100 solutions to reverse global warming Chad Frischmann
Hello.
I’d like to introduce you to a word
you may never have heard before,
but you ought to know:
drawdown.
Drawdown is a new way of thinking about
and acting on global warming.
It’s a goal for a future that we want,
a future where reversing
global warming is possible.
Drawdown is that point in time
when atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases begin to decline
on a year-to-year basis.
More simply, it’s that point
when we take out more greenhouse gases
than we put into Earth’s atmosphere.
Now, I know we’re all concerned
about climate change,
but climate change is not the problem.
Climate change is
the expression of the problem.
It’s the feedback of the system
of the planet telling us what’s going on.
The problem is global warming,
provoked by the increasing
concentrations of greenhouse gases
caused by human activity.
So how do we solve the problem?
How do we begin the process
of reversing global warming?
The only way we know how is to draw down,
to avoid putting greenhouse gases up
and to pull down what’s already there.
I know.
Given the current situation,
it sounds impossible,
but humanity already knows what to do.
We have real, workable
technologies and practices
that can achieve drawdown.
And it’s already happening.
What we need is
to accelerate implementation
and to change the discourse
from one of fear and confusion,
which only leads to apathy,
to one of understanding and possibility,
and, therefore, opportunity.
I work for an organization
called Project Drawdown.
And for the last four years,
together with a team of researchers
and writers from all over the world,
we have mapped, measured and detailed
100 solutions to reversing global warming.
Eighty already exist today,
and when taken together,
those 80 can achieve drawdown.
And 20 are coming attractions,
solutions on the pipeline,
and when they come online,
will speed up our progress.
These are solutions
that are viable, scalable
and financially feasible.
And they do one or more of three things:
replace existing fossil fuel-based energy
generation with clean, renewable sources;
reduce consumption
through technological efficiency
and behavior change;
and to biosequester carbon
in our plants' biomass and soil
through a process
we all learn in grade school,
the magic of photosynthesis.
It’s through a combination
of these three mechanisms
that drawdown becomes possible.
So how do we get there?
Well, here’s the short answer.
This is a list of the top 20 solutions
to reversing global warming.
Now, I’ll go into some detail,
but take a few seconds
to look over the list.
It’s eclectic, I know,
from onshore wind turbines
to educating girls,
from plant-rich diets
to rooftop solar technology.
So let’s break it down a little bit.
To the right of the slide,
you’ll see figures in gigatons,
or billions of tons.
That represents the total
equivalent carbon dioxide
reduced from the atmosphere
when the solution is implemented
globally over a 30-year period.
Now, when we think
about climate solutions,
we often think about
electricity generation.
We think of renewable energy
as the most important set of solutions,
and they are incredibly important.
But the first thing
to notice about this list
is that only five of the top 20 solutions
relate to electricity.
What surprised us, honestly,
was that eight of the top 20
relate to the food system.
The climate impact of food
may come as a surprise to many people,
but what these results show
is that the decisions we make every day
about the food we produce,
purchase and consume
are perhaps the most
important contributions
every individual can make
to reversing global warming.
And how we manage land
is also very important.
Protecting forests and wetlands
safeguards, expands
and creates new carbon sinks
that directly draw down carbon.
This is how drawdown can happen.
And when we take food
and land management together,
12 of the top 20 solutions
relate to how and why we use land.
This fundamentally shifts
traditional thinking on climate solutions.
But let’s go to the top of the list,
because I think what’s there
may also surprise you.
The single most impactful solution,
according to this analysis,
would be refrigeration management,
or properly managing and disposing of
hydrofluorocarbons, also known as HFCs,
which are used by refrigerators
and air conditioners to cool the air.
We did a great job
with the Montreal Protocol
to limit the production
of chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs,
because of their effect
on the ozone layer.
But they were replaced by HFCs,
which are hundreds to thousands of times
more potent a greenhouse gas
than carbon dioxide.
And that 90 gigatons reduced
is a conservative figure.
If we were to account for the impact
of the Kigali agreement of 2016,
which calls for the phaseout
of hydrofluorocarbons
and replace them with
natural refrigerants, which exist today,
this number could increase to 120,
to nearly 200 gigatons
of avoided greenhouse gases.
Maybe you’re surprised, as we were.
Now, before going into some details
of specific solutions,
you may be wondering
how we came to these calculations.
Well, first of all,
we collected a lot of data,
and we used statistical analysis
to create ranges
that allow us to choose reasonable choices
for every input used
throughout the models.
And we chose a conservative approach,
which underlies the entire project.
All that data is entered in the model,
ambitiously but plausibly
projected into the future,
and compared against
what we would have to do anyway.
The 84 gigatons reduced
from onshore wind turbines, for example,
results from the electricity
generated from wind farms
that would otherwise be produced
from coal or gas-fired plants.
We calculate all the costs
to build and to operate the plants
and all the emissions generated.
The same process is used
to compare recycling versus landfilling,
regenerative versus
industrial agriculture,
protecting versus
cutting down our forests.
The results are then integrated
within and across systems
to avoid double-counting
and add it up to see
if we actually get to drawdown.
OK, let’s go into some specific solutions.
Rooftop solar comes in ranked number 10.
When we picture rooftop solar in our minds
we often envision a warehouse in Miami
covered in solar panels.
But these are solutions that are relevant
in urban and rural settings,
high and low-income countries,
and they have cascading benefits.
This is a family
on a straw island in Lake Titicaca
receiving their first solar panel.
Before, kerosene was used
for cooking and lighting,
kerosene on a straw island.
So by installing solar, this family
is not only helping to reduce emissions,
but providing safety
and security for their household.
And tropical forests tell their own story.
Protecting currently degraded
land in the tropics
and allowing natural regeneration to occur
is the number five solution
to reversing global warming.
We can think of trees
as giant sticks of carbon.
This is drawdown in action every year,
as carbon is removed from
the atmosphere through photosynthesis,
which converts carbon dioxide to plants'
biomass and soil organic carbon.
And we need to rethink
how we produce our food
to make it more regenerative.
There are many ways to do this,
and we researched over 13 of them,
but these aren’t new ways
of producing food.
They have been practiced
for centuries, for generations.
But they are increasingly displaced
by modern agriculture,
which promotes tillage, monocropping
and the use of synthetic fertilizers
and pesticides which degrade the land
and turn it into a net emitter
of greenhouse gases.
Regenerative agriculture,
on the other hand,
restores soil health and productivity,
increases yield,
improves water retention,
benefits smallholder farmers
and large farming operations alike
and brings carbon back to the land.
It’s a win-win-win-win-win.
(Laughter)
And it’s not just how we produce food,
but what we consume
that has a massive impact
on global warming.
A plant-rich diet is not
a vegan or a vegetarian diet,
though I applaud any
who make those choices.
It’s a healthy diet
in terms of how much we consume,
and particularly
how much meat is consumed.
In the richer parts of the world,
we overconsume.
However, low-income countries
show an insufficient
caloric and protein intake.
That needs rebalancing,
and it’s in the rebalancing
that a plant-rich diet
becomes the number four solution
to reversing global warming.
Moreover, approximately a third
of all food produced is not eaten,
and wasted food emits an astounding
eight percent of global greenhouse gases.
We need to look
where across the supply chain
these losses and wastage occurs.
In low-income countries,
after food leaves the farm,
most food is wasted
early in the supply chain
due to infrastructure
and storage challenges.
Food is not wasted by consumers
in low-income countries
which struggle to feed their population.
In the developed world, instead,
after food leaves the farm,
most food is wasted
at the end of the supply chain
by markets and consumers,
and wasted food ends up in the landfill
where it emits methane
as it decomposes.
This is a consumer choice problem.
It’s not a technology issue.
Preventing food waste from the beginning
is the number three solution.
But here’s the interesting thing.
When we look at the food system as a whole
and we implement
all the production solutions
like regenerative agriculture,
and we adopt a plant-rich diet,
and we reduce food waste,
our research shows that we would produce
enough food on current farmland
to feed the world’s growing population
a healthy, nutrient-rich diet
now until 2050 and beyond.
That means we don’t need
to cut down forests for food production.
The solutions to reversing global warming
are the same solutions to food insecurity.
Now, a solution that often
does not get talked enough about,
family planning.
By providing men and women
the right to choose
when, how and if to raise a family
through reproductive
health clinics and education,
access to contraception
and freedom devoid of persecution
can reduce the estimated
global population by 2050.
That reduced population
means reduced demand
for electricity, food, travel, buildings
and all other resources.
All the energy and emissions
that are used to produce
that higher demand
is reduced by providing
the basic human right
to choose when, how
and if to raise a family.
But family planning cannot happen
without equal quality of education
to girls currently being denied access.
Now, we’ve taken a small liberty here,
because the impact of universal education
and family planning resources
are so inextricably intertwined
that we chose to cut it
right down the middle.
But taken together,
educating girls and family planning
is the number one solution
to reversing global warming,
reducing approximately 120 billion tons
of greenhouse gases.
So is drawdown possible?
The answer is yes, it is possible,
but we need all 80 solutions.
There are no silver bullets
or a subset of solutions
that are going to get us there.
The top solutions would take us
far along the pathway,
but there’s no such thing
as a small solution.
We need all 80.
But here’s the great thing.
We would want to implement these solutions
whether or not global warming
was even a problem,
because they have cascading benefits
to human and planetary well-being.
Renewable electricity results in clean,
abundant access to energy for all.
A plant-rich diet, reduced food waste
results in a healthy global population
with enough food and sustenance.
Family planning and educating girls?
This is about human rights,
about gender equality.
This is about economic improvement
and the freedom of choice.
It’s about justice.
Regenerative agriculture, managed grazing,
agroforestry, silvopasture
restores soil health, benefits farmers
and brings carbon back to the land.
Protecting our ecosystems
also protects biodiversity
and safeguards planetary health
and the oxygen that we breathe.
Its tangible benefits
to all species are incalculable.
But one last point, because
I know it’s probably on everybody’s mind;
how much is this going to cost?
Well, we estimate
that to implement all 80 solutions
would cost about 29 trillion
dollars over 30 years.
That’s just about a trillion a year.
Now, I know that sounds like a lot,
but we have to remember that
global GDP is over 80 trillion every year,
and the estimated savings
from implementing these solutions
is 74 trillion dollars,
over double the costs.
That’s a net savings
of 44 trillion dollars.
So drawdown is possible.
We can do it if we want to.
It’s not going to cost that much,
and the return on that investment is huge.
Here’s the welcome surprise.
When we implement these solutions,
we shift the way we do business
from a system that is inherently
exploitative and extractive
to a new normal that is by nature
restorative and regenerative.
We need to rethink our global goals,
to move beyond sustainability
towards regeneration,
and along the way reverse global warming.
Thank you.
(Applause)