly reduced through more compact and mixed use land development patterns, which in turn could be served by a greater variety of non-automotive based transportation choices.

[edit] Building design

Main articles: Sustainable architecture and Green building

Emissions from housing are substantial,^[61] and government-supported energy efficiency programmes can make a difference.^[62]
For institutions of higher learning in the United States, greenhouse gas emissions depend primarily on total area of buildings and secondarily on climate.^[63] If climate is not taken into account, annual greenhouse gas emissions due to energy consumed on campuses plus purchased electricity can be estimated with the formula, E=aS^b, where a =0.001621 metric tonnes of CO₂ equivalent/square foot or 0.0241 metric tonnes of CO₂ equivalent/square meter and b = 1.1354.^[64]
New buildings can be constructed using passive solar building design, low-energy building, or zero-energy building techniques, using renewable heat sources. Existing buildings can be made more efficient through the use of insulation, high-efficiency appliances (particularly hot water heaters and furnaces), double- or triple-glazed gas-filled windows, external window shades, and building orientation and siting. Renewable heat sources such as shallow geothermal and passive solar energy reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted. In addition to designing buildings which are more energy efficient to heat, it is possible to design buildings that are more energy efficient to cool by using lighter-coloured, more reflective materials in the development of urban areas (e.g. by painting roofs white) and planting trees.^[65][66] This saves energy because it cools buildings and reduces the urban heat island effect thus reducing the use of air conditioning.

[edit] Eliminating waste methane

Methane is a significantly more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Burning one molecule of methane generates one molecule of carbon dioxide. Accordingly, burning methane which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere (such as at oil wells, landfills, coal mines, waste treatment plants, etc.) provides a net greenhouse gas emissions benefit.^[50] However, reducing the amount of waste methane produced in the first place has an even greater beneficial impact, as might other approaches to productive use of otherwise-wasted methane.
In terms of prevention, vaccines are in the works in Australia to reduce significant global warming contributions from methane released by livestock via flatulence and eructation.^[67]

[edit] Sinks and negative emissions

Main articles: Carbon sink and Negative carbon dioxide emission

A carbon sink is a natural or artificial reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period, such as a growing forest. A negative carbon dioxide emission on the other hand is a permanent removal of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, such as directly capturing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and storing it in geologic formations underground.

[edit] Reforestation and avoided deforestation

Main articles: Deforestation, Reforestation, and Biosequestration

Almost 20% (8 GtCO₂/year) of total greenhouse-gas emissions were from deforestation in 2007. The Stern Review found that, based on the opportunity costs of the landuse that would no longer be available for agriculture if deforestation were avoided, emission savings from avoided deforestation could potentially reduce CO₂ emissions for under $5/tCO₂, possiblly as little as $1/tCO₂. Afforestation and reforestation could save at least another 1GtCO₂/year, at an estimated cost of $5/tCO₂ to $15/tCO₂.^[8] The Review determined these figures by assessing 8 countries responsible for 70% of global deforestation emissions.
Pristine temperate forest has been shown to store three times more carbon than IPCC estimates took into account, and 60% more carbon than plantation forest.^[68] Preventing these forests from being logged would have significant effects.
Further significant savings from other non-energy-related-emissions could be gained through cuts to agricultural emissions, fugitive emissions, waste emissions, and emissions from various industrial processes.^[8] Using evidence from Mozambique, a typical low income country where agriculture is the dominant provider of income for most citizens, researchers from the Overseas Development Institute found a positive correlation between increased production intensification and reduced land conversion, and crop returns, economic growth and food security.^[69]

[edit] Negative carbon dioxide emissions

Main article: Negative carbon dioxide emission

Creating negative carbon dioxide emissions literally removes carbon from the atmosphere. Examples are direct air capture, biochar, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage and enhanced weathering technologies. These processes are sometimes considered as variations of sinks or mitigation,^[70][71] and sometimes as geoengineering.^[72]
In combination with other mitigation measures, sinks in combination with negative carbon emissions are considered crucial for meeting the 350 ppm target,^[73][74] and even the less conservative 450 ppm target.^[70]

[edit] Geoengineering

Main article: geoengineering

Geoengineering is seen by some^[who?] as an alternative to mitigation and adaptation, but by others^[who?] as an entirely separate response to climate change. In a literature assessment, Barker et al. (2007) described geoengineering as a type of mitigation policy.^[75] IPCC (2007) concluded that geoengineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere, remained largely unproven.^[76] It was judged that reliable cost estimates for geoengineering had not yet been published.
Chapter 28 of the National Academy of Sciences report Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (1992) defined geoengineering as "options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry."^[77] They evaluated a range of options to try to give preliminary answers to two questions: can these options work and could they be carried out with a reasonable cost. They also sought to encourage discussion of a third question — what adverse side effects might there be. The following types of option were examined: reforestation, increasing ocean absorption of carbon dioxide (carbon sequestration) and screening out some sunlight. NAS also argued "Engineered countermeasures need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks.".^[77] In July 2011 a report by the United States Government Accountability Office on geoengineering found that "[c]limate engineering technologies do not now offer a viable response to global climate change."^[78]

[edit] Carbon dioxide removal

Main articles: Carbon dioxide removal, Greenhouse gas remediation, and Carbon sequestration

Carbon dioxide removal has been proposed as a method of reducing the amount of radiative forcing. A variety of means of artificially capturing and storing carbon, as well as of enhancing natural sequestration processes, are being explored. The main natural process is photosynthesis by plants and single-celled organisms (see biosequestration). Artificial processes vary, and concerns have been expressed about the long-term effects of some of these processes.^[72]

[edit] Carbon air capture

Main article: Carbon air capture

It is notable that the availability of cheap energy and appropriate sites for geological storage of carbon may make carbon dioxide air capture viable commercially. It is, however, generally expected that carbon dioxide air capture may be uneconomic when compared to carbon capture and storage from major sources — in particular, fossil fuel powered power stations, refineries, etc. In such cases, costs of energy produced will grow significantly.^{[citation needed]} However, captured CO₂ can be used to force more crude oil out of oil fields, as Statoil and Shell have made plans to do.^[79] CO₂ can also be used in commercial greenhouses, giving an opportunity to kick-start the technology. Some attempts have been made to use algae to capture smokestack emissions,^[80] notably the GreenFuel Technologies Corporation, who have now shut down operations.^[81]

[edit] Solar radiation management

Main article: Solar radiation management

The main purpose of solar radiation management seek to reflect sunlight and thus reduce global warming.

[edit] Sulfate aerosols

Main article: Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering)

The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in geoengineering projects.^[82]

[edit] Pacala and Socolow: 15 programs

Further information: Stabilization Wedge Game and Global warming game

Pacala and Socolow of Princeton ^[83] have proposed a program to reduce CO₂ emissions by 1 billion metric tons per year − or 25 billion tons over the 50-year period. The proposed 15 different programs, any seven of which could achieve the goal, are:

1. more efficient vehicles − increase fuel economy from 30 to 60 mpg (7.8 to 3.9 L/100 km) for 2 billion vehicles,
2. reduce use of vehicles − improve urban design to reduce miles driven from 10,000 to 5,000 miles (16,000 to 8,000 km) per year for 2 billion vehicles,
3. efficient buildings − reduce energy consumption by 25%,
4. improve efficiency of coal plants from today's 40% to 60%,
5. replace 1,400 GW (gigawatt) of coal power plants with natural gas,
6. capture and store carbon emitted from 800 GW of new coal plants,
7. capture and reuse hydrogen created by No. 6 above,
8. capture and store carbon from coal to syn fuels conversion at 30 million barrels per day (4,800,000 m³/d),
9. displace 700 GW of coal power with nuclear,
10. add 2 million 1 MW wind turbines (50 times current capacity),
11. displace 700 GW of coal with 2,000 GW (peak) solar power (700 times current capacity),
12. produce hydrogen fuel from 4 million 1 MW wind turbines,
13. use biomass to make fuel to displace oil (100 times current capacity),
14. stop de-forestation and re-establish 300 million hectares of new tree plantations,
15. conservation tillage − apply to all crop land (10 times current usage).

Nature.com argued in June 2008 that "If we are to have confidence in our ability to stabilize carbon dioxide levels below 450 p.p.m. emissions must average less than 5 billion metric tons of carbon per year over the century. This means accelerating the deployment of the wedges so they begin to take effect in 2015 and are completely operational in much less time than originally modelled by Socolow and Pacala."^[84]

[edit] Societal controls

Another method being examined is to make carbon a new currency by introducing tradeable "Personal Carbon Credits". The idea being it will encourage and motivate individuals to reduce their 'carbon footprint' by the way they live. Each citizen will receive a free annual quota of carbon that they can use to travel, buy food, and go about their business. It has been suggested that by using this concept it could actually solve two problems; pollution and poverty, old age pensioners will actually be better off because they fly less often, so they can cash in their quota at the end of the year to pay heating bills, etc.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Population

Population density by country

Various organizations promote population control as a means for mitigating global warming.^{[85][86][87][88][89]} Proposed measures include improving access to family planning and reproductive health care and information, reducing natalistic politics, public education about the consequences of continued population growth, and improving access of women to education and economic opportunities.
Population control efforts are impeded by there being somewhat of a taboo in some countries against considering any such efforts.^[90] Also, various religions discourage or prohibit some or all forms of birth control.
Population size has a different per capita effect on global warming in different countries, since the per capita production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases varies greatly by country.^[91]

[edit] Non-CO₂ greenhouse gases

CO₂ is not the only GHG relevant to mitigation,^[92] and governments have acted to regulate the emissions of other GHGs emitted by human activities (anthropogenic GHGs). The emissions caps agreed to by most developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol regulate the emissions of almost all the anthropogenic GHGs.^[93] These gases are CO₂, methane (chemical formula: CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), the hydrofluorocarbons (abbreviated HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆).
Stabilizing the atmospheric concentrations of the different anthropogenic GHGs requires an understanding of their different physical properties. Stabilization depends both on how quickly GHGs are added to the atmosphere and how fast they are removed. The rate of removal is measured by the atmospheric lifetime of the GHG in question (see the main GHG article for a list). Here, the lifetime is defined as the time required for a given perturbation of the GHG in the atmosphere to be reduced to 37% of its initial amount.^[13] Methane has a relatively short atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years, while N₂O's lifetime is about 110 years. For methane, a reduction of about 30% below current emission levels would lead to a stabilization in its atmospheric concentration, while for N₂O, an emissions reduction of more than 50% would be required.^[13]
Another physical property of the anthropogenic GHGs relevant to mitigation is the different abilities of the gases to trap heat (in the form of infrared radiation). Some gases are more effective at trapping heat than others, e.g., SF₆ is 22,200 times more effective a GHG than CO₂ on a per-kilogram basis.^[94] A measure for this physical property is the global warming potential (GWP), and is used in the Kyoto Protocol.^[95]
Although not designed for this purpose, the Montreal Protocol has probably benefitted climate change mitigation efforts.^[96] The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that has successfully reduced emissions of ozone-depleting substances (e.g., CFCs), which are also greenhouse gases.

[edit] Costs and benefits

Main article: Economics of climate change mitigation

[edit] Costs

The Stern Review proposes stabilising the concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere at a maximum of 550ppm CO₂e by 2050. The Review estimates that this would mean cutting total greenhouse-gas emissions to three quarters of 2007 levels. The Review further estimates that the cost of these cuts would be in the range −1.0 to +3.5% of World GDP, (i.e. GWP), with an average estimate of approximately 1%.^[8] Stern has since revised his estimate to 2% of GWP.^[97] For comparison, the Gross World Product (GWP) at PPP was estimated at $74.5 trillion in 2010,^[98] thus 2% is approximately $1.5 trillion. The Review emphasises that these costs are contingent on steady reductions in the cost of low-carbon technologies. Mitigation costs will also vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action will minimise the costs.^[8]
One way of estimating the cost of reducing emissions is by considering the likely costs of potential technological and output changes. Policy makers can compare the marginal abatement costs of different methods to assess the cost and amount of possible abatement over time. The marginal abatement costs of the various measures will differ by country, by sector, and over time.^[8]

[edit] Benefits

Total extreme weather cost and number of events costing more than $1 billion in the United States from 1980 to 2011.

Yohe et al. (2007) assessed the literature on sustainability and climate change.^[99] With high confidence, they suggested that up to the year 2050, an effort to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at 550 ppm would benefit developing countries significantly. This was judged to be especially the case when combined with enhanced adaptation. By 2100, however, it was still judged likely that there would be significant climate change impacts. This was judged to be the case even with aggressive mitigation and significantly enhanced adaptive capacity.

[edit] Sharing

One of the aspects of mitigation is how to share the costs and benefits of mitigation policies. There is no scientific consensus over how to share these costs and benefits (Toth et al., 2001).^[100] In terms of the politics of mitigation, the UNFCCC's ultimate objective is to stabilize concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent "dangerous" climate change (Rogner et al., 2007).^[101] There is, however, no widespread agreement on how to define "dangerous" climate change.
GHG emissions are an important correlate of wealth, at least at present (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 91–92).^[102] Wealth, as measured by per capita income (i.e., income per head of population), varies widely between different countries. Activities of the poor that involve emissions of GHGs are often associated with basic needs, such as heating to stay tolerably warm. In richer countries, emissions tend to be associated with things like cars, central heating, etc. The impacts of cutting emissions could therefore have different impacts on human welfare according wealth.

[edit] Distributing emissions abatement costs

There have been different proposals on how to allocate responsibility for cutting emissions (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 103–105):^[102]

• Egalitarianism: this system interprets the problem as one where each person has equal rights to a global resource, i.e., polluting the atmosphere.
• Basic needs and Rawlsian criteria: this system would have emissions allocated according to basic needs, as defined according to a minimum level of consumption. Consumption above basic needs would require countries to buy more emission rights. This can be related to Rawlsian philosophy. From this viewpoint, developing countries would need to be at least as well off under an emissions control regime as they would be outside the regime.
• Proportionality and polluter-pays principle: Proportionality reflects the ancient Aristotelian principle that people should receive in proportion to what they put in, and pay in proportion to the damages they cause. This has a potential relationship with the "polluter-pays principle", which can be interpreted in a number of ways:
  • Historical responsibilities: this asserts that allocation of emission rights should be based on patterns of past emissions. Two-thirds of the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere at present is due to the past actions of developed countries (Goldemberg et al., 1996, p. 29).^[103]
  • Comparable burdens and ability to pay: with this approach, countries would reduce emissions based on comparable burdens and their ability to take on the costs of reduction. Ways to assess burdens include monetary costs per head of population, as well as other, more complex measures, like the UNDP's Human Development Index.
  • Willingness to pay: with this approach, countries take on emission reductions based on their ability to pay along with how much they benefit from reducing their emissions.

[edit] Specific proposals

• Ad hoc: Lashof (1992) and Cline (1992) (referred to by Banuri et al., 1996, p. 106),^[102] for example, suggested that allocations based partly on GNP could be a way of sharing the burdens of emission reductions. This is because GNP and economic activity are partially tied to carbon emissions.
• Equal per capita entitlements: this is the most widely cited method of distributing abatement costs, and is derived from egalitarianism (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 106–107). This approach can be divided into two categories. In the first category, emissions are allocated according to national population. In the second category, emissions are allocated in a way that attempts to account for historical (cumulative) emissions.
• Status quo: with this approach, historical emissions are ignored, and current emission levels are taken as a status quo right to emit (Banuri et al., 1996, p. 107). An analogy for this approach can be made with fisheries, which is a common, limited resource. The analogy would be with the atmosphere, which can be viewed as an exhaustible natural resource (Goldemberg et al., 1996, p. 27).^[103] In international law, one state recognized the long-established use of another state's use of the fisheries resource. It was also recognized by the state that part of the other state's economy was dependent on that resource.

[edit] Governmental and intergovernmental action

Main article: Politics of global warming

Many countries, both developing and developed, are aiming to use cleaner technologies (World Bank, 2010, p. 192).^[104] Use of these technologies aids mitigation and could result in substantial reductions in CO₂ emissions. Policies include targets for emissions reductions, increased use of renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency. It is often argued that the results of climate change are more damaging in poor nations, where infrastructures are weak and few social services exist. The Commitment to Development Index is one attempt to analyze rich country policies taken to reduce their disproportionate use of the global commons. Countries do well if their greenhouse gas emissions are falling, if their gas taxes are high, if they do not subsidize the fishing industry, if they have a low fossil fuel rate per capita, and if they control imports of illegally cut tropical timber.

[edit] Kyoto Protocol

Main article: Kyoto Protocol

The main current international agreement on combating climate change is the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on 16 February 2005. The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that have ratified this protocol have committed to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

[edit] Successor to the Kyoto Protocol

See Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions

[edit] Alternatives to the Kyoto Protocol and successor

[edit] Emissions tax

See also: carbon tax, energy tax, and fee and dividend

An emissions tax on greenhouse gas emissions requires individual emitters to pay a fee, charge or tax for every tonne of greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere.^[105] Most environmentally related taxes with implications for greenhouse gas emissions in OECD countries are levied on energy products and motor vehicles, rather than on CO₂ emissions directly.
Emission taxes can be both cost effective and environmentally effective. Difficulties with emission taxes include their potential unpopularity, and the fact that they cannot guarantee a particular level of emissions reduction. Emissions or energy taxes also often fall disproportionately on lower income classes. In developing countries, institutions may be insufficiently developed for the collection of emissions fees from a wide variety of sources.

[edit] Making the emitting of CO2 illegal

One of the biggest problem seems to revolve around the fact that the countries decide on a average "allowed emission amount" per capita (which many believe should actually actually not exist at all). Many people, including prominent ones such as Ken Caldeira believe that a acceptable GHG emission per capita would be 0 tonnes (or -alternatively, very close to that, say 0,001 tonnes or so ^[106] The current protocol however has huge allowed amounts of emissions (between 3 and 10 tonnes) per capita and is as such extremely negligent.^[107]
Although 0,001 tonnes per capita would be acceptable, it can be expected that most people won't accept this and a better approach might be to just get rid entirely of this emission reduction-positive approach with the successor and replace it with a emitted GHG-negative approach. Some prominent people like Ken Caldeira have opted for this approach aswell.^[108] Obviously, it should be possible to still emit CO2, yet when emitting more than 0 tonnes of GHG, a sort of "fine" needs to be payed (carbon credits). This is much similar as what it is now, except for the method we employ.

[edit] Encouraging use changes

[edit] Subsidies

A program of subsidization balanced against expected flood costs could pay for conversion to 100% renewable power by 2030.^[30] The proponents of such a plan expect the cost to generate and transmit power in 2020 will be less than 4 cents per kilowatt hour (in 2007 dollars) for wind, about 4 cents for wave and hydroelectric, from 4 to 7 cents for geothermal, and 8 cents per kwh for solar, fossil, and nuclear power.^[29]

[edit] Carbon emissions trading

Main article: Carbon emissions trading

With the creation of a market for trading carbon dioxide emissions within the Kyoto Protocol, it is likely that London financial markets will be the centre for this potentially highly lucrative business; the New York and Chicago stock markets may have a lower trade volume than expected as long as the US maintains its rejection of the Kyoto.^[109]
However, emissions trading may delay the phase-out of fossil fuels.^[110]
The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS)^[111] is the largest multi-national, greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in the world. It commenced operation on 1 January 2005, and all 25 member states of the European Union participate in the scheme which has created a new market in carbon dioxide allowances estimated at 35 billion Euros (US$43 billion) per year.^[112] The Chicago Climate Exchange was the first (voluntary) emissions market, and is soon to be followed by Asia's first market (Asia Carbon Exchange). A total of 107 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent have been exchanged through projects in 2004, a 38% increase relative to 2003 (78 Mt CO₂e).^[113]
Twenty three multinational corporations have come together in the G8 Climate Change Roundtable, a business group formed at the January 2005 World Economic Forum. The group includes Ford, Toyota, British Airways and BP. On 9 June 2005 the Group published a statement^[114] stating that there was a need to act on climate change and claiming that market-based solutions can help. It called on governments to establish "clear, transparent, and consistent price signals" through "creation of a long-term policy framework" that would include all major producers of greenhouse gases.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a proposed carbon trading scheme being created by nine North-eastern and Mid-Atlantic American states; Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. The scheme was due to be developed by April 2005 but has not yet been completed.

[edit] Implementation

Implementation puts into effect climate change mitigation strategies and targets. These can be targets set by international bodies or voluntary action by individuals or institutions. This is the most important, expensive and least appealing aspect of environmental governance.^[115]

[edit] Funding

Implementation requires funding sources but is often beset by disputes over who should provide funds and under what conditions.^[115] A lack of funding can be a barrier to successful strategies as there are no formal arrangements to finance climate change development and implementation.^[116] Funding is often provided by nations, groups of nations and increasingly NGO and private sources. These funds are often channelled through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). This is an environmental funding mechanism in the World Bank which is designed to deal with global environmental issues.^[115] The GEF was originally designed to tackle four main areas: biological diversity, climate change, international waters and ozone layer depletion, to which land degradation and persistent organic pollutant were added. The GEF funds projects that are agreed to achieve global environmental benefits that are endorsed by governments and screened by one of the GEF’s implementing agencies.^[117]

[edit] Problems

There are numerous issues which result in a current perceived lack of implementation.^[115] It has been suggested that the main barriers to implementation are, Uncertainty, Fragmentation, Institutional void, Short time horizon of policies and politicians and Missing motives and willingness to start adapting. The relationships between many climatic processes can cause large levels of uncertainty as they are not fully understood and can be a barrier to implementation. When information on climate change is held between the large numbers of actors involved it can be highly dispersed, context specific or difficult to access causing fragmentation to be a barrier. Institutional void is the lack of commonly accepted rules and norms for policy processes to take place, calling into question the legitimacy and efficacy of policy processes. The Short time horizon of policies and politicians often means that climate change policies are not implemented in favour of socially favoured societal issues. Statements are often posed to keep the illusion of political action to prevent or postpone decisions being made. Missing motives and willingness to start adapting is a large barrier as it prevents any implementation.^[116]

[edit] Occurrence

Despite a perceived lack of occurrence, evidence of implementation is emerging internationally. Some examples of this are the initiation of NAPA’s and of joint implementation. Many developing nations have made National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs) which are frameworks to prioritize adaption needs.^[118] The implementation of many of these is supported by GEF agencies.^[119] Many developed countries are implementing ‘first generation’ institutional adaption plans particularly at the state and local government scale.^[118] There has also been a push towards joint implementation between countries by the UNFCC as this has been suggested as a cost effective way for objectives to be achieved.^[120]

[edit] Territorial policies

See also: List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions

[edit] United States

Main article: Climate change in the United States

Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the United States include energy policies which encourage efficiency through programs like Energy Star, Commercial Building Integration, and the Industrial Technologies Program.^[121] On 12 November 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the Kyoto Protocol, but he indicated participation by the developing nations was necessary prior its being submitted for ratification by the United States Senate.^[122]
In 2007, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, with White House approval, urged governors and dozens of members of the House of Representatives to block California’s first-in-the-nation limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, according to e-mails obtained by Congress.^[123] The U.S. Climate Change Science Program is a group of about twenty federal agencies and US Cabinet Departments, all working together to address global warming.
The Bush administration pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming, according to the testimony of the Union of Concerned Scientists to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.^[124][125] "High-quality science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change," produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law.^[126] Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.^[124]
In the absence of substantial federal action, state governments have adopted emissions-control laws such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast and the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 in California.^[127]

[edit] Developing countries

In order to reconcile economic development with mitigating carbon emissions, developing countries need particular support, both financial and technical. One of the means of achieving this is the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The World Bank's Prototype Carbon Fund^[128] is a public private partnership that operates within the CDM.
An important point of contention, however, is how overseas development assistance not directly related to climate change mitigation is affected by funds provided to climate change mitigation.^[129] One of the outcomes of the UNFCC Copenhagen Climate Conference was the Copenhagen Accord, in which developed countries promised to provide US $30 million between 2010–2012 of new and additional resources.^[129] Yet it remains unclear what exactly the definition of additional is and the European Commission has requested its member states to define what they understand to be additional, and researchers at the Overseas Development Institute have found 4 main understandings:^[129]

1. Climate finance classified as aid, but additional to (over and above) the ‘0.7%’ ODA target;
2. Increase on previous year's Official Development Assistance (ODA) spent on climate change mitigation;
3. Rising ODA levels that include climate change finance but where it is limited to a specified percentage; and
4. Increase in climate finance not connected to ODA.

The main point being that there is a conflict between the OECD states budget deficit cuts, the need to help developing countries adapt to develop sustainably and the need to ensure that funding does not come from cutting aid to other important Millennium Development Goals.^[129]
In July 2005 the U.S., China, India, Australia, as well as Japan and South Korea, agreed to the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate. The pact aims to encourage technological development that may mitigate global warming, without coordinated emissions targets. The highest goal of the pact is to find and promote new technology that aid both growth and a cleaner environment simultaneously. An example is the Methane to Markets initiative which reduces methane emissions into the atmosphere by capturing the gas and using it for growth enhancing clean energy generation.^[130] Critics^[who?] have raised concerns that the pact undermines the Kyoto Protocol.^[131]
However, none of these initiatives suggest a quantitative cap on the emissions from developing countries. This is considered as a particularly difficult policy proposal as the economic growth of developing countries are proportionally reflected in the growth of greenhouse emissions. Critics^[who?] of mitigation often argue that, the developing countries' drive to attain a comparable living standard to the developed countries would doom the attempt at mitigation of global warming. Critics^[who?] also argue that holding down emissions would shift the human cost of global warming from a general one to one that was borne most heavily by the poorest populations on the planet.
In an attempt to provide more opportunities for developing countries to adapt clean technologies, UNEP and WTO urged the international community to reduce trade barriers and to conclude the Doha trade round "which includes opening trade in environmental goods and services".^[132]

[edit] Non-governmental approaches

While many of the proposed methods of mitigating global warming require governmental funding, legislation and regulatory action, individuals and businesses can also play a part in the mitigation effort.

[edit] Choices in personal actions and business operations

Environmental groups encourage individual action against global warming, often aimed at the consumer. Common recommendations include lowering home heating and cooling usage, burning less gasoline, supporting renewable energy sources, buying local products to reduce transportation, turning off unused devices, and various others.
A geophysicist at Utrecht University has urged similar institutions to hold the vanguard in voluntary mitigation, suggesting the use of communications technologies such as videoconferencing to reduce their dependence on long-haul flights.^[133]

[edit] Air travel and shipment

Climate scientist Kevin Anderson raised concern about the growing effect of rapidly increasing global air transport on the climate in a paper^[134] and a presentation^[135] in 2008, suggesting that reversing this trend is necessary. Part of the difficulty is that when aviation emissions are made at high altitude, the climate impacts are much greater than otherwise. Others have been raising the related concerns of the increasing hypermobility of individuals, whether traveling for business or pleasure, involving frequent and often long distance air travel, as well as air shipment of goods.^[136]

[edit] Business opportunities and risks

Main article: Business action on climate change

On 9 May 2005 Jeff Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric (GE), announced plans to reduce GE's global warming related emissions by one percent by 2012. "GE said that given its projected growth, those emissions would have risen by 40 percent without such action."^[137]
On 21 June 2005 a group of leading airlines, airports and aerospace manufacturers pledged to work together to reduce the negative environmental impact of aviation, including limiting the impact of air travel on climate change by improving fuel efficiency and reducing carbon dioxide emissions of new aircraft by fifty percent per seat kilometre by 2020 from 2000 levels. The group aims to develop a common reporting system for carbon dioxide emissions per aircraft by the end of 2005, and pressed for the early inclusion of aviation in the European Union's carbon emission trading scheme.^[138]

[edit] Legal action

In some countries, those affected by climate change may be able to sue major producers, in a parallel to the lawsuits against tobacco companies.^[139] Although proving that particular weather events are due specifically to global warming may never be possible,^[140] methodologies have been developed to show the increased risk of such events caused by global warming.^[141]
For a legal action for negligence (or similar) to succeed, "Plaintiffs ... must show that, more probably than not, their individual injuries were caused by the risk factor in question, as opposed to any other cause. This has sometimes been translated to a requirement of a relative risk of at least two."^[142] Another route (though with little legal bite) is the World Heritage Convention, if it can be shown that climate change is affecting World Heritage Sites like Mount Everest.^[143][144]
Legal action has also been taken to try to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act,^[145] and against the Export-Import Bank and OPIC for failing to assess environmental impacts (including global warming impacts) under NEPA.^{[citation needed]}
According to a 2004 study commissioned by Friends of the Earth, ExxonMobil and its predecessors caused 4.7 to 5.3 percent of the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions between 1882 and 2002. The group suggested that such studies could form the basis for eventual legal action.^[146]

[edit] See also

	Global warming portal
	Energy portal

• 4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference
• Alternative propulsion
• Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change
• Biochar
• Black carbon
• Carbon diet
• Carbon negative fuel
• Climate bond
• Coalization
• Contraction and Convergence
• Forestalment
• Emissions_reduction#Reduction_efforts
• Green IT
• Hell and High Water: Global Warming
• Hypermobility
• Iron fertilization
• Low carbon diet
• Mitigation of peak oil
• Oil phase-out
• Overpopulation
• QELRO
• Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering)
• Zero-carbon economy
• Environmental impact of the coal industry

[edit] By country

• Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation
• European Climate Change Programme
• Mitigation of global warming in Australia

[edit] References

1. ^ Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R. J. Andres. 2007. Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, United States Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
2. ^ ^{a b} "IPCC Glossary Working Group III, p. 818" (PDF). http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg3.pdf. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
3. ^ Molina, M.; Zaelke, D.; Sarmac, K. M.; Andersen, S. O.; Ramanathane, V.; Kaniaruf, D. (2009). "Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (49): 20616–20621. Bibcode 2009PNAS..10620616M. doi:10.1073/pnas.0902568106. PMC 2791591. PMID 19822751. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/19/0902568106.full.pdf. edit
4. ^ "Glossary of climate change acronyms". UNFCCC. 1997-11-30. http://unfccc.int/essential_background/glossary/items/3666.php. Retrieved 2011-04-12.
5. ^ "Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2008". The International Atomic Energy Agency. http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/08-33461-CCNP-Brochure.pdf. Retrieved 2012-05-22]].
6. ^ Schneider, Stephen H. (2004). "Abrupt non-linear climate change, irreversibility and surprise". Global Environmental Change (Elsevier) 14 (3): 245–258. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.04.008. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/59/2482280.pdf.
7. ^ Lowe, J. A.; Huntingford, C.; Raper, S. C. B.; Jones, C. D.; Liddicoat, S. K.; Gohar, L. K. (2009). "How difficult is it to recover from dangerous levels of global warming?". Environmental Research Letters 4: 014012. Bibcode 2009ERL.....4a4012L. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014012. edit
8. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Stern, N. (2007). Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change: Part III: The Economics of Stabilisation. HM Treasury, London: http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
9. ^ Oliver Geden (2010), What Comes After the Two-Degree Target?, SWP Comments 19
10. ^ "EU climate change target "unfeasible"". EurActiv.com. 2006-02-01. http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-152154-16&type=News. Retrieved 2007-02-21.
11. ^ Adam, David (14 April 2009). "World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree". Guardian News and Media Limited. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c. Retrieved 2009-04-14.
12. ^ United States Department of Energy World Trends
13. ^ ^{a b c d e} Meehl, G.A., et al. (2007). "Frequently Asked Question 10.3: If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease?". In S. Solomon, et al., (eds.). Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: IPCC website. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3.html. Retrieved 2011-06-01.
14. ^ Rogner, H.-H., et al. (2007). "1.2 Ultimate objective of the UNFCCC". In B. Metz, et al., (eds). Introduction. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: IPCC website. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch1s1-2.html. Retrieved 2011-06-07.
15. ^ U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (January 2009). "Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking". In Granger Morgan, H. Dowlatabadi, M. Henrion, D. Keith, R. Lempert, S. McBride, M. Small, T. Wilbanks (eds.). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington D.C., USA.. pp. 10–11. http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/saps/311. Retrieved 2010-06-07.
16. ^ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). "2. Causes of change". In Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.). Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. This version: IPCC website. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html. Retrieved 2011-06-07.
17. ^ Sterman, J.D. and L.B. Sweeney (2007). "Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter" (PDF). Climatic Change 80: 221–222. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9107-5. http://jsterman.scripts.mit.edu/docs/Sterman-2007-UnderstandingPublicComplacency.pdf. Retrieved 2011-05-10.
18. ^ Porritt, Jonathon (March 2009). "Living within our means: avoiding the ultimate recession" (PDF). London: Forum for the Future. http://www.forumforthefuture.org/files/Living_within_our_means_sml.pdf. Retrieved 2009-04-14. "I remain astonished that so few people (even at the most progressive end of civil society) are prepared to accept that a continuing combination of a growing population and exponential economic growth will put a sustainable world for humankind forever beyond our reach."
19. ^ GWEC, Global Wind Report Annual Market Update
20. ^ HM Treasury (2006). Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.
21. ^ International Energy Agency. IEA urges governments to adopt effective policies based on key design principles to accelerate the exploitation of the large potential for renewable energy 29 September 2008.
22. ^ REN21 (2006). Changing climates: The Role of Renewable Energy in a Carbon-constrained World (PDF) p. 2.
23. ^ New UN report points to power of renewable energy to mitigate carbon emissions UN News Centre, 8 December 2007.
24. ^ Joel Makower, Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder (2008). Clean Energy Trends 2008, Clean Edge, p. 2.
25. ^ United Nations Environment Programme and New Energy Finance Ltd. (2007). Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2007: Analysis of Trends and Issues in the Financing of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in OECD and Developing Countries (PDF) p. 3.
26. ^ REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010 Global Status Report p. 13.
27. ^ REN21 (2009). Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 Update p. 17.
28. ^ REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010 Global Status Report p. 15.
29. ^ ^{a b} Jacobson, M.Z.; Delucchi, M.A. (2009). "A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables" (originally published as "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030")". Scientific American 301 (5): 58–65. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1109-58. PMID 19873905. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030.
30. ^ ^{a b} Jacobson, M.Z. (2009) "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security" Energy and Environmental Science 2:148-73 doi 10.1039/b809990c (review.)
31. ^ ^{a b c} REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010 Global Status Report p. 53.
32. ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 386.
33. ^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x/full Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation
34. ^ Trevor Findlay. The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation February 4, 2010.
35. ^ Trevor Findlay (2010). The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation: Overview, The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, pp. 10-11.
36. ^ M.V. Ramana. Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2009, 34, pp. 144-145.
37. ^ International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, 2009, p. 160.
38. ^ James Kanter. In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble New York Times, May 28, 2009.
39. ^ James Kanter. Is the Nuclear Renaissance Fizzling? Green, 29 May 2009.
40. ^ Rob Broomby. Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland BBC News, 8 July 2009.
41. ^ "Nuclear Power in China". World-nuclear.org. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html. Retrieved 2011-04-12.
42. ^ Michael Dittmar. Taking stock of nuclear renaissance that never was Sydney Morning Herald, August 18, 2010.
43. ^ Koplow, Doug (February 2011). "Nuclear Power:Still Not Viable without Subsidies". Union of Concerned Scientists. p. 1. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf.
44. ^ Ed Crooks. Nuclear: New dawn now seems limited to the east Financial Times, September 12, 2010.
45. ^ http://www.radiologytoday.net/archive/rt0910p20.shtml
46. ^ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708111326.htm
47. ^ "Climate Control: a proposal for controlling global greenhouse gas emissions" (PDF). Sustento Institute. http://sustento.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/climate-control.pdf. Retrieved 2007-12-10.
48. ^ Hackney, Thomas (July 2009). "#7: Moratorium on New Projects for Fossil Fuel Production & Declining Cap on Existing Production". BCSEA's Climate Action Portfolio. BC Sustainable Energy Association. http://www.bcsea.org/policy/files/7_Fossil_fuels.pdf. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
49. ^ Data and studies on CO₂/megajoule for fossil & other fuels, at CO2List.org
50. ^ ^{a b} Natural Gas and the Environment from www.naturalgas.org
51. ^ ^{a b c} Robinson, Simon (2010-01-22). "How to Reduce Carbon Emissions: Capture and Store it?". Time.com. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1954176_1954175,00.html. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
52. ^ "Global Status of CCS Report:2011". Global CCS Institute. http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global-status-ccs-2011/online/26856. Retrieved 2011-12-14.
53. ^ "Philips Tornado Asian Compact Fluorescent". Philips. http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20CFL%20Tornado.htm. Retrieved 2007-12-24.
54. ^ Diesendorf, Mark (2007). Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, UNSW Press, p. 86.
55. ^ "Loading Order White Paper" (PDF). http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-043/CEC-400-2005-043.PDF. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
56. ^ Diesendorf, Mark (2007). Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, UNSW Press, p. 87.
57. ^ Sophie Hebden (2006-06-22). "Invest in clean technology says IEA report". Scidev.net. http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=2929&language=1. Retrieved 2010-07-16.
58. ^ Lowe, Marcia D. (1994, April). Back on Track: The Global Rail Revival. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/872. Retrieved 2007-02-15.
59. ^ Schwartzman, Peter (unknown). TRUCKS VS. TRAINS—WHO WINS?. http://www.thezephyr.com/environ/trucktrain.html. Retrieved 2007-02-15.
60. ^ Fulton, William; Pendall, Rolf; Nguyen, Mai; Harrison, Alicia (2001). "Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S". Survey Series. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/fulton.pdf.
61. ^ "Energy Saving Trust: Home and the environment". Est.org.uk. http://www.est.org.uk/myhome/climatechange/stats/homeenvironment/. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
62. ^ Osborne, Hilary (2005-08-02). "Energy efficiency 'saves £350m a year'". Guardian Unlimited. http://money.guardian.co.uk/utilities/story/0,11992,1541051,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704.
63. ^ Fetcher, Ned (December 2009). "Effects of climate and institution size on greenhouse gas emissions from colleges and universities in the United States.". Sustainability: The Journal of Record 2 (6): 362–367. doi:10.1089/SUS.2009.9820. http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/SUS.2009.9820. Retrieved 2 March 2011.
64. ^ "Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Colleges and Universities". http://www.wilkes.edu/pages/4243.asp. Retrieved 2 March 2011.
65. ^ Rosenfeld, Arthur H.; Romm, Joseph J.; Akbari, Hashem; Lloyd, Alan C. (February/March 1997). "Technology Review". Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://eande.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/PUBS/PAINTING/.
66. ^ Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (1992). Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-04386-7.
67. ^ Burp vaccine cuts greenhouse gas emissions Rachel Nowak for NewScientist September 2004
68. ^ Young, E. (2008). IPCC Wrong On Logging Threat to Climate. New Scientist, August 5, 2008. Retrieved on August 18, 2008, from http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14466-ipcc-wrong-on-logging-threat-toclimate.html
69. ^ Wiggins, S., Chant, L., McDonald, S. and Wright, J., February 2012. If Mozambique reduces net emissions from farming, will the poor suffer?
70. ^ ^{a b} "OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050, Climate Change Chapter, pre-release version". OECD. 2011. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/53/49082173.pdf. Retrieved 2012-04-23.
71. ^ "IEA Technology Roadmap Carbon Capture and Storage 2009". OECD/IEA. 2009. https://www.iea.org/papers/2009/CCS_Roadmap.pdf. Retrieved 2012-04-23.
72. ^ ^{a b} "Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty". The Royal Society. 2009. http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/. Retrieved 2012-04-23.
73. ^ Hare, B., and Meinshausen, M.: (2006)“How much warming are we committed to and how much can be avoided?” Climatic Change, 75, pp 111-149.
74. ^ Azar, C., Lindgren, K., Larson, E.D. and Möllersten, K.: (2006)“Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomass – Costs and potential role in stabilising the atmosphere”, Climatic Change, 74, 47-79.
75. ^ Barker, T. et al. (2007). 11.2.2 Ocean fertilization and other geo-engineering options. In (book chapter): Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. (eds.)). Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch11s11-2-2.html. Retrieved 2010-04-05.
76. ^ IPCC (2007). C. Mitigation in the short and medium term (until 2030). In (book section): Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. (eds.)). Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/spmsspm-c.html. Retrieved 2010-05-15.
77. ^ ^{a b} Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (1992), Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP)
78. ^ GAO (2011). Technical status, future directions, and potential responses. July 2011. [1]
79. ^ Statoil, Shell in plan to raise oil output by injecting CO₂ – report, AFX News via Forbes, March 8, 2006, checked 2009-01-15
80. ^ "MIT Energy Research Council : Research Spotlight". Web.mit.edu. http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/alg-all.html. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
81. ^ "GreenFuel Technologies Closing Down : Greentech Media". Greentechmedia.com. 2009-05-13. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/greenfuel-technologies-closing-down-4670/. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
82. ^ Launder B. and J.M.T. Thompson (2008). "Global and Arctic climate engineering: numerical model studies". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 366 (1882): 4039–4056. Bibcode 2008RSPTA.366.4039C. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0132. PMID 18757275. http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/84j11614488142u8/.
83. ^ Pacala, Stephen; Socolow, Robert H. (2004). "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies". Science (AAAS) 305 (5686): 968–972. Bibcode 2004Sci...305..968P. doi:10.1126/science.1100103. PMID 15310891. http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacala-Socolow-ScienceMag-Aug2004.pdf.
    See also: "Stabwedge". CMI (Carbon Mitigation Initiative) at Princeton University. http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/stabwedge.htm. "Resources for Pacala & Socolow(2004)"
84. ^ Romm, Joseph. "Cleaning up on carbon", June 19, 2008
85. ^ Facing a changing world: women, population and climate, United Nations Population Fund
86. ^ Population and Global Warming Factsheet from Sierra Club
87. ^ Population and Global Warming National Wild Life Federation
88. ^ Population and the Environment Fact Sheet Population Connection
89. ^ Population Connection Statement of Policy
90. ^ To the point of farce: a martian view of the hardinian taboo—the silence that surrounds population control Maurice King, Charles Elliott BMJ
91. ^ Who is Heating Up the Planet? A Closer Look at Population and Global Warming from Sierra Club
92. ^ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6065/183
93. ^ Grubb, M. (July–September 2003). "The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol" (PDF). World Economics 4 (3): 146–147. http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/J36.pdf. Retrieved 2010-03-25.
94. ^ Albrittion, D.L., et al. (2001). "Halocarbons and related compounds". In J.T. Houghton, et al., (eds.). Technical summary. Climate Change 2001: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: GRID-Arendal website. p. 43. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/017.htm#halocarbons. Retrieved 2011-06-07.
95. ^ Glossary editor: A.P.M. Baede. Editors of the main report: S. Solomon, et al., ed. (2007). "Definition of "Global Warming Potential"". Annex I: Glossary. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: IPCC website. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annexessglossary-e-o.html. Retrieved 2011-06-07.
96. ^ Velders, G.J.M., et al. (20 March 2007). "The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting climate". PNAS 104 (12): 4814–4819. Bibcode 2007PNAS..104.4814V. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610328104. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/12/4814. Retrieved 2011-06-07.
97. ^ Jowit, Juliette; Wintour, Patrick (26 June 2008). "Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/26/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange.
98. ^ "CIA World Factbook". US CIA. 18-Oct-2011. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html. Retrieved 21-Oct-2011.
99. ^ Yohe, G.W. et al. (2007). Executive summary. In (book chapter): Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (M.L. Parry et al., (eds.)). Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. Web version: IPCC website. ISBN 978-0-521-88010-7. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch20s20-es.html. Retrieved 2010-05-15.
100. ^ Toth, F.L. et al. (2001). 10.4.7 Emerging Conclusions with Respect to Policy-relevant Scientific Questions. In (book chapter): Decision-making Frameworks. In: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. Eds.). Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: GRID-Arendal website. ISBN 978-0-521-01502-8. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/449.htm. Retrieved 2010-01-10.
101. ^ Rogner, H.-H. et al. (2007). Executive Summary. In (book chapter): Introduction. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. (eds)). Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Web version: IPCC website. ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch1s1-es.html. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
102. ^ ^{a b c} Banuri, T. et al. (1996) (PDF). Equity and Social Considerations. In: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (J.P. Bruce et al. Eds.). This version: Printed by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. PDF version: IPCC website. doi:10.2277/0521568544. ISBN 978-0-521-56854-8. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_III/ipcc_sar_wg_III_full_report.pdf.
103. ^ ^{a b} Goldemberg, J. et al. (1996) (PDF). Introduction: scope of the assessment. In: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (J.P. Bruce et al. Eds.). This version: Printed by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. Web version: IPCC website. doi:10.2277/0521568544. ISBN 978-0-521-56854-8. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_III/ipcc_sar_wg_III_full_report.pdf.
104. ^ World Bank (2010). World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433. doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-7987-5. ISBN 978-0-8213-7987-5. http://go.worldbank.org/BKLQ9DSDU0. Retrieved 2010-04-06.
105. ^ Gupta, S. et al. (2007). "13.2.1.2 Taxes and charges". In B. Metz et al.. Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-2.html. Retrieved 2010-03-18.
106. ^ if you multiply this by the population -at present 7 billion people, expected to rise rapidly as time progresses- this still yields 7000 tonnes. This latter figure however, is still low enough to be eliminated ie by planting trees to sequester the carbon, hence still allowing a zero emissions policy.
107. ^ See per capita emissions and carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties.png total emissions; the average emissions are 8 to 10 tonnes per capita emissions for Annex-1 countries and 1,5 to 3 tonnes for non-Annex 1 countries. As the second graph clearly shows, multiplying this with the (huge) population makes:7500 to 9000 million tonnes for the Annex I Kyoto Parties per year and 7000 to 15000 million tonnes for the non-Annex I Parties per year
108. ^ [At #36 Ken Caldeira stated that we need to make it against the law to produce devices that emit CO2 into the atmosphere
109. ^ How high-pressure politics threatens action on climate The Observer June 2005
110. ^ StoryOfStuff.com (2009) "The Story of Cap and Trade"
111. ^ Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) from ec.europa.eu
112. ^ The $20,000,000,000,000 question Robins, Nick for Opendemocracy
113. ^ State and Trends of the Carbon Market International Emissions Trading Association 2005
114. ^ Statement of G8 Climate Change Roundtable Convened by the World Economic Forum June 2005
115. ^ ^{a b c d} Evans. J (forthcoming 2012) Environmental Governance, Routledge, Oxon
116. ^ ^{a b} Biesbroek. G.R, Termeer. C.J.A.M, Kabat. P, Klostermann.J.E.M (unpublished) Institutional governance barriers for the development and implementation of climate adaptation strategies, Working paper for the International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP) conference “Earth System Governance: People, Places, and the Planet”, December 2–4, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
117. ^ Mee. L. D, Dublin. H. T, Eberhard. A. A (2008) Evaluating the Global Environment Facility: A goodwill gesture or a serious attempt to deliver global benefits?, Global Environmental Change 18, 800–810
118. ^ ^{a b} Preston. B. L, Westaway. R. M, Yuen. E. Y (2004) Climate adaptation planning in practice: an evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations, European Management Journal, 22(3) 304-314
119. ^ UNFCCC (2011) Report on the twentieth meeting of the Least Developed Countries Expert Group, Subsidiary Body for Implementation, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
120. ^ UNFCCC (2011) Annual report of the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
121. ^ "Industrial Technologies Program: BestPractices". Eere.energy.gov. http://www.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/index.html. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
122. ^ "Clinton Hails Global Warming Pact". All Politics (CNN). 1997-12-11. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/. Retrieved 2006-11-05.
123. ^ "How the White House Worked to Scuttle California’s Climate Law", San Francisco Chronicle, September 25, 2007
124. ^ ^{a b} Reuters, January 30, 2007, free archived version at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0130-10.htm, last visited Jan. 30, '07
125. ^ Written testimony of Dr. Grifo before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113153-55829.pdf
126. ^ written testimony of Rick Piltz before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113813-92288.pdf last visited Jan. 30, 07
127. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/science/earth/in-california-a-grand-experiment-to-rein-in-climate-change.html
128. ^ Prototype Carbon Fund from the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit
129. ^ ^{a b c d} Jessica Brown, Neil Bird and Liane Schalatek (2010) Climate finance additionality: emerging definitions and their implications Overseas Development Institute
130. ^ "Methane to Markets Partnership". USAID.gov. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_partnerships/gda/methanetomarkets.htm.^{[dead link]}
131. ^ "US-led emissions pact seen as Kyoto rival". NewScientist.com. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7744.
132. ^ Free trade can help combat global warming, finds UN report UN News Centre, 26 June 2009
133. ^ Andrew Biggin (16 August 2007). "Scientific bodies must take own action on emissions". Nature 448 (7155): 749. Bibcode 2007Natur.448..749B. doi:10.1038/448749a. PMID 17700677.
134. ^ Anderson, K; Bows, A (2008). "Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 366 (1882): 3863–3882. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/3863.full.
135. ^ Anderson, K. (2008, June 17). climate change: from long-term targets to emission pathways (esp. slide 24 onward).
136. ^ Gössling S, Ceron JP, Dubois G, Hall CM, Gössling IS, Upham P, Earthscan London (2009). Hypermobile travellers. and Implications for Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction. In: Climate Change and Aviation: Issues, Challenges and Solutions, London. The chapter: [2]
137. ^ "Green Electric? GE unveils eco-strategy publisher=MSNBC". http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7791657/.
138. ^ "Aviation groups set targets to limit their environmental impact publisher=FT.com". http://news.ft.com/cms/s/747d20ea-e1ff-11d9-bf18-00000e2511c8.html.
139. ^ The ghost of Gleneagles Allen, Myles for openDemocracy.net January 2005
140. ^ Edward Lorenz (1982): "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get"
141. ^ Stott, et al. (2004), "Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003", Nature, Vol. 432, 2 December 2004
142. ^ Grossman, Columbia J. of Env. Law, 2003
143. ^ "Climate change 'ruining' Everest". Heatisonline.org. 2004-11-17. http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4950&method=full. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
144. ^ Climate change 'ruining' Belize BBC November 2004
145. ^ Climate Justice Ongoing Cases
146. ^ Exxon Mobile's Contribution to Global Warming Revealed from Friends of the Earth

[edit] External links

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Includes the Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change" as part of the Fourth Assessment Report
• Why Black Carbon and Ozone Also Matter, in September/October 2009 Foreign Affairs with Veerabhadran Ramanathan and Jessica Seddon Wallack.
• The Climate Threat We Can Beat, in May/June 2012 Foreign Affairs with David G. Victor, Charles F. Kennel, Veerabhadran Ramanathan.

[edit] European Union

• European Union's European Climate Change Programme
• EU New Energy Policy
• European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS)
• Community strategy to reduce CO2 from light vehicles.
• UK's Climate Change Programme
• The Stern Review on the economics of climate change – Parts III and IV of the Stern Review are on climate change mitigation

[edit] USA

• EPA: What You Can Do.
• U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement signed by 178 mayors representing nearly 40 million Americans
• California Climate Change Portal.

[edit] Academic

• Rivington M, Matthews KB, Buchan K and Miller D (2005) "An integrated assessment approach to investigate options for mitigation and adaptation to climate change at the farm-scale", NJF Seminar 380, Odense, Denmark, 7–8 November 2005.
• Jacobson, M.Z.; Delucchi, M.A. (2009). "A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables" (originally published as "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030")". Scientific American 301 (5): 58–65. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1109-58. PMID 19873905. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030.
• Living On a New Earth, Scientific American April 2010
• Global Warming Newswire – published scientific studies on global warming

[edit] Commentary

• Oliver James, The Guardian, June 30, 2005, Face the facts: For many people climate change is too depressing to think about, and some prefer to simply pretend it doesn't exist
• Chris Mooney, June 7, 2005, "Global warming and the categorical imperative"
• Calvin Jones, Action on climate change, Political and Practical
• Climate blog of the Center for American Progress Action Fund edited by Joseph J. Romm
• Climate Change Visual Debate, English version of WAVE project with support from the European Commission
• One scientist's hobby: recreating the ice age, Associated Press, 11/28/10. (broken link)

v t e Global warming and climate change Temperatures Brightness temperature Geologic record Historical climatology Instrumental record Paleoclimatology Paleotempestology Proxy data Record of the past 1,000 years Satellite measurements Causes Anthropogenic Attribution of recent climate change Aviation Biofuel Black carbon Carbon dioxide Earth's energy budget Earth's radiation balance Fossil fuel Global dimming Global-warming potential Greenhouse effect (Infrared window) Greenhouse gases (Halocarbons) Land use, land-use change and forestry Radiative forcing Tropospheric ozone Urban heat island Natural Albedo Bond events Climate oscillations Climate sensitivity Cloud forcing Cosmic rays Feedbacks Glaciation Global cooling Milankovitch cycles Ocean variability AMO ENSO IOD PDO Orbital forcing Solar variation Volcanism Models Global climate model History History of climate change science Atmospheric thermodynamics Svante Arrhenius James Hansen Charles David Keeling Opinion and climate change Environmental ethics Media coverage of climate change Public opinion on climate change (Popular culture) Scientific opinion on climate change Scientists opposing the mainstream assessment By country (Australia Belgium China Finland Japan New Zealand Russia Scotland Sweden Tuvalu United States) Politics Climate change denial (Manufactured controversy) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC / FCCC) Potential effects and issues General Abrupt climate change Anoxic event Arctic dipole anomaly Arctic haze Arctic methane release Climate change and agriculture Climate change and ecosystems Climate change and poverty Current sea level rise Drought Economics of global warming Effect on plant biodiversity Effects on humans Effects on marine mammals Environmental migrant Extinction risk from global warming Fisheries and climate change Forest dieback Iris hypothesis Ocean acidification Ozone depletion Physical impacts Polar stratospheric cloud Regime shift Retreat of glaciers since 1850 Runaway climate change Season creep Shutdown of thermohaline circulation By country Australia India (South Asia) United States Mitigation Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism Joint Implementation Bali Road Map 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference Governmental European Climate Change Programme G8 Climate Change Roundtable United Kingdom Climate Change Programme Emissions reduction Carbon credit Carbon negative fuel Carbon offset Carbon tax Emissions trading Fossil-fuel phase-out Carbon-free energy Carbon capture and storage Efficient energy use Low-carbon economy Nuclear power Renewable energy Personal Individual action on climate change Simple living Other Carbon dioxide removal Carbon sink Climate change mitigation scenarios Geoengineering Individual and political action on climate change Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Proposed adaptations Strategies Damming glacial lakes Desalination Drought tolerance Irrigation investment Rainwater storage Sustainable development Weather modification Programmes Avoiding dangerous climate change Land Allocation Decision Support System Glossary of climate change Index of climate change articles Category:Climate change Category:Global warming Portal:Global warming

v t e Sustainability Foundations Ecological modernization Environmentalism Human impact on the environment Planetary boundaries Stewardship Sustainable development Consumption Anthropization Anti-consumerism Ecological footprint Ethical consumerism Over-consumption Simple living Sustainability advertising Sustainability brand Sustainability marketing myopia Sustainable consumption Systemic change resistance Tragedy of the commons Population Birth control Family planning Human population control Overpopulation Zero population growth Technology Appropriate technology Environmental technology Sustainable technology Biodiversity Biosecurity Biosphere Conservation biology Deep ecology Endangered species Holocene extinction Invasive species Energy Carbon footprint Carbon neutral fuel Climate change mitigation Efficient energy use Emissions trading Energy conservation Energy descent Peak oil Renewable energy Food Food security Forest gardening Local food Permaculture Sustainable agriculture Sustainable fishery Urban horticulture Water Water conservation Water crisis Water efficiency Water footprint Accountability Sustainability accounting Sustainability measurement Sustainability metrics and indices Sustainability reporting Sustainability science Standards and certification Sustainable yield Applications Education for Sustainable Development Green marketing Sustainability organizations Sustainability practices Advertising Architecture Art Business City Community Design Fashion Gardening Industries Landscape architecture Living Packaging Procurement Tourism Transport Urban drainage systems Urban infrastructure Management Environmental management Fisheries management Forest management Natural resource management Planetary management Waste management Agreements UN Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm 1972) Brundtlandt Commission Report (1983) Our Common Future (1987) Earth Summit (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Agenda 21 (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) ICPD Programme of Action (1994) Earth Charter Lisbon Principles UN Millennium Declaration (2000) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Category Lists Outline Portal