The Earth Hearing

by Daniel Plonix

  One of the commissioners said, “I am still waiting to hear the rest of the carbon-capture details.”

  “Yes, Madam Commissioner,” said the director. “Under high pressure, the CO₂ would be injected into deep geological formations, into coal seams, or into depleted oil and gas fields. The deeper the injection, the higher the pressure and the more compact and denser the CO₂ becomes. Our team reckons less than 1 percent of the amount initially injected underground will seep out over a one-thousand-year period. In fact, most of the CO₂ will gradually be immobilized for millions of years. And of course, instead of compressing the carbon dioxide into liquid-like form, they may succeed in solidifying it through mineralization. That’s even a better route. The CO₂ may react with the calcium in basalt rocks to form calcite.”

  Rafirre and the director bowed toward the commissioners.

  Chapter 47

  They broke for lunch and reconvened an hour later.

  This time it was Aratta who was to lead the discussion.

  “Your Graces, from the array of stressors afflicting the planetary ecosystem, what has generated the most distress among the Terraneans is the prospect of a relatively rapid climate change. Or more to the point, its possible economic cost and harm to human communities. Environmental degradation per se in the heels of an inhospitable climate has not really factored in their political decision-making process.

  “Countries emit greenhouse gases in markedly different amounts. In a given territory, the underlying economic activities are varying combinations of servicing the local population, such as heating their homes and fueling their vehicles, and servicing the broader world market, such as export-minded factories and fossil fuel refining operations.

  “In the aggregate, the territories from which most emissions emanate are China and the United States—together accounting for around 40 percent of the world greenhouse gas emissions. This is followed at far lower amounts out of the territories of India and Russia. Then there are the other almost two hundred territories, each of which almost by definition is responsible for but a sliver of the total emission pie.”

  “Does any of this really matter? The atmosphere is one and the same.”

  “Of course, you are right, Madam Commissioner,” said Aratta. “And in an interwoven global economy it is hard to tease such things apart anyway. Yet, as each government controls a given territory, this is how they frame the discussion.

  “In the last few decades, there has been a flurry of activities and con­ferences and treaties. All those agitated and animated discussions passed so much hot gas that just on its own would have sufficed to warm the planet.”

  Several commissioners smiled at this.

  “I will review a few high-profile junctures in the ongoing dialog among the governments of the world.”

  “Please do,” said one of the commissioners.

  Aratta opened, “An international treaty was ratified by an overwhelming majority of countries in 1997. This treaty put most of the onus on those states that both have the financial capacity to transition to a greener industrial base and were also primarily responsible for the elevated levels of greenhouse gases in the first place. It came down to countries with developed economies and advanced technological infrastructure. These countries committed to reduce their annual emissions for the 2008–12 period by about 5 percent in relation to emission of a base-year, typically 1990. The rest of the signatories were to reduce emission or not; it was purely voluntarily.

  “Of the thirty-eight signatory countries committed to emission reduction, two withdrew: the United States and Canada.”

  “Why?”

  “In the case of Canada, they have a vast reserve of ultra-heavy crude oil and decided to exploit it to its fullest; the treaty could have got in the way. In the case of the United States, its legislator passed a resolution against entering into any agreement that would seriously harm the economy of its country, or that does not mandate the developing countries to cut emissions as well.

  “Over the four years from 2008 to 2012, the remaining thirty-six countries ended up not only meeting their individual emission commitments but exceeding them.

  “Added efficiency and renewables were partially responsible for this. Yet, to varying degrees, those countries also hit lower emission levels due to—how shall I put it?—other, extraneous factors. First, some emissions were simply not accounted, as a given country was assumed to have invested in emission-reduction projects in other countries—a scheme which has proven to be ephemeral and worse. Alternatively, a country may have purchased carbon credits of other countries. Second, owing to the sharp contraction of the economies of the former Soviet states, the emission rates of some of them were lower in comparison to their 1990 levels irrespective of the treaty. Beyond that, a worldwide recession hit, and economic activities decreased across the board. Third, fracking became cheaper, reducing the consumption of coal. Finally, some reductions were merely a result of outsourcing manufacturing operations to developing countries.”

  “What’s the bottom line?”

  “On the whole, global emission of greenhouse gases grew. It went from around the equivalent of 44 billion tons of CO₂ in 2008 to around 47 billion tons in 2012. When all is said and done, the treaty proved worthless.

  “In 2007, government officials geared up to formulate new emission goals to be set in place for the years following 2012. Denmark worked with all the major stockholders to pave the road for a successful outcome in the upcoming 2009 international summit. Their efforts have resulted in a growing number of larger emitters, both among developed and developing nations, mustering the political will and rallying around the Danish initiative.

  “This summit was unprecedented in scope and expectations. It was to be a turning point. Over one hundred heads of state attended the largest gathering of leaders outside the UN Headquarters until that time. From around the world, tens of thousands of delegates and thousands of journalists arrived.

  “However, once the rubber met the road, the we’re-all-in-it-together train gradually slowed down and finally came to a screeching halt.

  “The countries that until then were to cut emissions voluntarily wanted to keep it that way. By contrast, the United States deemed it unacceptable. It strove for a treaty that commits all nations, albeit with differentiated reduction commitments, factoring the economic profiles of the respective countries. This was a no go. Notably, India and China, the big economically-poorer polluters, were not going to slow down their economic engine, which was fueled mainly by cheap coal. To them, their current dramatic economic growth was paramount.

  “Most of the poorer nations preferred the conference to fail if the better-­off countries—and only the better-off countries—would not be legally bound to emission cuts at the levels recommended by the scientific community. And this is exactly what happened; the Copenhagen Summit flopped.

  “Six years passed. The politicians rallied, coming together in Paris and signing a treaty this year, 2015. The Paris Agreement was lauded by all the key stakeholders as fair, balanced, and ambitious. It has been regarded as a success.

  “The treaty sets a long-term goal of holding the average temperature increase to well below 2°C, which is deemed by their scientists as the upper threshold for a safe operating space for humanity. It is a treaty in which both developed and developing countries agree to act. Or not. As they please.

  “The Paris Agreement does not prescribe specific mitigation actions or which emission levels should be achieved by when—nor does it compel any country to. Moreover, it does not specify the total remaining carbon budget that must not be crossed by humanity. Instead, the Paris Agreement allows countries to set their own climate-change mitigation goals. It is but a framework for making voluntary pledges that can be compared and reviewed by other stakeholders, in the hope that emission-reduction aspirations can be ratcheted up through a process of
naming and shaming. Think of it as a Climate Change Anonymous. Each attendee is making a pledge. If they meet it, this is terrific, if not, oh well, they will live to see another day to declare a new pledge, once every five years.

  “I reviewed the pledges made during the first round. If all pledges are fulfilled, Earth people will emit in 2030 between the equivalent of 57 to 66 billion tons of CO₂. Far from stopping emissions or even lowering the emission rate, this is markedly higher than current levels. If all pledges are fulfilled, Earth may see average global warming of 2.6°C–٣.1°C by ٢١٠٠, and probably higher yet in subsequent centuries. Thus, in a real sense, the national governments have capitulated, even on paper. It’s worse yet. From Pakistan to Botswana, over two third of the pledges are conditional: they may be implemented only if other, presumably wealthier counties will financially underwrite them. Some other countries did not even bother to set any emission reduction targets, such as Egypt and Kuwait.

  “Meanwhile, back in the real world, in the past 12 months, Earth people have emitted a record high volume of greenhouses gases, the equivalent of 53.5 billion tons of CO₂. Looking into the future, the pointy tip of the climate-change bull’s horn may very well be China’s Belt and Road Initiative. This colossal plan finances and builds roads, railways, bridges, and ports in numerous client countries—necessitating great many coal power plants.”

  “It looks like your climate-change treaties are not effectual,” the presiding chair said. He was peering down at one of two Earth people who insisted on remaining in the Commission Building, deep underground.

  All the other Terraneans but one had left, taking with them word about the possible deportation of humanity from Earth. In response to the commissioners’ inquiry, the chubby middle-aged man had said he’d nothing to go back to. He seemed eager to render input and sat on all the sessions he could, listening with great interest.

  “The Paris Agreement is a success,” the Earth person countered. This is something he was personally involved in during his former life, although he was vague about the details. “The vast majority of stakeholders are happy.”

  “Is this your measure of success?” demanded one of the commissioners.

  “What other measure could there be? It is not like anyone is actually going to restrict the number of motor vehicles purchased or cut back on cheap energy for the sake of preventing climate change. These accords are merely things to keep the constituents back home mollified. Meantime, new solar panels are installed every day, treaties or no treaties. Who knows? Maybe things will work out, and emission rates will go down some.”

  “Yet, eventually the cat will be out of the bag, no? The public will get riled.”

  The Terranean beamed. “Your Honor, that’s why we always have a next conference. There is always a next year to admit past mistakes and declare a do-over. My people have been doing the next year routine for decades now, and it has been working out reasonably well.”

  The presiding chair did not look impressed.

  “Your Honor, it’s just bread and circuses. Please understand that if you actually try to dramatically raise the price of gasoline to reduce its usage, you will have a riot on your hands.”

  Aratta shook his head in disgust. “From the consumer to world leaders, they are all willing to do what needs to be done to avert climate change—as long as it costs or inconvenient them none.”

  “What’s the end result?”

  “Easy to see and note,” responded Aratta. “For decades now, the CO₂ concentration in the air has been steadily increasing, its trajectory utterly unchanged. The net effect of their combined array of mitigation measures has been less than zero. Literally.

  “Looking into the future, it is also easy to deduce the short-term prospects. You see, their stock markets are jittery and ever-vigilant; any hint of a downturn will be instantaneously translated to a plunge in stock prices. It is telling that stock prices of oil and gas companies have been unaffected in the immediate aftermath of their much-­heralded climate-­change treaties. Evidently, it does not even compute for anyone in the know that any real fossil-fuel cutback is in the offing.

  “I wish to bring up a good illustration of this,” Aratta went on. “You must have wondered why they had not switched en masse to electric cars.

  “The truth of the matter, of course, is that an electric car emits greenhouse gases as much as its gasoline counterpart—if the electricity that powers it is generated at one’s local friendly coal plant. But the perception is that replacing gasoline cars with electric ones would make a real difference in preserving the existing climate.”

  “Indeed.”

  “Let me recount what could have taken place and didn’t. In fact, something that could have happened in Denmark but didn’t, and just two short years after large crowds of people marched there demanding that some meaningful measures will be introduced to halt climate change. The people themselves had the opportunity to do something on a big scale.

  “You see, the driving range of an electric battery is satisfactory for the daily commute. And when the car is idle, which on average is twenty-­two hours a day, one plugs the car to an outlet at one’s garage or at the workplace. However, when it comes to the occasional long-distance trip, people don’t care to stop every eighty to one hundred miles for a few hours of battery charging.

  “This was the state of affairs in 2011 when Better Place company launched in Denmark a viable scheme addressing this problem. In brief, roadside swapping stations: places where one can pull in and wait in the car under five minutes while automated machinery replaces the drained battery with a fresh one.

  “The customer was to purchase the car; the battery was to be owned by the network provider, Better Place.

  “This scheme carried added benefits. Decoupling the battery from the car lowered the upfront cost of the vehicle. The car resale value was not tied to an aging car battery, which as a matter of course would in time have a diminished storage capacity, hence a reduced driving range.

  “Better Place avowed to usher the era of mass electric cars and wean the world off petroleum. First in Denmark and in Israel and later in Australia, China, and the United States.

  “Confident investors poured close to one billion dollars into this startup company. They talked of selling one hundred thousand electric cars in the first few years.

  “With much fanfare, Better Place launched in Denmark a family sedan capable of swapping batteries, the Renault Fluence. The upfront cost included the car and a private charge spot. This was followed by a flat monthly subscription fee for the electric fuel and for swapping batteries as needed.

  “On account of the punishing tax imposed on gasoline cars in Denmark, the price of the vehicle itself was substantially lower than that of a gasoline counterpart. On the other hand, the monthly subscription for the electric fuel was higher than that for the gasoline-fuel equivalent. All in all, the combined car and energy costs for the electric vehicle was under that for a gasoline-powered sedan, at least for the first five to ten years.

  “Expectations were high. After all, Denmark is the capital city of green. Green energy. Green anything.” Aratta looked around at the people in the hall. “This was as good as it gets. This has been an expression of the marketplace at its best coupled with a most sympathetic consumer base.

  “The 2011–12 period was the moment of truth. Out of the roughly 180,000 passenger cars Danes purchased during that potentially-pivotal twelve months, fewer than 400 were from Better Place. A comparable fiasco happened in the other territory Better Place launched the Renault Fluence, Israel. The company went belly up; the dream was over. The hundreds of millions of dollars invested had evaporated and left nothing but scum on the concrete floor of their battery switching stations.”

  “What about the dwindling supplies of fossil fuel?”

  “Madam Commissioner, this may become apparent years from n
ow or decades or centuries. As you can see from their actions, they don’t worry themselves about things that extend beyond the here and now or go far beyond the girth of their waistline. They never have. The Terraneans reckon tomorrow will take care of itself.

  “Your Graces,” said Aratta. “I believe the story of Better Place is telling. It was an example of an innovative, vibrant, enterprising, do-good marketplace at its best—but it was not enough. It was not nearly enough to get the job done.”

  The commissioners listened in attentive silence.

  “This brings me to a second point, which is just as important.

  “The government could have decreed that as part of the campaign to curb climate change, gasoline vehicles are gradually to be phased out over a few years period. That all it would have taken to make the transition to electric cars. Your Graces,” said Aratta, “in this one simple case, the inherent limitations of both their government and marketplace dynamics are on display. Neither are up to the task.”

  And with this, the session had come to an end.

  Chapter 48

  During the last few days of testimony, the Survey Group to the Man-Made World led sessions that delved into the power dynamics of the major governments around the world. They saved what perhaps was the most influential government for last: the United States government. The man who was to lead the presentation was a capable and thoughtful man. His name was Basile, a tall, balding man with a calm demeanor and attentive eyes.

  The ceremonial hammer was rapped, and the session got underway.

  The presiding chair got right down to it. “Master Basile, please en­lighten us, how do people become lawmakers in the United States?”