Climate change deniers and climate advocates face a common challenge: Has too much information created overload, causing psychological shutdown of our mutual response? Is the ordinary person too confused to adopt proven solutions?
There is general agreement that impacts of the climate crisis are real, present and frightening. Fires in the western United States, severe flooding in Europe, devastating droughts in East Africa, and worldwide sea level rise are not one-time statistical coincidences.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world faces unavoidable, multiple, worsening climate hazards over the next two decades with global warming of 1.5°C (2.7°F) within seven years or sooner. Hitting this warming level will result in additional severe, irreversible impacts. There is alarming information coming from corporations that their future existence is in jeopardy. Small businesses are concerned about being able to remain open.
The good news is we still have time to enact effective solutions. Local Bay Area cities are in the best position to help because a successful path out of the crisis can be created by concentrated, focused local efforts. No one group or individual can do it on their own; big government has proven incapable or unwilling. The latest technology will never be enough.
We look to local governments for more than just building codes for new construction and remodels. According to the city of San Mateo Climate Action Plan, 42% of global warming emissions come from existing buildings. Merely waiting another 50 years for new construction to be all electric, is too little, too late. We need local government funding resources, staff and other support to develop solutions for both new and existing buildings.
Every year, about 7% of water heaters fail. Homeowners replacing an existing gas water heater with another gas appliance are stuck with that water heater for 15 years while it spews more carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides. Anything not electric will become obsolete very quickly — a “stranded asset.” Stoves and furnaces last for more than 20 years. A gas-to-gas replacement is an opportunity lost.
Unhealthy emissions come from that little fossil fuel plant called your home. What can an individual do about this? A homeowner or business can plan to replace gas-fired appliances and equipment with electric before the time of breakdown.
What should local government do to help encourage the switch to all electric?
• Implement workable funding mechanisms to pay for all-electric, such as abundant rebates, on bill financing, grants and financing, especially for disadvantaged communities.
• Develop a strong workforce — electrification will need many trained workers and savvy contractors. Plumbers, electricians, sheet metal workers, pipe fitters and carpenters will benefit from high demand.
What should local government NOT do? It should not depend on technological fixes that will just take too long. Many are unproven or possibly a stall tactic, including:
• Continued use of methane for heating, cooling and cooking only delays the inevitable. As a greenhouse gas 40 times more deadly than CO2 as a global warming agent, methane aka “natural gas” is not a transition fuel, it is a bridge to nowhere. Methane leaks occur at the wellhead, through compressors and transmission pipes, and even from switched-off gas stoves.
• Depending on hydrogen is a false hope. Truly clean hydrogen, using electrolysis, does not exist at scale and likely never will. Solar and wind generated electricity that “could” be diverted to electrolysis is more efficiently used directly in homes and businesses. Also unfortunately, hydrogen fuel cell production generates carbon dioxide at the fuel cell site.
• Building more nuclear power plants, even small ones proposed by Bill Gates, require decades of planning, funding, development and safe construction. Today, there is still no permanent, safe storage of spent nuclear fuel accumulated in the last 80 years.
• Biomass (burning waste such as trash and rice hulls, and wood pellets) is still a problem because any burning creates carbon dioxide. As Bill McKibben said: “Why continue burning things when the planet is on fire?”
By our societalwide, suicidal use of fossil fuels, we mutually created this climate crisis. But because of our discomfort, should we continue to pretend that there is no problem, continue with magical thinking that a technological solution will save us? Or should we act locally with a focused look at viable solutions?
I am greatly encouraged by the number of San Mateo residents who are tired of business as usual and are stepping forward to join this movement to tackle the climate crisis at the local level. All of us caused the crisis, only by all of us working together can it be solved.
(5) comments
Mr. Whitehair also fails to mention that the utility infrastructure and the required electric circuitry upgrades in our homes will be beyond costly. He mentioned before that he was in a position to spend tens of thousands of dollars to accomplish that and is now proposing massive subsidies to finance said upgrades. Well, who will be paying for those? His arguments are wishful thinking and devoid of reality. But, remember that he is heading up an agency that needs to publish or perish, ulterior motives galore.
Here we go again… another 750 words saying everyone needs to go all electric. Meanwhile, out of those 750 words, no words on where we’re going to get this magic electricity, or the contributions from China, India, and other emerging nations. Or why it was okay last year for 30,000+ people to fly to Scotland for, of all things, a climate conference about the evils of fossil fuels. I don’t know any all electric planes ferrying people around (but even then, where do they get their magic electricity). There are a great number of residents who are tired of being lectured by greenies who only talk the talk, but definitely don’t walk the walk because they’re afraid where that walk will lead them. To fossil fuel plants providing all the magic electricity they want to use. Who cares about where our electricity comes from, or China’s and India’s emissions, as long as we can virtue signal and ignore the realities of electricity production.
Terence opines that Robert Whitehair's proposed solutions are not viable, but offers no solutions of his own. I guess he's content to see the world continue to suffer the negative effects of climate change including our recent wildfires because he thinks his fellow human beings are incapable of rising to the challenge and taking the needed action. I'm sorry, but I prefer optimism rather than pessimism and striving for solutions rather than giving up..
Good point.
I was disappointed by the column, though. Too much focus on electrification in buildings, no mention of the largest source of emissions in the U.S.: transportation. Whitehair writes of the "unhealthy emissions from that little fossil fuel plant called your home."
Those emissions pale in comparison to those from that large fossil fuel plant found in most garages.
NanLibn – since I don’t believe in man-made global warming/climate change, no problem exists so no solutions are required. I have no issues using fossil fuels, especially since there are thousands of household products (and branching into commercial building products) containing fossil fuel derivatives. Far from being pessimistic, I’m optimistic my fellow human beings can rise to a challenge, but let’s work on a problem that needs a solution – like an effective COVID vaccine, or national Voter ID, or enforcing criminal and immigration laws, to name a few.
Speaking of solutions, perhaps you can give us your thoughts on where this magic electricity for electrification will come from, why China and India are getting a pass on their carbon emissions, or why it’s okay for 30,000+ people attending a climate convention to use fossil-fuel powered machines (and for the well-heeled, private jets) to get there. Nobody else seems willing to acknowledge these elephants, or even one of these elephants, in the room. BTW, is Mr. Whitehair proposing any solutions? Proposing all electric appliances without acknowledging where electricity comes from isn’t a solution, just a replacement appliance recommendation. And as Mr. van Ulden has mentioned, who’s willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade when ultimately, they’ll still get electricity from gas-powered plants?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.