Earth faces several key problems. What makes these problems potentially treacherous is that they all interact and reinforce one another. What are these problems?

Critical resources such as oil, water, arable soil, forests and sea life are diminishing at an increasingly rapid rate. Take just one example. Even though the current global recession has suppressed the cost of oil, the long term picture is that there is insufficient oil to sustain present demand for more than a few more years. Once supply outstrips demand on a wide scale, the cost of oil—and everything else dependent upon it, such as transportation and much of manufacturing— will rise precipitously.

The earth is heating up with increasing speed, faster than was predicted even two or three years ago. This is due, of course, to increasing inputs of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, largely from transportation emissions (30%), utility emissions, particularly coal-fired energy generation along with cement production (40%), human-induced burning of forests (20%), and other sources such as manufacturing, air travel, etc. (10%). The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is presently at 384 parts per million and rising at 2 parts per million each year. Many scientists, including James Hansen of NASA, one of the most highly regarded climate scientists in the world, are predicting that exceeding 400 on this scale will push us "past a point of no return," where positive feedbacks may continue to raise the amount of CO2 in the air for over a hundred years, independent of what we do. According to Hansen, keeping CO2 at 350 parts per million is optimal for sustaining civilization in the form we have known it for the past 10,000 years.

Several hundred million people in China, India, Indonesia, and South America are moving out of poverty into the middle class. All of them want cars, TVs, modern appliances, computers, cell phones and, basically, an American lifestyle. What is the net effect? A lot more rapid depletion of non-renewable resources such as oil, fresh water, forests, arable land, and sea life. This depletion of resources will lead to increasing prices and increasing competition among countries, with the adverse effect of increasing international tensions. Moreover, a lot more carbon emissions into the atmosphere from the manufacturing and operation of these American style conveniences.

Bottom Line: Without rapid implementation of clean energy technologies—in utilities, transportation, manufacturing, building codes and numerous other areas—the Earth will simultaneously run out of critical resources and become a greenhouse increasingly inhospitable to all forms of life, including us.

It is the INTERACTION among diminishing resources, global warming, rapid population growth, and rapid upward mobility of millions of people in developing countries that spells trouble—if not potential disaster—for humanity’s future.

At present there are tens of thousands of grassroots organizations devoted to important causes such as environmental conservation, climate change, the development of clean energy technologies, and protesting exploitative corporate and government policies. There is also a growing media blitz on TV, in magazines, movies, and books about the problems facing earth along with hundreds of practical solutions. The book Global Shift presents six chapters on practical actions each of us can take to align ourselves with the shift needed on the planet at this time. All of this is helping to raise public consciousness throughout the world in both developed and developing countries. People are increasingly waking up to the magnitude of the problems facing our planet, and taking active measures to live in a more sustainable way, reduce carbon and environmental footprints, and correct social injustices.

Yet all of this ultimately will not be enough unless governments, especially those of the United States and China (the world’s largest users of critical resources and largest emitters of CO2) step up to the plate and pass regulations that motivate a true “green revolution.”

To avert environmental disaster, humanity must reduce its use of unsustainable resources, particularly fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. At the same time, it must reduce its output of CO2 promoting global warming. All of this has to be done quickly, despite rapidly increasing population and increasing upward mobility in developing countries. How is this possible?

The technologies to implement these solutions presently exist. Some of them include:

Clean sources of energy from sustainable resources These include energy produced from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. At present these “green” energy sources contribute about 2% of America’s total energy needs. The United States still relies on coal (the dirtiest of fuels from a carbon standpoint) for about 50% of its power. China uses coal for 80% of its power. On the other hand, Denmark and Germany use clean energy for over 20% of their power needs. The state of California in the United States has mandated that 20% of its energy come from sustainable resources by 2020.

Improved energy efficiency in transportation and buildings. Hybrid Cars: Gas guzzling SUVs and larger cars are gradually giving way to gas-electric hybrids. In the near future, plug-in electric-gas hybrid cars will become available that achieve up to 100 miles per gallon and can actually serve as energy storage units that feed power back to the grid. The speed with which the entire American fleet of vehicles—over 100 million-- can shift to these highly efficient, non carbon-emitting forms of propulsion is becoming increasingly critical.

Retrofitting Existing Buildings: Both commercial and residential buildings can be made more energy efficient through installing solar panels (both photovoltaic and thermal), adding insulation, and sealing windows, among numerous things.

Designing Eco-Friendly Buildings: Designing homes and businesses, large and small, to use little, or in some cases, no fossil-fuel based energy.

Lights and Appliances: Replacing incandescent lights with compact fluorescent bulbs (mercury free versions will be available by 2010). Using energy-efficient air conditioners, dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers, washers, and stoves, as indicated by the “Energy Star” rating.

An “Energy Internet”: Smart Grids and Smart Boxes Equipping buildings with computer controlled systems that increase efficiency by drawing electrical load at off-peak times of the day, or automatically cycling appliances on and off to reduce power usage. Plug-in electric cars can even be used as energy-storage devices that, after being fully charged at night, can feed energy back into the grid. So homeowners can not only lower their electric bills by using power more efficiently, they can sell power back to the utility company.

The important fact is that all of these new technologies and approaches presently exist. The key operative word is “SCALE.” At present these options are mostly used on a very small scale. How do you get them up to large scale—even nationwide scale?

ANSWER: GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES

Each of us can individually decide to drive a hybrid car, insulate our homes, recycle paper, glass and plastic, or buy Energy star certified appliances. However to change peoples' and industries' habits on a broad scale, federal policy and regulatory changes are needed.

This is already happening at the state and regional level in the United States. For example, the state of California has passed a law mandating that 20% of the energy used by utilities come from clean sources (wind, solar, biomass, etc.) by 2020. California is also trying to pass mandatory fuel efficiency standards for cars, but has so far been opposed by the major auto industries and the Federal Department of Energy.

It is even beginning to happen in China. The Chinese government, for example, has mandated that 16% of the country’s total energy production come from renewable sources by 2020. It has also adopted higher mileage standards for cars than the United States.

But in order to bring about change at the rate and scale needed for America to take a leadership role for the rest of the world in developing a sustainable way of life, widespread federal policy and regulatory changes are necessary.

Some examples of changes that need to happen include:

A tax on carbon: Companies that emit carbon dioxide would be taxed by the ton emitted. Since this would likely raise the cost of fuel and power for all Americans, the government would correspondingly lower federal income tax rates across the board, or, as some have suggested, give energy consumers direct rebates.

A cap & trade system of permits to emit carbon: A cap on carbon emissions would be set for various types of industries. Companies that cleaned up and did better than the cap could sell permits to companies whose emissions exceeded the cap. Each year it would get more expensive to keep exceeding caps. So far, the cap and trade option has been politically more popular than a carbon tax, as politicians are typically reluctant to impose taxes.

Specific regulatory standards for increasing energy-efficiency: The Federal Department of Energy would set efficiency standards across the board for cars as well as appliances. Mileage standards for cars and light trucks would gradually be raised. Presently they are on track to go to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Higher efficiency standards for all types of appliances: air conditioners, refrigerators, clothes dryers, etc. would be set.

Specific mandates for reducing carbon emissions: Not just the state of California, but the entire country would mandate that 20 (or more) percent of energy generation come from renewable sources by 2020. Such a mandate would be phased in to reduce adverse impact on coal and other fossil-fuel based industries. It would go a long way to stimulate innovation and development of new energy industries, such as the production of cheap solar photovoltaic units, wind power, wave power, geothermal, etc.

What are the obstacles to the American government making these kinds of policy changes? Basically the lobbies of powerful vested interests, such as the coal and oil industries and the propaganda they spread, such as the fantasy of “clean coal” (development and implementation of wide scale carbon-sequestration systems for the coal industry is probably two decades away) or the hype of major oil companies who parade their token allegiance to environmental causes on TV and in magazines.

Only when the American government passes laws and regulations mandating:

• reduction of industrial and utility carbon emissions
• increased energy efficiency of cars, new buildings, and appliances
• increased reliance of utilities on clean energy such as wind, solar, geothermal,
  and biomass, with set goals and timeframes

Will there begin to be a market for these things. Industries and utilities are unlikely to step forward to create alternative technologies until a true market exists. That is, until clean energy and energy efficiency become competitive against the old way of doing things with "dirty" energy sources based on fossil fuels. When government regulations require innovation of new technologies, then it will happen on the scale needed. America will begin to put all of its ingenuity and capacity for rapid innovation behind the attainment of a nationwide system of clean, carbon-free energy. Huge corporations such as General Electric and Dupont will make the necessary investments in manpower and money to develop these new technologies, because they are assured there will be a market for them. They won’t hesitate out of fear that big oil and big coal will continue to dominate the American energy scene.

The current social environment in the United States is dominated by two critical circumstances: the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression, and the beginning of a new presidential administration likely to be much more progressive than the previous one. What are some of the implications? There is both good news and bad news.

The Bad News Because of reduced demand, the price of oil has dropped from a peak of $140 per barrel in mid-2008 to a January 2009 value of about $40 per barrel. Cheap oil is certainly a boon to American drivers who like cheap gas. One indication of this is that SUV sales are currently up. Yet the downside is that cheap oil and gas lead to less incentive to develop clean energy alternatives because we all can just continue to rely on oil as a primary energy source for transportation. This is especially the case during a severe recession. The petroleum rich countries of the Middle East are, of course, quite aware of this. They are smart enough to understand the situation and not allow oil prices to rise too fast for some time, knowing that expensive oil might incite the new American administration to fast track the development of clean energy technologies. Meanwhile the earth continues to heat up from carbon emissions and, as mentioned above, America’s top climate scientist, James Hansen, states that we’ve already passed the level of CO2 in the atmosphere that is optimal to maintain earth’s civilization in the form that we know it, 350 parts per million (we’re currently at 384 and rising fast).

The Good News With the new administration taking office in the midst of a severe, worldwide recession,there is an opportunity to solve two major problems at once: the need to put people back to work and the need to scale up new technologies to solve the environmental crisis. In short, the new administration could choose to create programs that put people to work retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient, installing solar panels, producing parts for wind turbines, developing geothermal sites, or just expanding the range of curbside recycling (to give just a few examples). These "green collar" job programs can be established to help improve our country's energy efficiency and conservation while engaging in the more lengthy process of pushing pro-environmental legislation through congress. So the solution lies within our reach. The question is to what extent the new administration will implement this solution at a scale and speed needed to make a true difference. We stand at a critical choice point. The year 2009 will tell to what extent saving the world’s environment is a genuine priority for the new administration.

[Back to the top of the page]