(John Byrne, Director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the U. of DE

Spoke on “A Climate of Peace,” on July 14, 2009 in Wilmington, DE as part of the Pacem in Terris Summer Series, “Making Peace with the Planet.” This article is based on notes taken by Mary Starkweather-White at his lecture.)

The peace movement has been very important on a number of issues in this society and we need it again in the climate change effort.  The peace movement, partly because it links a series of causes and efforts, including those surrounding sustainability and environmental and social justice, has much to bring to this endeavor. In this talk, Byrne stated that he would: describe the problem of sustaining the lifestyle Americans have created; give simple evidence of the problem; and discuss what to do to address the problem. 

The U.S. has a significant role and burden concerning the problem of climate change. On the national level, we have ignored this problem for the last eight or more years, so we are behind in meeting our obligation to the world’s citizens and to Nature. 

 To imagine our impact on the social and ecological environment of the planet, focus on the light bulb. In the beginning of the 20th century, the light bulb replaced a technology of candles and liquid fuel lamps which had been used for 1,500 years. Our ability to command light has made important and positive contributions to society. It controls how late we stay up and also what we can see outdoors.  However, now artificial light crowds out the stars in the sky.  Dr. Byrne showed photos of Times Square in 1890, 1902, 1921, and 2009 to illustrate how much clutter of light there now is. This represents a part of a development model which is now powerful throughout the world.  To demonstrate this, he showed before and after photos of Seoul, South Korea. This control of light is now a development model that is used around the world. If you take satellite pictures of the earth at night, the density of light tells us something about how lit up we are and the kind of power that we have. To see how big the spread is, look at photos taken from satellites and see all the areas of light on earth. The parts of the world with less density of light are sub-Saharan Africa and north and western Asia. This disparity raises issues of environmental and social justice. Our ability to manipulate the power of light comes through the use of electric light generated by electrical power plants, most of which are powered by fossil  fuels that are having a negative impact on our planet.

We now have an atmosphere unlike any in the history of the planet or the solar system. We have filled it with chemicals that have changed its chemical content.  New chemicals are in it now: CFC, HCFC and CF4 (refrigerants); and the numbers of CO2 molecules have gone from 280 parts per million (ppm) during the pre-industrial period to 390 ppm at present. It’s hard to change these numbers, and it will be difficult to dial them back down. The CO2 molecule (carbon dioxide) has a life of 50 to 200 years, so it will take a long time to dial back the changes that have been made in just the last 100 years. It will take concerted efforts to lower these numbers. 75% of the new CO2 comes from emissions from the energy system and 25% comes from our current land use, deforestation, etc.  At first scientists thought that the oceans’ natural cycle would save us, but the oceans are becoming saturated with CO2.  Some of the other chemicals that now figure in our atmosphere are methane (from natural gas pipelines) and nitrous oxides (from autos).  The aforementioned refrigerants are solvents used in modern technology and they have a resident life of 50,000 years in the atmosphere. The Montreal Protocol banned these refrigerants, but many remain in the atmosphere.

What is the impact when you alter the chemistry of the atmosphere?  Climate change is a process of warming and cooling, rain and drought. The first impact that you get is the melting of ice at the poles.  As one gets a secular trend of warming the planet, there are regular early changes at the poles. The particular region showing the greatest change is Alaska. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) of which Dr. Bryne is a member is a scientific community of 2,500 scientists from around the world who are charged to review the research data and to release reports.  They are trying to produce reports on the best available evidence, but by the time their reports get published, the data is already two-years old and out of date.  One can see the impact of the melting at the poles by watching Larsen B, an ice shelf (mass of ice connected to land and also in water) in Antarctica.  Pictures show the disappearance in a few months of a piece of ice about the size of the state of Delaware. The process is disturbing in that we do not know why it is happening and how it works, but interesting in that we are learning a lot about how ice melts. Our model predicted a slower process of melt. Images of sea ice in the Arctic show that in 30 years, we have lost 20% of ice by area and 40% by volume. 

The melting of sea ice does not lead to the rising of sea levels, but rather to the warming of the oceans. Where melts do matter is in the melting of ice on land – glacier melts. There is a lot of glacier melting on land in Greenland. The National Snow and Ice Data Center data for 1988-2006 shows that Greenland represents a large body of ice, 7200 feet vertically of ice and snow. From 1988 to 2006 in Greenland both the length of the ice melt was increasing (to 30-40 continuous days) and the number of overall days of the melting was increasing.  The melting in Greenland, if unabated, will add water to the oceans. In most scenarios when the sea level rises, the coastal cities will be under stress. We will see a significant rise in sea level in this century which is an early warning signal of global warming.

 To solve the problem, everyone agrees we have to reduce greenhouse emissions. CO2 has to be cut to 60-80% of the emission levels in 1990 by middle of the 21st century.  If we consider the rate at which we can absorb and recycle CO2, we need to cut our emissions to 3.3 tons of CO2 per person per year by 2050 in order to prevent disaster.  We also need to cut methane by 8-20%; nitrous oxide by 70-80%; and CFC11 by 70-75%.  Those industrialized countries that have pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000 to 1990 levels (“Annex I parties,” the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change)  include:  North America, Russia, Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand) as a group emit 15 tons of CO2 per person per year.  If our pattern continues, the emissions will be over 20 tons. 

The Non-Annex countries emit less than the budgeted 3.3 tons. The world is divided between the countries that have exceeded their CO2 consumption and those that have not.  Some of these countries (China, India, Brazil, Indonesia) are their increasing population and also their emissions. The questions become how to address Annex I countries’ usage and how to pre-empt Non-Annex countries’ usage. Annex I countries must show that they are doing their part to control emissions, so it becomes a political problem. Until the Annex I countries make a huge change, the Non-Annex countries will not make a change.  We cannot resolve this problem without changes; delaying and stalling is a bad solution.  We need to transform the nature of society for both sets of countries. 

How we solve the problem brings the issues of sustainability, justice and peace together. One American uses as much CO2 as 19 Indians. The following countries are among those emitting more than 3.3 tons of CO2 per person per year: USA, Russia, Germany, Italy, Korea, Japan, Spain, Ukraine, France, Sweden, Switzerland. The most energy-efficient country of these in terms of population and economy is Japan.  We cannot keep saturating the eco-systems. Those countries emitting less than 3.3 tons per person include Chad, Viet Nam, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria and India. The challenges of CO2 sustainability and justice merge in a joint agenda.  

Just as economists have developed a model to deal with income distribution issues, a similar model can be used for emissions.  If business continues as usual, the distribution would be far from equitable.  Likewise, the problem would not be solved if other countries observed a mandate to reduce emissions and the US did not.  The problem must be solved with both a sustainability and justice agenda.  If you are 20% of the population, you should live with 20% of the CO2 emissions.  Getting countries to dial down will take time.  If  the U.S. continues to ignore this effort, we will go up to 455 ppm of CO2.  This problem cannot be solved unless it is seen as a justice problem. Our failure to act is putting other populations in the world at risk.

How should we solve the problem in the U.S.?  Should we plant more trees?  Have two families live in every house?  Stop building roads?  We need to evaluate this.  In meetings on the UN Framework on Climate Change, the United States demanded a credit for all of the reforestation that we have done in our country.  However, if the 24 million inhabitants of the Northwest were evacuated and we created a United States CO2 National Park and planted millions of trees throughout it, that still would not solve the problem. No trees can absorb all of the CO2 that is needed to curb climate change.  The trees in this park would have to reach maturity within 3 years (most trees mature in 12 – 15 years) and would then have to be cut down to make way for new trees. The federal government has run scientific models on this and found that the wood would all need to be buried in the Marianna Trench in the Pacific Ocean, because as it decays on land, it emits green house gases.  Even if all of this could be done, it would only buy us a little time. Reforestation is helpful and cheap, but it is not the answer by itself. 

Technology is often used as a silver bullet, but there is no silver bullet solution. For example, nuclear power is often put forward as a technology that can save us, but it is not a silver bullet that can solve all our problems.  Nuclear power is responsible for 75% of the electricity generated in France, but it cannot bring France down to 60% below its 1990 CO2 levels.  Its total emissions with all of its development of nuclear power have only gone from 140 million tons to 110 million tons. Power plants provide electricity, but we still use fossil fuels for other purposes. 

We should be using renewable energy sources—like solar, wind and geothermal. The temperature below the surface of the earth is 55 degrees F, and we can heat and cool with geothermal energy.  Hydro-electric power still presents some problems, depending on the size of the head behind the dam. 

The American Clean Energy and Security Act mandates using renewable energy for 15% of power generation by the year 2020.  Delaware has renewable energy standards that are higher and aims to use 20% renewable energy by 2019, which would make it competitive. Our standard would be better than the national standard, if the American Clean Energy and Security Act passes.  California currently has the most aggressive standards and aims for 20% by 2010. Renewable energy is only a part of the solution, but we must know how to use it. 

The U.S. Department of Energy has named the University of Delaware’s Institute of Energy Conversion a Center of Excellence for Solar Energy.  Yet, for years the University of Delaware did nothing with the solar energy that it was developing.  Most of its research and technology were used abroad.  Now, however, the University of Delaware has created a climate action plan, calculating its own footprint and figuring out steps to address and reduce it.  It will have a 6 megawatt solar center – the largest on any campus in the world -- for the generation of solar electric power.   Five hundred solar panels will be installed on the roof of the Trabant University Center. 

Several University of Delaware faculty members were asked to speak at a sustainability conference for geographers in Las Vegas last spring.  Some of their doctoral students who went along took pictures of the lights at night in Las Vegas which Dr. Byrne showed us.  If we keep a way of life that requires this much energy, we will never solve our problems. Not only do we need to use alternative energy, but we also need to learn how to use less energy.  We have to reduce the amount of energy that we consume.  Germany has gone the farthest in developing the most renewable energy. Yet, even if we follow the German model and use much more renewable energy, we will still have an energy gap, unless we change our energy-consumptive way of life.  We have lots of phantom loads of energy use.  For example, because we want our computers to turn on immediately rather than take a few minutes to warm up, they continue to stay on a little bit and continue to use energy, even when we think that they are turned off.  

We need to be more energy-efficient, conserve energy, and we need a better land use policy. We need to cut down on sprawl, house size and other signs of U.S. Energy Obesity. Americans increased their energy consumption fivefold from 1960 to 2006.  For example, many people who need to buy an air-conditioner or other appliance, will buy the cheapest one, even though it will cost them more to operate because of its energy inefficiency. California kept its energy consumption flat, in large part through a program that rewards the first purchase of a high efficiency unit.  Delaware is currently worse than the national average; we use 60% more energy per square foot than California does.  Alaska is the most energy obese state, but a correction for weather needs to be factored into this figure. The U.S. uses 50% more per capita than Europe. In Europe the high cost of electricity makes people more energy efficient.  For example, in the European Union, electricity costs $ 0.25/per unit, while in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S., electricity costs $ 0.15/per unit.  

In our country, we have voted for a politics of energy consumption excess.  One of the problems in the U.S. is that 20-40% of our citizens still think global warming is a hoax.  This is partly a result of the U.S. media’s way of framing issues.  Our media wants to find two sides to every issue, so it will present a story about climate change, but in the same article it will interview some one saying that it is all a hoax.  This insistence on representing opposite sides confuses the public, since it seems to give them both equal weight, even when the scientific evidence about climate change is overwhelming.  Certainly, it is appropriate for all evidence to be questioned in the scientific community.  However, in Japan and Europe the press presents the science straight, gives the evidence, and says it supports the truth of global warming.  Consequently, there is a greater acceptance of renewables, energy efficiency, and conservation.  In our country we need renewables, energy efficiency, and conservation measures as well, but we have an energy policy and economic system that fail us.

Our health is affected by climate change and there is now an epidemic of asthma. Also, the health of our ecosystems and economics is affected. We cannot solve the climate problem unless we address sustainability and justice.  We need changes in our policy framework and market system. For instance, California uses policy tools so that in the market customers do not see the difference. Companies will only sell high efficiency units at affordable prices in California, but not in Delaware. We need to make sure everyone has available to them a more efficient and low-carbon option.

We need to change the way society is organized and we need new institutions.  We need to grow different institutions with new purposes, because we cannot leave these big decisions to the car companies, banks, realtors, and power companies.  

 We need a Sustainable Energy Utility system.  The Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU) is an innovative model which is designed to serve the sustainable energy needs of all households and businesses.  As a non-profit, the SEU provides a comprehensive package of sustainable energy services that includes high efficiency technologies and appliances, expansion of weatherization services, and implementation of customer-sited renewable energy such as rooftop photovoltaic systems. The SEU has been described as “perhaps the most comprehensive energy savings and distributed renewables program in the United States” by the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers. The SEU has been internationally recognized as well. The April 2009 special issue of The Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society is devoted to implementation of the SEU in Asia, Africa and Europe. Currently, the cities of Daegu and Seoul, South Korea and the nation of Bermuda are pursuing its establishment. 

The first state level SEU was established by the Delaware State legislature in 2007. The mission of the SEU is to deliver affordable efficiency and renewable services along with significant reductions in CO2 emissions.  In Delaware, the SEU is projected to reduce the state’s emissions by 5.5 million metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2020, or 33% of the State’s current carbon footprint.  For example a utility could put up the capital to pay the difference between a low- efficiency and high-efficiency appliance, house, car, etc.  Utilities could also be responsible for getting energy-efficient public transit in the northern part of Delaware, so people could get to their jobs. 

A Sustainable Energy Utility promotes savings when you retrofit your home.  It asks that you share part of your savings (from more efficient energy use) with the institution that paid the capital on your behalf through a municipal bond. The theory of the Municipal Bond Authority is that you pledge your guaranteed savings to pay back the investment (as for water systems or other systems for the public good or “Common wealth”) and economic revenue is kept flowing through the community. The American Clean Energy and Security Act would make municipal bonds available for energy efficiency projects. 

 The Green Bank, or Clean Energy Deployment Administration, is a key element of proposed clean-energy policies. The Green Bank would provide more favorable terms to companies—including lower interest rates and a lower cost of debt—to offset the high cost of financing new renewable energy projects through the private sector.  The Green Bank puts the U.S. on notice that these investments count as public interest, even though the IRS now says that the SEU is not in the public interest. Otherwise, the SEU will try to get funding on the front end by working with energy services, local governments, community service organizations, utilities, and others.  In the process of building these partnerships, the SEU will also to help change policies and make new technology available for people to participate in.  It is supposed to lower the cost of electricity by 2020.  SEU was invented in Delaware, but Washington D.C. has it now, and soon Philadelphia will. 

SEPTA has lines that run through Delaware. We could talk to them about providing better transit in our state.  We could create rider revenue through college students who would use it to commute to school.  The SEU could pay the difference in cost for a hybrid and be recompensed by the buyers’ sharing their savings on gas.  Some auto dealerships have special contracts now with the SEU. 

Although we need long-term target for analysis, they are not so crucial for immediate changes in our energy policy. Right now, early targets are more important, for example, 15% reduction in emissions by 2020; 20% use of renewable energy by 2019 or 30% by 2023. Targets are only as useful as the options you have to implement them. We need to look at the development of offshore wind and more solar energy in Delaware. Delaware has more capacity for solar than for wind, but both are very important.

We need to really look at our international and foreign policy, because it is costing too much to defend our excessive fossil fuel energy system. We need to look at the impact that our system is having upon other people in the world.  Looking at the victims of Katrina gives us a preview of who the early victims of climate change will be.  Katrina may not have been caused by climate change, but part of the climate change danger is higher-intensity storms.  Climate change increases the intensity of the storm, because energy is trapped in the lower atmosphere. The chief victims of Katrina were the elders, minorities, and the poor. The people most at risk for being global victims of the adverse effects of climate change are the elderly, people of color, and the poor—those least able to deal with the problem and least responsible for causing it in the first place.  Thus, solving the problem of sustainability is solving a problem of justice. 

The peace movement makes these linkages. If we are going to make our way peacefully into the future, we will have to find a way to have less dependence on fossil fuels.  If we do not, we will  end up fighting expensive resource wars to maintain our energy wasteful way of life. The budget for defense uses up funds that need to be applied to alleviate climate change.  If we want peace, we must make choices that do not require us to defend the sources of fossil fuel around the world.  The sustainability, justice, and peace camps need to work together. We make choices by what we do. We have more money than many nations to apply towards sustainability and the choices we make will have an impact on other people in other parts of the world, so we are really making choices about others.  The injustice lies in the fact that the communities that did not cause the problems of climate change are at greatest risk. 

In Inner Mongolia, the University of Delaware, through the efforts of John Byrne started a project 17 years ago to provide sustainable energy with the lowest carbon footprint that still meets community needs.  They designed a small wind turbine system (a 300 watt turbine) and a small solar hot water system. There are now 30,000 such systems in the country side and the manufacture of these systems is creating jobs.  It is a very useful technology for a family with no other access to electricity.  In Inner Mongolia, families are nomadic and live in yurts which can be assembled and disassembled in a day, so that they can travel with their sheep. The University of Delaware team designed a hybrid system (solar/small wind), utilizing a solar hot water system with water radiators on the roof.  Because of this access to electricity, the nomads’ health has improved and they are less isolated. A great deal of wind and solar energy are now produced in China which is poised to become the largest producer of solar panels in the world.  China has Renewable Energy Stations in every county, where people can choose from 8 systems and order them, together with a 5-year guarantee.  

When John Byrne first introduced the renewable energy system in Inner Mongolia, he gave a detailed explanation of it to a revered elder.  The nomad elder listened very carefully and at the end of John’s lengthy presentation, his only question was, “How much does it weigh?”  He reminded the University of Delaware team that they needed to think about the practicality of transporting the renewable system by animal. The elder taught them that we need to find a different way to think, if we are going to find a new way to act.  We do not ordinarily think about energy in terms of social needs, but now we must.  We need to enrich our questioning, for in our new way of thinking, in our new way of linking sustainability, justice, and peace, lies our hope.

John Byrne is Director of the Center of Energy and Environmental Policy (CEEP) and Distinguished Professor of Public Policy at the University of Delaware.  He has contributed to Working Group III of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1992 and shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.  He has published 17 books and over 150 research articles. To find out more about Dr. Byrne and his work, visit http://ceep.udel.edu/  He spoke in Wilmington, DE on July 14, 2009 at the invitation of Pacem in Terris as part of our Summer Series, “Making Peace with the Planet.”  

[The editor expresses her deep gratitude to Mary Starkweather-White whose excellent notes comprise this article.]