A Guide to Saving the Planet:

Climate Solutions to Decarbonize Our Future

Anthony Escobio, Rae Germar, Eugenie Lee, James Miller

26 April 2021
Abstract

A diverse approach of incorporating natural, technological, and social climate solutions is

explored and ideal methods of implementation are analyzed for viability in emissions reduction

capabilities and economic feasibility. With an ultimate goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C,

a single, overly narrow approach to addressing climate change on the global scale severely

reduces the probability of achieving such an essential impact, thus necessitating change on

multiple fronts. Natural climate solutions were found to reduce CO2 emissions by an impactful

amount, through the adoption of strategies including targeted reforestation, effective

management of lumber resources, efficient nitrogen based fertilizer usage, biochar fuel usage,

data-driven optimization of grazing farmland, rice residue management, and wetland and

peatland preservation, for a total of 14.08 GtCO2/yr emissions reduction. Technological climate

solutions included a 25%/35% global electrical energy generation split between solar

photovoltaic and wind energy required a significant initial investment of $9.1-$14 trillion and

sizable land requirements of 3.3 million km2, while reducing CO2 emissions by 27.0 GtCO2/yr.

Social changes and enactment of policy including food waste reduction, climate change

education, improved water efficiency in housing, plant-based diets, improved transportation

infrastructure, and the introduction of additional public works programs were found to reduce

emissions by 10.37 GtCO2/yr. The combination of the aforementioned approaches to climate

change were projected to reduce emissions by 51.4 GtCO2/yr, . Despite a wide variety of

obstacles which arise from a multifaceted approach, the potential of achieving a 50 GtCO2

reduction by 2050 was found to drastically increase, along with the additional benefit of a

distribution of resources among different approaches to climate change as an added protection.

Introduction

Since WWII the planet has seen unprecedented change. Amazing new technologies and

an increasingly connected world have seen historic decreases in global poverty and increases in

global welfare. [1] Climate change is an existential threat to this progress. It promises a period
characterized by extreme weather events, crop failures, mass displacement of climate refugees,

and a sharp decline in biodiversity, resulting in intense political and economic insecurity.

Fortunately, the 20th century provides a model through which these dire consequences

can be avoided. Properly addressing climate change will require a mobilization of global

resources akin to that of WWII. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a

United Nations body tasked with evaluating climate science, reported that although limiting

warming to 1.5°C is possible, it would require significant transitions in all aspects of society. [2]

Mitigating the consequence of climate change is a difficult task requiring the resources of WWII.

Yet unlike WWII there are no losers. Rather, all nations benefit and the resources committed are

used for generation rather than destruction. A concerted global response is required that will as

the IPCC stated will require “significant transitions”. [2] The transitions as a result of climate

change however are far more destructive and require a comprehensive approach. There is no

“golden bullet” to solve climate change but rather through a variety of natural, technological, and

social innovations we can ensure a safe future for the planet and usher in a new era of

responsible prosperity.

Methods

In order to ensure minimal disruption to global systems with a moderate degree of

certainty, we set a goal of 1.5°C total warming which allows for a greatly reduced impact

compared to 2.0°C. This would require a reduction of roughly 30 GtCO2/yr by 2030 and 50

GtCO2/yr by 2050 [2]. Furthermore we attempted to reduce the spending required to achieve

these climate goals by limiting spending to $100/tCO2eq . Based on these qualifications, social

and natural solutions were determined based on pricing and carbon reduction figures determined

through literature research. Similarly, we propose solar PV and wind energy to make up our

technological climate solutions, determining the installed capacity needed as well as calculating

the amount of CO2 reductions achieved by these two technologies by 2050.

Natural Climate Solutions - Results & Analysis

As previously mentioned, no single solution can achieve a 50 GtCO2eq reduction, rather

a holistic approach is necessary. NCS represents a relatively inexpensive, short term mitigation

strategy that can be employed while technological solutions are refined or social solutions

mature to their mitigation potential. In particular family planning and female education offer

strong carbon reduction potential but will take multiple decades to fully mature. In order to avoid

extensive use of expensive carbon capture, including direct air capture, immediate action is

required with NCS representing a key tentpole of near future carbon mitigation due to a

combination of its low cost and technology requirements. [4]

In order to maximize the effect of NCS, we recommend a linear increase in the various

NCS techniques described to 2030. This will ensure saturation of the techniques employed while

maintaining $100/tCO2eq. or lower. This gradual but motivated rollout will allow us to nearly

meet the emission reductions set by 2030 while also allowing food, lumber, and fiber markets to

shift to a more renewable and environmentally responsible model without unnecessarily

disruption. It also importantly allows for these industries to meet the projected demand of an

increasing population [5]. Ultimately these recommendations look to balance increased land use

for emission mitigation with more efficient utilization of land.

Forests possess the largest amount of low cost mitigation, a 5.654 GtCO2/yr reduction.

Targeted reforestation represents the largest portion of this reduction with a projected 3.311

GtCO2/yr sequestered at $100/tCO2. Juxtaposed against a maximum potential of 10.1 GtCO2/yr

based on land use rather than cost. Due to their negative albedo contributions, boreal forests were

excluded from reforestation. [6] Aforestation was also studied and at $100/tCO2 result in a 1.816

GtCO2/yr emission reduction with a maximum of 3.603 GtCO2/yr with boreal forests once again

being exempted. These forestation efforts would largely be targeted at Brazil, Southeast Asia,

and The Congo and represent 342 Mha of new forests. (Appendix A: Figure 1, Figure 2) This

would require a strong regulatory framework, accurate and transparent federal monitoring, and
key supply chain interventions in order to be successful with Brazil’s actions in the 2010’s

providing a successful model for emulation and refinement. [7]

Effective management of lumber resources as well as improved lumber plantations

further reduces emissions. These practices along with reforestation would also offset lumber

losses arising from the aforementioned avoided forest conversion. These practices must include

expanded logging rotation cycles to maximize yield while increasing carbon stocks, expansion of

reduced impact logging, and improved land tenure. New international regulatory requirements,

including certification, would need to be implemented and enforced but would also result in a

0.492 GtCO2/yr drop in emissions at low cost. [2][4]

Also while it does not directly reduce emissions, fire management should be expanded to

include more prescribed burns for temperate forests in the U.S. and Europe, the establishment of

fire breaks between pasturelands and tropical rainforests in South America and southeast Asia,

and early season burns in the African savannah to mitigate the threat of larger, more devastating

fires. [8]

Improved management of cropland inputs offers the largest low cost mitigation potential

of any agricultural strategy researched. This is primarily achieved through the reduction of

excessive fertilizer use through better management of the timing, placement, and form of

fertilizer used. This would be achieved through a cap and trade modeled system for fertilizer to

incentivize responsible nitrogen use, natural fertilizer use, and innovation in nitrogen reduction.

[9] Other effective techniques to reduce emissions are the use of cover crops during fallow

periods [10] and silvopasture, where trees are planted in croplands when it does not negatively

impact output. These trees can be utilized as windbreaks, integrated into existing farmland with

alley cropping, and used in farmer managed natural regeneration (FMNR). This practice of

scattered tree planting has seen great success in Africa for improving yield, soil equality and

preventing erosion. [11] Cumulatively these farming techniques are estimated to reduce

atmospheric carbon levels by 1.295 GtCO2/yr.

 Additionally, biochar represents a promising source of carbon reduction. Through the use

of pyrolysis this residue can be used to increase soil carbon stocks providing an avenue of

additional carbon sequestration equivalent to 0.354 GtCO2/yr at our cost requirements.

Furthermore this maximum might be increased through projected efficiency increases as the

technology is better understood up to 1.102 GtCO2/yr. As a result we recommended continued

and possibly expanded investment into biochar production technologies. [12]

In addition to crop agriculture, data driven optimization can also be used to reduce

pasture based emission through intensity optimization shifting grazing from overgrazed to

undergrazed areas. Additional low cost solutions include incentivizing the planting of legumes in

planted grazing areas and cereal based food stock for animal protein cultivation. This would have

the dual benefit of increased productivity (decreased land use) as well as reduced emissions from

enteric fermentation. [13] Additionally, we recommend that improved animal management

practices also be funded and developed, most notably research into improved genetics and

reproductive performance in order to further increase production and reduce land use in the cattle

industry. [14] These actions would result in an estimated 0.263 GtCO2/yr emission reduction as

well as improving animal welfare. Certification with independent oversight before allowing

access to markets would likely be a successful mechanism to meet compliance.

Due to its importance in the global food supply rice cultivation improvements seem

integral to agriculture climate reform. Currently, rice residue and improvements to fertilization

may reduce emissions by a modest 0.08 GtCO2/yr. However continued research into techniques

such as midseason drainage and alternate wetting and drying possess potential for further climate

reduction. [15]

Wetland preservation also presents a promising avenue for carbon abatement but is

dependent on reducing impact rather than restoring wetlands to meet cost criteria. This would

require an expansion of protected areas with the requisite expansion of enforcement.

Additionally improvements in land tenure especially in mangrove forests are required to reduce
emissions. An immediate moratorium on mangrove displacement for charcoal production and

shrimp farming is essential. By doing so a projected 0.182 GtCO2/yr can be mitigated. [16]

Similarly peatlands provide a potential for emission mitigation. Subsidies should be

provided to encourage palm oil plantation sourcing to non peatland areas. Furthermore, unlike

wetlands, a limited program of peatland restoration should also be enacted in low cost areas

through a combination of rewetting as well as planting of native species. [17] Through these

actions 0.601 GtCO2/yr can be avoided by 2030

Natural Climate Solutions - Discussion

Altogether potential emission reductions total 14.08 GtCO2/yr with land use constraints

and 23.73 being possible when unconstrained by land use. However a high degree of certainty

exists due to a lack of data in scaling to the levels described and represent a conservative

average. To maximize emission reductions, comprehensive monitoring should be implemented

with higher achieving techniques expanded based on feedback. These recommendations

therefore represent a comprehensive but flexible starting plan that should be adapted as

uncertainty ranges decrease. One last caveat is that many of the activities described will reach

saturation between 2050-2100 and therefore a shift to other technological and social strategies

described later will be necessary.

The adoption of the proposed strategies represents a fundamental shift in mankind’s

relationship with our planet and our role as its caretaker and develops sustainable yet profitable

fiber, food and forestry markets over unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. These

improvements also have a wide variety of benefits to air, water, soil, and biodiversity (Table 1)

which though difficult to quantify are likely to reduce health costs further reducing relative

carbon mitigation costs. Despite these advantages, resistance to change is likely to arise and

should be accounted for and proactively reduced.

Industry push back is likely as the proposals will result in a move away from short

sighted profit driven agricultural practices to a more sustainable model. Corporate food suppliers
will likely try to externalize these new costs to consumers and price fixing may be required.

Furthermore smaller farmers may require subsidies to prevent food monopolies from forming in

the transition.

To meet global food demand while simultaneously allowing for the land use required by

these recommendations also requires a roughly 20% decrease in meat consumption globally

which would largely be absorbed by western nations and especially the U.S. The social

opposition will likely be strong but may partially be mitigated by a public health campaign.

Current data suggests that the environmental and animal cruelty arguments towards meat

reduction is especially ineffective at persuading consumers. Therefore health focused public

outreach should be considered both in the U.S as well as rapidly developing international

markets. [14].

These NCS suggestions outlined require global cooperation to be successful with

wealthier nations likely contributing the necessary capital and poorer nations contributing land

use. The threat to stability however is a global issue, requiring collective action as well as

collective sacrifice. NCS provides temporary relief to the climate challenge but requires the

development of technological and social solutions to permanently address said challenge.

Technological Climate Solutions - Results and Analysis

As of 2020, global GHG emissions totaled up to approximately 50 GtCO2 equiv per year,

a value which has constantly increased as growth in sectors such as energy use in industry

(24.2%), agriculture (18.4%), and transportation (16.2%) drastically expand. [18] As we proceed

towards a net zero emissions future, it is of utmost importance to account for subsequent growth

of energy consumption in the next several decades. In rapidly developing countries around the

world, energy demands are expected to grow at an average rate of 3%, as compared to 0.9%

growth throughout industrialized countries. [19] Historically, developing countries have typically

used their domestic energy to produce and export products to other countries; however, the last

15 years has seen developing countries push towards usage of additional energy in favor of the
domestic consumption of goods and services. [20] As a result, energy demands at the global level

have increased to unprecedented amounts in the 21st century. [20] Due to the drastic increase in

global energy usage occurring at present times, it is necessary to transition towards renewable

energy technologies which are presently available. We propose the scale up of the two most

prominent and readily available renewable technologies, solar photovoltaic and wind energy,

such that an impact on the reduction of global CO2 emissions can occur as soon as possible,

gradually replacing the fossil fuel industry for electricity production by 2050.

Solar Photovoltaic (PV)

In achieving our climate goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, we may look at worldwide

solar PV additions to contribute to a large-scale shift to electricity generation from renewables,

thereby delivering significant carbon emissions reduction. Solar power uses energy from the sun

to be converted into thermal or electrical energy, proving to be a clean and abundant renewable

source of energy. The world has added more photovoltaic (PV) capacity since 2010 than in the

previous decades, where the global solar PV capacity reached 629 GW by the end of 2019. [21]

Although solar energy is promising for its zero GHG emissions and environmental

impact, GHG emissions from manufacturing and production of solar panels should also be

accounted for. These emissions are a consequence of using energy from fossil fuels to produce

solar cell materials, as well as production and manufacturing facilities. [22] Previous studies on

the life-cycle of photovoltaic (PV) technologies under average insolation in Switzerland

estimated GHG emissions of 39-110 g CO2-equiv/kWh. [22] Other estimates for CO2 produced

from manufacturing would be around 50 g CO2/kWh. [23] The estimated energy payback time

(EPBT), or the time it takes for the PV system to generate the amount of energy that was used

towards production, would be 3-6 years. [22] That is, in this amount of time, these solar systems

generate as much energy that was used for the initial production and installation.

In our goal of meeting the necessary CO2 emission reductions by 2050, we propose that

the share of solar PV systems to global electricity generation be 25%, previously only 2.1% in
the year 2019. [24] The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects the global

electricity generation in 2050 to be 45 trillion kWh [25], 25 percent of which would be 1.125×

1013 kWh. From this value, we are able to estimate the cumulative solar PV installed capacity

needed by 2050. The specific yield will be used as the performance metric for the solar PV

system, which gives the ratio (kWh/kW) of the total annual energy produced to the installed

capacity, and is helpful for comparing different locations and engineering designs of PV systems.

Multiple factors are to be considered for determining the electricity production of a PV system,

including degradation of its nameplate capacity over its lifetime, and uncertainty from

interannual variability or year-to-year fluctuations in climate. Assuming a lifecycle of 20 years,

an average estimation of the specific yield with consideration of these given factors would be

1377 kWh/kWp (kilowatt-hour/kilowatts peak). [26] This allows us to perform the following

calculation for PV installed capacity:

13 𝑘𝑊 1 𝐺𝑊
1. 125 × 10 𝑘𝑊ℎ × 1377 𝑘𝑊ℎ
× 6 ≈ 8200 𝐺𝑊 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
10 𝑘𝑊

By 2050, we estimate that approximately 8200 GW installed capacity of solar PV

systems will generate enough electricity to make up 25% of the total world electricity generation.

Under the assumption that this increase in the share of PV systems in electricity generation

replaces electricity generation from coal-fired plants, the amount of CO2 emission avoided may

be calculated using the basis that 1 kg CO2-eq is emitted per kWh of energy produced by a

coal-fired power plant.

13 𝑘𝑊ℎ 1 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂2 −𝑒𝑞 1 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 1 𝐺𝑡
1. 125 × 10 𝑦𝑟
× 1 𝑘𝑊ℎ
× 1000 𝑘𝑔
× 9 = 11. 25 𝐺𝑡𝐶𝑂2 /𝑦𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
10 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠

Such a large scale deployment of solar energy to achieve an ambitious carbon emission

reduction goal may pose concern on its significant land use. The International Renewable Energy

Agency (IRENA) provides a solar PV outlook to 2050, projecting that of the total solar PV

capacity, 60% would be utility-scale, and the remaining 40% distributed (rooftop). [27] At the

utility scale, 60% of the proposed installed capacity (8200 GW) equates to approximately 99,600

to 199,000 sq. km of land use (Appendix B). This was determined on the basis that a utility-scale
solar power plant of 1 MW of generating capacity requires 5-10 acres of land. [28] While

daunting, land that is currently unused and neither has much potential for other productive use

may be suitable for solar energy installations, such as deserts and dry scrublands. Solar Energy

Industries Association (SEIA) also reports that the expansion of utility-scale solar installations

do not pose a significant risk to agricultural land loss in the face of concerns with potential

competition between solar and agricultural land use. [29] Furthermore, with an increase in panel

and space efficiency brought by technological advances, total land use may be less than

projected.

Costs associated with solar PV systems may also raise doubts in its installation and

large-scale deployment. Based on SEIA’s national average cost figures in Q1 2020, solar farm

installations can range from $0.82 to $1.36 per watt across market segments, including

residential, non-residential, and utility-scale solar. [30] This equates to $6.7-$11 trillion in

installation cost alone for the proposed 8200 GW cumulative solar PV installed capacity by 2050

(Appendix B). However, IRENA reports solar PV installation costs to decline from now to 2050.

At a national level in the U.S., there has been a 66% to 84% decline in the average cost of

utility-scale solar PV projects from 2010 to 2018, while other nations including Germany,

France, China, and Italy witnessed a similar reduction of 70-80%. [27] Such rapid decline in

installation costs sets solar PV to be among the cheapest sources of power by 2050, accompanied

by the estimate that the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) will fall between USD 0.08/kWh and

USD 0.02/kWh by 2030. [27]

Wind

Another highly promising technology capable of producing renewable and sustainable

energy at scale is production of electricity from wind energy. Wind energy is harvested using

wind turbines, which convert the kinetic energy of air into a usable and storable form as

electricity. There are variations on the design of the wind turbine with the purpose of maximizing
efficiency based on operating conditions, including number of blades and orientation of the

rotational axis, as well as more subtle changes such as structural design and control systems. [31]

Estimates state that 20% of the global wind power potential could supply up to 123

petawatt-hours of electricity every year, accounting for approximately 7 times the global

electricity consumption, as of 2009. [32] Solely based on wind power potential estimates, wind

energy has the ability to completely replace nonrenewable energy resources, including future

electricity generation requirements. A significant drawback to wind power is the enormous

amount of open space land required to implement wind turbines at the proper scale. At the
6
required global scale, it is estimated that a total of 3.20 × 10 sq. km of land is required to

accomodate wind turbines. [33,34] Despite the massive land figure required for wind farms,

wind turbines themselves take up less than 1% of the actual land area, allowing installation on

existing farmland with little to no impact on the surrounding environment. [35]

Furthermore, offshore wind farms offer an alternative in instances where land use is a

concern. Offshore wind offers land-constrained regions the ability to establish wind farms with

near zero impact on land availability. The implementation of offshore wind farms are therefore

ideal for islands and regions adjacent to the ocean. It is important to note the cost disadvantage of

offshore wind energy compared to onshore wind energy. The deployment of offshore wind farms

requires additional construction, maintenance, and extended electrical network costs beyond

those of their onshore analogues. [36] The economic impact is most evident in the levelized cost

of electricity (LCOE) between the two implementations, with onshore wind having a lower

LCOE value at $60-90 /MWh as compared to $120 /MWh for offshore. [36] According to

IRENA, the LCOE of both onshore and offshore wind is expected to drop to $20-30 /MWh and

$30-70 /MWh, respectively, by 2050. [38] The option of onshore or offshore wind offers greater

versatility than other technologies, both renewable and nonrenewable, as each strategy can be

implemented based on land and wind availability.

Wind energy is a near net-zero emissions technology of energy generation, with the only

source of CO2 emissions arising from the manufacturing of wind turbines. [35] The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2018 reports GHG emissions of 8-20g

CO2-equiv./kWh for wind energy in total. [37] Wind turbines generate sufficient energy to offset

the energy costs of manufacturing, installation, future maintenance, and decommissioning in the

first 3-6 months of operation and have an estimated lifetime of 20-25 years, giving wind energy

the lowest lifecycle emissions of any other energy generation technology. [35]

To achieve a total of 86% global renewable energy generation and significantly reduce

CO2 emissions from a technological approach, as recommended by the International Renewable

Energy Agency (IRENA), we propose that wind energy make up 35% of the total global

electricity generation by 2050. [38] As of 2018, wind energy accounted for just above 5% of the

world’s electricity generation, signifying a ramp up of wind energy implementation would be

necessary. [39] Based on EIA projections for electricity demand in 2050, a total of 1.575×1013

kWh of electricity should be produced by wind turbines to maintain a 35% wind energy goal.

[25] The amount of CO2 emissions avoided once the 35% goal has been achieved was calculated,

using a 1 kg CO2 equiv emitted/kWh of energy basis:

𝑘𝑊ℎ 1 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂2 𝑒𝑞. 1 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 1 𝐺𝑡
1.575×1013 𝑦𝑟
× 1 𝑘𝑊ℎ
× 1000 𝑘𝑔
× 9 = 15. 75 𝐺𝑡𝐶𝑂2 /𝑦𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
10 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠

In order to achieve such a remarkable value of CO2 abatement within the next several

decades, significant investment is required to establish both onshore and offshore wind farms

with a sufficient number of wind turbines. The average capacity of wind turbines introduced as

of 2020 is 2 MW for onshore turbines and 3-5 MW for offshore turbines, while some

commercially available wind turbines have achieved capacities of up to 8 MW. [40] In this

analysis, a capacity of 2.75 MW was selected to account for usage of both onshore and offshore

wind energy. From the average capacity of each wind turbine, the number of wind turbines

necessary to achieve the aforementioned goal of 35% was calculated:

𝑘𝑊ℎ 1 𝑦𝑟 1 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒 1 𝑀𝑊 5
1.575×1013 𝑦𝑟
× 8760 ℎ × 2.75 𝑀𝑊
× 3 = 6. 54 × 10 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠
10 𝑘𝑊

The most significant cost associated with wind energy is the capital costs from the initial

installation of the wind turbines, grid connections, and road construction, accounting for nearly
80% of the total costs over the lifetime of the wind farms. [41] Capital costs, which take into

account the aforementioned factors, are approximately $1323-1683 /kW (converted from euros).

[41] To achieve the 35% wind energy goal in 2050, a total investment of $2.4-3.0 trillion (see

Appendix B) is necessary on a global scale. In a similar manner to that of photovoltaic energy,

IRENA predicts that capital costs of establishing wind farms will continuously decrease through

the year 2050, driving capital costs to likely fall below current estimates. [38]

Table 2. Comparison and Summary of solar PV and wind energy technologies.

LCOE - 2030
Global Electricity Capital Costs projected Land Usage CO2 Reductions
Technology Generation (USD) (per kWh) (sq. km) (GtCO2/yr)
Solar PV 25% $6.7-$11 trillion $0.02-0.08 [27] 99,600 11.25
$0.03 (onshore) [38]
Wind 35% $2.4-$3.0 trillion $0.05 (offshore) [38] 3.2 × 106 15.75

Total 60% $9.1-$14 trillion - 3.3 ×106 27.00

Solar and Wind - Discussion

Based on our analysis, significant scale up of both solar PV and wind energy is necessary

to drastically decrease CO2 emissions to 27.0 GtCO2 by 2050, solely from a technological

standpoint. Despite cost and land availability barriers, a diversified approach including both solar

and wind energy based on localized requirements is definitely feasible appropriate planning and

funding.

A shift towards solar PV and wind energy inevitably leads to questions about energy

consumption at peak hours, when solar and wind energy cannot keep up with demand and thus

voltage fluctuations may arise. To counteract situations in which supply cannot meet demand,

sufficient storage is necessary to offset energy requirements during peak hours. Many

technologies are currently being explored as a means of energy storage, including thermal,

compressed air energy storage (CAES), pumped hydroelectric storage (PHS), and advanced

battery energy storage (ABES) technologies. [42] Of these readily available storage technologies,
ABES offers the highest degree of flexibility and efficiency. In particular, lithium-ion battery

technology offers high energy density, energy efficiency, and long cycle life relative to other

battery technologies, such as lead-acid and nickel-based, making them ideal candidates for

grid-level energy storage. [43] The modularity of battery technologies facilitates distribution of

energy storage throughout all types of regions throughout the world. [43] As a result, lithium-ion

battery storage offers a readily available solution, able to compensate for power draw

irregularities and the intermittency of solar and wind transmission availability.

To further improve the efficiency and reliability of a renewable energy-driven future, we

propose the implementation and expansion of a smart grid. Renewable energy sources are

typically located in remote locations, due to their land requirements, while most of the energy

demand is allocated toward urban and residential areas. [44] The widespread usage of smart

grids, alongside storage technologies, allows for significant manipulation of power distribution

as required to meet energy usage fluctuations. The widespread implementation of a smart grid is

estimated to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 18% through both direct and indirect means. [45]

The combination of energy storage and smart grids complement the variability and intermittent

nature of solar and wind energy generation.

Mitigating existing policy barriers are also necessary for the scale-up and deployment of

solar PV and wind power in the coming decades. Currently, issues arise from time-consuming

regulatory processes, as well as uncertainty in markets due to inconsistent policy signals.

Renewable electricity standards (RESs) are regulatory mandates for utility companies to source a

certain amount of energy generated or sold from renewable sources like wind and solar within a

given area [46]. As such, designating wind and solar set-asides within a country’s RESs are

necessary for providing a market signal that the nation is prioritizing deployment of these

renewable energy sources [47]. Otherwise, lower-cost technologies will be favored.

Consideration of project size, land use, as well as location also allows policymakers to provide

better guidelines for large scale wind and solar plants, further ensuring that their deployment

does not impact agricultural and other productive land use. Additionally, Feed-in-tariffs (FITs)
refer to a payment for surplus electricity fed into the supply grid from a renewable energy source

such as wind and solar [48]. FIT implementation programs may then encourage the adoption of

renewable energy technologies in its ability to provide market certainty and offer long-term

contracts to renewable energy producers.

Social and Policy

Climate change, together with its results, has increased harmingly to the point that it can

not be ignored. With the alarming rate that is present, technological innovation and natural

reductions are not enough to suffice it. The international community and every individual must

be able to take concerted action and change social behaviors if the desire to control the negative

outcomes of climate change is wanted. With every change of habits and action done by both an

individual, and organizations, collectively together substantial changes can be made to shift the

course of global release of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide. For this proposal brief, we

theorized that social changes and behaviors are significantly important to aid the reduction of our

carbon footprint over the upcoming 30 years.

One of the most effective solutions to stop climate change is to reduce food waste. CO2

emission from food waste is greater than yearly emissions of most countries in the world,

excluding China and the USA. [49] Up to 35% of the foods produced are wasted along with the

energies used to produce and transport the products among the high-income households. [50] As

a result, around 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2 is wasted every year. [50] Global social movement is

essential to reduce the GHG emission effectively such as stopping the overproduction of food.

Cereals generate food waste significantly more and have the highest carbon footprint percentage

among the commodities: 25% of the total wastage and above 30% of the carbon footprint. [49]

Therefore, focusing on the production rate of cereals and other overproduced foods can help to

reduce the emission by 1.4 billion tonnes of CO2 every year. [50]

To accelerate the global action to eradicate the effects of climate change, school

education must emphasize more on the result that climate change has brought upon us. The
survey of middle school and high school educators around the U.S. said that about 42% of them

teach the students about climate change and about half of them teach without scientific

reasonings. [51] Giving a clear and proper education about climate change is essential for both

current and future generations in order to achieve sustainable development. According to the

World Bank’s analysis, the absence of 12 years of schooling can result in up to 5 children per

woman in developing countries. Family planning and education can increase welfare, reduce

poverty, and slow down population growth which can yield environmental sustainability. [52]

The UN estimates that the population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and it can be larger without

proper family planning. [52] These actions also have the potential to reduce our carbon

emissions by nearly 2.8 gigatonnes per year by 2050. [53]

Water efficient housing can be one of the highest potential solutions that can reduce GHG

emissions. Water usages can be significantly reduced by changing the showerheads, taps, toilets

and appliances that use less water and reduce the energy consumption of water heaters. [54]

Also, considering insulation, lighting can improve the energy efficiency of the housing and

reduce the emissions by 3.1 gigatonnes per year in total. [55]

The last major solution would be to encourage society to adopt plant-based diets. Cattle,

as mentioned by project drawdown, would be the world's third largest emitter if they were a

country. [56] And if about half of the world's population eats a plant-centric diet, a decrease of

around 2.2 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions per year is achievable, even if they are not vegetarians

or vegans. [57] This approach encourages consumers to reduce their desire for these foods, and

as a community, we can reduce meat consumption and benefit the environment.

The final approaches are all on a much smaller scale than the previous ones, but they are

equally significant. Improving transportation infrastructure, for example, has the potential to

decrease pollution by 0.87 gigatonnes a year over the course of our plan. Increasing cycling

facilities, making more benefits for carpooling, creating cleaner and faster mass transportation,

and improving car fuel efficiency are all examples of this. Many of these solutions are more

easily enforceable by governments in response to societal pressures and desires, and they should
be emphasized for a sustainable future. In particular, rising car efficiency is now a priority with

yearly targets, with increased efficiency rates expected in the United States under the Biden

administration.

The technological scale-up outlined here is made possible by a policy context that is

similarly practicable. Economies of scale would reduce the levelized cost of wind and solar

without the need for subsidies (Figure 3). This portfolio then heavily relies on a broad

carbon-free energy standard, similar to California's SB 100, that will rise linearly from present

levels to 100 percent in 2050. Governments can order energy providers to withdraw from their

fossil fuel supplies without having to invest vast sums of money on prohibitively costly climate

solutions. Demand response technologies (such as energy storage) and grid expansion would be

included in this regulation, which will speed up the deployment of wind and solar. Increased

transmission, preferably through national or even global HVDC networks, will be the most direct

policy interference in this mechanism. [58] These massive public works programs will help to

unite the world in the quest to achieve net zero emission, both literally and figuratively.

Conclusion

We aim to achieve not only our target of net zero emissions by 2050 through our climate

strategy, but also to build a more sustainable future. We do so by offering a cost-effective and

long-term portfolio of climate solutions that serve as the beginning of a greener global economy

and community. This should ensure that enough time and money are allocated to implementing

these significant reforms and developments. Technological breakthrough, social revolution, and

nature itself have been and will continue to be the three primary drivers of transformation in the

world (Appendix A: Figure 4). With this combination of climate solutions, we estimate

approximately 51.4 GtCO2-eq/yr in carbon emissions reduction, meeting our 2050 goal. Looking

forward, further attempts should be made towards segmenting all carbon mitigation targets

(natural, technological, and social solutions) into pre-2030, as not meeting our 2030 CO2

emissions reduction goal may result in a small overshoot of global warming before reaching our
1.5°C target in 2050. There is a general lack of information on how this temporary overheating

might affect the planet however by expanding natural climate solutions (NCS) to

$115/tCO2eq-$120/tCO2eq it should be possible to meet the original 2030 target. The goals of

this research warrant rapid and far-reaching change, and this ambitious approach recognizes that

in order to combat one of humanity's most challenging problems yet, all three would have to

work together in the same direction. We will effectively minimize the carbon emissions of

electricity generation and storage by bolstering solar and wind power with expansive technical

advancement, reverse some of the harm we've caused by using natural sinks and give back to

nature, and continue to aspire for a better society through collective movement and concerted

responses.
 Appendix A

Figure 1. Map of maximum reforestation possible based on land use. Hues indicate density,
numbers indicate TgCO2e/yr [2]

Figure 2. Map of maximum avoided forest conversion possible based on land use. Hues indicate
density, numbers indicate TgCO2e/yr [2]
Figure 3: Predicted costs of least expensive sources of electricity production in
business-as-usual and net-zero scenarios. All costs depicted are unsubsidized. The drop in PV
and wind cost occurs exclusively due to a carbon-free mandate.
Adapted from data provided by [45] Energy Policy Solutions

Figure 4(a): Breakdown of climate solutions (natural, technological, and social) in this portfolio
by percentage of GtCO2eq/yr emission reductions in 2050.
Figure 4(b): A complete breakdown of all climate solutions (natural, technological, and social)
in this portfolio by percentage of GtCO2eq/yr emission reductions in 2050.
 Mitigation Strategy Air Water Soil Biodiversity

Improved water access

Increased air filtration, Increase in soil Enhanced biological
Reforestation for irrigation, drought
increase in ozone fauna/health conservation
prevention
Improved water access
Increased air filtration, Increase in soil Enhanced biological
Avoided Forest Impact for irrigation, drought
increase in ozone fauna/health conservation
prevention
Abatement of soil health
Natural forest Abatement of decrease in
Flood risk abatement erosion from high impact
management biodiversity
logging
Enhancement of
Improved Plantations biodiversity from native
and polyculture growing
Reduction in particulate Increased retention and
Improved biodiversity post
Fire Management matter concentrations infiltration after
controlled fire
resulting from wildfires controlled fire
Biochar additive improves
Biochar
overall soil quality
Increased drinking water
Crop Nutrient Reduction in ammonia Mitigation of soil quality
quality and expanded Increases fish diversity
Management air concentration reduction
recreational areas
Conservation
Reduces agricultural
Agriculture (use of Reduction of soil erosion
water demands
cover crops)

Increase in the capture

Increased water Greater habitat for
Trees in Croplands of particulates and Reduction of soil erosion
recharge species
pollutant gases

Overgrazing results in a
Reduced water use for Lessens insect diversity
Grazing (Intensity) reduction in the soils ability
grazing loss from overgrazing
to trap contaminants

Grazing (Legume Improved soil

Increased insect diversity
Introduction) structure/reduced erosion

Improved Rice
Reduced water use
Growing
Cross-system nutrient
Reduction in airborne Serves as a key nutrient
Avoided Wetland Value in waste water transfer to coral reefs and
pollutants and source to commercially
Impacts treatment protection of coastal
particulates important fish and shrimp
systems

Avoided Peatland Reduces risk of Increase insect

Flood risk abatement
Impacts hazardous peat fires biodiversity

Reduce risk of Enhanced development of Reestablishment of

Peatland Restoration Flood risk abatement
hazardous peat fires soil structure diverse communities

Table 1. Carbon dioxide unrelated Improvements to air, water, soil, biodiversity based on
mitigation strategy
 Appendix B

Land Requirement for 8200 GW Solar PV Installed Capacity (Utility)

3 5 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 1 𝑠𝑞. 𝑘𝑚
Low estimate: 0. 6 (8200 × 10 𝑀𝑊) × 1 𝑀𝑊
× 247.105 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠
≈ 99, 600 𝑠𝑞. 𝑘𝑚 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑

3 10 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 1 𝑠𝑞. 𝑘𝑚
High estimate: 0. 6 (8200 × 10 𝑀𝑊) × 1 𝑀𝑊
× 247.105 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠
≈ 199, 000 𝑠𝑞. 𝑘𝑚 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑

*basis of 5 acres per 1 MW of installed capacity.

Solar Energy Capital Costs (Installation)

9 𝑈𝑆𝐷 0.82
Low estimate: (8200 × 10 𝑀𝑊) × 1𝑊
≈ $6. 7 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛

9 𝑈𝑆𝐷 1.36
High estimate: (8200 × 10 𝑀𝑊) × 1𝑊
≈ $11 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛

Wind Energy Capital Costs

𝑘𝑊ℎ 1 𝑦𝑟 $1323 12
Low estimate: 1.575×1013 𝑦𝑟
× 8760 ℎ × 1 𝑘𝑊
= $2. 40 × 10

𝑘𝑊ℎ 1 𝑦𝑟 $1683 12
High estimate: 1.575×1013 𝑦𝑟
× 8760 ℎ × 1 𝑘𝑊
= $3. 0 × 10
 References

[1] Roser M, Ortiz-Ospina E. (2013) - "Global Extreme Poverty". Published online at

OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: 'https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty' [Online
Resource]

[2] Press release: Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC (PDF) (Report). Incheon, Republic
of Korea: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 8 October 2019. Retrieved 7
November 2020

[3] Green, M. (2018, June 13). GAO to look into Trump's reduction of carbon social costs.
Retrieved December 07, 2020, from
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/392066-gao-to-look-into-trump-administrations-re
duction-of-social-cost-of

[4] Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, et al. Natural climate solutions [published correction
appears in Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Feb 12;116(7):2776]. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2017;114(44):11645-11650. doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114

[5] Penman J, et al. (2000) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Good Practice Guidance
for Land Use , Land-Use Change and Forestry. IPCC Good Pract Guid LULUCF:151–186.

[6] Richards KR, Stokes C (2004) A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: A dozen
years of research. Clim Change 63(1-2-2):1–48.

[7] FAO (2019) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2019.

[8] van der Werf GR, et al. (2010) Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation,
savanna,forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009). Atmos Chem Phys 10(23):11707–11735

[9] Snyder CS, Bruulsema TW, Jensen TL, Fixen PE (2009) Review of greenhouse gas emissions
from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agric Ecosyst Environ
133(3–4):247–1155266.

[10] Poeplau C, Don A (2015) Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover
crops -A meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 200:33–41.

[11] Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2009) Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration.
J Plant 1177Nutr Soil Sci172(1):10–23.

[12] Meyer S, Glaser B, Quicker P (2011) Technical, economical and climate related aspects of
biochar production technologies: A literature review. Environ Sci Technol
45(22):110930141845009.
[13] Henderson BB, et al. (2015) Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the world’s grazing
lands: Modeling soil carbon and nitrogen fluxes of mitigation practices. Agric Ecosyst Environ
207:91–100.

[14] Havlík P, et al. (2014) Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA111(10):3709–14.

[15] Sander BO, Wassmann R, Siopongco DLC (2015) Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Rice Production through Water-saving Techniques: Potential, Adoption and Empirical
Evidence(Los 1312Baños, Philippines, Philippines).

[16] Twilley RR, Chen R, Hargis T (1992) Carbon sinks in mangroves and their implications to
carbon budget of tropical coastal ecosystems. Water, Air Soil Pollut 64:265–288.

[17] Murdiyarso D, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot L V (2010) Opportunities for reducing greenhouse

gas emissions in tropical peatlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A107(46):19655–60.

[18] Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Emissions by sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

(accessed Apr 17, 2021).

[19] Keho, Y. What drives energy consumption in developing countries? The experience of
selected African countries. Energy Policy 2016, 91, 233–246.

[20] Benoit, P. SIPA Center on Global Energy Policy

https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/energy-and-development-changing-world-fram
ework-21st-century (accessed Apr 17, 2021).

[21] Enkhardt, S. Global PV capacity additions hit 115 GW in 2019, says IEA
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/05/01/global-pv-capacity-additions-hit-115-gw-in-2019-say
s-iea (accessed Apr 23, 2021).

[22] Fthenakis, V. M.; Kim, H. C.; Alsema, E. Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles.
Environmental Science & Technology 2008, 42 (6), 2168–2174.

[23] How Clean is the Solar Panel Manufacturing Process? How Much Carbon Dioxide is
Produced?
https://gvecsolarservice.com/how-clean-is-the-solar-panel-manufacturing-process-how-much-ca
rbon-dioxide-is-produced (accessed Apr 23, 2021).

[24] IEA. World gross electricity production, by source, 2018 – Charts – Data & Statistics
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-gross-electricity-production-by-source-2018
(accessed Apr 23, 2021).

[25] EIA projects less than a quarter of the world’s electricity generated from coal by 2050
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42555#:~:text=EIA (accessed Apr 23, 2021).
[26] Solargis. Energy Yield Assessment of the Photovoltaic Power; Report No. 200-01; 2013.

[27] IRENA. Future of Solar Photovoltaic: Deployment, investment, technology, grid integration
and socio-economic aspects (A Global Energy Transformation: paper), International Renewable
Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. (2019).

[28] Siting, Permitting & Land Use for Utility-Scale Solar

https://www.seia.org/initiatives/siting-permitting-land-use-utility-scale-solar (accessed Apr 23,
2021).

[29] Solar and Agricultural Land Use

https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/Solar%20Ag%20Land%20Usage%20FactSheet
%202019-PRINT.pdf (accessed Apr 23, 2021).

[30] Solar Market Insight Report 2020 Q2.

https://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-2020-q2 (accessed Apr 23,
2021).

[31] Eriksson, S.; Bernhoff, H.; Leijon, M. Evaluation of different turbine concepts for wind
power. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2008, 12 (5), 1419–1434.

[32] Lu, X.; McElroy, M. B.; Kiviluoma, J. Global potential for wind-generated electricity
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933 (accessed Apr 20, 2021).

[33] Wind energy’s frequently asked questions

https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/#:~:text=The output of a wind,average EU
households with electricity (accessed April 20, 2021).

[34] P. Denholm, M.; Hand, M. Jackson,; and S. Ong, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States Land-Use
Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States 1 (2009).

[35] Wind energy’s frequently asked questions

https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/#:~:text=The output of a wind,average EU
households with electricity (accessed April 18, 2021).

[36] Esteban, M. D.; Diez, J. J.; López, J. S.; Negro, V. Why offshore wind energy? Renewable
Energy 2011, 36 (2), 444–450.

[37] 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, IPCC, 2018: 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. In Press.
[38] IRENA. Future of Wind: Deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and
socio-economic aspects (A Global Energy Transformation paper), International Renewable
Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. (2019).

[39] Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. https://www.c2es.org/content/renewable-energy/

(accessed April 19, 2021).

[40] Wind Energy https://www.irena.org/wind (accessed Apr 20, 2021).

[41] Blanco, M. I. The economics of wind energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2009, 13 (6-7), 1372–1382.

[42] Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2020. “U.S. Grid Energy Storage
Factsheet.” Pub. No. CSS15-17.

[43] T. Chen, Y. Jin, H. Lv, A. Yang, M. Liu, B. Chen, Y. Xie, and Q. Chen, Applications of
Lithium-Ion Batteries in Grid-Scale Energy Storage Systems, Transactions of Tianjin University
26, 208 (2020).

[44] Renewable Energy: The Smart Grid | SmartGrid.gov (2019).

https://www.smartgrid.gov/the_smart_grid/renewable_energy.html (accessed April 21, 2021).

[45]Pratt, R. G.; Balducci, P. J.; Gerkensmeyer, C.; Katipamula, S.; Kintner-Meyer, M. C. W.;
Sandquist, T. F.; Schneider, K. P.; Secrest, T. J. The Smart Grid: An Estimation of the Energy and
CO2 ... - PNNL
https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19112.pdf (accessed
Apr 21, 2021).

[46] SEIA. Renewable Energy Standards

https://www.seia.org/initiatives/renewable-energy-standards (accessed Apr 23, 2021).

[47] Cox, S.; Walters, T.; Esterly, S.; Booth, S. Solar Power. Policy Overview and Good
Practices. 2015.

[48] Loynes, K. Overview of Feed in Tariffs: a quick guide

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/p
ubs/rp/rp1314/QG/Tariffs (accessed Apr 23, 2021).

[49] Food Wastage Footprint & Climate Change. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. 2015, http://www.fao.org/3/bb144e/bb144e.pdf (accessed April 23, 2021).

[50] Smith, R. How Reducing Food Waste Could Ease Climate Change
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150122-food-waste-climate-change-hunger
(accessed Apr 23, 2021).
[51] Babler-Madrid, I. Lack of Education Causes Climate Denial. 2020, https://acespace.org
(accessed Apr 23, 2021).

[52] Want to Save the Planet? Invest in Family Planning. Population Connection. 2019,
www.populationconnection.org (accessed April 23, 2021).

[53] “Health and Education @ProjectDrawdown #ClimateSolutions.” 2020, Project Drawdown.

February 7, 2020. https://drawdown.org/solutions/health-and-education (accessed April 23,
2021).

[54] Developing Water Efficient Homes. 2018, www.watersafe.org.uk (accessed April 23, 2021).

[55] Reduced Carbon Footprint from Solar Hot Water for Your Home or Business. New England
Solar Hot Water. n.d. https://www.neshw.com/residential/reduced-carbon-footprint/. (accessed
April 23, 2021).

[56] Plant-Rich Diets. Project Drawdown. n.d. https://drawdown.org/solutions/plant-rich-diets.

(accessed April 23, 2021).

[57] Key Facts and Findings. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. n.d.
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/. (accessed April 23, 2021).

[58] Innovation, E. U.S. Energy Policy Simulator

https://us.energypolicy.solutions/scenarios/home (accessed Apr 23, 2021).