If BCDR could be implemented on the scale of 1 Pg of carbon (C) per year — the magnitude
of stabilization wedges used in Pacala and Socolow (2004)-- it could contribute substantially to climate change mitigation.
I explain where he is wrong in Part 2.5: The fuzzy math
of the stabilization wedges [warning: only for hard - core wonks].
Not exact matches
Other similar billion - ton savings in emissions (what Princeton University professors Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow have dubbed «
stabilization wedges») are desperately needed and can come only from reduction in fossil - fuel consumption through energy efficiency, low - carbon technologies and changes in way
of life.
But as I note in the overall summary Hub for «Six Degrees,» renewables need to keep expanding exponentially in order to possibly «get there» — if the present rate
of expansion continues, wind would get us one Socalow - Pacala «
stabilization wedge» — savings
of a billion tonnes
of carbon — in 38 years, solar, in 49.
The e-mail discussion that follows proceeds along two tracks, one examining the validity
of the conclusions in the influential «
stabilization wedges» paper that Socolow co-authored with Stephen Pacala in 2004, the other offering reactions to Socolow's ideas on how to advance sustainable energy choices in an era
of deep polarization and economic malaise.
In 2004 Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow published a paper in Science in which they argued that a pragmatic, but still difficult, way
of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels over the long term was via the implementation
of seven «
stabilization wedges» over the next 50 years.
Robert Socolow
of Princeton University has written and essay «
Wedges Reaffirme,» that examines the impact
of his 2004 paper with Stephen Pacala, entitled «
Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies».
[In 2001, scientists at Princeton's Carbon Mitigation Initiative became famous for proposing a set
of «climate
stabilization wedges» — efficiency, wind, solar, etc. — to bring emissions down beneath global targets.]
This is the heart
of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative's (CMI)
Stabilization Wedges concept, a simple framework for understanding both the carbon emissions cuts needed to avoid dramatic climate change and the tools already available to do so.
Pacala and Socolow are the authors
of «
Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies» (Science, August 13, 2004).
The study used the concept
of a «
stabilization wedge», in which «a
wedge represents an activity that reduces emissions to the atmosphere by a certain amount.
It would require some 12 — 14
of Princeton's «
stabilization wedges» — strategies and / or technologies that over a period
of a few decades each ultimately reduce projected global carbon emissions by one billion metric tons per year (see technical paper here, less technical one here).
After a brief digression on the subject
of «peak oil,» which «will not save us,» an important and extended discussion
of the concept
of «
stabilization wedges» concludes the book.
The 2 TW mark is just one
stabilization wedge; we needed 7, as
of the writing
of Six Degrees.
These strategies are usually referred to as «
stabilization wedges,» because each takes a
wedge - shaped piece out
of the projected graph
of future emissions.
That puts the two categories together at something like a quarter
of one
stabilization wedge today.
For the first time, one
stabilization wedge worth
of wind power has been projected as a realistic possibility.
I'm a big believer in
wedges, and I imagine we can count on nuclear for one or two
of our
stabilization without unacceptable risk.
One
of S&P's strategies to achieve a
stabilization wedge is to add double the current global nuclear capacity to replace coal - based electricity.