Articles by Joseph Romm

Atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane rise sharply in 2007

The news from NOAA is that all our dawdling on climate action this decade is having real impact on the atmosphere:

• Concentrations of CO2 jumped 2.4 ppm in 2007, taking us to 385 ppm (preindustrial levels hovered around 280 through 1850).
• That is an increase of 0.6 percent (or 19 billion tons). If we stay at that growth rate, we'll be at 465 ppm by 2050 -- and that assumes (improbably) that the various carbon sinks don't keep saturating (see here and here).
• Levels of methane (a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) rose last year for the first time since 1998, perhaps an early indication of thawing permafrost.

The 14 wedges needed to stabilize emissions

In this post I will lay out "the solution" to global warming, focusing primarily on the 14 "stabilization wedges."

Part 1 argued that stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at 450 ppm is not politically possible today, but that it is certainly achievable from an economic and technological perspective. It would require some 14 of Princeton's "stabilization wedges" -- strategies and/or technologies that over a period of a few decades each reduce global carbon emissions by one billion metric tons per year from projected levels (see technical paper here [PDF], less technical one here [PDF]). The reason that we need twice as many wedges as Princeton's Pacala and Socolow have said we need was explained in Part 1.

I agree with the IPCC, which concluded last year that "The range of stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are currently available and those that are expected to be commercialised in coming decades." The technologies they say can beat 450 ppm are here. Technology Review, one of the nation's leading technology magazines, also argued in a cover story two years ago, "It's Not Too Late," that "Catastrophic climate change is not inevitable. We possess the technologies that could forestall global warming."

I do believe only "one" solution exists in this sense -- We must deploy every conceivable energy-efficient and low carbon technology that we have today as fast as we can. Princeton's Pacala and Socolow proposed that this could be done over 50 years, but that is almost certainly too slow.

For Nanosolar, the future is municipal solar power plants

The following post is by Earl Killian, guest blogger at Climate Progress.

-----

Traditional photovoltaic (PV) is typically installed on rooftops and competes with retail electricity. Over 40 percent of the cost of a system can be in the installation, which must be customized to every rooftop. So technologies that dramatically lower PV cost end up having a less dramatic impact on total residential system cost. So it is natural that the next generation technologies, such as thin films of copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) printed as ink on conductive substrates, need to look at non-rooftop applications, where the installation of a large solar farm is fairly turnkey.

Nanosolar, a thin-film PV startup, has just announced their vision in their blog and newsletter. They see the best fit for solar being municipal solar plants of 2-10 MW in size and suggest such plants can be done in 12 months, providing a significant advantage over coal or nuclear. Martin Roscheisen, Nanosolar's CEO, writes:

Environment Day? Triage Day? The holiday needs more than a new name

Affection for our planet is misdirected and unrequited. We need to focus on saving ourselves.

I have a new piece in Salon: "Let's dump 'Earth' Day." It is supposed to be mostly humorous. Or mostly serious. Anyway, the subject of renaming Earth Day has been on my mind for a while.

An excerpt: