In 1987, James Hansen,¹ director of the Goddard Space Institute, appeared before Congress to present the current state of the warming atmosphere. He indicated that the earth is warming due to an increase in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. Historically, the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere has been 280 parts per million (ppm). However, primarily due to the industrial revolution, the concentration has been increasing. Hansen indicated that if the concentration exceeded 350 ppm, it could cause environmental problems like rising seas from melting glaciers and ice sheets, and greater and more frequent storms. While the earth was being subjected to global warming, the impact from this warming was addressed as climate change.

In 1992, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to discuss how to address climate change. Five years later, the IPCC met again in Kyoto, Japan, and developed the Kyoto Principles, which established the reduction targets of CO₂ emissions such as 60–80% reduction from 1995 levels within 50 years. Target reductions were also set for shorter terms such as 15 years out. By 2012, which was 15 years after the Kyoto Protocol, the target was a reduction of 5% below the 1995 levels. Despite some efforts to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), the emissions level were over 50% above the 1995 levels [1].

As mentioned in Chapter 1 (p. 16), it is imperative that everyone does what is necessary to reduce carbon emissions even if there were a slight possibility that climate change is not for real. We need a very rigorous plan to “draw down” carbon emissions. A team of 200 scientists, engineers, and scientists worldwide came together in Project Drawdown to develop 100 creative ideas that will do exactly that, and it was compiled in “Drawdown,” a book edited by Paul Hawken [2].

These potential solutions to the climate change problem can be ranked as to how cost-effective they are; how quickly they can be implemented; or how beneficial they are to society. While these are all very interesting metrics for interpreting the result, the authors of Drawdown ranked the solutions based on the total amount of GHG they can potentially avoid or remove from the atmosphere. While the rankings are global, the relative importance of one solution over another may depend on geography, economic conditions, or which of the eight sectors is of most interest. Table 11.1 lists the seven different sectors, the top two solutions in each sector, and the different metrics: (i) total atmospheric CO₂ equivalent reduction in gigatons (GT), (ii) the net cost in billion US dollars, and (iii) net savings in billion US dollars.

The reduction in carbon dioxide equivalents is the quantity expected to be removed by a particular solution between 2020 and 2050. The total cost of each solution is the amount needed to purchase, install, and operate the system over the same 30 year period. The estimates tend to be conservative, but they still tend to offer an overwhelming net savings. For some of the solutions, like a specific rainforest or support girls' education, the savings may not be calculable. A summary of these 14 solutions in the 7 sectors are shown in Table 11.1.

ENERGY: WIND TURBINES (ONSHORE)

Windmills have been around for over 1000 years, but it wasn't until the late 1800s that the kinetic energy was converted to electricity—thanks primarily to the Dutch. Basically, the blades on the turbine are shaped so the blowing wind causes them to rotate, which, in turn, rotates a generator that produces the electricity. This technology grew slowly but took off following the oil crisis in the early 1970s. In 2015, a record 63 GW of wind energy were installed around the world. Of this new capacity, almost half was brought on by China. Over 40% of the electricity demand in Denmark is supplied by wind power. The United States has a large quantity of wind energy potential down the center of the country where just three states—Kansas, North Dakota, and Texas—could meet the electricity demand of the entire country. The other big advantage of wind turbines is their small footprints, which are only about 1% of the land upon which they are installed. Farmers can continue to grow their crops or graze their cattle.

While wind turbines have great potential in providing carbon free energy, they do have some disadvantages. One potential problem is the variable nature of the wind when there are times that the turbines are not turning and thus not generating electricity. Other disadvantages include some noise and flickering of the turning blade shadows. There is also concern of being deadly to bats and migrating birds.

A monetary disadvantage may be the inequitable government subsidies. The International Monetary Fund believes that the fossil fuel industry receives much more funding than the wind energy industry. In 2015, the fossil fuel industry received about US$5.3 trillion in direct and indirect subsidies. The indirect subsidies include health costs due to air pollution and global warming, which are not factors at all in the wind energy industry. In comparison, the wind energy industry has received only US$12.3 billion in direct subsidies since 2000.

The cost of wind energy is very low and is expected to be the cheapest source of installed electricity capacity within the next 10 years. Currently, wind energy is about 2.9 cents/kWh, while the cost for natural gas combined-cycle plants is about 3.8 and 5.7 cents/kWh for large solar farms. Currently, wind energy benefits from tax credits, which will eventually disappear, but since the cost is expected to continue to decrease, it will make up for the lost tax credits.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of the onshore wind turbine industry as follows: An increase in onshore wind from 2.9% of world electricity use to 21.6% by 2050 could reduce emissions by 84.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide. For offshore wind, growing from 0.1% to 4% could avoid 14.1 gigatons of emissions. At a combined cost of US$1.8 trillion, wind turbines can deliver net savings of US$7.7 trillion over three decades of operation. These are conservative estimates, however. Costs are falling annually and new technological improvements are already being installed, increasing capacity to generate more electricity at the same or lower cost [3].

ENERGY: SOLAR FARMS

In the 1950s, while working on the invention of the silicon transistor, the silicon photovoltaic (PV) technology was invented by accident at Bell Labs. In 1954, this laboratory introduced the first solar battery to power a radio transmitter. The cost of this technology was so great at US$1900 per watt that it could only be utilized on satellites. However, the cost has decreased so much that solar panels are being installed on rooftops around the world as well as developing “solar farms” consisting of thousands of panels. Solar farms enjoy much lower installation costs per watt than rooftop solar, and their efficacy in translating sunlight into electricity, known as the efficiency rating, is higher. Another advantage of solar farms is that the panels can rotate to follow the path of the sun, again increasing their efficiency.

One of the disadvantages of solar energy, like wind energy, is that it is available only when its fuel source, the sun, is shining. To some extent, the two technologies are complementary in that the sun is at its peak in the middle of the day while wind tends to pick up at night. A new energy project developed by Invenergy located near Lima, Ohio, is taking advantage of this complementary generation and is pairing the two technologies [4]. These two power generators hit their peaks at different times of day and night, allowing them to provide a steadier output together than if each were operating alone. There is also cost saving by sharing equipment and power lines. This project will consist of a 175 MW wind farm with a 150 MW solar farm built within the same property.

Solar energy has grown so fast; it is estimated that around 300 million tons/year of carbon dioxide have been eliminated despite meeting only 2% of the global energy demand. Some countries like Italy, Germany, and Greece already depend on solar energy to meet as much as 8% of their electrical demand. The development of battery storage technology will have a great impact on the growth of this electrical source of energy.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of global solar farms as follows: Currently, 4% of global electricity generation, utility-scale solar PV grows to 10% in our analysis. We assume an implementation cost of US$1,445 per kilowatt and a learning rate of 19.2%, resulting in implementation savings of US$81 billion when compared to fossil fuel plants. That increase could avoid 36.9 gigatons of carbon dioxide emission, while saving US$5 trillion in operations costs by 2050 – the financial impact of producing energy without fuel [5].

MATERIALS: REFRIGERATION

All devices designed for cooling such as air conditioners and refrigerators require a chemical refrigerant that absorbs heat and releases it to cool buildings and vehicles as well as to chill food. The original refrigerants were chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), both of which were the cause of the depleting stratospheric ozone layer. This layer is essential for absorbing the sun's ultraviolet radiation. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol was enacted to phase out the use of these chemicals, only two years after the discovery of the gaping hole over the Antarctic.

While huge volumes of CFCs and HCFCs remain in circulation, the impact on the ozone layer has decreased. The replacement chemicals like hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have minimal effect on the ozone layer but contribute extensively in warming the planet. Their capacity to warm the planet is 1000–9000 times greater than that of carbon dioxide. In October 2016, officials from 170 countries met in Kigali, Rwanda, and negotiated an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase out HFCs beginning in 2019 for high-income countries and continuing through 2028 for the low-income countries.

During the next 10 years, there will be two competing activities—the research to identify new refrigerant chemicals that will not impact the ozone layer nor warm up the atmosphere against the increase in air-conditioning units resulting from the growth of the rapidly developing economies. Refrigerants currently cause emissions throughout their lifecycle beginning with the production, their use, servicing, leaking, and worst of all upon their disposal. When these chemicals are no longer needed, they must be transformed into some other chemicals that do not cause warming. In other words, these chemicals must be destroyed in order to reduce emissions.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of refrigeration chemicals as follows: Our analysis includes emissions reductions that will be achieved through the 2016 Kigali accord, as well as additional practices to manage refrigerants already in circulations. We model adoption of practices to (1) avoid leaks from refrigerants and (2) destroy refrigerants at the end of life. Over thirty years, 87% of refrigerants that may be released can be continued, avoiding emissions equivalent to 89.7 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Although some revenue can be generated from resale of recovered refrigerant gases, the costs to establish and operate recovery, destruction, and leak avoidance outweigh the financial benefit – meaning that refrigeration, as modeled, could incur a net cost of US$903 billion by 2050 [6].

MATERIALS: ALTERNATIVE CEMENT

The dominant material in the world's construction industry is concrete, which has a simple recipe of sand, crushed rock, water, and cement, all combined and hardened. Cement is a gray powder of lime, silica, aluminum, and iron and acts as the binder. It coats and glues the sand and rock together, thus producing the stone-like material that results after curing. To produce the cement, it is necessary to roast a mixture of crushed limestone and aluminosilicate clay in a giant kiln. Since the limestone is primarily calcium carbonate, the roasting process splits the material into calcium oxide, which is the desired lime content in cement, and carbon dioxide, which is the waste material. Heating the kiln to about 2640 °F requires large quantities of coal. Producing one ton of cement requires the burning of 400 pounds of coal. Between the decarbonization of limestone and the burning of the coal, each ton of cement produced will create about one ton of carbon dioxide.

To reduce the emissions caused by the fuel for the kiln will require alternative kiln fuels such as biomass. To reduce the emissions from the decarbonization of the limestone will require changing the formulation of the cement. Some possibilities are volcanic ash, certain type of clays, finely ground limestone, or blast furnace slag. As long as coal is being burned, fly ash can also be used in the formulation.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of alternative cement as follows: Because fly ash is a by-product of burning coal, each ton created is accompanied by 15 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Using fly ash in cement can offset only 5% of those emissions. Even so, if 9% of cement produced between 2020 and 2050 is a blended mix of conventional Portland cement and 45% fly ash, 6.7 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions could be avoided by 2050. The production saving of US$274 billion are largely a result of longer cement life span [7].

FOOD: REDUCED FOOD WASTE

The production of food is one of largest use of manual labor as it requires about one-third of the world's labor force. Of all this food produced, about one-third does not make it from farm or factory to the dinner table. This is a sad fact given that about 800 million people worldwide are continuously hungry from the lack of food. In addition, the food that is wasted contributes 4.4 GT of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere each year—about 8% of the total anthropogenic GHG emissions. If you were to rank food waste with the world's countries, it would rank the third largest emitter of GHGs globally behind the United States and China.

While food waste is a problem worldwide, the cause of it differs between low-income and high-income countries. In low-income areas, the waste is usually at the beginning of the supply chain and the loss of food is unintended. It could be the result of bad roads, lack of refrigeration or storage facilities, poor equipment or packaging, or high temperatures and high humidity. So the food may be rotting on the farm or spoiling during storage or distribution.

In high-income countries, the food waste is usually further along the supply chain and is more willful rather than unintended. The retailers waste the food primarily for esthetic reasons to satisfy their customers. Other waste may be from ordering too much food to avoid the risk of running short. Consumers also are involved in the waste process by making more food dishes than are eaten, food left in the refrigerator for a long period and thus thrown out, or being forced to throw out food because of confused labeling. Standardizing and regulating labeling would help alleviate this problem.

Adopting some national goals is critical in solving this problem. In 2015, the United States set a food-waste target based on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (see Chapter 3). France did something similar by passing a law that prevents supermarkets from disposing unsold food but rather requiring them to send this unsold food to charities, to be used as animal feed, or even to be used as compost. In terms of minimizing carbon emissions, the most effective policy is to minimize the waste.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of reduced food waste as follows: After taking into account the adoption of plant-rich diets, if 50% of food waste is reduced by 2050, avoided emissions could be equal to 26.2 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Reducing waste also avoids the deforestation for additional farmland, preventing 44.4 gigatons of additional emissions. We used forecasts of regional waste estimates from farm to household. These data show that up to 35% of food in high-income economies is thrown out by consumers; in low-income economies, however, relatively little is wasted at the household level [8].

FOOD: PLANT-RICH DIET

The Western diet, which consists of a large portion of animal protein, is also responsible for a large portion of the global carbon emissions. Depending on how the emissions are measured, raising livestock may account for 15% or 50% of the global GHGs emitted each year. Regardless of how the emissions are measured, raising cattle contributes considerably more carbon emissions than growing various plants—vegetables, fruit, grains, and legumes. If cattle were their own nation, they would be the world's third largest emitter of GHGs. One of the reasons for this large amount of emissions is the overconsumption of animal protein. On the average, world consumption of animal protein is 36% greater than necessary, while in the United States and Canada, it is 80% greater than necessary.

Switching to a plant-rich diet, while very important, will be difficult to achieve; eating meat is laden with meaning, blended into customs, and very appealing to the taste buds. It will be difficult to accomplish because a large percentage of the population has been eating meat as a personal requirement. Fortunately, there are companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods that are developing meat substitutes that look and taste just like the real meat. Burger King has just announced the Impossible Burger, which will be available at a slight premium over the regular burger, but the company expects that this meat imitation will soon be cheaper than a regular burger.

Perhaps another strategy would be to increase the price of meat products in order to give them a “delicacy” classification rather than a staple. This could be done by eliminating the government subsidies benefiting the US livestock industry or by adding a tax on meat similar to taxes on cigarettes. The tax on cigarettes reflects the social and environmental negatives of smoking so a tax on meat could similarly reflect an environmental negative.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of a plant-rich diet as follows: Using country-level data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, we estimate the growth in global food consumption by 2050, assuming that lower-income countries will consume more food overall and higher quantities of meat as economies grow. If 50% of the world's population restricts their diet to a healthy 2,500 calories per day and reduces meat consumption overall, we estimate at least 26.7 gigatons of emissions could be avoided from dietary change alone. If avoided deforestation from land use change is included, an additional 39.3 gigatons of emissions could be avoided, making healthy, plant-rich diets one of the most impactful solutions at a total of 66 gigatons reduced [9].

WOMEN AND GIRLS: EDUCATING GIRLS AND FAMILY PLANNING

These two solutions in the Women and Girls section are interrelated in this strategy for carbon emission reduction. The end goal in reducing emissions is through the reduction in population growth. Women with more years of education have fewer, healthier children, and actively manage their reproductive health. An example of the impact of education on population growth is South Korea when it went from one of the least to most educated countries in the world. If all countries adopted a similar requirement to provide all girls with a minimum of 12 years of education, there would be 843 million fewer people worldwide than if current education enrollment rates remain as today.

Another example is a voluntary program adopted by Iran in the early 1990s where education was improved and provided free access to contraception. The result was a reduction in fertility rate by 50% within one decade. A similar program initiated in Bangladesh reduced the average birth rates from six children in the 1980s to two today. While the IPCC has been active since the early 1990s, it has been silent until very recently when in 2014 pointed to population growth as an important factor in GHG concentrations and included access to reproductive health services for family planning.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of educating girls and family planning as follows: Increased adoption of reproductive healthcare and family planning is an essential component to achieve the United Nations' 2015 medium global population projection of 9.7 billion people by 2050. If investment in family planning, particularly in low-income countries, does not materialize, the world's population could come closer to the high projection, adding another one billion people to the planet. We model the impact of this solution based on the difference in how much energy, building space, food, waste, and transportation would be used in a world with little to no investment in family planning, compared to one in which the projection of 9.7 billion is realized. The resulting emissions reductions could be 123.0 gigatons of carbon dioxide, at an average annual cost of US$10.77 per user in low-income countries. Because educating girls has an important impact on the use of family planning, we allocate 50% of the total potential emissions reductions to each solution – 59.6 gigatons each [10].

BUILDINGS AND CITIES: DISTRICT HEATING

The center of cities tends to be very dense in terms of the close proximity of buildings. Instead of each building having its own boiler and air conditioning system, it is more efficient to have a central plant for heating and cooling, something called district heating and cooling (DHC). This central plant can provide hot and/or cool water to many buildings via a network of underground pipes. This idea was implemented in New York back in 1882; steam was being pumped under Manhattan's busy streets to serve many customers with district heating. The ultimate use of this system can be found in Copenhagen, Denmark, where 98% of the heating demand is provided through DHC with the source of heat from waste heat in nearby coal-fired power plants and waste-to-energy plants. Since 2010, Copenhagen has also provided cooling by tapping into the cold waters from the Øresund Strait.

Once the distribution network is in place, the source of heating or cooling can be changed to more efficient systems. Coal-fired power plants can give way to wood pellets and even geothermal can be implemented. In Tokyo, its DHC system was able to reduce the energy use and subsequent carbon emissions by 50%. This technology is very common in Northern Europe but is still new and unfamiliar in other parts of the world. Designs of new cities will be incorporating DHCs as people move from rural to urban communities, particularly in China.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of district heating as follows: By replacing existing stand-alone water- and space-heating systems, district heating can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 9.4 gigatons by 2050 and save US$3.5 trillion in energy costs. Our analysis estimates current adoption at 0.01% of heating demand, growing to 10% over the next thirty years. While natural gas is currently the most prevalent fuel source for district heating facilities, we model the impact only of alternative sources such as geothermal and solar thermal energy that will become more prevalent over time [11].

BUILDINGS AND CITIES: INSULATION

In thermodynamics it is known that heat flows from warmer areas to cooler areas. One way to prevent this movement of thermal flow is to install a barrier—insulation. During the summer, hot air finds its way to infiltrate the indoor spaces that are being cooled. In the winter, the warm indoor air finds its way to cooler spaces through gaps around doors and windows or through chimneys in a house. When this occurs, more thermal energy is consumed during the winter months and more cooling energy is consumed during the summer months in order to maintain the desired comfort level.

The answer to maintaining the desired temperature without consuming additional energy is to create a building envelope with insulation. Insulation effectiveness is measured for its thermal resistance and given an R-value. The higher the R-value, the more effective the insulation, which may vary by type, thickness, density, and where it is installed. There are many types of insulation with the most popular being fiberglass, while others include mineral wool (not really wool), polystyrene, and even recycled paper as a cellulose insulation.

When building a new house, adding the insulation with the highest R-value and adding highly insulated windows will reduce the energy costs. While this will add to the cost of the house, a smaller furnace and air-conditioner will offset the extra capital. But then, the operating cost will be reduced as well as the emissions making it very economic.

The extreme in insulation is a new building standard in Germany called Passive House, which was created in the early 1990s. This approach focuses on creating an airtight envelope for the building in order to separate it from the outside on all four sides plus top and bottom. This building is so hermetically sealed that air cannot escape to the outside. Some of these homes are so well insulated that they can be heated with a hair dryer. Basically, Passive House sets a high bar for insulation.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of insulation as follows: Retrofitting buildings with insulation is a cost–effective solution for reducing energy required for heating and cooling. If 54% of existing residential and commercial buildings install insulation, 8.3 gigatons of emissions can be avoided at an implementation cost of US$3.7 trillion. Over thirty years, net savings could be US$2.5 trillion. However, insulation measures can last one hundred years or more, realizing lifetime savings in excess of US$4.2 trillion [12].

LAND USE: TROPICAL FORESTS

Tropical forests are defined as those that lie between 23.5° north or south of the equator. At one time, these forests covered 12% of the world's landmasses but now cover only 5%, primarily due to clearing, fragmentation, degradation, and depletion of plants and animals of that region. Fortunately, however, restoration is taking place both passively and intentional. This regrowth is sequestering about 6 GT of carbon dioxide per year.

According to the World Resources Institute (WRI), 30% of the world's forestland has been destroyed completely, while another 20% has just been degraded. More than 4.9 billion acres worldwide offer opportunities for restoration—an area larger than South America [13]. Restoration means bringing the damaged forests and ecosystem back to its original form and function. As the population continues to grow, these forests must also provide a social and economic function for the nearby communities. Forests are more than trees and fundamental for food security and improved livelihoods. They contribute to resilience of communities by regulating water flows, providing food, wood energy, shelter, fodder, and fiber, and generating income and employment as well as harboring biodiversity. Furthermore, forests support sustainable agriculture and human well-being by stabilizing soils and climate [14].

Fortunately there is a global movement to restore the forests. In 2011, the Bonn Challenge set an ambitious goal to restore 370 million acres worldwide by 2020 [15]. In 2014, the New York Declaration agreed with the Bonn Challenge and added a cumulative target of 865 million acres to be restored globally by 2030. Under this scenario, a total of 12–33 GT of carbon dioxide would be removed from the atmosphere.

The cost to restore these forestlands can vary from US$400 to US$1200 per acre. These costs do not include the land cost and vary depending on the starting point, what will be grown, the size of the project, and the climate conditions. To restore 865 million acres would therefore cost between US$350 billion and US$1 trillion. However, according to estimates by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, this land could generate US$170 billion/year in net benefits of improved yields and sequestering 1.7 GT of carbon dioxide [16]. In addition, the African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative is committed to doing something similar for 247 million acres [17], while Brazil is committed to restoring 29 million acres of forests.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of tropical forests as follows: In theory, 751 million acres of degraded land in the tropics could be restored to continuous, intact forest. Using current and estimated commitments from the Bonn Challenge and New York Declaration on Forests, our model assumes that restoration could occur on 435 million acres. Through natural regrowth, committed land could sequester 1.4 tons of carbon dioxide per acre annually, for a total of 61.2 gigatons of carbon dioxide by 2050 [18].

LAND USE: TEMPERATE FORESTS

Temperate forests, representing almost 25% of the world's forests, are defined as those that lie between 30° and 50°–55° latitude, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. Almost all of these forests have been subject to deforestation since the beginning of history. These forests of about 1.9 billion acres are very resilient, and as a result of improved forest management and conservation, they are on the rise and are actually net carbon sinks of about 0.8 GT/year. According to WRI, there may be another 1.4 billion acres that can be restored.

There are many more opportunities for restoration of temperate forests as noted by the global Atlas of Forest and Landscape Restoration Opportunities [13], a collaboration between WRI, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and South Dakota State University. Some opportunities noted are in the eastern half of the United States and Continental Europe. There is already a start in the restoration of these forests in the Eastern United States just in the last 20 years, and it has resulted in a 33% increase in the carbon sink.

Just like the food sector where reducing waste is much more productive than generating switching to a plant-rich diet, preventing loss of forest is always better than trying to restore it. A restored forest, while being very beneficial, will not recover to its original state in terms of biodiversity and structure.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of temperate forests as follows: We project that temperate forest restoration will expand to an additional 235 million acres through natural regeneration. Though this is much lower than the available area for tropical forest restoration, it still sequesters 22.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide by 2050 [19].

TRANSPORT: ELECTRIC VEHICLES

A prototype for the first electric car was built in 1828, but the first electric car in the United States was probably not built until 1891 [20]. Later on, Thomas Edison hired Henry Ford, and while Edison was working on building an electric car, he convinced Ford on pursuing an internal combustion gasoline vehicle. With improved roads, Americans started traveling further and an electric car did not make much sense because of its limited range.

Today, two-thirds of the world's oil is consumed by trucks and cars and account for 23% of all carbon emissions, second only to electricity generation. This is the result of about one billion cars on the road of which one million are electric vehicles (EVs). But as the developing nations become more industrialized, the number of vehicles in the world could reach two billion by 2035. And there is no question that the percentage of EVs will increase significantly. In fact, today there are close to 400,000 electric busses operating in the world and 99% of them are in China [21].

The growth of the EV market will continue rapidly because EVs are simpler to make, require less maintenance, have less moving parts, and do not require gasoline. The major resistance to growth is the question about range and the availability of battery charging. A typical hybrid can go 40 miles before switching to the gasoline engine, while the better EVs may have a range of 200 miles. In terms of carbon dioxide, EVs emitted 50% as much as the gasoline vehicles if the charging of the battery is off the grid. If the battery is charged from solar energy, the carbon emissions are reduced by 95%. The major question as to what impact the EVs will have depends on the growth projections.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of EVs as follows: In 2014, 305,000 EVs were sold. If EV usage rises to 16% of total passenger miles by 2050, 10.8 gigatons of carbon dioxide from fuel combustion could be avoided. Our analysis accounts for emissions from electricity generation and higher emissions of producing EVs compared to internal-combustion cars. We include slightly declining EV prices, expected due to declining batter costs [22].

TRANSPORT: SHIPS

Most of the global trade takes place via shipping, which accounts for 80% of the total. The only other alternative is by plane, which emits close to 50 times more carbon dioxide to transport the same quantity of goods for the same distance. Because the “world is flat” as described by Thomas Friedman [23], increase in world trade could be as much as 250% by 2050. Even though carbon emissions from shipping has not been as high priority as from vehicles, its market size plus its potential growth is drawing more attention.

Technical innovations are being recommended to make shipping more efficient. In 2011, the International Maritime Organization, a UN agency, established the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) [24] in order to make shipping safer and more efficient for new ships. It is similar to fuel-economy standards for cars, and the standards increase over time. Similar standards are being applied to the old shipping vessels.

One method for reducing fuel consumption and thus carbon emissions is by slowing down the ship, something that has become so common that it has been given a name—“slow steaming.” Adding this to improved design, new technology, improved maintenance, and operations, the efficiency of ships could reduce emissions by 20–40% by 2020 and 30–55% by 2030. However, emissions from marine vessels are not included in the global climate change agreements, and therefore no emission targets have been established. Also, currently there is no cap for carbon emissions even though this industry is expected to generate 17% of global carbon emissions in 2050.

Drawdown summarizes the impact of ships as follows: With an efficiency gain of 50% across the international shipping industry, 7.9 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions can be avoided by 2050. That could save US$44 billion in fuel costs over thirty years and US$1 trillion over the life of the ships [25].

TOP 20 SOLUTIONS

What are presented in the previous sections are the top two solutions in each of the seven sectors. Table 11.2 shows a list of the top 20 solutions from all the sectors. You will note that 13 of the top 20 are from the food sector (8) and the energy sector (5).

COMING ATTRACTIONS

In addition to the 80 top solutions for reducing carbon emissions by 2050, the authors of Drawdown present about 20 solutions that are in their early stage of development. These solutions may someday be very relevant while, on the other hand, may never come to be.

REFERENCES

1. 1.  Available at http://www.circularecology.com/news/the-kyoto-protocol-climate-change-success-or-global-warming-failure#.XLoXlqROnIU. Accessed 2019 Oct 27.
2. 2.  Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017.
3. 3.  Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 4.
4. 4.  Available at https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04102018/wind-solar-24-hour-renewable-energy-reliability-lower-cost-power-plant. Accessed 2019 Oct 27.
5. 5.  Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 9.
6. 6.  Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 165.
7. 7.  Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 163.
8. 8.  Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 43.
9. 9.  Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 40.
10. 10. Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 79.
11. 11. Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 99.
12. 12. Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 101.
13. 13. Available at https://www.wri.org/resources/maps/atlas-forest-and-landscape-restoration-opportunities. Accessed 2019 Oct 27.
14. 14. Available at http://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/en. Accessed 2019 Oct 27.
15. 15. Available at http://www.bonnchallenge.org. Accessed 2019 Oct 27.
16. 16. Available at https://www.iucn.org/content/leaders-define-pathway-restoring-150-million-hectares-lost-forests. Accessed 2019 Oct 27.
17. 17. Available at https://afr100.org. Accessed 2019 Oct 27.
18. 18. Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 116.
19. 19. Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 129.
20. 20. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle. Accessed 2019 Oct 27.
21. 21. Available at https://www.greenbiz.com/article/chinas-electric-bus-leadership. Accessed 2019 Oct 27.
22. 22. Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 143.
23. 23. Friedman T. The World is Flat. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2005.
24. 24. Available at http://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/environment/pollutionprevention/airpollution/pages/technical-and-operational-measures.aspx. Accessed 2019 Oct 27.
25. 25. Hawken P. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. London, UK: Penguin Books; 2017, p. 141.