Nuclear power plantOnce again, another report has come out showing that — with the right actions — we could see a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over the next couple of decades. Once again, the news raises the same question as previous reports: will we ever see enough political will to make the possible become reality?

This week, the management consulting firm McKinsey and Company released a report, “Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?,” showing how the U.S. could cut its greenhouse gas emissions by as much as half by 2030 … without wreaking havoc on the economy or placing faith on pie-in-the-sky technological fixes.

There’s a caveat, of course: “Achieving these reductions at the lowest cost to the economy, however, will require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future.”

What kind of action? The report’s authors looked at more than 250 ways to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, analyzing the potential costs and impacts of each. These included everything from improving the energy efficiency of buildings and appliances, building more nuclear power plants and generating more wind and solar energy to putting more energy-efficient, lightweight fleet vehicles on the road and, eventually, developing more ways to capture and store carbon emissions.

The report sets out three scenarios for future emissions: a low-range case in which we make only incremental changes from “business as usual” (for annual emissions reductions of 1.3 gigatons by 2030); a mid-range case that would require concerted action across the economy (for reductions of 3 gigatons); and a high-range case that would need “urgent national mobilization” (4.5 gigatons).

For comparison’s sake, as of 2005, the U.S. put out about 7.2 gigatons of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions each year. Those emissions are expected to rise by 35 percent to 9.7 gigatons by 2030.

“The high-range case suggests an extremely ambitious effort across all sectors of the economy and parts of the country,” the report states. “Increasing the nuclear generation fleet by 50 percent net of retirements, building 80 gigawatts of (carbon capture and storage)-equipped generation capacity, and expanding biofuels to 67 billion gallons (reaching 30 percent of the forecast gasoline pool) could each be considered challenging goals. Achieving an entire set of such ambitious goals is thus unlikely without widespread and sustained national commitment.”

“Few of these opportunities can be realized without the right policy incentives, and many of them could slip away if we don’t grab them soon,” said Peter Goldmark, director of the climate and air program at Environmental Defense, one of the sponsors of the report. Other sponsors included DTE Energy, Honeywell, National Grid, the Natural Resources Defense Council, PG&E and Shell.

That’s the rub, of course. The goals look great on paper, but will they ever see the real light of day?

About The Author

Shirley Siluk Gregory

Shirley Siluk Gregory, a transplanted Chicagoan now living in Northwest Florida, represents the progressive half of Green Options' Red, Green and Blue segment. She holds a bachelor's degree in Geological Sciences from Northwestern University but graduated in 1984, just when the market for geologists was flatter than the Florida landscape. Just as well, though: she had little interest in spending her life either in a laboratory or, heaven forbid, an oil field. So, of course, she went into journalism. After extremely low-paying but fun and educational stints at several suburban Chicago weeklies and dailies, Shirley and her then-boyfriend/now-husband Scott found themselves displaced by a media buyout and spending the next several years working as freelancers. Among their credits: The Chicago Tribune, a publication for the manufactured-housing industry, and Web Hosting Magazine, a now-defunct publication that came and went with the dotcom era. Shirley's always been concerned about nature and conservation (and an avid pack-rat, as her family can attest to), but became even more rabidly interested in the environment primarily due to two factors: the growing signs that global warming was real and threatening, and the birth of her son, Noah, in 2003. Suddenly, the prospect of a world that might not be quite as habitable in 40 or 50 years took on a whole new, and personal, meaning. Living where she lives now also helped light the fire of Shirley's environmental awareness: her hometown was severely damaged by Hurricane Ivan in 2004, and beaten up again by Hurricane Dennis in 2005. That, and the fact that she and her family were vacationing in New Orleans until the day before Katrina -- and spent 12 hours driving home for a trip that normally takes 3 -- has made Shirley deeply appreciate how fragile our lifestyles are, and how dependent they are on sound management of natural resources and sustainable living practices. That's why she's become a passionate reader and writer about all things green and sustainable.

Click on a tab to select how you'd like to leave your comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>