ZORNIO CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL ON ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY€¦ · ZORNIO CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL ON...

�

Revised Oct 2019 Version 1.a.

ZORNIO CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL ON ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases are accumulating at unprecedented rates in the earth’s atmosphere, causing a greenhouse-like effect which traps heat and drives excessive global warming with secondary and tertiary climate effects (9, 26). While CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) have long been found in our atmosphere, current levels of CO2 now rising past 410 parts per million for the first time in human history, rising >135ppm since the pre-industrial era (8, 9). This extreme and rapid influx of human-driven GHG emissions, referred to as anthropogenic climate change, has far exceeded any naturogenic changes to the atmosphere, and now poses the largest long-term threat to national and economic security of the United States of America including: infrastructure loss, food and water insecurity, uninhabitable lands and human refugees, increased spread of infectious diseases, general global instability likely to exacerbate military conflicts, and more (10, 11, see appendix). Additionally, without immediate intervention the direct economic costs would be catastrophic. (5, 7)

The latest comprehensive analysis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) outlines the urgency of need for all nations including the United States to address anthropogenic climate change. (26) Notably, scientific consensus reveals that due to the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere, even if all human emissions of greenhouse gases were eliminated immediately, the warming effect and subsequent changes would continue to occur throughout multiple centuries due to, 1) the length of time CO2 remains in the atmosphere (if left to naturogenic process), and 2) the compounding effects of warming. Consequently, the goal is no longer to prevent climate change as it is already well underway, but rather to limit the extent of further human-driven GHG emissions to thereby limit the amount of long term warming and subsequent changes. To this end, scientific and military consensus now focus on two components of environmental security: mitigation and adaptation.

Mitigation: Reduce and stabilize levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, namely by eliminating human-made GHGs and developing innovative solutions to further remove carbon from the atmosphere at mass scale. As GHG emissions are inextricably linked to the amount of change experienced in coming generations, it is therefore imperative to prioritize immediate reductions/draw-downs in lieu of longer, slower reductions/draw-downs.

Adaptation: Given that we are already committed to some level of change, societies will need to adapt in preparation for current and future levels of climate change. This includes: securing infrastructure, securing food and water sources, enhanced disaster response preparedness, enhanced infectious disease preparedness, and more.

CHALLENGES:

The unique challenges of addressing anthropogenic climate change (human-driven GHG emissions) include, 1) the cause is not isolated to the United States but rather requires significant global cooperation subject to geopolitical complications, 2) achieving the required reduction and draw-down of GHG emissions will be the defining scientific and technological challenges of our time, in part due to the urgency of time, 3) significant investment and reallocation of resources in both the public and private sectors will be necessary, and 4) legislative change alone will not achieve results in the required timeframe.

�


HOW MUCH CHANGE IS TOO MUCH?

Within analytical constraints, the best projections to date are reported in summary in the IPCC comprehensive analysis released in 2019 (graph at right, 26). At present, GHGs emitted into t h e a t m o s p h e r e h a v e equated with approximately 1 .0 degree Ce ls ius o f warming globally. Serious and unsafe conditions for humans are expected upon r e a c h i n g 2 . 0 d e g r e e s Celsius. To avoid the most severe effects of climate change, scientific and governmental consensus has been to avoid reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, the agreement in the Paris Accords.

To limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we therefore aim for global GHG emissions should be reduced by ~55% of 2010 levels by 2028 and net-zero GHG emissions achieved by 2045 (Note: this takes into account the time from which the report was released and subsequent increases in emissions). As the United States is no longer in the Paris Accords, and rather is actively increasing emission rates consistent with 4+ degrees Celsius warming (graph left), global emissions at large are currently on track to far exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.

Most other countries are also behind, however, though none as seriously as the United States. HOW MUCH DOES THE U.S. HAVE TO DO?

In 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported U.S. GHG emissions totaled 6,456.7 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents, with less than 800 million metric tons of CO2 sequestered by land. Additionally, the U.S. saw ~3.4% increase in emissions in 2018 and is estimated to continue rising in 2019. Globally, this places the U.S. as the #2 producer of total GHG emissions, second only to China. Per right, excluding China, the EU, and India, the U.S. produces roughly 50% of the GHGs produced by every other nation (N = 191) combined.

�


Ultimately, the equivalent of every nation would need to achieve net-zero emissions by 2045 to keep well within the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming, but given the outsized role the U.S. plays in GHG emissions, coupled with the advantages the U.S. has to combat climate change (e.g. economic, military, private sector, etc.), it is strongly recommended for the U.S. to lead in curbing global GHG emissions by setting an aggressive pace of achieving an 80% domestic GHG reduction and draw-down by 2028, and becoming carbon-negative by 2045.

WHERE DO GHGs COME FROM?

Greenhouse gases emissions are represented on the right (EPA, 2017), with CO2 representing 82% of GHGs. Methane (10%), nitrous oxide (6%), and fluorinated gases (3%) are also contributors. Figures rounded. (4)

The 2017 EPA summary also indicates current GHGs are produced primarily in the electricity (~28%), transportation (~29%), and industry (~22%) sectors. Additional GHGs are produced from commercial and residential (12%) and agricultural (9%) sectors. (1) After several years of decline through 2016, GHG emissions in the U.S. are currently rising again, and globally rose ~2.7% in 2018. Figures rounded. (3)

WHAT IS A CARBON BUDGET?

As CO2 emissions are the main drivers of GHGs today, the carbon budget refers to the remaining amount of CO2 permitted in the atmosphere to avoid 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. As we emit more and more GHGs, particularly CO2, the remaining budget will decrease. Notably, without improvements in carbon sequestration and storage, this budget is not replenishable and is indiscriminate to who emits GHGs. Greenhouse gases emitted from the U.S. matter as much as those emitted by China or India, so the carbon budget is a shared global budget requiring global cooperation to avoid depletion. (6)

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?

To avoid the most serious effects of climate change, we should achieve global net-zero GHG emissions by 2045, with over half of those reductions by 2028. If we fail to reach these goals, we risk catastrophic effects of climate change including ecosystem collapse and food scarcity.

IS IT POSSIBLE?

Yes, mitigating the most severe effects of global warming is possible, but it won’t be easy. It’s also important to remember that some change has already happened and cannot be reversed. This is why it is critical to act now and prevent further, more severe effects.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE?

Enacting both mitigation and adaptation strategies within the short timeframe allotted will require achievements never before completed in American history. It is our greatest achievements combined (e.g. Apollo, Manhattan Project, New Deal, World War II mobilization), all in under a decade. It is absolutely a bold goal, and Americans will rise to the challenge as we have before.

�


SUMMARY:Anthropogenic climate change poses catastrophic risks to the national and economic security of the United States and rapid advancement of mitigation and adaptation strategies are supported both by scientific and military consensus.

In the United States, we need an immediate deployment of mitigation strategies that achieve a scientifically aggressive 80% reduction/draw-down of GHG emissions by 2028, and achieve carbon-negative emissions by 2045.

In the United States, we also need an immediate deployment of adaptation strategies to prepare for changes already committed to, thereby reducing future costs, conflicts, and loss of human health/life.

In the United States, legislative change alone will not be sufficient to achieve the goals laid out by the 2019 IPCC report. Instead, a federally-coordinated mobilization and oversight of a public and private sector collaboration is required.

Globally, the U.S. should assist in mitigation strategies that achieve a 55% reduction/draw-down of emissions by 2028, and net-zero emissions by 2045.

A ROAD MAP TO ZERO GHGs

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Achieving our goal will require more than legislative efforts alone can provide. This is why our campaign is advocating for the immediate creation of an “Office of Climate Mobilization” (OCM), a super-agency akin to the structure enacted during World War II (27). Similarly, this super-agency would report directly to the Office of President and be tasked with the following:

1) To develop unified programs with qualified experts and to establish evidence and equity-based policies to achieve an 80% U.S. GHG reduction/draw-down by 2028, and subsequent milestone of net GHG-negative by 2045.

2) To leverage public and private sector cooperation to achieve the rapid industrial scale achievements needs associated with an aggressive timeline, such as the immediate influx of cost-effective electric vehicles and renewable energy equipment.

3) To leverage public and private sector cooperation to achieve the rapid research and development needs associated with an aggressive timeline, and by consulting with national scientific and technological experts on which combination of technologies will be most effective to achieving zero-GHGs while limiting collateral effects.

4) To provide oversight during the economic transition, ensuring the stabilization of new workforces, markets, and fiscal responsibility within the programs and policies developed.

5) To unify activities of all Federal agencies and departments engaged in or concerned with production, procurement, disbursement or transportation of supplies, materials, and products required in the transition to clean energy, and to resolve conflicts between such entities.

�


6) To issue such directives on policy or operations to the President, Federal or state agencies, departments, and Congress as may be necessary to carry out the programs developed.

7) To ensure all agencies and departments comply with the directives by the Office of Climate Mobilization, with progress reports as required. *

*Functions have been directly transferred and modified as required from the original text of the executive order for the “Office of War Mobilization” signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The original text can be found in the Library of Congress under EO 9347.

The OCM could be established immediately in 2021 and run at capacity within 3-6 months. Leveraging existing entities would be the fastest, most cost-effective organizational structure.

OCM TECHNICAL VISION AND CONSIDERATIONS:

Energy Production and Sourcing: Concordant with GHG emissions per sector, scientific consensus mostly converges on an initial strategy of “cleaning up” the electricity sector (i.e. eliminating the burning of fossil fuels and coal) and concurrently electrifying the remainder, particularly the transportation and industry sectors. Models for achieving an aggressive 80% domestic GHG reduction/draw-down by 2028 should focus on utilizing a robust combination of renewable energies, varied per local region, primarily consisting of solar and wind technologies, supplemented with lesser use of tidal, wave, hydroelectric, and fission energy, and finally increasingly smaller percentages of biomass and natural gas during a 2-6 year transition phase to assist with technical constraints regarding on-demand production and storage capacities. (14) State-by-state needs and access to each technology will vary, with fission technology also phasing out, being mindful that too-early phase out of fission technology would likely lead to increased natural gas use which could contribute as much as 6% to GHG emissions by 2035. (19) Of note, large scale renewable farms (e.g. solar, wind) are typically more cost effective than local production, and ~1-2% of land mass should be repurposed accordingly (14) with careful consideration to avoid damage to protected and/or natural regions. Upgraded transmission lines will be required to direct electricity from large scale renewable farms to distant urban centers (current lines lack the technical capacity of long range transmission), likely leveraging investment and construction of new HVDC cabling and conversion. Local production of renewable energy whenever possible is preferred whenever feasible.

Energy Consumption:While GHG emissions decrease and overall energy consumption is estimated to drop as much as 38% in this model (14), electricity demands will greatly increase and must be scaled up accordingly. Significant focus will also be put on energy efficiencies and overall reduction strategies, and additional expansion of technologies such as geothermal may be utilized in some cases to help lower overall energy consumption. Oversight by OCM will be critical to achieving all efforts, but should be combined with local knowledge and best practices.

Functions have been directly transferred and modified as required from the original text of the *

executive order for the “Office of War Mobilization” signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The original text can be found in the Library of Congress under EO 9347

�


OCM Scope:As related to oversight of research and development, OCM will be broad in scope overseeing efforts ranging from small to large scale GHG-reduced to GHG-negative related technologies (e.g. geoengineering (12, 13), improved climate models, cost-effective electric vehicles, battery storage, bio-cement, cell-based meat, drought-resistant crops, carbon farming, CCS/BECCS), inclusive of non-technical solutions as well such as reforestation and regenerative agricultural techniques. (Note: Current carbon sinks remain well under 1,000 million metric tons of CO2 per year in the U.S. while doubling this would come close to negating remaining metric tons of CO2 after an 80% reduction, including the estimated 38% overall reduction of energy use.)

LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES*:

In addition to designating climate change as a national security crisis, and thereby establishing the above OCM, legislation would be concurrently sought in the first six months to provide OCM a running start. General categories include: market-based economic incentivization, increased regulatory standards, mission and budget reorganization, and initial public investments.

TIMELINE: FIRST 6 MONTHS (starting in 2021)

1) CARBON PRICING: A market-based solution widely supported by economists on both sides of the aisle. These methods (e.g. cap and trade, emissions trading system, direct carbon pricing per every ton of carbon emitted, carbon crediting, results-based climate financing, elimination of subsidies) can drive market incentives toward a reduced-carbon economy. A 2017 report estimated direct carbon pricing alone “would generate net revenues of $194 billion in the first year of the tax”. (21) During the Obama administration, “the U.S. government estimated the social cost of carbon to be approximately $46 in 2017 dollars for a ton of emissions in 2017 (IWG 2016).” (16) In 2021, estimates should be updated. Notably, leveraging market-based solutions has been shown to expedite transition and increase innovation in past applications such as reducing smog.

2) RESTRUCTURING OF BUDGETS AND MISSIONS: Examples of departmental and agency reorganization include (but are not limited to ): †

a. Department of Energy (DOE): Mission change to include “clean energy” and emblem updated accordingly, phase-out of the Office of Fossil Energy by 2025 ($562M) and transfer of funds and resources to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, responsible phase-out of fission energy with ongoing maintenance. Additionally, an immediate $500M to invest in clean-energy operations, including to Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).

b. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Immediate $1B in additional funding to ensure clean air, water, and land and assist in oversight of oil and gas transition clean-up.

c. Department of Health and Human Services: Initial $100M to Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for infectious disease research to assess changes and prevention methods.

e. Department of Defense: Reorganization to move up in priority additional disaster response and preparedness to address infrastructure security transition and mitigate human migration.

Subsequent increases in investments after 3-6 months to follow under advisement of OCM.†

�


f. Department of Labor: Reorganization to prioritize displaced workers into clean energy sector.**Subsequent increases in investments after 3-6 months to follow under advisement of OCM.

3) FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY TRANSITION: Cease all new fossil fuel extraction permits beginning in 2021, cease hydraulic fracturing (HF) within 10,000’ of communities (20) and eliminate all HF by 2023 with mandates on responsible clean-up and withdrawal.

4) FUEL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS: Require 55% of new passenger vehicle sales be, at minimum, hybrid-electric by 2025, and 95% by 2028 (leaving room for possible fuel cell tech, etc.). Assist in securing a robust electric vehicle market and production cost decreases by committing to transition applicable government vehicles by 2028.

5) ELECTRIC VEHICLE AND E-BIKE CREDITS: Extend the federal electric vehicle tax credits set to phase out by the end of 2019, but revise to make the credit available immediately upon purchase. Create a new e-bike credit ($500) also available at purchase. In combination with funding for bike lane expansion (see public investments), this directly addresses a 2017 National Household Travel Survey which found approximately 50% of vehicle trips were under three miles, and over 20% of car trips were less than one mile.

6) CARBON BUDGET AND SCORES: Require all new legislation to contain carbon budget assessments and carbon-scores so as not to exceed the remaining carbon budget.

7) PARIS ACCORDS: Support for immediately rejoining and enhancing the Paris Accords, with a dedication that America will take the lead and ask others to join.

EXAMPLE ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE MECHANISMS WITH OCM (6-12 MONTHS):

1) Farmer tax credits to support restorative agriculture (see New York Carbon Farming Act).

2) Work to ensure all states and government buildings comply with top LEED certifications & Energy Star efficiency standards for new builds (currently 4 states have effectively banned this).

3) Per the Montreal Protocol, require a phasedown of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants estimated to contribute 0.5 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100. Leverage models in California, New York, Maryland, and Connecticut which require a 40% reduction in HFCs by 2030.

4) Enact national energy securitization for states where it is needed and not yet implemented.

5) Eliminate the guaranteed loan program under the Department of Agriculture for concentrated animal feeding operations and promote grass-fed beef/dairy, cell-based meats, and non-dairy milks to reduce GHGs. (Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy and GRAIN, 2018) report)

6) Food waste bans with domestic composing, recycling, and prevention. An estimated 40% of the food supply is wasted annually, contributing to 19-29% of global GHG emissions. (22, 23)

INITIAL PUBLIC INVESTMENTS (Prior to OCM):

1) Large and small scale renewable energy farms, transition, and storage. Research suggests achieving 45% solar would require approximately $0.7T ($1 per watt). (14)

�


2) Electric vehicle charging infrastructure: “The cost of a single port electric vehicle supply equipment unit ranges from $300-$1,500 for Level 1, $400-$6,500 for Level 2, and $10,000-$40,000 for DC fast charging. Installation costs vary greatly from site to site with a ballpark cost range of $0-$3,000 for Level 1, $600- $12,700 for Level 2, and $4,000-$51,000 for DC fast charging.” (24) Level 2 charges a car in 3-8h which is reasonable for workplaces.

3) Reforestation is only part of the solution: U.S. land required to achieve forest carbon sequestration at 1B metric tons of CO2 is >100M acres. “At ~$200/acre for afforestation, the low-end estimate of 100 million acres of forest stand establishment would cost ~$20 billion.” (25)

4) Electric public transportation (particularly electric buses) and expanded bike lanes (collaborative with OCM for state/local needs).

5) Commit to transitioning all applicable governmental infrastructure (e.g. buildings and vehicles) to net zero-GHG.

6) $2B for federal implementation of Colorado’s intrauterine device (IUD) program over 8 years. From 2009-2017 Colorado saw a 54% reduction in teen birth rate by offering free, low-cost access to IUDs. The cost of implementation was $28 million statewide, savings were estimated at ~$70M in healthcare costs and social assistance for unplanned teen births. (2) Net cost is expected to be a gain of between $4-5B over 8 years.

7) Assist rural and low income communities affected by loss of taxes in the closing GHG-related operations. (OCM)

8) Work-remote opportunities to minimize travel by expanding broadband access to rural areas.

OVERALL COSTS & JOBS:

With strong oversight and organization structure largely using existing departments and agencies, coupled with strong carbon pricing, the cost of public investment in achieving zero-GHGs is kept substantially lower (e.g. The Green New Deal does not call for either). Public investments are anticipated at ~$1.5T over the first 8 years, with a majority offset from carbon-pricing revenue, far less than the cost of inaction. (14, 17, 18, 21) A net increase of 2M jobs are estimated to be created between 2010-2050. (14) OCM will ensure fiscal oversight.

SPECIAL THANKS:

A special thanks to the dozens of nationally recognized scientists and engineers who have provided their time, expertise, and ideas, as well as countless volunteers. This proposal will continue to develop throughout 2021. Updates will be announced.

INCLUDED REFERENCES :‡

Open source articles were selected whenever possible for public access.‡

�


1. Environmental Protection Agency, “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

2. Brown, Jennifer, “IUD program leads to big decline in teen pregnancies, abortions in Colorado”. Denver Post, Nov 30, 2017.

3. Tollefson, Jeff. “Global industrial carbon emissions to reach all-time high in 2018”, Nature, Dec 07, 2018. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07666-6

4. Environmental Protection Agency, “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks”, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks

5. Stuhltrager, James, “Global Climate Change and National Security”, Natural Resources & Environment, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2008.

6. Hausfather, Jeff, “Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?”, Carbon Brief, Sept. 4, 2018. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-carbon-budget-is-left-to-limit-global-warming-to-1-5c

7. Department of defence 2019: Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition.

8. Earth System Laboratory/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

9. Schneider, T., Teixeira, J., Bretherton, C. S., Brient, F., Pressel, K. G., Schär, C., & Siebesma, A. P. (2017). Climate goals and computing the future of clouds. Nature Climate Change, 7(1), 3.

10. Garner, A. J., Mann, M. E., Emanuel, K. A., Kopp, R. E., Lin, N., Alley, R. B., ... & Pollard, D. (2017). Impact of climate change on New York City’s coastal flood hazard: Increasing flood heights from the preindustrial to 2300 CE. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(45), 11861-11866.

11. Sobel, A. H., Camargo, S. J., Hall, T. M., Lee, C. Y., Tippett, M. K., & Wing, A. A. (2016). Human influence on tropical cyclone intensity. Science, 353(6296), 242-246.

12. Irvine, P., Emanuel, K., He, J., Horowitz, L. W., Vecchi, G., & Keith, D. (2019). Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards. Nature Climate Change, 9(4), 295.

13. Reynolds, J. L. (2019). Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 475(2229), 20190255. 14. Jacobson, M. Z., Delucchi, M. A., Bazouin, G., Bauer, Z. A., Heavey, C. C., Fisher, E., ... & Yeskoo, T. W. (2015). 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States. Energy & Environmental Science, 8(7), 2093-2117.

15. Edenhofer, O., Knopf, B., Barker, T., Baumstark, L., Bellevrat, E., Chateau, B., ... & Leimbach, M. (2010). The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. The Energy Journal, 11-48.

�


16. Gillingham, K., & Stock, J. H. (2018). The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(4), 53-72.

17. Ameli, N., & Kammen, D. M. (2012). Clean energy deployment: addressing financing cost. Environmental Research Letters, 7(3), 034008.

18. Nauclér T. and Enkvist P. (2009): The global greenhouse gas Abatement cost curve, second version. McKinsey & Company. 19. Union of Concerned Scientists, “The Nuclear Power Dilemma”, 2018. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/11/Nuclear-Power-Dilemma-full-report.pdf

20. Currie, J., Greenstone, M., & Meckel, K. (2017). Hydraulic fracturing and infant health: New evidence from Pennsylvania. Science advances, 3(12), e1603021.

21. Horowitz, J., Cronin, J. A., Hawkins, H., Konda, L., & Yuskavage, A. (2017). Methodology for analyzing a carbon tax. US Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC. 22.Hall, Kevin, Guo, Juen, et. al, “The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and Its Environmental Impact”, PLoS ONE 4(11): e7940. (2009)

23. Vermeulen, Sonja, Campbell, Bruce, Ingram, John, “Climate Change and Food Systems”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources (2012).

24. Smith, M., & Castellano, J. (2015). Costs associated with non-residential electric vehicle supply equipment: Factors to consider in the implementation of electric vehicle charging stations (No. DOE/EE-1289).

25. Gorte, R. W. (2009, May). US tree planting for carbon sequestration. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.

26. IPCC, 2019: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)

27. Gropman, A. L. (1996). Mobilizing US Industry in World War II (No. 50). DIANE Publishing.

�


APPENDIX A:

This figure, taken from (10), shows projections of global sea level rise given different mitigation scenarios (RCP4.5 is a 1.5C warming and RCP.8.5C is a 2.0C warming scenario).

APPENDIX B:

Figure from (14) showing the decrease (of 38%) in overall energy demand (due to efficiency) in the transition to renewables and EVs in a suggested plan.

ZORNIO CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL ON ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY€¦ · ZORNIO CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL ON...

Documents

Transcript of ZORNIO CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL ON ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY€¦ · ZORNIO CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL ON...