Matters of Degrees

Conversations about climate change often beeline to the weather du jour. We’ll gather around the water cooler to lament the onslaught of extreme storm systems, seemingly born of a comic book universe. Polar Vortex has finally met his match: Thundersnow! Veer toward the incisive policy or collective action needed to address climate change at a fundamental level and discussions quickly fizzle into sighs, shrugs or plans to buy a hybrid.

It’s not surprising. This is existential stuff.

We can no longer claim the target is vague. It’s the boldface headline of 2018’s special report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): To ensure a livable world, we must limit global average temperatures to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. 

The good news is that this goal is viable. The bad news is that we’re on the wrong trajectory. At the current rate we’re polluting the atmosphere, the world will exceed the IPCC’s recommended limit sometime between 2036 and 2052.

We didn’t need this report to make obvious the need for drastic action. From raging wildfires that intensify each year to flooded coastal city streets, climate change is already here.

But fear or frustration hasn’t motivated collective action. It hasn’t for more than 100 years. The greenhouse effect was identified before the turn of the 20th century.

The fact is, climate change is not a scientific challenge, but a psychological one.

An Oblique Strategy

When rock icon and celebrated chameleon David Bowie felt stuck in a rut, he would turn to producer Brian Eno and artist Peter Schmidt’s deck of “Oblique Strategies,” cards that would send him off in a new direction — to change instruments or “discover the recipes you are using and abandon them.”

If the way we think about climate change only leads to resignation, maybe we need to abandon the recipe. Could we talk instead about the abundant opportunities to create new wealth and improve human health by transitioning to an economy powered by renewable energy? Or highlight the ever-improving technology that can curtail human-caused emissions? Could we push creative, new policy and motivate action toward a future that may look different, but also more vibrant, more alive?

These strategies have already started in California. The state has planted its flag as America’s leader on environmental policy and activism, and it continues to pursue a sustainable future in the face of a disruptive politic. Los Angeles, too, is leaning on its tradition of ingenuity to meet the needs of 10 million residents while wearing a smaller carbon Birkenstock.

The actions we take during the next few years will demonstrate our resolve as a society and a species. Most of the stories we hear threaten a future in which we get it wrong.  But what will life be like — in L.A. and beyond — if we get it right? 

Atmospheric Pressure

“As long as things happen slowly, everything seems to be OK,” says Professor of Earth Sciences and Biological Sciences Ken Nealson, the sanguine director of the USC Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies. “But if you look through the geological record and see when the great extinction events happened, they were all when things got out of balance — and they happen fast.”

Case in point: “In less than 200 years, humans have been digging up 200 million years’ worth of carbon dioxide and putting it back into the atmosphere,” Nealson said.

Clip-art perceptions of greenhouse gas emissions evoke Dickensian factories or congested, rush-hour freeways. But the two most aggressive producers of carbon dioxide emissions are fossil fuel-burning electric utilities and deforestation. Theoretically, these are among the easiest to curb with obvious, accessible solutions.

Catching Some Rays

We can electrify almost anything under the sun. In a place like L.A., solar-centric electric grids are virtually guaranteed to become the standard for energy production over the next few decades. Already, these systems can be cheaper and more efficient than utilities burning fossil fuels. 

In years to come, a stroll through the neighborhood could also mean strolling through a power plant. By 2050, smaller solar panels or roof tiles will power most homes, enabling localized microgrids that better balance electricity distribution based on demand. In addition to our homes, solar power will likely propel driverless cars, mass transit and small airplanes. It’s even zapping the catwalk. Designers are creating clothing that can produce a small charge for a phone or device.

Already a leading solar city, Los Angeles is primed to capitalize on the next wave of renewable energy innovations.

The downtown L.A. skyline might take advantage of organic photovoltaic innovations, like those that Mark Thompson, Ray R. Irani, Chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Chair in Chemistry and professor of chemistry and chemical engineering and materials science, is developing in his laboratory at USC Dornsife. The technology could soon be used to make electricity-generating transparent windows or window shades for commercial buildings. And Richard Brutchey, professor of chemistry at USC Dornsife, works on solar cells made from nanocrystals so small they can exist as a liquid ink that can be painted onto surfaces. Owners could potentially coat their homes with this innovative material to harness energy, while also keeping up with the latest Pantone trends.

While established cities retrofit for renewable energy, the greatest opportunities exist in emerging cities. As Africa, Latin America and India experience unprecedented population growth, cities in these parts of the world are building upward and outward. The limited infrastructure currently in place will require they essentially start from scratch. Solar and wind utilities will make the most sense — both environmentally and financially — in these regions.

Trillions of Trees

According to the World Resources Institute, deforestation is now responsible for allowing more greenhouse gas emissions to be released than 85 million cars would release over their entire lifetimes. 

“An average tree holds a half ton of C0₂,” said Nealson, who also holds the Wrigley Chair in Environmental Studies.

Rainforests, particularly in South America, bear the brunt of deforestation. Further compounding the problem, 80 percent of the cleared land is used for small-scale agriculture like cattle ranches, rather than staple crops that feed exponentially more people.

Yet these forests are a powerful ally in the battle against climate change. A study by Global Forest Watch found that tropical tree cover can provide 23 percent of the mitigation needed by 2030 to meet the goals set in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Spatial science research suggests there’s enough room in the world’s parks, forests and abandoned land to plant more than 1.2 trillion trees. These could gobble up 10 years’ worth of CO₂ from the atmosphere. 

L.A. will never become Henry David Thoreau’s Walden, but new policies could ensure we emphasize the value of an urban canopy. While trees have typically been regarded only as decorative enhancements punctuating the concrete jungle, a recent study commissioned by the L.A. nonprofit City Plants values the city’s trees at $12 billion. Efforts are underway to convince civic leaders that quantifying trees in terms of economic value would awaken people to the fact that they are, in fact, essential infrastructure. In the years ahead, the trees of L.A. might receive funding for maintenance similar to that currently earmarked for streets, storm drains and utilities.

That said, we should expect to lose a lanky icon. Given their small canopy, Southern California’s legendary palm trees are among the least effective at collecting carbon dioxide and storing water in their shallow roots. As these palms die off, they will likely be replaced by more robust native species.

It’s another beautiful day in the land of sunshine and … scrub oaks.

Pipelines and Politics

USC Dornsife Professor of Sociology Andrew Lakoff’s measured baritone could count down the adult contemporary top 40. It’s almost soothing, until you consider his expertise — public disaster preparation and mitigation. 

“The water infrastructure we built in Southern California assumes there’s going to be a snowpack to draw on in the Sierras,” said Lakoff, who also serves as divisional dean for the social sciences. “Our system isn’t built for new projections that look ahead 20 or 30 years from now.” 

A warmer climate means that rain, not snow, will produce the lion’s share of California’s future water supply. Rain is more difficult to capture and store, however, which has California planners and policymakers scrambling to work through competing ideas for moving water from the northern part of the state. One of the major initiatives, the California WaterFix (commonly known as the twin tunnels pipeline project), was recently scaled back by Gov. Gavin Newson, triggering another long review process for the multi-billion-dollar project. But the general public is largely unaware that this massive undertaking is in the works.

“The future of livability in California is being shaped in these very high-stakes political and technical battles that mostly take place behind the scenes,” said Lakoff. “You don’t see protesters; you don’t see headlines or big public debate. I call it the ‘unconscious of water’ in Southern California.”

According to Circle of Blue, a water news agency, water rates in L.A. skyrocketed 71 percent between 2010 and 2017. Given the state’s decentralized system of more than 400 public water agencies, it’s difficult to understand who or what is responsible for the increase. Some point to large estates that consume 10 times the water that a normal household uses, while others blame particularly thirsty California crops, including almonds and alfalfa.

Lakoff believes we can take more informed action with better transparency in water pricing. As the public learns where water is being used and why the cost is rising, calls for a more equitable distribution could reverberate through Sacramento.

Even with new water infrastructure and policies in place, Californians will need to ration the supply. Recycling will be the norm, with many households installing greywater systems that filter water from showers and washing machines. A more challenging sociopsychological effort will be building public acceptance for pumping highly treated sewage back into L.A. County aquifers. It’s an effective conservation method, but leaders will have to recalibrate public perception, given the process’ lamentable media moniker: “toilet to tap.”

A Better Greenhouse Effect

One constituency is paying close attention to the politics of water. Farmers in California’s Central Valley feel the acute effects of long droughts. Given that the state accounts for 13 percent of the nation’s agriculture and generates $50 billion in revenue each year, global warming is drying up their bottom line. 

Nealson proposes a solution: “Take one-tenth of land in the Central Valley and put greenhouses there.” 

Plants cool themselves by releasing water. In a greenhouse, that water can be captured and cycled back into the system. Nealson claims this would yield better harvests with just a small fraction of the water currently used.

Imagine barreling up the I-5 freeway 20 years from now. Skirting autonomous semi-trucks, you see a hyperloop on one side of the road and the massive domes of fecund greenhouse systems on the other. The land is blanketed by solar panels that enable a nearly self-sustaining agricultural region. And unlike the olden days, you can open a window without holding your breath.

Feeling the Heat

If global warming continues its current pace, L.A. will have the same climate as Mexico’s Cabo San Lucas by 2100. But this future City of Angels will be no Margaritaville.

Temperature fluctuation is greatest at the poles, but global warming’s adverse effects concentrate on places that are  already hot. By 2050, Southern California could see up to 95 days a year when temperatures top 90 degrees, as opposed to the current average of 67 days a year. While the higher cost of air conditioning will be easy to recognize, there are more opaque expenses related to human health.

“The annual number of 90-degree days is an important threshold, particularly when you look at the infant mortality rate,” said Associate Professor of Economics Paulina Oliva, whose research is focused on environmental economics and development.

Oliva says that the mortality rate holds steady over days with temperatures below 90 degrees, and then it spikes at this specific threshold. A similar increase in the rate of heat stroke has been noted, as well.

Global warming hits low-income families hardest, widening the chasm of existing economic disparity. Around the world, many of the poorest nations frequently simmer above 90 degrees already. The same holds true in the United States, where many of the most economically disadvantaged populations live in the warm climate of the South. (The outlook is particularly unfortunate for states such as Oklahoma, Texas, Florida and Kentucky, which all have congressional representatives or governors who are among the most vocal climate change deniers at this pivotal moment.)

A Taxing Endeavor

“We do have the means to address this,” says Oliva. “But if we want to tackle both climate change mitigation and the distribution of its costs, we need to use multiple economic instruments.”

She suggests that low-income families could be provided with income tax credits to redistribute wealth, and better unemployment benefits would help families through hard times. These public costs could be offset with a carbon tax — a fee that a government imposes on companies that burn fossil fuels, usually at a set rate per ton of emissions. 

Many economists believe the carbon tax is the best policy instrument for curtailing the use of fossil fuels across sectors. “It makes the market work,” Oliva says, “because you’ll get the biggest reductions from the polluters who have the lowest mitigation costs.”

It’s Time to Have the Talk

Even if we think about climate change in terms of opportunities for new business, innovation and improving human health, we still have to build consensus around the solutions. We need to supplant apocalypse fatigue with frank, productive conversation. That seems easier today than ever before, as democratized communication channels are abundant. From social media to blogs to podcasts, the resources we have to connect and speak out broadly encourage far-reaching social interaction. Many expect the movement toward climate action will find its voice online.

They might be wrong.

“The most powerful kind of revolutionary action usually comes out of face-to-face interaction,” says Nathan Perl-Rosenthal, associate professor of history. “One of the building blocks of collective action is trust. And trust can be more easily and deeply established with interaction in person.”

Perl-Rosenthal notes that the convening of the First Continental Congress was a crucial turning point in the American Revolution. Until then, there had been little interaction among leaders of the colonies. Folks like John Adams, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson used the in-person forum to figure out who was trustworthy and how reliable they were — and to work out a shared strategy. 

Recent movements have gained momentum in a similar fashion. Black Lives Matter and the #MeToo movement may have started online, but they became much more real and enduring, when people from different places and backgrounds came together to rally in person.

Perl-Rosenthal explains that movements usually begin with local cohesion that plugs into something broader.

Fifty years from now, we might trace our lives on a thriving planet to the local and regional movements that are taking shape today. Environmental activists and scientists can rally around evidence, while drought-plagued farmers and empty-net fishermen rally around their occupational security. Displaced fire victims in Northern California can find shared purpose with displaced flood victims in Southern California. And politicians can get reelected by acting on the will of a new electorate — a generation of students and advocates who demand more conscientious climate change policy.

As these groups come together, calls to “save our planet,” will take on new context through the personal stories of those whose lives have already been affected by climate change.

Earth will be just fine, after all. Our ancient planet can endure the worst climate change scenario. It’s us, humanity, that has so much at stake. Yet, time and again, history has proven it is when we face our greatest challenges that we’re at our best. 

Read more stories from USC Dornsife Magazine’s Spring/Summer 2019 issue >>

Correction: A previous version of this story mischaracterized the L.A. Metropolitan Water District Regional Recycled Water Program as an initiative named “toilet to tap.” “Toilet to tap” is a term that opponents of historical recycled water initiatives in Southern California have used to discourage these important programs.