Author: Manu Steens
In this article I write my own opinion, not that of any organization.
In the month of July I mainly read in the book “Drawdown – The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming – edited by Paul Hawken”.
This book contains 100 interesting reports of climate-saving measures. In addition, there are innovative ideas in it. One of them caught my attention more than the other, because it seemed so miraculous to me: ‘artificial leaves’. It says that on June 3, 2016, Nocera and Pamela Silver announced that they had succeeded in making high-energy fuel by combining solar energy, water and CO2. By using two catalysts, they have obtained free hydrogen gas from water. By feeding this to the bacterium Ralstonia Eutropha, it turned it into liquid fuel. If the bacteria were fed pure CO2, the process is at times as efficient as photosynthesis. If they extract the CO2 directly from the air, it is three to four times more efficient as photosynthesis.
A few pages later it was about the technical capture of CO2 from the air. (This is called DAC or direct air capture.)
You can already see my idea, the idea of DAC that Bill Gates also proclaimed in his book is useful to feed this ‘trapped’ CO2 in a higher concentration than in the air to this bacterium. If you realize that on a large scale, you organize a potentially closed cycle for the creation of pure air on the one hand and fuels on the other. For the time being, there are economic obstacles. These may be surmountable in the long term. Time that we may not have, so it will be useful should governments intervene.
However, that is not the only issue I would like to refer to. We are already in the process of further heating an overheated planet. It will prove to be an insufficient effort if we try to save the planet by only creating a sustainable cycle in fuel consumption. After all, we are in the midst of the transitional phenomena of rising greenhouse gases. Halting the increase in CO2 does not guarantee a stop to the evolution of the climate. At most, it will slightly adjust the evolution. A CO2 reduction in the atmosphere must be done – quickly.
Fortunately, there are plenty of possibilities described in the book. That’s a plus. However, to call this book a ‘plan’ as the title does is an exaggeration.
We have a number of things: for each solution (except for the innovations that can still be proven and developed), we already have at a deadline of 2020-2050:
- The potential number of Gigatons of CO2 reduction
- The net costs (financial investments to be made)
- The net savings
For a plan we need some extra things. We have some additional questions:
- Where on earth is each of the proposed solutions most efficient and where is it most effective? With what deadlines for which carbon storage method?
- How do we convince local politicians to make the budgets sufficiently free?
- How and where can some solutions be combined?
- How do we shape humanity’s behavior into the right behavior in their own environment?
- How do we convince local politicians to make measures enforceable?
- How do we convince local governments and the private sectors that there is a lot more money to be made from creating a livable planet than from continuing to parasitize on it? ‘Drawdown’ already gives a start with numbers.
So the issue I have is that governments have to work together at an international level. That they write studies to create a globally supported plan and then implement the same plan worldwide. CO2 neutrality is not sufficient. CO2 reduction is needed. If there is no plan with deadlines and control over their implementation, the book ‘Drawdown’ will remain what it is today: a result of a well-thought-out research on a number of small and large noble initiatives that are being disseminated and have potential. It would certainly be a pity if the opportunities to secure the continuity of the planet and earn serious money from it are not taken. That will require sacrifices. Especially from people with a large CO2 footprint. There is a danger that individualism will prove to be the biggest obstacle. Individuals are not going to solve the problem. However, it is the first priority. Pressure from below will be needed.