As many of us know, scientists believe we can still avoid the worst impacts of climate change if we can stop pumping so much greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Nature will take care of itself in time and we will return to close to normal. The numbers cited is that worldwide we need to reduce GHG emissions by 80% from a 1990 baseline by 2050. In fact, a number of municipalities and other entities have “80 X 50” campaigns. Since most entities did not track GHG emissions in 1990, they pick a different baseline, but still wish to reduce by 80% to show they are doing their part.

But can the world do this? Of course, GHG emissions are tied to energy usage, particularly fossil fuel combustion. Using less energy and more of that energy from renewable sources will help. Lifestyle changes (less meat and dairy) should help, too. However, problems lurk.

Electricity usage will likely double by 2050.
Several commentators predict this and should not be a surprise as electricity production did double from 1990 to 2015. And with electrification being encouraged (electric cars, heat pumps replacing boilers), another doubling is quite conceivable. So while it will be nice to shut down fossil fuel-fired power plants for renewable power in the future, if we have such a future increase in electric demand, we may have to continue to hold onto old fossil fuel-fired plants for longer. Or can we prioritize the construction and utilization of renewable plants?

Increasing population and middle class.
The world’s population is expected to rise by at least 1½ billion between now and 2050. That’s not good to meet a goal of decreasing GHG emissions by 80%. But what’s worse is that the demographers state that many poor people already here will move to the middle class – perhaps as many as 2 billion. These people will go from low energy users, such as not owning a car, and few or no electric “toys” (TVs, computers, etc.) to having all these things. In other words, 2 billion more high energy users and high GHG producers. This is not hypothetical. Much has been reported of regions of China, India, Brazil, Russia growing a middle class, leading to increased electricity generation (and not necessarily from renewable sources), car ownership, and meat eating. How can we encourage economic growth, but do so in a sustainable way to not increase GHG emissions so much? And what about those of us who have access to electricity, but whose lifestyles are expansive and we can afford the latest “toys” or be more comfortable than past generations (air conditioner in every room, activated ahead of time from the office, bigger, fancier cars, etc.).

And there is the lack of political will to incorporate GHG reduction technologies and strategies across nations.

Well, I hope I haven’t depressed you and made you give up hope that climate change will cause mass destruction around 2050. Actually, I am an optimist. No, there will be adverse effects. But as an engineer, I believe in technology that not only reduces GHG emissions, but has other practical benefits, including saving costs that business leaders and the public will latch onto for our benefit.

Clean Fuels and Diversification.
In 1990, 99% of electricity was generated by fossil fuels plus hydro, and much of this was coal. Now, sustainable sources of power (solar, wind, etc.) and natural gas are upstaging coal and oil and the trends are likely to continue (see Nov. 2019 newsletter). It is now cheaper to build and operate a renewable power plant than a coal-fired one.

Energy Efficiency is a Mainstream Business Strategy.
It was not long ago that a person suggesting a company or plant be more energy efficient would be ignored. Energy was cheap; efficiency strategies expensive so that the cost could not be paid back. Plus, anything that might “mess with” the process was considered risky. It was considered OK to overpay costs, such as energy, to have a repetitive process.
This has changed. All the major business schools teach the importance of being more energy efficient and sustainable, in general. Many MBA degrees specialize in sustainability. Many current CEOs may not feel comfortable with these subjects, but the new generation sure does. Plus, there is more real-life examples of buildings that invested in energy efficiency or in sustainability and came out way ahead.

Localized Distributed Generation.
It used to be that electricity was produced by a huge power plant, perhaps hundreds of miles away, with electricity transmitted by lines. Losses during transmission were common, understood and accepted as normal. Now, there is a movement called distributed generation, encouraging construction of small generator plants closer to where the electricity is used – even at major sites themselves. Co-generation also yields steam which can have uses, both in comfort and in processes. This increased efficiency plus reduced losses as electricity is transmitted much shorter distances means much less fuel combusted and less GHG emissions to produce the electricity used all around.

Improved Farming Methods and Reduction in Meat/Dairy Consumption.
While the focus here is energy, certainly agricultural practices and methane released by tens of millions of cows kept alive (and emitting) to produce so much meat and milk we drink contribute to climate change. Even large farmers are incorporating practices which happen to increase yields and reduce GHG emissions. And certainly, there is a growing vegetarian/vegan movement, which can reduce GHG emissions some more.

Progress and awareness of strategies and technologies like these have a chance to lessen the blows of climate change, which will benefit all of us.

CCES has the experts to help you develop a sustainability and/or energy efficiency program to meet your climate change or other goals and reap the many benefits. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.