I have long felt that the problem of global warming required an overhaul of our economic system, if not a new one entirely. It is still possible, but recent events have lessened that need.
First I will explain why a new economic system is in order.
Consider cigarettes. Growing tobacco requires land, labor, fuel, machinery, and chemicals among other things. The harvesting and processing of the tobacco into tobacco products requires more of these costly resources. Then there is advertising, shipping, retail sales, etc. before it gets to the consumer. The burden on our healthcare system presents more costs. Yet all these costs are part of the Gross National Product (GDP). Gross is right. More gross is the idea that growth of our economy, i.e. growing GDP, by growing industries that are harming society is the same as "progress."
Examples of this absurdity abound. War, natural disasters, and man-made disasters create construction bursts that boost the economy. Waste management contributes to GDP, so producing more waste improves it. Waste of any kind helps the economy, even government waste. Improving efficiency, such as higher gasoline mileage hurts sales of fuel and thus hurts GDP. Cutting the lifespan of products improves GDP by forcing consumers to buy products more often. But there is more to the problem than a poor metric for policy makers to gauge the success of new legislation.
Our economic system is built on free enterprise, an economic system in which private business operates in competition and largely free of state control. The main, if not only driver of the system, is profits. If a product or service does not provide an adequate return on the capital (profits), then the entrepreneur(s) will not pursue that line of business. Nowhere in that equation suggests the greater good of society or "the commons," let alone the benefit of the planet. Sure, some business can be had selling to a relative handful of do-gooders, but that is not enough to do the task in front of us.
Consider the situation where some people, those wishing to reduce their carbon footprint, buy less gasoline. Sounds good. Demand declines. But the price of gasoline goes down as a result. Cheaper gasoline compels others to buy more gasoline. It's a social dilemma.
The atmosphere is part of the commons, something the public owns together. That the fossil fuel industry and industries that use fossil fuel products are harming the common atmosphere without consequences to their bottom lines is not part of our economic system. It is built into our current economy to harm the atmosphere.
The government normally tries to hold the line in this kind of exploitation of the commons through regulations and taxes. Is it enough this time? The political debate could be long and nasty.
On a more encouraging note, however, is the dropping of prices of solar and wind energy, electric vehicles, and batteries. It is possible that these prices could drop below the current prices of fossil fuels and petroleum driven vehicles. If they do, it could take a heavy burden off the upcoming policy changes.
It would be a tasty carrot.
Friday, May 31, 2019
Electric Vehicles
When discussing fossil fuels increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, most Americans think of their cars. So how much do they contribute, overall? By switching to plug-in electric cars, how much will CO2 emissions decline?
Transportation causes 28.9% of U.S. emissions (2017). 60% of that is caused by cars and small trucks. So that means 17% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions could be saved in that part of the problem.
The amount of actual energy to move vehicles is really quite small compared to the thermal energy in petroleum. In fact, about 80% of the thermal energy is wasted.
With electric vehicles, inefficiencies show up in the charging circuitry and the batteries during the charge and discharge cycle, as well as in the small amount of heat given off by the motors. A Ford Focus electric car gets 3.5 times more miles per gallon equivalent than the gasoline version. That's about 30% of the energy of a gas car. (note: Current MPGe ranges from 72 to 136 MPGe.)
U.S. transportation consumes about 5.95 quadrillion BTUs a year, or 1,740 billion kWh of energy. (Note: BTUs and kilowatt-hours are both units of energy.) 30% of that is 552 billion kWh. Add transmission and distribution losses, and of electricity and 580 billion kWh is needed at the power plants to power all vehicles. For just cars and light trucks, about 350 billion kWh is needed.
Total U.S. production of electricity is 4,178 billion kWh, so we need 8% more to power cars. This adds about 2.5% to total emissions from all sources. So the net reduction is 17% minus 2.5% or about 14.5%. If we don't build new clean energy and that new energy comes from natural gas, then that emissions savings drops to 14%.
The cost of a new EV today is perhaps $10,000 more than a gas powered car. Applied to all 250 million cars, that amounts to $2.5 trillion for just 14% of our problem. If that level of spending were applied to the rest of carbon emissions, the cost would be $17.5 trillion. Spread over 30 years, that's over half a trillion a year, nearly $100 a year per metric ton of CO2. We may have the economy to suffer through that, but the rest of the world? Forget it.
But we don't have to spend that much. The $7,500 incentive to offset the higher cost of electric cars is just a kick starter, designed to get auto manufacturers into the business and lower the costs through mass production. Since 2010, over a million EVs have been sold. EVs are poised to take off, and by 2025 should be cost competitive with gasoline vehicles. Significantly, a bi-partisan proposal in the Senate will extend the tax credit by raising the caps, while costing less than $16 billion total.
(For an interesting view of the production by various car makers month by month, see this animated graph.)
Once consumers become convinced electric cars are a cost effective choice, meets their range needs, and understand the benefits of ownership (like snappy acceleration, lower cost per mile, and reduced maintenance costs), the sales will pick up exponentially. Initially, those wishing to buy a new second car, one they use for commuting and errands in town, will find a plug-in EV to be the best choice.
Bottom line: Be prepared to take a close look at EVs if you plan to buy a new car in the next few years.
Transportation causes 28.9% of U.S. emissions (2017). 60% of that is caused by cars and small trucks. So that means 17% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions could be saved in that part of the problem.
The amount of actual energy to move vehicles is really quite small compared to the thermal energy in petroleum. In fact, about 80% of the thermal energy is wasted.
With electric vehicles, inefficiencies show up in the charging circuitry and the batteries during the charge and discharge cycle, as well as in the small amount of heat given off by the motors. A Ford Focus electric car gets 3.5 times more miles per gallon equivalent than the gasoline version. That's about 30% of the energy of a gas car. (note: Current MPGe ranges from 72 to 136 MPGe.)
U.S. transportation consumes about 5.95 quadrillion BTUs a year, or 1,740 billion kWh of energy. (Note: BTUs and kilowatt-hours are both units of energy.) 30% of that is 552 billion kWh. Add transmission and distribution losses, and of electricity and 580 billion kWh is needed at the power plants to power all vehicles. For just cars and light trucks, about 350 billion kWh is needed.
Total U.S. production of electricity is 4,178 billion kWh, so we need 8% more to power cars. This adds about 2.5% to total emissions from all sources. So the net reduction is 17% minus 2.5% or about 14.5%. If we don't build new clean energy and that new energy comes from natural gas, then that emissions savings drops to 14%.
The cost of a new EV today is perhaps $10,000 more than a gas powered car. Applied to all 250 million cars, that amounts to $2.5 trillion for just 14% of our problem. If that level of spending were applied to the rest of carbon emissions, the cost would be $17.5 trillion. Spread over 30 years, that's over half a trillion a year, nearly $100 a year per metric ton of CO2. We may have the economy to suffer through that, but the rest of the world? Forget it.
But we don't have to spend that much. The $7,500 incentive to offset the higher cost of electric cars is just a kick starter, designed to get auto manufacturers into the business and lower the costs through mass production. Since 2010, over a million EVs have been sold. EVs are poised to take off, and by 2025 should be cost competitive with gasoline vehicles. Significantly, a bi-partisan proposal in the Senate will extend the tax credit by raising the caps, while costing less than $16 billion total.
(For an interesting view of the production by various car makers month by month, see this animated graph.)
Once consumers become convinced electric cars are a cost effective choice, meets their range needs, and understand the benefits of ownership (like snappy acceleration, lower cost per mile, and reduced maintenance costs), the sales will pick up exponentially. Initially, those wishing to buy a new second car, one they use for commuting and errands in town, will find a plug-in EV to be the best choice.
 |
| Drivers' needs are mostly met by today's Electric cars. |
Bottom line: Be prepared to take a close look at EVs if you plan to buy a new car in the next few years.
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
The Path Forward
While there has been lots of speculation as to how the world can achieve zero CO2 emissions, it is becoming clear which technologies will dominate in the next few decades.
First, it has been long acknowledged that natural gas would be the interim solution to slow the rate, and we are seeing that happen. Natural gas, essentially methane gas or CH4, produces 50 to 60% less carbon dioxide than coal. Since about 2007 energy from coal in the U.S.has declined while natural gas energy has increased. A lot of this may be due to declining gas price, but we can hope that decisions by policy makers played a major role. Coal is primarily used in electricity generation, and will fade out as coal fired plants age and are closed down.
The next good news is the growth of renewable energy, particularly wind and solar.
From the graph above, is is clear solar and wind make up most of the recent increase of renewable energy. The annual increase in new capacity is only growing about 8% a year, but more like 16% in the last few years, far less than our historical examples.
Wind energy has steadily been expanding both worldwide and in the U.S. We add about 6 gigawatts of wind power each year. Wind now supplies 6% of the U.S. electrical needs, and is projected to supply 20% by 2030 and 35% by 2050.
Solar is really starting to pick up steam. In 2018 the U.S. installed 10.6 gigawatts of PV power, a rate of 20% increase per year. The installation rate is expected to reach 15 gigawatts each year and the total installed base doubling in 5 years.
The driver behind solar's exponential growth has been declining solar PV panel prices. From 2010 to 2018 utility scale scale electrical generation has reduced in cost by 84%. The U.S. Dept. of Energy's 2020 goal of 6 cents per kWhr for utility scale electricity was met in 2017. (The SunShot Initiative is a federal government aimed at making solar energy affordable.)
The final piece of good news is the declining cost of batteries as evidenced by the sudden emergence of electric cars.
While batteries have yet to make a dent in the electrical grid, the role of electrical energy storage of some sort is part of the SunShot goal, starting around 2030:
Storage becomes important once the amount of solar energy becomes cheap and abundant enough to be needed during nighttime hours, allowing a time lag between generation and consumption.
These developments hint at how the U.S. can achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Emissions from coal is declining at bout the amount natural gas is increasing. Since natural gas gives more energy per pound of CO2 emitted, there is a net increase in energy. Natural gas, the rise of renewable energy, and increases efficiency, are supplying the growing demand for energy.
The Path:
By combining all these facts, a path forward toward a planet free of fossil-fuels starts to become clear.
2020-2030
2030-2040
2040-2050
Bottom line: Encouraging recent developments point to wind and solar as the probably course of action in replacing carbon based fossil fuels with renewable energy over the next three decades.
First, it has been long acknowledged that natural gas would be the interim solution to slow the rate, and we are seeing that happen. Natural gas, essentially methane gas or CH4, produces 50 to 60% less carbon dioxide than coal. Since about 2007 energy from coal in the U.S.has declined while natural gas energy has increased. A lot of this may be due to declining gas price, but we can hope that decisions by policy makers played a major role. Coal is primarily used in electricity generation, and will fade out as coal fired plants age and are closed down.
The next good news is the growth of renewable energy, particularly wind and solar.
From the graph above, is is clear solar and wind make up most of the recent increase of renewable energy. The annual increase in new capacity is only growing about 8% a year, but more like 16% in the last few years, far less than our historical examples.
Wind energy has steadily been expanding both worldwide and in the U.S. We add about 6 gigawatts of wind power each year. Wind now supplies 6% of the U.S. electrical needs, and is projected to supply 20% by 2030 and 35% by 2050.
Solar is really starting to pick up steam. In 2018 the U.S. installed 10.6 gigawatts of PV power, a rate of 20% increase per year. The installation rate is expected to reach 15 gigawatts each year and the total installed base doubling in 5 years.
The driver behind solar's exponential growth has been declining solar PV panel prices. From 2010 to 2018 utility scale scale electrical generation has reduced in cost by 84%. The U.S. Dept. of Energy's 2020 goal of 6 cents per kWhr for utility scale electricity was met in 2017. (The SunShot Initiative is a federal government aimed at making solar energy affordable.)
The final piece of good news is the declining cost of batteries as evidenced by the sudden emergence of electric cars.
While batteries have yet to make a dent in the electrical grid, the role of electrical energy storage of some sort is part of the SunShot goal, starting around 2030:
Storage becomes important once the amount of solar energy becomes cheap and abundant enough to be needed during nighttime hours, allowing a time lag between generation and consumption.
These developments hint at how the U.S. can achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Emissions from coal is declining at bout the amount natural gas is increasing. Since natural gas gives more energy per pound of CO2 emitted, there is a net increase in energy. Natural gas, the rise of renewable energy, and increases efficiency, are supplying the growing demand for energy.
The Path:
By combining all these facts, a path forward toward a planet free of fossil-fuels starts to become clear.
2020-2030
- Production of electricity from energy sources other than fossil fuels is ramped up at an exponential rate, increasing about 30% each year.
- Solar and wind energy will continue to be the biggest gainers.
- Hybrid and electric vehicles will grow at a steady rate.
2030-2040
- Renewable energy growth will continue at a steady, linear rate.
- Electric vehicles will increase in number, powered by these new sources of energy.
- Batteries will become affordable, making electric vehicles cheaper than internal combustion cars.
2040-2050
- Few gas powered cars made after 2040.
- Slower progress will be made where dense or lightweight fuel is required. Cement production and methane emissions are also concerns, time-wise.
- By 2050 solar will comprise about 50% of the energy needs, wind 35%, with nuclear, hydro, and other renewable energy sources making up the rest. We don't know that mix for sure, but the trends at this time suggest it.
Bottom line: Encouraging recent developments point to wind and solar as the probably course of action in replacing carbon based fossil fuels with renewable energy over the next three decades.
Monday, May 27, 2019
How Soon? How fast?
How soon do we need to get started reducing greenhouse emissions? And when we do start, what speed do we need to switch over to alternative fuels?
To avoid despair at seeming impossibility or complacent waiting for the right time to act, a close look at the parameters is required.
Before you answer the "how soon" question with "Twenty years ago!", the good news is that we already have. We have long had hydro and nuclear power stations delivering carbon free electricity. Had we not, emissions and atmospheric concentrations would be higher today. More good news is that non-hydro renewable energy in the U.S. is now greater than hydro.
Fig. 1. Renewable Energy Electricity Generation
To answer the "how fast" question, we look at the Paris Agreement global targets in annual billion metric tons of combined greenhouse gas emissions in CO2-equivalents (CO2e). Charted below, we find both the time period and the slope:
Fig. 2. Global Annual Emissions (gigatons/yr)
By 2050, over a span of thirty years, emissions are reduced to a level where most of the temperature increase has already happened. (Temperature rise roughly follows total emissions, the area under each line.) Thirty years for one technology to take over another is quite common. Automobiles replaced horses in 30 years. Cell phone are replacing land lines at that rate.
Figure 2 assumes an immediate level of replacement energy, added every year. Reaching that level won't happen overnight. Factories need to be built, workers trained, and power sources installed.
How does the U.S. achieve this? Fossil fuels make up about 80% of U.S. energy consumption. To make the 2 degree goal we need 10-fold increase over our existing rate of new renewable energy. For the 1.5 degree goal, the factor is 15. If we delay 15 years, the required increase becomes 20x.
Is this level of industrial increase doable? A look back at a couple examples tells us, yes, easily. One is the combat aircraft production during World War II compared to production in 1941. Another is Ford Model T after its first year of production.
Fig 3. Increase in Production
(Note how the war's rapid increase in production rate contrasts to Ford's 14 year build-up.)
The aircraft production grew from 1,771 a year to 74,564 per year, a 42x increase. Ford increased production from 10,666 to 170211, a 16x increase. Then Ford went on to make as many as 2 million Model T cars a year, 187 times the first year production.
We don't need rates of that sort, unless we wait too long. We can achieve ellimination f fossil fuels by 2050 by implementing a 30% growth in our current growth of carbon-free energy each year for the next ten years, then maintain the 2030 replacement rate for the next 20 years. This 30% increase is far below Ford's 10 year average of 55%/year.
Fig 4. Total Global Emissions - projected
Figure 4 shows the accumulation of annual carbon emissions for the next 40 years. Estimates center around 1500 gigatons CO2e for a 2 degree rise. A 1.5 degree target calls for no more than 1000 gigatons. Lines A and B represent immediate and steady replacement of fossil fuels as shown in Figure 2.
If we keep on with business as usual, we will have reached the 1.5 degree level by 2036, and the 2 degree level around 2043. These are estimates, but they point to a date of 2030 by which significant progress must be made.
What this means is the window of opportunity is small. Ideally, we ramp up renewable energy production to a reasonably high level by 2030, replacing fossil fuel's 80% share of energy in the following twenty years.
Waiting too long, where we need a three or four year crisis mode push starting in 2037 is not a desirable choice.
Bottom line: The Paris Agreement targets demand a 30 year time frame, a ten year ramp up in production is achievable, and historically both are quite normal.
The Trump Circus
Donald J. Trump.
Tweeting... Terrible president... Ludicrous ego... Dishonest... Clownish... Con man...
Infamously mercurial... Self-obsessed... Bellowing... Spectacular vulgarity... Whiny...
Crazy... Preening... Serial liar... Boasting... Vanity... Desperate need to have his manhood validated...
Serial and self-admitted sexual harasser... Strutting... International laughingstock... Fury...
Scaremongering... Walking conflict of interest... Tawdry... Clinically insane... Low behavior...
Deservedly mockable... Untrustworthy... Notoriously shallow intellect... President Shithole...
Inability to stick to a consistent line of thinking... Heinous... Delusional... Unfocused...
Agitated... Umber Overlord... Loyal to nothing... Loyal to no one... National Bully...
Shithouse-rat-crazy... Unmanageable... Attention span of a gnat on meth... President Pussy Grabber.
Infamously mercurial... Self-obsessed... Bellowing... Spectacular vulgarity... Whiny...
Crazy... Preening... Serial liar... Boasting... Vanity... Desperate need to have his manhood validated...
Serial and self-admitted sexual harasser... Strutting... International laughingstock... Fury...
Scaremongering... Walking conflict of interest... Tawdry... Clinically insane... Low behavior...
Deservedly mockable... Untrustworthy... Notoriously shallow intellect... President Shithole...
Inability to stick to a consistent line of thinking... Heinous... Delusional... Unfocused...
Agitated... Umber Overlord... Loyal to nothing... Loyal to no one... National Bully...
Shithouse-rat-crazy... Unmanageable... Attention span of a gnat on meth... President Pussy Grabber.
Those are not my words. Those are only some of the ones used by conservative Rick Wilson,
longtime Republican strategist and angry at how Donal Trump has destroyed his party, in just a
couple chapters of his book "Everything Trump Touches Dies."
Has Trump killed off the efforts to fight global warming? Hardly.
Candidate Trump promised to bring back "beautiful clean coal." It didn't happen.
Coal continues its decline as if Trump wasn't alive.
Candidate Trump promised to bring back "beautiful clean coal." It didn't happen.
Coal continues its decline as if Trump wasn't alive.
Despite his claim that global warming is a hoax (later lie retracted that lie) and renewable energy kills
jobs, more jobs have been created producing renewable energy.
jobs, more jobs have been created producing renewable energy.
How much damage can Trump cause? Trump could stall progress if an environment friendly
Congress is elected in 2020 and Trump is re-elected by vetoing legislation that will push a renewable
agenda.
Bottom line: Vote in 2020. Don't let Trump touch the fight against global warming.
Wednesday, May 22, 2019
Planet Change
It's not global warming. It's more than that. It's not climate change. It's more than that, too.
It is Planet Change.
Sure, the planet is warming, ice is melting, and the weather is changing. But the oceans are becoming acidic, ecosystems are being altered, species are becoming extinct. Less well known are the adverse affects on human health and food supply. We will see social disruption with unprecedented numbers of migrants pushing the limits of our collective will to compassionately help fellow human beings suffering the effects of planet change.
It was bond to happen sooner or later. Something had to get out of hand. We thought it might be nuclear weapons. But it was simply the unsustainability of our everyday way of life, doing things without regard to the scope, the future. The planet turned out to be smaller than we liked to think.
Bottom line: Planet change encompasses more than temperature and climate change effects.
It is Planet Change.
Sure, the planet is warming, ice is melting, and the weather is changing. But the oceans are becoming acidic, ecosystems are being altered, species are becoming extinct. Less well known are the adverse affects on human health and food supply. We will see social disruption with unprecedented numbers of migrants pushing the limits of our collective will to compassionately help fellow human beings suffering the effects of planet change.
It was bond to happen sooner or later. Something had to get out of hand. We thought it might be nuclear weapons. But it was simply the unsustainability of our everyday way of life, doing things without regard to the scope, the future. The planet turned out to be smaller than we liked to think.
Bottom line: Planet change encompasses more than temperature and climate change effects.
Monday, May 13, 2019
The New Debate
Twenty years ago as someone newly interested in global warming, I thought that others would see the light if only they learned the basics. My first stab at a blog-like website was devoted to that aim.
It was apparent back in those days that the doubters (call them skeptics, disbelievers, deniers, conservatives or whatever you like, the terms are meat for a later post) would come up with one aspect or another to justify their resisting attitude.
One popular theme back then was that humans were not causing carbon dioxide levels to increase, either it was caused by volcanoes or that the data was faulty ("Mauna Loa is a volcano!"). No sooner than that was refuted they came up with one objection after another like some kind of whack-a-mole game. "The planet is too big to be affected by humans!" "CO2 is a trace gas!" "Al Gore invented it!" "Scientists are only trying to get money!" "It's a hoax!" Then finally there was the warming hiatus "No global warming since 1998! Global warming theory doesn't explain that!" For a excellent treatment of nearly all the denier myths in detail, see the website Skeptical Science.
Following the spike in temperature in 2016, a few have reverted to the "no global warming since..." cries, but for the most part the "debate" over the science is over. The headlines tell the story.
Not that there was ever a science debate. Science is not particularly a debatable subject. Some may debate science topics like evolution or global warming, but those who know science don't see it as a matter of how many are convinced. (Why science should be a "liberal" idea at all is a subject for another post.) Fortunately, many have seen the urgent need for action, and entities like the United Nations and savvy businesses have not stopped working on the problem.
Now the debate has turned to where it should have been in the first place -- the economic and political decisions. And true to form, the deniers have come up with multiple economic reasons to do nothing. We shouldn't be surprised.
As much as I'd like to write about the science of global warming and climate change which are much easier, this blog will focus where the real fight is -- how we spend our personal and society financial resources, how much, when, and where, and how we can change our economic system to facilitate the goals and not work against them. Despite what appears to be inaction, encouraging trends are starting to appear.
The old deniers will still deny the policies will work. They'll point to all the different economic and policy goals as proof that there is no consensus and it is still all a hoax.
Just ignore them. Their minds won't change. Instead, make the debate about what should be done and what to do to make it happen
Bottom line: The new debate is among liberals and deals with the path forward.
It was apparent back in those days that the doubters (call them skeptics, disbelievers, deniers, conservatives or whatever you like, the terms are meat for a later post) would come up with one aspect or another to justify their resisting attitude.
One popular theme back then was that humans were not causing carbon dioxide levels to increase, either it was caused by volcanoes or that the data was faulty ("Mauna Loa is a volcano!"). No sooner than that was refuted they came up with one objection after another like some kind of whack-a-mole game. "The planet is too big to be affected by humans!" "CO2 is a trace gas!" "Al Gore invented it!" "Scientists are only trying to get money!" "It's a hoax!" Then finally there was the warming hiatus "No global warming since 1998! Global warming theory doesn't explain that!" For a excellent treatment of nearly all the denier myths in detail, see the website Skeptical Science.
Following the spike in temperature in 2016, a few have reverted to the "no global warming since..." cries, but for the most part the "debate" over the science is over. The headlines tell the story.
Not that there was ever a science debate. Science is not particularly a debatable subject. Some may debate science topics like evolution or global warming, but those who know science don't see it as a matter of how many are convinced. (Why science should be a "liberal" idea at all is a subject for another post.) Fortunately, many have seen the urgent need for action, and entities like the United Nations and savvy businesses have not stopped working on the problem.
Now the debate has turned to where it should have been in the first place -- the economic and political decisions. And true to form, the deniers have come up with multiple economic reasons to do nothing. We shouldn't be surprised.
As much as I'd like to write about the science of global warming and climate change which are much easier, this blog will focus where the real fight is -- how we spend our personal and society financial resources, how much, when, and where, and how we can change our economic system to facilitate the goals and not work against them. Despite what appears to be inaction, encouraging trends are starting to appear.
The old deniers will still deny the policies will work. They'll point to all the different economic and policy goals as proof that there is no consensus and it is still all a hoax.
Just ignore them. Their minds won't change. Instead, make the debate about what should be done and what to do to make it happen
Bottom line: The new debate is among liberals and deals with the path forward.
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
Hot Green Carrots ... say what?
Hot Green Carrots
What the heck? Peppery unripe roots? Some new spicy culinary fad? A rock group?
No. Nothing like
that. Some alternative definitions of the three words:
Hot:
fresh,
of intense and immediate interest, currently
popular, very good
Green: tending to preserve environmental quality
Carrot: a reward or advantage offered especially as an inducement
Green: tending to preserve environmental quality
Carrot: a reward or advantage offered especially as an inducement
Let us say “hot
green carrots” means “popular inducements to preserve
environmental quality.” “Hot green carrots” is an easier way
to say the same thing.
When it comes to
combating global warming and reducing carbon emissions, it is
becoming increasingly apparent that between the carrot and stick
approaches, the stick isn't well received.
This blog will
explore what the carrots are and how we can implement them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)