Climate on THE ENVIRONMENTALIST

“Two Degrees” of Separation: President Obama Needs to Outline his Yardstick on Global Warming

2009-07-01T13:47:00.000-07:00

by Jake Schmidt

In the midst of the fight of our lives (the House floor debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act), a coalition of major U.S. groups called for the Obama Administration to outline its "yardstick" on global warming. What is it that this "scientific and pragmatic" Administration will use to measure our efforts to solve global warming pollution -- its yardstick?

Well, the CEOs of 47 U.S. organizations, representing environment, faith, development, and youth groups have an answer. As the letter from these groups to the Obama Administration says:

"We are writing to urge you to work with other world leaders at the upcoming G8 Summit to set a strong science-based goal for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases aimed at keeping the increase of global average surface temperature, compared to pre-industrial levels, as far below 2 degrees Celsius/3.6 degrees Fahrenheit as possible."

The "two degrees" threshold is a pretty important yardstick. The impacts of global warming will be potentially severe in a number of regions around the world, including the US, if we cross this threshold.

And it isn't like these groups made up this "yardstick". After all, it is the goal called for in the:

- Climate and energy recommendations to the Obama transition team from the 29 largest U.S. environmental, conservation, and development organizations;
- American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) that just passed the U.S. House of Representatives;
- Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007, which Senator Obama co-sponsored;
- Principles of the National Council of Churches;
- Statements of a number leading climate scientists; and
- Positions of a large number of governments around the world.

Having a clear measure against which to judge progress will be central to ensuring that the American public continues to be bought into solving global warming. After all, the American people generally have a "can do" attitude. Once we fully get to grips with the problem, we want to solve it -- not half way, but all the way.

So that is why having such an overarching "yardstick" as holding global temperatures to below a certain threshold is so critical -- it frames why we are working to solve global warming. It will frame how we judge whether or not we are heading in the right direction or whether we need to do more.

Where President Obama stands on "two degrees" will be a consistent question when he attends the Group of Eight (G8) meeting in early July. Ambiguity breeds mistrust and on global warming the U.S. has had a lot of goodwill destroyed over the last 8 years -- thanks to the efforts of the "unnamed Administration". The Obama Administration and now the House of Representatives have made serious efforts to rebuild international trust on global warming. But not providing clarity on "two degrees" spurs mistrust as evidenced in a recent Reuters story about the Obama Administration not wanting to reference the 2 degrees Celsius objective in the G8 statement.

So the letter from these 47 groups to President Obama as he is just about to embark on his G8 trip provides a simple recommendation -- embrace 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degress Fahrenheit) as the U.S. yardstick on global warming. Don't be separate from it any longer. Taking it as your own will help spur the U.S. public to action and build a huge amount international goodwill.

Coming out in support of this "yardstick" is a small, but hugely important signal to the American people and the world that we are truly committed to solving global warming.

Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council Switchboard.

-----------------------------

Jake Schmidt is the International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Councilwhere he helps to develop the post-2012 international response to climate change (for more information see his blog).

Labels: Climate Change, Copenhagen, Environment, Global Warming, Jake Schmidt, NRDC

Coal River Mountain

2009-06-25T20:17:00.000-07:00

Dr. James Hansen

Statement of Jim Hansen at 23 June 2009 Coal River Mountain rally.

Mountaintop removal ignites strong passions because local effects are obvious – pollution of air and water, effects on human health, destruction of the environment.

But another effect of coal mining, global climate change, will become important in the next few decades. Climate change will have large consequences for people who are alive today, especially children, and future generations.

President Obama speaks of “a planet in peril” for good reason. If we do not move rapidly to carbon-free energy, we will hand our children a planet that has passed climate tipping points. It will be a more desolate planet, with half or more species committed to extinction.

Burning all fossil fuels would destroy the future of young people and the unborn. Coal is the critical issue. Coal is the main cause of climate change. It is also the dirtiest fossil fuel. Air pollution, arsenic, and mercury from coal have devastating effects on human health and cause birth defects.

The science is clear. We must have a moratorium on new coal plants and phase out existing ones within the next 20 years. We should start with termination of mountaintop removal now. Coal from mountaintop removal provides only 7% of United States coal, less than the amount of coal that we export.

Why is the Administration not stopping mountaintop removal? Why do they advocate
halfway measures? Because of the political clout of coal in Washington, that’s why.

But coal did not elect Obama. Who helped Obama win the Iowa primary? Not coal, it was
young people. Who got out the vote in the general election – it was young people – young people who had hope – hope that we could have leaders who do the right thing, not what is politically expedient.

We must raise the pressure to do what is right – for our children and the planet – not for the wallets of the few. Continued mountaintop removal defeats the purpose of the administration’s effort to fight climate change.

And mountaintop removal poisons water supplies and pollutes the air. Coal ash piles are so toxic and unstable that Homeland Security has declared that the location of the nation’s 44 most hazardous coal ash sites must be kept secret. They fear terrorists will find ways to spill the toxic substances. But storms and heavy rain can do the same.

President Obama remains the best hope, perhaps the only hope, for real change. If the
President used his influence, his eloquence, his bully pulpit, he could be the agent of real change. But he needs our help to overcome the political realities of compromise.

Politicians may choose to advocate for halfway measures. But it is our responsibility to make sure our representatives feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not what some judge as “winnable”.

We must make clear to Congress, to EPA, to the Obama administration that we the people want mountaintop removal terminated and we want a move toward rapid phase-out of coal emissions. The time for half measures and caving in to polluting industries is over. It is time for citizens to demand – yes, we can.

More information at this link (PDF).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doctor James Hansen, an adjunct professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences. His website can be found at:http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Labels: Barack Obama, Climate Change, Coal, Environment, GISS, Global Warming, James Hansen, NASA, Politics

President Obama Sets New Fuel Standards

2009-05-19T12:03:00.000-07:00

by The Environmentalist Staff

President Obama has announced new auto fuel standards that would require cars and trucks to average 35.5 mpg by 2016 and would set a national standard that would remove the need for state by state regulation. The White House says that the automakers are on board because they want one set of national standards. The announcement included Governors Arnold Schwartzenegger and Deval Patrick, auto company executives, union leaders and members of congress.

From President Obama's remarks:

"Think about this. Consider how much has changed all around us. Think of how much faster our computers have become. Think about how much more productive our workers are. Think about how everything has been transformed by our capacity to see the world as it is, but also to imagine a world as it could be.

That's what's been missing in this debate for too long, and that's why this announcement is so important, for it represents not only a change in policy in Washi
ngton but the harbinger of a change in the way business is done in Washington. No longer will we accept the notion that our politics are too small, our nation too divided, our people too weary of broken promises and lost opportunities to take up a historic calling. No longer will we accept anything less than a common effort, made in good faith, to solve our toughest problems.

And that is what this agreement seeks to achieve."

AP uploaded a short video of the announcement online. We will update with the full feed if and when it is available:

The Official White House announcement:

Tuesday, May 19th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

A Culture Change on Climate Change

"For what everyone here believes, even as views differ on many important issues, is that the status quo is no longer acceptable."

This week the makings of a change in the culture of Washington will be on display, and as the President’s words above indicate there could be no better example than today’s announcement of a breakthrough on fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards. Whereas these issues seemed destined to be the subject of eternal political clashing just last year, today the President was joined on stage by the Presidents, CEOs, or other top executives from Ford, Toyota, General Motors, Honda, Chrysler, BMW AG, Nissan, Mercedez-Benz, Mazda, Volkswagon, and the United Auto Workers to announce a new consensus.

In the course of his remarks, the President made clear that ending America’s dependence on fossil fuels will be one of the greatest challenges the country has faced, and that this is only one of steps already being taken to address it. However, he also made clear that this was a historic day:

Think about this. Consider how much has changed all around us. Think of how much faster our computers have become. Think about how much more productive our workers are. Think about how everything has been transformed by our capacity to see the world as it is, but also to imagine a world as it could be.

That's what's been missing in this debate for too long, and that's why this announcement is so important, for it represents not only a change in policy in Washington but the harbinger of a change in the way business is done in Washington. No longer will we accept the notion that our politics are too small, our nation too divided, our people too weary of broken promises and lost opportunities to take up a historic calling. No longer will we accept anything less than a common effort, made in good faith, to solve our toughest problems.

And that is what this agreement seeks to achieve.

Addressing those concerned about whether these changes would mean a higher cost for their cars, the President explained that any costs would be offset in just three years, and that "over the life of a vehicle, the typical driver would save about $2,800 by getting better gas mileage."

A top auto industry spokesman summed it up in a statement before the event began: "What's significant about the announcement is it launches a new beginning, an era of cooperation. The President has succeeded in bringing three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and many environmental groups to the table… We're all agreeing to work together on a National Program."

Indeed, leaders from environmental groups were in the audience applauding. One environmental groupput it the same way this morning that the President did this afternoon: "Everybody wins." The program covers model year 2012 to model year 2016 and ultimately requires an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 mpg in 2016 with a projected reduction in oil consumption of approximately 1.8 billion barrels over the life of the program. Or, in the President’s words, "more oil than we imported last year from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria combined."

The President was also joined on stage by Carol M. Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, who helped spearhead what she called "an incredible step forward for our country"; EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, who noted that "A supposedly 'unsolvable' problem was solved by unprecedented partnerships"; and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who called the program "the biggest leap in history to make automobiles more fuel efficient."

Link

LABELS: BARACK OBAMA, CAFE STANDARDS, CLIMATE CHANGE, EMISSIONS, ENVIRONMENT, GLOBAL WARMING, POLITICS

Worshipping the Temple of Doom

2009-05-05T20:45:00.000-07:00

Dr. James Hansen

My response to the letter from Dr. Martin Parkinson, Secretary of the Australian Department of Climate Change, is available, along with this note, on my web site.

Thanks to the many people who provided comments on my draft response, including Steve Hatfield-Dodds, a senior official within the Australian Department of Climate Change. I appreciate the willingness of the Australian government to engage in this discussion. I believe that you will find the final letter to be significantly improved over the draft version:

Dr. Martin Parkinson
Secretary
Department of Climate Change
Government of Australia
Re: Australia’s Response to Climate Change

Dear Secretary Parkinson:

Thank you for your letter of 6 April, in which you provided reasoning behind the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) announced in your Government’s White Paper1 and the updated plans, with more ambitious reduction targets, announced today.

The White Paper is forthright about the “need for action on climate change”, stating:

Carbon pollution is causing the world’s climate to change, resulting in extreme weather, higher temperatures, more droughts, and rising sea levels.

Eleven of the past 12 years rank among the 12 warmest years since records began and
Australia had warmer-than-average mean annual temperatures for 16 of the past 18 years.

As one of the hottest and driest continents on earth, Australia will be one of the nations hit hardest and fastest by climate change if we don’t act now.

This kind of straight talk is admirable, as is the statement in your 6 April letter that “We strongly agree with you that climate change requires urgent and significant changes in human activity.”

I am also encouraged by the policy proposed in the White Paper to return 100 percent of revenue from permit auctions to Australian households and businesses. Unless the tax is fully returned to the public, in a transparent fashion, they will almost certainly not consent to having the carbon fee rise to the needed level.

However, I note that your plan is still based on the disastrously ineffectual cap-and-trade approach. Below I point out principal flaws in this approach based on empirical evidence. I hope you will reconsider your plan – such an ineffectual cap-and-trade approach would waste another decade at a time when the threat of passing climate tipping points makes it unconscionable to waste another year...

--------

My frustration arises from the huge gap between words of governments, worldwide, and their actions or planned actions. It is easy to speak of a planet in peril. It is quite anothe to level with the public about what is needed, even if the actions are in everybody’s long-term interest.

Instead governments are retreating to feckless “cap-and-trade”, a minor tweak to business-as-usual. Oil companies are so relieved to realize that they do not need to learn to be energy companies that they are decreasing their already trivial investments in renewable energy.

They are using the money to buy greenwash advertisements. Perhaps if politicians and businesses paint each other green, it will not seem so bad when our forests burn. Cap-and-trade is the temple of doom. It would lock in disasters for our children and grandchildren. Why do people continue to worship a disastrous approach? Its fecklessness was proven by the Kyoto Protocol. It took a decade to implement the treaty, as countrie extracted concessions that weakened even mild goals. Most countries that claim to have met their obligations actually increased their emissions. Others found that even modest reductions of emissions were inconvenient, and thus they simply ignored their goals.

Why is this cap-and-trade temple of doom worshipped? The 648 page cap-and-trade monstrosity that is being foisted on the U.S. Congress provides the answer. Not a single Congressperson has read it. They don’t need to – they just need to add more paragraphs to support their own special interests. By the way, the Congress people do not write most of those paragraphs – they are “suggested” by people in alligator shoes...

The full letter to the Secretary of the Australian Department of Climate Change, is available, along with the rest of Dr. Hansen's note, at this link.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doctor James Hansen, an adjunct professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences. His website can be found at:http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Labels: Australia , Barack Obama, Climate Change, Coal, Environment, GISS, Global Warming, James Hansen, NASA, Politics

Major Economies Meet on Global Warming – What should they decide?

2009-04-24T20:25:00.000-07:00

by Jake Schmidt

Ministers from 17 developed and developing countries will be coming to Washington, DC next week (April 27-28) for the Major Economies Forum (MEF). This will be the first of three reported meetings of this “forum” through June of this year -- the next one is scheduled for Mexico -- culminating in a “Leaders meeting” around the G8 meeting in July (or maybe later). Coming out of the recent climate negotiations in Bonn, this forum has become even more important in helping “move from rhetoric to agreement” in Copenhagen later this year.

This forum will bring together countries representing:

•Over 80% of the world’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion;
•94% of the greenhouse gas emissions from all developed countries;
•Over 60% of developing country greenhouse gas emissions; and
•Almost 60% of the world’s economic output (all values from the World Resources Climate Analysis Indicator Tool).

So to say that these countries are crucial to solving global warming is a huge understatement.

Significant actions taken by these countries on global warming can together prevent the worst impacts from occurring. So whether or not it is in this forum or other venues, we need these countries to come together for strong actions if we are to solve global warming.

While these same countries met under a similar initiative started by President Bush, this forum has much greater promise of helping to move these key countries closer to agreement than its predecessor:

US is serious about clean energy and global warming. The US side leading this initiative is committed to moving forward with solving global warming. I’m sure I don’t have to remind you how different this situation is than when President Bush’s team was leading it. It is impossible to overstate how much a difference this will make. All the countries that I’ve talked to that participated in this venue found it useful in helping to get closer to agreement on some sticky issues, but the official progress was limited by the lack of seriousness by the Bush Administration on global warming. You can tell how much the world was craving the US to be serious by the loud applause that Special Climate Envoy Todd Stern received with the simple statement: “we are back”.
The clock is ticking even faster. Copenhagen is now only 8 months away so getting an agreement as world leaders have continued to stress, will require focused attention from all these countries. In my experience, climate negotiators can work out an agreement on a very tricky issue in a short timeframe if they have a fixed deadline and the political will. So this forum brings together some of the major countries at a crucial moment.
There is a huge opportunity for all countries to “regrow” their economies with a clean energy strategy. A number of countries participating in this forum have used their economic stimulus packages as a “down payment” on clean energy and global warming solutions. So they have mobilized strong political support in a short timeframe once…now we just need them to bring this focus towards another crisis (global warming).
The elements of the agreement have emerged with some clarity. While there is still a lot of detail to work out (and even more political will to gather), the main elements of that agreement are generally known by climate negotiators (as I’ve discussed here). This type of small, frank conversation can prove very helpful in getting past the rhetoric.

So how do these key countries use this unique window to secure a strong agreement in Copenhagen? Here are my three thoughts on the aspects of the Copenhagen agreement that these 17 countries could help to get agreement on in this forum.

Pathway of developed country emissions reductions. There will be a lot of discussion of how deep a cut in global warming pollution developed countries make by 2020, but it is also crucial to begin to discuss what binding steps countries will take in say 2025 and what else they are bring to the table before 2020 (e.g., technology assistance).
The structure of developing country emissions reductions. Starting with the Bali agreement, the world agreed to a structure that essentially said developing countries would take some action on their own and would be provided with incentives to go further (as I’ve discussed here and here).
The outlines of the finance, technology, and capacity building support that developed countries will provide to enhance developing country action. Structuring this package is one of the key “tools” to securing a strong emissions reduction commitment from major emerging economies. Some of the elements of this package are included in the Waxman-Markey discussion draft that is under debate in the US right now. Providing significant funding to support “clean energy exports” as a part of this package will be crucial component of the US climate debate, as we have proposedhere). One key to resolving this issue will be to figure out what it would take to scale-up deployment of a number of key targeted technologies in developing countries (e.g., carbon capture and storage).

These aren’t easy issues for these 17 countries to agree, but if you can get these countries to shape the outlines of an agreement on these pieces then many other essential elements will fall into place. And this will greatly increase the likelihood of getting all 180 plus countries to agree to a strong commitment in Copenhagen that puts the world on a path to solving global warming.

All eyes in this forum will be focused on what the US will ultimately be able to commit to. So delegates will also be closely watching the debate that is happening at the other end of town (in Congress where the House is currently debating the American Clean Energy and Security Act).

So while the delegates coming to DC recognize that the US is serious about addressing global warming for the first time, the key message that many countries will be bringing to Washington, DC is: “the more the US is able to do, the more we will be able to do."

Now is the time for the US to lead…and in this case the US needs to lead by example!

-----------

Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council Switchboard.

-------------

Jake Schmidt is the International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Councilwhere he helps to develop the post-2012 international response to climate change (for more information see his blog).

LABELS: BARACK OBAMA, BUSINESS, CLIMATE CHANGE, COPENHAGEN, DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, ECONOMY,ENVIRONMENT, GLOBAL WARMING, Jake SCHMIDT, MAJOR ECONOMIES FORUM, NRDC, UNFCCC

Unsung Heroes of Sustainability: The Melty Awards

2009-04-10T01:14:00.000-07:00

by William S. Becker

What would happen if the same six people won the Oscars every year? Three things: 1) The Oscars would get so boring that no one would pay attention; 2) the awards would lose credibility; and 3) a lot of very talented people would go unrecognized.

That what’s happening in regard to our national and international heroes of sustainability – the many people who day in and day out demonstrate uncommon persistence in the face of virtual anonymity.

I received a call the other day from someone who wanted me to attend a conference. Her selling point was that her organization was giving an award to one of sustainability’s superstars – someone who already has received considerable honors and attention for his good work.

On one hand, I’m delighted that work on sustainability is rewarded. On the other hand, I suspect that some awards are based not on merit alone, but on the star power of the awardee –- his or her ability to attract people to a conference or a fund-raising banquet. The result is that the same sustainability superstars tend to be recognized over and over again, while many lesser luminaries are not.

I’d like to offer this suggestion to the many organizations that organize gala dinners and national conferences on sustainable development, and who wish to recognize somebody in the movement: How about honoring the unsung heroes? The list of nominees is very, very long.

One model is MacArthur Fellows Program, more commonly known as the MacArthur genius awards. Each year, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation gives $500,000 with no strings attached to people – most of them little known outside their fields – who “inspire new heights in human achievement”, “exemplify the boundless nature of the human mind and spirit” and have shown great potential to continue making worthy contributions in the future.

Twenty-five such people were notified by phone last fall that they’d been selected, including a neurobiologist, a saxophonist, a critical care physician, an urban farmer, an optical physicist, a sculptor, a geriatrician, a historian of medicine, and an inventor of musical instruments.

On the other end of the spectrum is the Stranger’s Genius Awards, in which The Stranger, a magazine based in Seattle, recognizes deserving artists. As the magazine explains:

Every fall since 2003, The Stranger has given a check for $5,000 and an obscene amount of attention to a filmmaker, a writer, a visual artist, a theater artist, and an arts organization making startling, original work. There is no application process.

Winners are notified when, at some time and location they least expect, they are presented with a cake decorated with the words, “You’re a Genius”. Sweet.

How about similar recognition for the unheralded heroes of sustainability – if not a genius award, then a “Pretty Damn Brilliant” prize of some kind. Perhaps sustainability conferences in the future can distinguish themselves not by recognizing the usual heroes, but the unusual ones. Here are some nominees who in my book should be honored for uncommon dedication to the environment and to all of us, present and future, who live in it:

Betsy Taylor, founder and director of the board of the 1Sky organization and founder of the Center for a New American Dream. Betsy helped organize 1Sky around the idealistic but necessary notion that the many groups working on climate change could rally around a common set of goals and learn to speak with one voice.

Gillian Caldwell, 1Sky’s Campaign Director and the quintessential working mother of the climate movement, absolutely dedicated and tireless in the goal of building a network of climate advocates in key congressional districts across the nation. When Gillian talks about saving the planet for our children, she takes it personally.

Terry Tamminen, the architect of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s pioneering climate policies in California. Terry, now in the private sector, is still practicing policy architecture, often behind the scenes. He organized the conference hosted by Schwarzenegger last November, at which officials from 13 states, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, India and China signed an agreement to collaborate on climate mitigation efforts. That event may have opened the door a little wider to a bilateral climate agreement between the United States and China, and was the conference at which newly elected President Barack Obama gave his first statement on the U.S. commitment to work with other nations on the climate crisis.

Joe Romm, Janet Ritz and David Sassoon – editors-in-chief respectively of Climate Progress, The Environmentalist and SolveClimate -- three of the blogosphere’s most informative green sites. I’m not sure how they continue churning out new information and news hour after hour, or how they keep abreast of the insanely fast-breaking developments in the energy, climate and environmental fields, or how they find the money to keep going. But each of them has become a fire hose of information from which the rest of us drink.

Mike Tidwell of the Chesapeake Climate Action Coalition. Through his leadership at the Coalition and his radio program Earthbeat, Mike demonstrates how global climate change can be brought home to the local and regional levels.

Profs. Gus Speth and David Orr, real-world academics. Gus, who founded the World Resources Institute, helped create the Natural Resources Defense Counsel and served as President Jimmy Carter’s environmental advisor among other astounding accomplishments, now is dean of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale. David is a senior advisor to the president of Oberlin College and advisor to the Lewis and other philanthropic families – a role in which he has helped empower scores of critical environmental projects around the U.S. Both are the prolific authors of profoundly important books on the environment and the values behind our relationship with it.

Michael Northrop, the sustainable development program director at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Mike is the Johnny Appleseed of climate action. For years, he has been planting small grants in the rocky soil of climate action, funding a wide variety of groups and individuals ranging from small business experts to coalitions of state officials exploring how best to work with the federal government. Few if any people are better connected to all the hard-working activists in the international climate movement. Few are more widely valued in the movement for nourishing its “green shoots”.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I have been one of Mike Northrop’s and the Lewis family’s grantees; that Mike Tidwell has interviewed me on his radio program; that Gus Speth, David Orr and Terry Tamminen served as advisors to the Presidential Climate Action Project (my project); that while trying to fund her own initiatives, Betsy Taylor generously helped me acquire other grants to sustain PCAP; that Joe Romm, Janet Ritz and David Sassoon bravely publish my posts on their blogs; and that I value Gillian, as I do all of these good people, as allies and friends.

So, I invite others to broaden this pool of nominees with the unsung heroes of their acquaintance. Let’s pat them on the back. Let’s give them some cash. Let’s present them with small ice sculptures that melt at current atmospheric temperatures and call them the “Melty Awards”. However we do it, let’s make sure the unsung heroes know we’re grateful for the incredible work they do.

Editor's note: Aw, shucks.

The 100 Day Action Plan to Save the Planet
Struggling for Obama's Soul
Toward a New Energy Economy: Part 1 Action in 100 Days
Toward a New Energy Economy: Part 2 Tough Questions, Tough Answers
How to Plant a Christmas Tree
In Math We Trust
Small Businesses: Too Big To Fail
Economic Stimulus, Part 1: 16% Green?
Unleashing the Geeks
Climate Bill: Principle Draws Interest
Avoiding the Frankenplanet
Invasion of the Present Tense
Whistleblower's Revenge
The Really, Really Bad Debt
Best of Times, Worst of Times

Labels: Bill Becker, Climate Change, Environment, Global Warming, PCAP

Beginning the March to Copenhagen: Climate Negotiations Getting Serious

2009-03-31T02:24:00.000-07:00

by Jake Schmidt

If you've read my previous posts, you'll know that the international global warming negotiations have already commenced (see here, here; and here). But if last year was the "dry run", this year will be need to be the real thing. While progress was made last year, it was stymied as the US Administration sitting across the negotiating table from other countries was never really serious about getting a strong agreement. Of course, that has changed with President Obama signaling that he will move domestically to cap US global warming pollution and also help secure a strong international agreement to this global challenge.

So that is why I'm in Bonn, Germany right now. For the next ten days, delegates will be engaged in the next round of climate negotiations (I'll be back in Bonn in early June for another negotiation session). This will be the first negotiation session where the US will be led by a team that wants to address global warming (and more importantly a President and leaders in Congress that support that vision).

At some point during the reign of the previous Administration, other countries knew they weren't really serious so the developing countries stopped providing stronger signals of the action that they would take in the new agreement. Some hints of progress emerged, but they were held back by this reality (as I discussed in my New Year's Resolution).

So what does a changed US dynamic mean? What can we expect at this negotiation session?

The changed US dynamic, will have a very strong impact on these negotiations. If anyone wants an example of how US leadership can change a complex international negotiation, all you have to do is look to the recent agreement to negotiate a treaty to address mercury pollution (as my colleague Susan Keane discussed). For the previous 8 years the US didn't want an international mercury treaty and things didn't progress (to put it mildly). But at the beginning of the last negotiation session, the Obama Administration signaled that they wanted a mercury treaty. And after two weeks of hard negotiations, an agreement was reached to negotiate a mercury treaty. Which is why many people, including the members of the US Climate Action Partnership have stressed that: "U.S. climate policy is an essential precondition for a full and effective international framework".

Of course, simply a change in US position won't break down all the impasses, but it sure can go a long way. But this is a complicated negotiation with a lot of issues on the table, which is where we are at right now. I still believe that there is a lot of convergence on the agreed structure (as I discussed here), but the clock is ticking as we are less than 8 months from Copenhagen. As I said elsewhere: "it's a good start but there's still way too many options". And we still need leadership from a lot of countries (e.g., the US by capping our global warming pollution). We've been progressing in small steps, but now is the time for leaps and bounds.

Anybody that starts to dive into these negotiations can quickly get confused, but these negotiations boil down to four key things for the Copenhagen agreement:

Strong leadership from developed countries with firm and aggressive emissions reduction caps in the near-term (e.g., 2020 and 2030) and strong signals that they will significantly reduce emissions in the medium-term (e.g., 2050). The Europeans have put forward their commitment (last December), but other countries will need to signal their commitment if we are going to have any chance of a strong agreement in Copenhagen. Most of this aspect hinges on when the US will cap its emissions and how deep those cuts will be in the near-term. Some hints will emerge on the US front this Tuesday as Chairman Waxman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will put forward a discussion draft.

Willingness of developing countries to undertake significant emissions reductions on their own and the structure and size of performance-based incentives from developed countries to encourage even greater developing country emissions reductions. These actions need to lead to a reduction in the growth of developing country emissions in the near-term (e.g., through 2020) and lay the foundation for even deeper cuts in the medium-term. This is an extremely complex part of the negotiations. How much do developing countries do on their own and how are the incentives designed to help encourage greater action by developing countries and create opportunities for expansion of green technology transfer to developing countries? This debate is a bit stuck at this point as both sides are waiting for the other side to move.

Reversing the rate of deforestation. Since deforestation accounts for approximately 20% of global emissions, any serious effort to solve global warming needs to reverse this trend. Lots of difficult issues are involved in this effort, including how best to help developing countries get a reasonable handle on these emissions on their own (e.g., addressing forest governance and illegal logging) and how to create incentives to properly assist developing countries in going further in preserving their pristine forests.

Supporting adaptation to the impacts of climate change in the most vulnerable countries. Many poor countries will be faced with serious impacts from the global warming that is built into the system. These impacts will set back their development, but also create potential "threat multipliers" as a number of military and national security experts are beginning to identify. So the international agreement will need to help these countries address the impacts of global warming and improve the resilience of these communities over time.

So, this negotiation session begins with a mix of optimism and pessimism. Lots of signs of hope that haven't been evident in the international negotiations over the past 8 years, but a long ways to go before we'll have a strong agreement that puts the world on the path to solving global warming.

At the end of these 10 days, the world will need to be two steps closer to a strong agreement and poised for big leaps in the coming months. Stay-tuned as I'll be providing updates on those steps and leaps.

Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council Switchboard.

-----------------------------

Jake Schmidt is the International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council where he helps to develop the post-2012 international response to climate change (for more information see his blog).

Labels: Climate Change, Copenhagen, Environment, Global Warming, Jake Schmidt, NRDC

Ways & Means

2009-02-27T09:09:00.000-08:00

Dr. James Hansen

The answer to the riddle became clear on the train on the way home. I had puzzled about the continued attraction of Cap&Trade. Empirical evidence shows that Cap&Trade does not have a prayer of phasing out fossil fuel emissions fast enough to save the planet, e.g., allowing us to phase-out coal-fired power plants. Clearly there must be people in the Obama administration who understand that. Yet Cap&Trade is still talked about as if it were something good. One wonders: do they really believe we have "a planet in peril"?

The testimony that I gave to the House Ways & Means Committee is available at
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf

In my testimony I noted that a "Cap" raises the price of energy, just as does a simple honest carbon tax on oil, gas and coal at the first sale at the mine or port of entry. "Cap" is a pseudonym, disguising the fact that it is a tax, assuming that the public is a bunch of dummies, who will never catch on. With all its hooks and eyes, Cap&Trade will allow a lot of funny business. At least we would get a few Wall Street millionaires back in business, via speculation and gaming the Cap&Trade system (funded by John Q. Public, of course).

On the train I read on politico.com that the number of lobbyists in DC working to influence federal policy on climate change increased in the past few years by 300% to 2,340 lobbyists -- four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress. At least the alligator shoe business is doing well. Not too good for alligators, though.

A Carbon Tax & 100% Dividend would not let Congress enrich their favorites or divine winning technologies. Instead, the winners would be innovators who invent products with improved energy efficiency or develop carbon-free energies, which allow people to reduce their carbon tax. Of course, if you don't trust your innovation skills, it is easier to pay a lobbyist to get Congress to adopt a jury-rigged Cap&Trade system.

2340 lobbyists. They are outnumbered by the at least 2500 people, mostly young people (but everybody welcome), who plan to converge on Washington March 2 (despite inclement weather) to peacefully protest the Capitol Power Plant, which our Congress insists must be powered substantially by coal (our coal-black Senate seems to be the culprit). The Capitol Power Plant is just the symbolic target -- the real aim is to influence Congress to adopt legislation that will rapidly phase out coal use. See http://capitolclimateaction.org/

The question is: who will Congress listen to? Protesters (bringing no gifts - it's hard enough to pay their own way) or lobbyists (with lobbying expenditures last year of about $90M).

Young folks, if you need an indication of what you are up against, let me give you one example. Peabody Coal (a.k.a. Peabody Energy) hires Dick Gephardt, paying him $120,000.00 per quarter in 2008. The amount of money going into lobbying is increasing rapidly. As Shakespeare would say, gird up your loins.

If democracy does not win this one, if the lobbyists win, perhaps the best we can do for our grandchildren is buy them a ticket to another planet. Of course, Congress would have to borrow the money from our grandchildren. But at least we would show that we are giving them some consideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doctor James Hansen, an adjunct professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences. His website can be found at: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Labels: Barack Obama, Climate Change, Coal, Environment, GISS, Global Warming, James Hansen, NASA, Politics

Reengaging China on Climate Change - Some Recommendations

2009-02-19T02:34:00.000-08:00

by Jake Schmidt

If you've picked up a paper, listened to a radio program, watched a TV program, or read a policy paper on global warming recently you would surely have heard that China and the US are the two biggest sources of global warming pollution -- accounting for over 40% of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. And that the path that these two players take to address global warming is one of the keys to either sustainability or catastrophe.

Lack of movement to address global warming in either country has been used as a rationale for lack of action by the other side -- some US policymakers have suggested the US can't move forward if China isn't moving as well and vice versa. Some have even called this a "suicide pact".

The time for excuses and finger point is over. After all, we have 10 months to get a strong international agreement in Copenhagen to move the world away from the brink and towards a sustainable path.

Secretary of State Clinton is going to China later this week and global warming will be on her agenda. This is a great sign that the new Administration is going to make engagement with China on these issues a priority as they didn't get the attention in the US-China dialogue over the last 8 years that they need.

While the issues surrounding US and China on global warming are pretty evident, what to do about this dilemma is less than obvious. What should the US and China engage on after this initial trip from Secretary Clinton?

Well our China Program (we have about 20 people working full-time in Beijing) and our climate team decided to put together a set of detailed recommendations for how the US and China should engage on climate change and energy now that there are new opportunities in both countries (see for example: Changing Climate in China?; President-elect Obama Signals He Will Restore American Leadership on Global Warming; and China and the US: Sticking to a truly "green" stimulus).

In a set of recommendations (a sort of "street map" with a clear guide) -- Strengthening US-China Climate Change and Energy Engagement: Recommendations for Leaders and Policymakers in the US and China -- we outline a nine step plan that these two countries can do to fast-track a massive reengagement on global warming and energy issues and increase the likelihood of a strong agreement in Copenhagen.

Many of these recommendations are successful things that our China Program is already doing on-the-ground in various parts of China. They take the opportunities and stumbling blocks that our experience in China and the international negotiations has seen first hand and accelerates and deepens existing efforts.

I'll spare you the details of all the recommendations (so you actually read them), but here are the main themes:

Engage in serious bilateral meetings on climate change and address the key sticking points to reach meaningful agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009
Establish a US-China forum on climate change strategies that promote green jobs and economic recovery
Mobilize the untapped potential of energy efficiency
Assist in the deployment of renewable energy sources and technologies
Promote low-carbon, high-efficiency vehicles, fuels, transportation systems, and community development
Expand research and investment on carbon capture and storage technology
Improve greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and data transparency
Conduct co-benefit analysis on GHG emissions controls
Invest in regular exchanges and sharing of expertise to improve enforcement of environmental law and energy efficiency standards

All of these are essential for putting these two countries on a path to addressing global warming, but let me highlight a couple that I think are really important for the international global warming negotiations (my colleagues Barbara Finamore and Alex Wang will provide more insights on other key elements).

Engage in serious bilateral meetings on climate change and address the key sticking points to reaching a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009. President Obama and President Hu Jintao should discuss global warming at their first bilateral meeting, preferably to be held in February or March of 2009. This meeting should kick-start a series of high-level bilateral discussions throughout 2009 on the concrete steps that the US and China can undertake to reduce their global warming pollution now and in the future, and the key sticking points that need to be overcome for both parties to sign on to a meaningful international climate change agreement in Copenhagen. Is Secretary Clinton laying the groundwork for such a dialogue? Let's hope!

This high-level dialogue needs to be more than just broad declarations, press releases, and photo-ops, but a "roll-up" their sleeves process to get into the details of the tricky issues. They could start with a couple of things that keep coming up in the negotiations and that need an agreed path forward:

here

Any structures agreed upon in these bilateral discussions should be brought into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as this bilateral engagement is meant to support, not replace, the UNFCCC.

Improve greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and data transparency. Improving the transparency, quality, and frequency of GHG emissions inventories will be a cornerstone of a strong international climate agreement to be reached in Copenhagen so making significant headway on this debate will be necessary.

Invest in improved enforcement. Willingness and a strong capability to implement actions on the ground to reduce global warming pollution will be a key building block to a strong international effort. After all, domestic action and enforcement is a critical element of all international agreements.

A Brighter Future for US and China on Global Warming?

The US and China are at a crucial juncture in how they are going to shape their economies, position their companies and technologies for the 21st century, and address global warming. Action must be taken in both countries immediately if these countries and the world are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Fortunately there are huge opportunities for those countries and companies that lead.

Implementation of these recommendations by themselves will not solve the global warming challenge. And taking these actions won't address all the challenges of getting a strong international agreement to address global warming. But they can make a huge down payment.

-----------------------------

Jake Schmidt is the International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council where he helps to develop the post-2012 international response to climate change (for more information see his blog).

Labels: China, Climate Change, Environment, Global Warming, Jake Schmidt, NRDC

The Invasion of the Present Tense

2009-02-14T07:09:00.000-08:00

by William S. Becker

If you are one of those people who eagerly digest every new scientific report about global climate change, read no farther. If you are one of the other 99.99% of Americans, read on. You may have missed a disturbing development in the march of global warming, revealed in science’s use of the English language.

Not long ago, most climate scientists stuck to the future tense when they talked about the impacts of global warming. Now, they are using the present tense – and using it more and more often. Not long ago, the damages they talked about involved Greenland and the glaciers and the Polar ice caps. Now, they tell us the damages have arrived in the United States.

In other words, climate change isn’t just a problem for our kids anymore. It’s here and now and getting personal.

What concerns climate scientists today is not only that the adverse impacts are showing up faster than they expected; it’s that political leaders are moving slower than they should. Climate scientists from around the world will meet next month in Copenhagen “to warn the world’s politicians they are being too timid in their response to global warming,” according to The Guardian.

They’ll also introduce information to update the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose findings now are considered conservative and “wishy washy” by many in the science community, in light of more recent research and its more extreme conclusions. As Michael Lemonick reports in Yale Environment 360:

Since (2007), new reports have continued to pour in from all over the world, and climate modelers have continued to feed them into their supercomputers. And while a full accounting will have to wait for the next IPCC report, which is already being assembled (but which will not go to the printer until 2014), the news is not encouraging.

The new reports, many of them documented in an October 2008 paper by the World Wildlife Fund, include estimates that sea level rise may be triple what scientists projected just two years ago; that we should start preparing for an average atmospheric temperature rise of 4o C, twice the level the European Union defines as “dangerous”; that the Arctic Circle may be ice-free 20 years ahead of the most pessimistic IPCC projections; that carbon dioxide emissions are accelerating faster than expected; and that some of these adverse impacts already are locked and irreversible for the next 1,000 years.

Last year, the United Nations invoked the present tense in its finding that “nine out of 10 disasters recorded are climate-related, while the number of disasters has doubled to more than 400 annually over the past two decades.” John Holmes, the Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, concluded:

Climate change is not some futuristic scenario, it’s happening today, and millions of people are already suffering the consequences.

I am blessed with several learned colleagues who tolerate my frequent questions about climate science. I asked one of them, Susan Joy Hassol, when the present tense began to appear in the scientific literature on climate damage. Susan would know. From her office in tiny Basalt, Colorado, she is one of the chief writers and editors of reports that have emerged from major national and international climate assessments. Her response:

I’d estimate this (the present tense) began to show up about 5 years ago or so and has been growing each year since. When we published the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment in 2004, we used the word “now” quite a bit, emphasizing that science had moved from being mainly future projections to including current observations of climate changes and impacts. The difference is also apparent between the IPCC 2001 and 2007 reports…

The science clearly moved in recent years from only being able to attribute the observed global temperature rise to human activity, to being able to establish causal links between human activities and changes in snowpack, seasonal timing of runoff, changes in minimum and maximum temperatures, ocean temperature changes in hurricane formation regions, and so on.

What about impacts in the United States? Hasn’t the present tense appeared here, too, although somewhat later? Said Susan:

I’d say you are correct that the attribution of impacts in the U.S. to human-induced climate change has been later in coming, mainly happening in 2008…There are still some people who think that there is nothing in observed change or impacts that can be clearly attributed to human-induced climate change – that it is still primarily a problem for the future, not the present. I believe they are wrong and that the recent science supports my belief. As you say, it is here and now, personal and local, and growing.

Back in 2005, the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies convened scores of experts in Colorado to analyze the gap between what scientists were saying and what the public was willing to do. Dan Abbasi, then associate dean, wrote the conference report and this conclusion:

The problem of climate change is almost perfectly designed to test the limits of any modern society’s capacity for response – one might even call it the “perfect problem” for its uniquely daunting confluence of forces.

One of those daunting forces is the “psychological barriers that complicate apprehension and processing of the issue, due in part to its perceived remoteness in time and place”. Abbasi continued:

The fact is that there is surprisingly little hard evidence about which of the many climate change related risks are of greatest concern to the American population.

Four years later, climate change and its risks are remote no more. For example, a fresh report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, currently in draft form and undergoing public review, concludes:

Climate-related changes already have been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers and sea ice…These changes are expected to increase and will impact human health, water supply, agriculture, coastal areas, and many other aspects of society and the natural environment.

Or consider this June 2008 report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program:

Changes in extreme weather and climate events have significant impacts and are among the most serious challenges to society in coping with a changing climate. Many extremes and their associated impacts are now changing. For example, in recent decades most of North America has been experiencing more unusually hot days and nights, fewer unusually cold days and nights, and fewer frost days. Heavy downpours have become more frequent and intense. Droughts are becoming more severe in some regions, though there are no clear trends for North America as a whole. The power and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes have increased substantially in recent decades.

Or this report based on research by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and others, published in January 2008 by Science Express:

Observations have shown the hydrological cycle of the western U.S. changed significantly over the last half of the twentieth century…They portend, in conjunction with previous work, a coming crisis in water supply for the western United States.

Or this report (payment required for access) by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and several other institutions, and published last year in Nature:

Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans…Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperatures…We show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone.

So, in the face of this overwhelming evidence that climate change is here, how can it be that some politicians still don’t get it? Consider this report four months ago in Politico:

Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation. While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January.

Not to be outdone by prestigious journals and world-class researchers, D’Aleo found a publisher for his own theory that temperature increases in the U.S. are caused by solar activity and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions. His article appears in the 2009 edition of that august journal of solid science, the Old Farmer’s Almanac.

Good luck to the scientists gathering next month to try to spur the world’s politicians into action. In his report four years ago, Dan Abbasi invoked the following words from the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. They should be posted prominently on the walls of every legislative body with the power to address global warming:

We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time…We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: “Too late…”

-------------

William S. Becker is the Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Plan (PCAP), a project of the University of Colorado, Wirth Chair, charged with producing a 100 day action plan on climate change for the next President of the United States, and the author of THE 100 DAY ACTION PLAN TO SAVE THE PLANET, available in eBook format from St. Martins Griffin.

Related articles:

The 100 Day Action Plan to Save the Planet
Struggling for Obama's Soul
Toward a New Energy Economy: Part 1 Action in 100 Days
Toward a New Energy Economy: Part 2 Tough Questions, Tough Answers
How to Plant a Christmas Tree
In Math We Trust
Small Businesses: Too Big To Fail
Economic Stimulus, Part 1: 16% Green?
Unleashing the Geeks
Climate Bill: Principle Draws Interest
Avoiding the Frankenplanet

Labels: Bill Becker, Climate Change, Environment, Global Warming, PCAP, Science

Leadership Needed to Address Deforestation Emissions

2009-02-09T19:26:00.000-08:00

by Jake Schmidt

Today, NRDC joined a diverse group of environmental, conservation, and development organizations; businesses; and leading academics in a "Call for Leadership" to address deforestation (available here and a list of partners here). Frances Beinecke, our President, helped launch this "Call" with a speech to leading US policymakers from Congress and elsewhere at an event hosted by the group Avoided Deforestation Partners (that I wrote about here). She was joined by a high-level group of leading policymakers, including Senator's Kerry and Lugar and Nobel-Prize winner Wangari Maathai.

The US and the world need to simultaneously cut all sources of global warming pollution - from both the energy sector and tropical deforestation. With deforestation accounting for about 20% of the world's global warming pollution, addressing deforestation is a critical component of the world's efforts to combat global warming. So that is why we came together to launch this "Call for Leadership"...to focus US attention on helping to get a solution to this challenge.

Time is not on our side. Without a significant change, much of the world's forests will be lost in the span of decades, not centuries. And we need to mobilize resources and political will immediately to ensure that a sound strategy for deforestation's global warming pollution is integrated into the new international agreement to be reached in Copenhagen -- in just around 10 months -- and in the key tropical forest countries.

The US must take a leadership role in helping combat these emissions, just as we must take an overall leadership role in combating global warming. The good news is that the US has a long record of bi-partisan support for efforts to address the loss of the world's native forests, including the adoption of an amendment to the US law which helps developing countries address illegal logging.

Leadership needs to come both by ensuring that significant financial resources and other support is effectively integrated into the US climate legislative and that the US plays a strong role in ensuring that the new international global warming agreement also includes these tools.

That is why this diverse group came together and is calling for US leadership now -- as the US climate legislation is expected to move and the outlines of the Copenhagen agreement are starting to take shape.

We need a wide-range of tools to support efforts by developing countries to reduce these emissions. There are no silver bullets. But it is clear to us that we need both market and non-market approaches to solve this challenge. And we'll need to be effective and smart in how we mobilize these dedicated resources if we are to address this important challenge.

Of course, we in the US can't do it alone. We'll need developing countries to help us in this endeavor. Without a strong commitment from these countries, coupled with strong support from the US, we won't succeed over time.

It will require that the US and tropical developing countries undertake a joint financial, political, and program commitment to actions on the ground to deliver tangible reductions in deforestation's global warming pollution. We'll need to create a framework that produces long-term preservation of these forests and that supports tropical developing countries to undertake more of the effort on their own over time.

There are recent positive signs coming from major tropical forest countries and regions that they are ready to be partners in this effort. For example, Brazil announced a goal to significantly cut deforestation rates over the next 10 years.

These signals alone are of course not enough. We need to do more. That is why this group is asking for US leadership at this crucial juncture.

We hope that you'll join us in this effort to address the loss of the world's tropical forests before it is too late.

-----------------------------

Jake Schmidt is the International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council where he helps to develop the post-2012 international response to climate change (for more information see his blog).

Labels: Climate Change, Deforestation, Environment, Flora, Global Warming, Jake Schmidt, NRDC

Tell President Obama About Coal River Mountain

2009-02-04T02:32:00.000-08:00

Dr. James Hansen

Coal River Mountain and the Heathrow Airport runway remind me how important it is to keep our eye on the ball.

Coal River Mountain is the site of an absurdity. I learned about Coal River Mountain from students at Virginia Tech last fall. They were concerned about Coal River Mountain, but at that time most of them were working to support Barack Obama. They assumed Barack Obama would not allow such outrages to continue.

The issue at Coal River Mountain is whether the top of the mountain will be blown up, so that coal can be dredged out of it, or whether the mountain will be allowed to stand. It has been shown that more energy can be obtained from a proposed wind farm, if Coal River Mountain continues to stand. More jobs would be created. More tax revenue would flow, locally and to the state, and the revenue flow would continue indefinitely. Clean water and the environment would be preserved. But if planned mountaintop removal proceeds, the mountain loses its potential to be a useful wind source (http://www.coalriverwind.org/; http://www.crmw.net/).

There are two major requirements for solving the global warming problem:

(1) rapid phase-out of coal emissions, and (2) a substantial, rising price on carbon emissions.

Election night euphoria is subsiding. Now we are in a tricky situation. The President faces enormous tasks, so he must be given time. But directions, once set, are hard to change. Clarity about what is needed is important. Young people (who deserve a large share of credit for helping Obama get the nomination and win the election) had better ask what is happening. The answer, or so it seems: not much. If that impression is right, there had better be a hue and cry soon, or the opportunity for fundamental change may be missed.

Action 1. The important thing needed quickly is a moratorium on new coal. Coal River Mountain is just one example of the idiocy that is proceeding. I am swamped by requests to write letters. Can you believe that Nevada, with all its sunshine, wind and geothermal energy, is going ahead with plans for new coal-fired power plants? So is South Dakota, South Carolina, etc. I could harp about the greenwashed (or worse) politicians, but what is the point of that? Now, given the election that has occurred, it should be possible to solve the problem. Solution is possible, but will it happen? The national government has all the power that it needs to, in effect, declare a moratorium on any new coal plants that do not capture and store the CO2.

Action 2. The other essential action is imposition of a rising carbon price. Is Barack Obama going to explain the need for a substantial and rising carbon tax on coal, oil and gas in his first Fireside Chat? Or will the matter be brushed aside, with a pretense that the world can be moved in a fundamentally different direction by tweaking Kyoto-style approaches? In order to move to the world beyond fossil fuels, there must be a strong economic incentive to do so, and the business community must realize that we mean business. The tax does not have to start out large, though it should be substantial. It has to be a tax that covers all fossil fuels. It should not be a cap-and-trade that allows some carbon to escape, and makes Wall Street millionaires on the backs of the public.

Reasons for concern:

1. The big action so far is the indication that the government will demand fuel efficient cars. That is an important action. It will not prevent the world’s major oil pools from being used, but efficiency helps buy time, so we can move toward carbon-free vehicle propulsion. Absent improved efficiency, there would be pressure to squeeze oil out of coal, tar shale, etc. – disasters that must be nipped in the bud. However, note that the vehicle efficiency action will only truly succeed if Action 2 (carbon tax) occurs. Demand for highly fuel efficient vehicles will be limited (not large enough to drive a thriving economy) unless fuel price makes them essential. People will need money in hand to buy them – one of the reasons for 100% dividend (another: the public will not accept a large enough tax if Washington and lobbyists are going to decide where the money goes).

2. Jesse Ausubel makes a case that government policies don’t matter much – the energy-fossil fuel situation determines things. Let’s look at data for fossil fuel emissions and the economy:

Data sources: (left) Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R.J. Andres. 2008. Global, Regional, and National Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_usa.html) (right) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Economic Accounts (http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp)

The numbers on these graphs are misleading. Emissions and economic growth in the first year of a President’s term probably should be credited to (blamed on) the prior President. In that case the numbers become:

Annual Growth Rates for:	CO2 emissions	Real GDP
1981 -> 1989(Reagan)	1.2%	3.5%
1989 -> 1993 (Bush, G.H.W.)	1.3%	1.9%
1993 -> 2001 (Clinton)	1.1%	3.5%
2001 -> 2007 (Bush, G.W.)	0.7% (first 6 years)	2.6% (first 6 years)

The CO2 emissions support Ausubel’s thesis, but the period covered was all business-as-usual. There is such a thing as free will. With coal phase-out and a rising price on carbon emissions, the curve can be changed fundamentally, and move downward fast. But it will not happen as a consequence of “goals” and weak cap-and-trade measures -- and a temporary downturn of emissions due to economic slowdown should not be misinterpreted as fundamental change.

Conclusion:

We are only weeks into the Obama administration. But people are getting restive. I have been asked to speak at or support several different actions, in different parts of the country, by young people and not so young. I don’t know what to say. I feel that more time must be given. But these people are right – the directions that are taken now are important.

Someone needs to tell President Obama: Coal River Mountain is a symbol of the promise and the hope and the possibilities for a brighter future. As he begins to address the nation’s energy, climate and economic challenges, he needs to remember these people, among his core original supporters. They are counting on him to change direction – a real change.

Dr. Hansen's report continues at: this link

Additional information:
Coal River Wind Website
Coal River Mountain Watch

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doctor James Hansen, an adjunct professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences. His website can be found at: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Labels: Barack Obama, Climate Change, Coal, Coal River Mountain, Environment, GISS, Global Warming, James Hansen, NASA

US Climate Change Envoy in Place and Ready to Negotiate

2009-01-26T20:17:00.000-08:00

by Jake Schmidt

Today, a ceremony was held at the US State Department to announce Todd Stern as the Special Envoy for Climate Change (see short bio and video of the event). As we outlined in our transition recommendations, it is crucial that President Obama appoint a climate negotiating team early in his Administration. We also suggested that the Secretary of State should play a stronger role in the negotiations as the top diplomat. As we suggested, appointment of his negotiating team in the first days of his new Administration would signal both his commitment to working to restore America's international leadership on global warming and help to get the US ready for the serious push to get a strong global agreement in Copenhagen (Dec. 2009).

Well...less than one week in office isn't too bad for appointment of the "chief climate negotiator" (in fact that is amazingly fast).

So with the announcement of Todd Stern today as special envoy, the negotiating team is starting to get into place to help work with leaders in Congress and other countries to shape a strong international agreement to address global warming.

This team will have to get up to speed fast, start to reach out to other countries, and begin to flesh out the US positions as the pace of the negotiations are set to pick up speed following the meeting in Poznan, Poland this past December. In just over 60 days, this team will be sitting with other countries at the negotiating table as the next international negotiations will be held the end of March in Bonn, Germany.

At this meeting they will have in front of them a document to begin to focus their attention -- a "convergence, divergence, and options" paper. They won't have to formulate US position on the options in this paper, but it will help focus them on the current state of play in the negotiations. And, they won't have to completely figure out the course of the new agreement on their own as the signs are starting to emerge (as I discussed in my New Year's Resolution).

At the announcement Secretary Clinton also reiterated the need for domestic and international efforts to address global warming -- providing strong signals that she too is committed as the US' top diplomat (see full transcript):

"Under President Obama, America will take the lead in addressing this challenge, both by making commitments of our own and engaging other nations to do the same."

The chief climate negotiator didn't provide any specific details on what the US will bring to the table and what they'll be asking of other countries, but he did provide some hints of how he'll approach the job as chief climate negotiator:

"[W]e can only expect to lead abroad if we are prepared to act decisively at home. Yet we can only meet the climate challenge with a response that is genuinely global."

"We will need to engage in vigorous, creative diplomacy to dramatically reduce emissions. And we will need to work with vulnerable regions and countries to help them adapt to the climate change that is already locked into the system. In the years ahead, every large emitter will have to make major changes in the way that they use energy and manage their forests and lands."

"We will need a strong, new multilateral agreement. We will need partnerships and joint ventures among countries, collaborations between governments and the private sector, new technology and new finance. And we will need, above all, political will."

This last point -- the need for political will -- became even clearer at the negotiations in Poznan, Poland as framework for the agreement is emerging, but clear political leadership was lacking. Both the US domestic and international climate teams are sending the right signals this early in the process that they will provide the leadership that has been lacking for the last eight years.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton are continuing to show that they are going to make addressing global warming a top priority as they are putting their team in place in record time. Oh how refreshing a change from the last eight years of no leadership and no progress. So now we have real leadership on this issue, let's hope that we can make real progress by Copenhagen.

-----------------------------

Jake Schmidt is the International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council where he helps to develop the post-2012 international response to climate change (for more information see his blog).

Labels: Climate Change, Environment, Global Warming, Jake Schmidt, NRDC

Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation

2009-01-15T00:59:00.000-08:00

by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Ken Lo

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies has analyzed the global temperature trends based on 2008 surface air temperature leading to the conclusion that, despite the cold brought on by the strong La Nina event last year, 2008 was the ninth warmest year since measurements began in 1880.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [Reference 1] of surface air temperature measurements (Figure 1, below). In our analysis 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880. The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two standard deviation (95 percent confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [Reference 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.

The map of global temperature anomalies in 2008, Figure 1 (right), shows that most of the world was either near normal or warmer than in the base period (1951-1980). Eurasia, the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm, while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average. The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Nina that existed in the first half of the year. La Nina and El Nino are opposite phases of a natural oscillation of tropical temperatures, La Nina being the cool phase.

Figure 2 (top) provides seasonal resolution of global and low latitude surface temperature, and an index that measures the state of the natural tropical temperature oscillation. The figure indicates that the La Nina cool cycle peaked in early 2008. The global effect of the tropical oscillation is made clear by the average temperature anomaly over the global ocean (Figure 2, bottom). The “El Nino of the century”, in 1997-98, stands out, as well as the recent La Nina.

Figure 3 compares 2008 with the mean for the first seven years of this century. Except for the relatively cool Pacific Ocean, most of the world was either near normal or unusually warm in2008. The temperature in the United States in 2008 was not much different than the 1951-1980 mean, which makes 2008 cooler than all of the previous years this decade.

As shown by the right side of Figure 3, most of the United States averaged between 0.5 and 1°C warmer than the long term mean during 2001-2007.

The GISS analysis of global surface temperature, documented in the scientific literature [References 1 and 2], incorporates data from three data bases made available monthly:

Figure 1. Left: Annual-mean global-mean anomalies. Right: Global map of surface temperature
anomalies for 2008.

(1) Figure 2. Top Right: The Seasonal-mean global and low latitude temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 base period.

Figure 2 Bottom right: Monthly-mean global-ocean surface temperature anomaly (based on satellite temperature analyses of Reynolds and Smith).

Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) of the National Climate Data Center [Reference 3], (2) the satellite analysis of global sea surface temperature of Reynolds and Smith [Reference 4], and (3) Antarctic records of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) [Reference 5].

In the past our procedure has been to run the analysis program upon receipt of all three data sets and make the analysis publicly available immediately. This procedure worked very well from a scientific perspective, with the broad availability of the analysis helping reveal any problems with input data sets. However, because confusion was generated in the media after one of the October 2008 input data sets was found to contain significant flaws (some October station records inadvertently repeated September data in the October data slot), we have instituted a new procedure. The GISS analysis is first made available internally before it is released publicly. If any suspect data are detected, they will be reported back to the data providers for resolution. This process may introduce significant delays. We apologize for any inconvenience due to this delay, but it should reduce the likelihood of instances of future confusion and misinformation.

Figure 3. Comparison of 2008 temperature anomalies with the mean 2001-2007 anomalies. Note that this figure uses a slightly different color bar than that of Figure 1 in order to show more structure in the right-hand map.

Note that we provide the rank of global temperature for individual years because there is a high demand for it from journalists and the public. The rank has scientific significance in some cases, e.g., when a new record is established. However, otherwise rank has limited value and can be misleading. As opposed to the rank, Figure 3 provides much more information about how the 2008 temperature compares with previous years, and why it was a bit cooler (note the change in the Pacific Ocean region).

Finally, in response to popular demand, we comment on the likelihood of a near-term global

temperature record. Specifically, the question has been asked whether the relatively cool 2008 alters the expectation we expressed in last year’s summary that a new global record was likely within the next 2-3 years (now the next 1-2 years). Response to that query requires consideration of several factors:

1) Natural dynamical variability: the largest contribution is the Southern Oscillation, the El Nino – La Nina cycle. The Nino 3.4 temperature anomaly, bottom of Figure 2 (top), suggests that the La Nina may be almost over, but the anomaly fell back (cooled) to -0.7°C last month (December).It is conceivable that this tropical cycle could dip back into a strong La Nina, as happened, e.g., in 1975. However, for the tropical Pacific to stay in that mode for both 2009 and 2010 would require a longer La Nina phase than has existed in the past half century, so it is unlikely. Indeed, subsurface and surface tropical ocean temperatures suggest that the system is “recharged”, i.e., poised, for the next El Nino, so there is a good chance that one may occur in 2009. Global temperature anomalies tend to lag tropical anomalies by 3-6 months.

2) Solar irradiance: the solar irradiance remains low (Figure 4 at right -Solar irradiance through November 2008 [Reference 8].), at the lowest level in the period since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s, and the time since the prior solar minimum is already 12 years, two years longer than the prior two cycles. This has led some people tospeculate that we may be entering a “Maunder Minimum” situation, a period of reduced irradiance that could last for decades. Most solar physicists expect the irradiance to begin to pick up in the next several months – there are indications, from the polarity of the few recent sunspots, that the new cycle is beginning. However, let’s assume that the solar irradiance does not recover: in that case, the negative forcing, relative to the mean solar irradiance is equivalent to seven years of CO2 increase at current growth rates. So do not look for a new “Little Ice Age” in any case!

Assuming that the solar irradiance begins to recover this year, as expected, there is still some effect on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record due to the unusually prolonged solar minimum. Because of the large thermal inertia of the ocean, the surface temperature response to the 10-12 year solar cycle lags the irradiance variation by 1-2 years. Thus, relative to the mean, i.e, the hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant average irradiance, actual solar irradiance will continue to provide a negative anomaly for the next 2-3 years.

3) Volcanic aerosols: colorful sunsets the past several months suggest a non-negligiblestratospheric aerosol amount at northern latitudes. Unfortunately, as noted in the 2008 Bjerknes talk [http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/], the instrument capable of precise measurements of aerosol optical depth (SAGE, the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment) is sitting on a shelf at Langley Research Center. Stratospheric aerosol amounts are estimated from crude measurements to be moderate. The aerosols from an Aleutian volcano, which is thought to be the primary source, are at relatively low altitude and high latitudes, where they should be mostly flushed out this winter. Their effect in the next two years should be negligible.

4) Greenhouse gases: annual growth rate of climate forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases(GHGs) slowed from a peak close to 0.05 W/m2 per year around 1980-85 to about 0.035 W/m2 in recent years due to slowdown of CH4 and CFC growth rates [Reference 6]. Resumed methane growth, if it continued in 2008 as in 2007, adds about 0.005 W/m2. From climate models and empirical analyses, this GHG forcing trend translates into a mean warming rate of ~0.15°C per decade.

Summary: the Southern Oscillation and increasing GHGs continue to be, respectively, thedominant factors affecting interannual and decadal temperature change. Solar irradiance has anon-negligible effect on global temperature [see, e.g., Reference 7, which empirically estimates a somewhat larger solar cycle effect than that estimated by others who have teased a solar effect out of data with different methods]. Given our expectation of the next El Nino beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.

Report available at: GISS Site and James Hansen's Columbia University Site

References:

1. Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, M. Sato, GISS analysis of surface temperature change, J. Geophys. Res. 104, 30997-31022, 1999.
2. Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, M. Medina-Elizade, Global temperature change, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 14288-14293, 2006.
3. Peterson, T.C., R.S. Vose, An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network temperature database, Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc.78, 2837-2849, 1997.
4. Reynolds, R.W., T.M. Smith, Improved global sea surface temperature analyses, J. Clim. 7, 929-948, 1994.
5. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), http://www.scar.org/
6. Hansen, J., M. Sato, Greenhouse gas growth rates, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101, 16109-
16114, 2004.
7. Tung, K.K., J. Zhou, C.D. Camp, Constraining model transient climate response using
independent observations of solar-cycle forcing and response, Geophys. Res. Lett. 35,
L17707, doi:10.1029/2008GL034240, 2008.
8. Frohlich, C., J. Lean, Solar radiative output and its variability: Evidence and mechanisms.
Aston. Astrophys. Rev. 12, 273-320, 2004.
9. Hansen, J.E., Climate Threat to the Planet: Implications for Energy Policy and
Intergenerational Justice. Bjerknes Lecture presented at American Geophysical Union,
San Fransisco, on Dec. 17, 2008. (Available at www.columbia.edu/~jeh1.)

Labels: Climate Change, El Niño, Environment, GISS, Global Warming, James Hansen, La Niña, Temperature, Weather

One Step Forward on Deforestation in Poland...But More Should Have Been Achieved

2008-12-11T09:36:00.000-08:00

by Jake Schmidt

For the past week and half, climate negotiators have been trying to push forward agreement on important elements of the global efforts to address deforestation and forest degradation emissions. We took one step forward (but unfortunately many hoped we could have taken two steps forward or more). The draft agreement (available here) is touted as a: Deal struck on forests in climate talks by some (Associated Press).

Modest progress has been made on one important element -- we will now be able to negotiate on the tricky political issues of how incentives will be created, to whom they will they flow, and under what rules. This is a positive step forward as we will now be able to get down to the "nitty gritty" details on the deforestation debate (as I discussed here, a number of us were stressing this message in a joint letter).

Unfortunately, a number of us had hoped to begin to get agreement on some key details that aren't caught up in the broader political debate. These are extremely important elements, but not necessarily as "political" (or so we thought). In particular, we were hoping to get agreement on:

Protection of biodiversity
Protection of indigenous rights
Ensuring that the full emissions from deforestation were accounted and that deforestation reductions can't be directly "offset" by replanting of forests

So, how did these important details fair this week?

Protecting indigenous rights? Ensuring that indigenous lands are preserved and the rights of these indigenous peoples are protected has always been a key issue. It looked like there was an emerging consensus from the negotiations in Accra, Ghana on this point. However, some countries have legal issues with an international agreement that enshrines the rights of specific individual groups. This seems to be the U.S. negotiators stated problem. Some developing countries also pushed to have it either excluded or seriously watered down. They either don't respect the rights of indigenous communities, acknowledge that they exist, and/or want the international community to tell them what to do on this issue.

This one got very messy in the final negotiating text. Basically, countries are to:

"promote the full and effective participation of indigenous people and local communities, taking into account national circumstances and noting relevant international agreements."

There is clearly lots of wiggle room for different countries to interpret the outcome, but this agreement at best doesn't decide anything significant and, at worst, is a step backwards from the consensus emerging in Accra, Ghana.

Can you replace some of the carbon lost from deforestation with tree replanting? There has been some push by a few sizable countries (notably Brazil) to be able to get incentives for a "net" reduction in deforestation. Basically under this "net" approach, countries would be able to chop down forests and make up some (or all) of that forest loss from replanting tress. If the "net" carbon from the loss of native forests and the replanting are less than their agreed "goal" then they would receive financing incentives based upon this performance. Needless to say, this is a controversial proposal as many of the co-benefits of preserving the world's native forests would be lost -- such as biodiversity.

So, while it is theoretically possible (although unlikely as deforestation specialists have told me this week) that the "net" carbon from the replanting could overtake the lost carbon from the deforestation of native forests, it is not a desirable approach for many other reasons. The EU has pushed back against this position and the recent EU Environment Ministers support a so-called "gross" deforestation accounting system where you couldn't offset any deforestation loss with replanting. A number of environmental groups have also gone on record not supporting this position.

The Brazil position is quite odd to me since in their recent national climate debate they had moved from a "net" approach in their draft plan climate plan to a "gross" approach in their final plan. Further ensuring that the effort is focused on deforestation reductions will be a very strong political issue for many leaders in capitols around the world as that has been their primary focus. Other mechanisms are of course needed for encouraging replanting of trees, but mixing them with the deforestation debate isn't helpful.

The outcome in Poland on this one, doesn't resolve much. Much more work needs to be done on this one in 2009 if incentives for deforestation emissions reductions are to take hold.

Resolving these in the future...

We took one step forward in Poland...but we could have taken many more. We have to seriously increase the pace of negotiations on the tricky issues as our "plate" remains pretty full. So, where do we go from here?

Clearly more work needs to be done on the political and technical issues before an agreement can be reached in Copenhagen. Many of us will be working hard to get these technical issues (e.g., indigenous rights, biodiversity, and separation of deforestation incentives from replanting) effectively designed in the international agreement and US legislation to ensure that reducing emissions from deforestation is a key part of our efforts to combat climate change. We have our work cut out for us, but I'm optimistic it can be done.

Some of technical issues may start to shake out in the domestic debates emerging in the main countries that will likely provide incentives to developing countries that reduce deforestation emissions -- the EU and US. Each of the key legislative proposals in the US had language on biodiversity protection, preserving the rights of indigenous peoples, and keeping deforestation incentives separate from replanting incentives. It would be ideal to get these enshrined in the international agreement, but I would strongly wager that these key criteria would be enshrined in the actual incentive mechanism designed in the US law (and probably the EU).

Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council Switchboard.

-----------------------------

Jake Schmidt is the International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council where he helps to develop the post-2012 international response to climate change (for more information see his blog).

Labels: Climate Change, deforestation, Environment, Flora, Global Warming, Jake Schmidt, NRDC, Poznan, UNFCCC

Slow Progress in Poland Climate Negotiations…but Some Key Issues Emerging

2008-12-07T17:51:00.000-08:00

by Jake Schmidt

The first week of the Poland Climate Negotiations has ended and progress is slow. This isn't a surprising outcome at this stage in negotiations. Without the new US leadership in place and with many of the key pieces of the post-2012 international agreement likely only woven together in the "final deal" this was the anticipation as "no major breakthroughs were expected".

But, some emerging debates have arisen that will be central to the negotiations next year as the world leads-in to an international agreement in Copenhagen (Dec. 2009).

Timeline for an international agreement and will it be a "final" detailed agreement in Copenhagen? Recent news stories coming out of Poland have contained mixed messages from key players on whether an agreement can be reached in Copenhagen and how much detail will be in that agreement (see Greenwire (subs. req.), Associated Press, and Agence France-Presse). There is a lot of soul searching about what the Copenhagen agreement will actually have in it. Will the agreement coming out of Copenhagen contain enough of the key details to be ratified or otherwise implemented right afterwards (e.g. with enough details that countries will know exactly what they are getting into) or will it be an agreement on the main framework with the details to be worked out later?

Clearly the U.S. Congress and the new Administration will need to move hand in glove and only commit the U.S. internationally to what it can actually implement in domestic law. So, NRDC and 17 other major US environmental and faith groups submitted a letter to all delegates in Poznan saying that:

We all will be devoting our efforts and resources over the next year to help President-elect Obama resurrect America's lost leadership on global warming and the environment. With diligent efforts by all countries and a renewed spirit of American international cooperation, we are confident that an agreement on climate change can be reached by the end of next year.

Emissions Reduction targets and "shared vision". There is an extensive debate on developed countries committing to reduce their emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels in 2020 and developing countries undertaking a 15-30% cut below what their emissions would have been otherwise in 2020 (so-called business as usual cut). The EU is pushing the 15-30% range for developing countries and the developed countries are pushing to get agreement that developed countries as a whole will reduce their emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels in 2020.

This won't get resolved here in Poland, but it is a "coming attraction" for the year to come. This back and forth between what level of reductions developed countries will undertake and how much action developing countries take will be one of the main points of debate in the lead-in to Copenhagen.

Technology, finance, and developing country actions. There has been back and forth this week on how much emissions reduction action developing countries should undertake (i.e., the 15-30% reduction from BAU being pushed by the EU), what form that action will take in the international agreement (e.g., sectoral commitments), and how developed countries will provide incentives for developing countries to go further. There is some emerging consensus that the agreement will be formed around "differentiation of action". That is different countries will be expected to undertake different types and stringency of target (e.g., emerging economies will be expected to do more than the least developing countries). But how will that actually unfold in the agreement?

I've spoken a lot about the emerging framework that will drive developing country emissions reductions, the hints that key countries (e.g., South Africa, China, and Brazil) are providing about what they could do, and some key approaches that are emerging (e.g., sectoral and deforestation incentives), so I won't discuss in particular how those debates are unfolding here (except deforestation later in the post).

Instead there is a modest debate here in Poland around how much money needs to be provided as incentives for developing countries and how developed countries should best support wide-scale deployment of technology in developing countries.

Melanie Nakagawa and I co-hosted a side-event (with E3G) last Thursday where we discussed some initial thoughts we have on this piece of the puzzle. We discussed how we could have a loan program for emissions reductions that "pay for themselves" and a different approach that pays for advanced technologies (e.g., those technologies that make a sector less competitive). We then discussed some key principles that should guide how funding should be distributed in the international agreement building upon some lessons from existing multilateral funds.

It is clear from this debate that large amounts of funding are needed -- e.g., similar or greater than the scale being put forward to solve the financial crisis. And, these incentives will need to be properly designed and performance-based to incentivize actions in developing countries to further cut their emissions.

The negotiation over how much emissions reduction action developing countries will undertake on their own and how much finance is provided for further emissions reductions will probably be about 2/3 of the main negotiation next year so stay tuned.

EU climate package being adopted. As I discussed (here and here), there is a big undercurrent story here about the status of the EU's climate package. It sounds like they'll still deliver their target to reduce emissions 20 and 30% below 1990 levels in 2020, but they will weaken some of the implementation details. And, it seems that they are not going to provide a detailed package of financing incentives to support technology deployment incentives, deforestation reductions, and adaptation activities in developing countries...a setback that will definitely need to be correct next year. More details on how this package will unfold will emerge this week, so hopefully the EU will step up and show that it is still a leader on global warming.

Deforestation and forest degradation emissions. While the most difficult and controversial elements of the agreement on how best to provide incentives to countries that reduce their deforestation emissions will occur next year -- likely in the final push in Copenhagen -- there is a sense that some elements can be agreed in Poland this week. There is a general sense that agreement might be reached on:

Protecting rights of indigenous and native groups;
Protecting biodiversity; and
Not allowing countries to make up some of the emissions lost from deforestation of native forests with replanting (more on this later as this one is proving to be very difficult to get resolved here).

There is also a growing push to try to ensure that early next year countries begin to debate the best mechanism to deliver financing incentives to countries that effectively reduce their deforestation emissions. A group of major environmental NGOs (including NRDC) signed on to a statement here in Poland:

calling on Parties now to build upon the methodological progress and begin serious discussions on the types of mechanisms for supporting reduced deforestation and forest degradation emissions (REDD). Poznan must lay the groundwork for both methodological and policy approaches to come together in Copenhagen so that a post-2012 deal will include REDD as a key mitigation building block.

We are a long way from agreement and there are still many important details to work out. But we felt that if we didn't start negotiating on the "big picture" issues soon (e.g., where does the finance come from, which countries get it, etc.), properly designed incentives for deforestation reductions would be lost in the final agreement in Copenhagen (see Associated Press story).

The pace and seriousness of the negotiations will need to significantly pick up the rest of the week if we are going to lay the groundwork for a good agreement in Copenhagen that puts the world on the right path. And more importantly, we'll need to produce a detailed mandate to start negotiating the key deals next year and a plan to get that accomplished.

Labels: Climate Change, deforestation, Environment, Flora, Global Warming, Jake Schmidt, NRDC, Poznan, UNFCCC

President-elect Obama Signals He Will Restore American Leadership on Global Warming

2008-11-18T17:48:00.000-08:00

by Jake Schmidt

At a global warming summit convened today in California, President-elect Obama signaled that he will make addressing global warming the high priority it deserves. In the video statement telecast (here) to summit attendees from around the US and the world he stated:

"Few challenges facing America -- and the world -- are more urgent than combating climate change...My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change..."

As NRDC President Frances Beinecke stated in response:

"President-elect Obama's vow to begin 'a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change' demonstrates both his leadership and the priority he places on attacking this threat to our environment, our economy and our energy security. His call for federal cap legislation as his second major policy announcement sends a signal to the country and the world that the U. S. will act promptly to combat this triple threat. This shows that President-Elect Obama understands that the fastest, best way to turn our economy around, create jobs and solve the climate crisis is to spur investment in our clean energy future."

And with the next international climate negotiation set to occur in Poland in just under two weeks, he also signaled that he will restore America's leadership in international global warming negotiations. He stated that:

"...once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change".

He's now signaled to the world that "the US is back" at the serious negotiation table to "work together" to solve this problem:

"Let me also say a special word to the delegates from around the world who will gather in Poland next month: your work is vital to the planet."

While he pointed out that he won't be going to the next negotiation in Poland in December (since he won't yet be President), he asked the Members of Congress that will be attending the negotiations to report back on what they learn. With his statement today and his request for a report back from Members of Congress attending the Poland meeting, the President-elect has sent the signal that the delegates have waited so long to hear (as I discussed here).

Now the hard work will begin to engage with Members of Congress to adopt a cap on US global warming emissions, invest in creating new green jobs, and delivering a global response to the challenge. This is a great positive signal to the world that he will restore America's leadership as leaders from around the world were calling for him to do. So, a little momentum is building towards the global agreement to be reached in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Restoring America’s Leadership in International Global Warming Negotiations

2008-11-05T13:47:00.000-08:00

by Jake Schmidt

We now have a new leader in the US that understands global warming and recognizes that it requires leadership both at home and abroad. Addressing this challenge (and opportunity) will be a key task of both President-elect Barack Obama (and his Administration) and Congress. And, they'll have to get their act together fast as the world agreed in Bali to establish a post-2012 international global warming pact by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Before I go into some details, I want to remind you that as a non-partisan organization, NRDC does not endorse candidates. But now that Barack Obama has been declared the winner, we can begin to look at the environmental implications of the voters' decisions. So I want to highlight the repercussions for efforts to get an international post-2012 agreement to address global warming.

The task is tough...solving the greatest challenge of this century won't be easy. It will require true leadership, active engagement (and advocacy) from the American public, and a strong push from the President and Members of Congress. We will need to roll up our sleeves at home and restore America's leadership in international global warming negotiations. And, that task begins from day one (in fact it begins now).

So let's get started...

While not technically a part of his time in office, there is an important "check-point" in the international global warming negotiations -- Poland in December 2008 -- where the President-elect can convey a new message that: he will work to "restore America's leadership" on global warming. Essentially saying, the US will no longer be laggards, as the current Administration has been, and we will actively work to get an effective and equitable international global warming agreement.

And, he might just send that signal to the world before or at the meeting in Poland as he has now hinted in a YouTube Video where he said:

"We will definitely have a representative there."

And a few minutes later he went on to say:

"I may not go personally. I may send a representative, but we'll be represented."

He (and his representatives) likely won't provide any specific details on what exactly the US will do to address global warming as he'll need to work with Members of Congress to shape that approach. But, I'm sure a lot of people will be whispering in his ear (and his advisors) to make a clear statement to the world that "the US is back". A welcome relief from the past 7 years (and how many seconds?) of no leadership from the US.

The second major task of the President-elect Obama will be to get his climate team together. There is talk that he'll pull together his economic and national security team together right away...but here is a plug to add the climate team to list of the first teams to be put in place. And this includes putting together his international climate negotiating team as he will need to start to:

-> Interject his Administration's ideas into the post-2012 international climate negotiations;

-> Outline current proposals (or elements of current proposals) that the US might be able to support (or that they might have problems with); and

-> Establish the US position in the lead-in to the post-2012 international climate agreement, including working with Congress on both the domestic climate legislation and the shape of US engagement in the international agreement.

So, what can we glean about his potential positions on both the domestic and international climate policy from his election platform? Here is what Obama's platform says about key pieces of the puzzle-US domestic actions, how it will approach developing countries, and tackling emissions from deforestation.

What level of action will he be seeking in the US? They will:

"start reducing emissions immediately...by establishing strong annual reduction targets, and they will also implement a mandate of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020" (Environment Platform) and they will "support implementation of a...system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050" (Energy Platform).

What actions will they work to have major emerging economies undertake?

"...the only real solution to climate change requires all major emitting nations to join in the solution. While it is time for America to lead, developing nations like China and Brazil must not be far behind in making their own binding commitments" (Energy Platform).

What will they do about technology support to developing countries? They:

"will create a Technology Transfer Program within the Department of Energy dedicated to exporting climate-friendly technologies, including green buildings, clean coal and advanced automobiles, to developing countries to help them combat climate change" (Environment Platform).

How will they grapple with global warming pollution from deforestation?

"A comprehensive strategy to combat global warming must address tropical deforestation which accounts for approximately 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing rates of tropical deforestation will not only slow greenhouse gas emissions but will also protect the livelihoods of local people and the abundance of biodiversity inextricably linked to those forests. By offering incentives to maintain forests and manage them sustainably, the United States can play a leadership role in dealing with climate change" (Environment Platform).

These are all positive framing approaches for helping to get an international agreement to address global warming:

-> US leadership -- a recognition that US will need to lead with its own domestic emissions limits;

-> Working with developing countries to reduce their own emissions and supporting them with technology assistance (as I discussed here as the essence of the developing country mitigation framework agreed in Bali; is the shape of the emerging discussion on sectoral approaches; and is starting to be said publicly by South Africa, South Korea, and China);

-> Supporting efforts to address emissions from deforestation (as I discussed here, here, and here).

Now the difficult work begins to translate those platforms into US law and an international agreement. And even with the sea change created by new US leadership, it won't be an easy task (with the dire financial straits) but it can and must be done (as NRDC's President Frances Beinecke discussed).

I look forward to working hard over the next couple of months to kick-start the transition process so that the new Administration and Congress are ready for restoring US leadership in the international global warming agreement.

Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council Switchboard.

-----------------------------

Jake Schmidt is the International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council where he helps to develop the post-2012 international response to climate change (for more information see his blog).

Labels: Barack Obama, Climate Change, Environment, Global Warming, Jake Schmidt, NRDC, Politics, World News

Cost of Forest Loss Exceeds Current Banking Crisis

2008-10-10T00:09:00.000-07:00

by Janet Ritz

An EU study has concluded the economic impact of world forest loss exceeds the current banking crisis. The study by economists, which quantified the vital services the worlds' forests provide (absorbing carbon dioxide, cleaning water...), places the cost of the disappearing forests between $2 and $5 trillion per year.

The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests than through the current banking crisis, according to an EU-commissioned study... study leader Pavan Sukhdev emphasised that the cost of natural decline dwarfs losses on the financial markets.
"It's not only greater but it's also continuous, it's been happening every year, year after year," he told BBC News. "So whereas Wall Street by various calculations has to date lost, within the financial sector, $1-$1.5 trillion, the reality is that at today's rate we are losing natural capital at least between $2-$5 trillion every year."

The report cites the advantages forests provide as basically free and points out that, without them, the services will either have to be provided through costly technology or through the increasing cost and consequences of growing climate change (which will fall disproportionally upon the world's poor).

"Times have changed," Sukhdev explained, "almost three years ago, even two years ago, their [governments and business] eyes would glaze over. Today, when I say this, they listen."

Several countries have begun efforts toward forest conservation. Ecuador has gone so far as to enact laws that proclaim their trees and water have specific rights to life.

A review is set for completion by 2010 to coincide with the "date by which governments are committed under the Convention of Biological Diversity to have begun slowing the rate of biodiversity loss."

Published on Reuters, The Huffington Post

Labels: Banking Crisis, Biodiversity, Business, Climate Change, Deforestation, Economy, Environment, Flora, Global Warming, Huffington Post, Reuters

Hurricane Ike: Worse Case Scenario Forecasted

2008-09-11T22:46:00.000-07:00

by The Environmentalist Staff

Officials have warned that Hurricane Ike, with its expected imminent landfall along the Galveston-Houston, Texas coast, may present the feared worse-case-scenario, which includes the ominous prediction of "certain death" for those who ignore mandatory evacuation.

Residents living in single-family homes in some parts of coastal Texas face "certain death" if they do not heed orders to evacuate ahead of Hurricane Ike's arrival, the National Weather Service said Thursday night.
The unusually strong wording came in a weather advisory regarding storm surge along the shoreline of Galveston Bay, which could see maximum water levels of 15 to 22 feet, the agency said.
"All neighborhoods ... and possibly entire coastal communities ... will be inundated during the period of peak storm tide," the advisory said. "Persons not heeding evacuation orders in single-family one- or two-story homes will face certain death."

There are concerns about people ignoring the mandatory evacuation order due to "hurricane fatigue." This 700 mile-wide storm may not be the event upon which to take that chance.

Here are some facts:

Ike is receiving the same surge warnings as Katrina. This was the surge that wiped out parts of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. In Ike's case, the likeliest surge landfall is in Texas.

Tidal surges could exceed 20 feet; greater than Katrina.

The cone is narrowing toward Galveston and Houston, but it is a very large storm.

The entire storm is building up and blowing water toward Galveston Bay - that is the reason for the dire warnings about a high surge.

Because of the wide area for the storm surge, mandatory evacuation zones extend to a wide area of the Gulf Coast with Galveston Bay being the center of the surge's focus.

Everywhere there is a mandatory warning, it is estimated that the surge could be up and or exceed 20 feet.

Hurricane Ike has already proven to be a storm surge generator in the Caribbean, where tidal surges pounded into shore above five story buildings.

The Barrier Islands are too low to stop this surge.

Weather service warnings do not often include the words "Certain death." This will be a flooding storm. If it turns out to cause less damage than predicted, that means property not expected to survive might.

If it turns out to be as predicted, anyone in its path that cannot get above 22 feet of fast moving water will be washed away.

Those in its path can be the judge of whether that's a risk worth taking. The authorities have made their bet on mandatory evacuations. The climate scientists tracking this monster agree.

If you're in its path, get out.

Labels: Climate Change, Environment, Hurricane Ike, Storms, Weather

Hurricane Gustav strengthens over the Gulf

2008-08-29T22:51:00.001-07:00

by The Environmentalist Staff

Published on Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times

On the third anniversary of Katrina, Gustav is projected to become a potential category 5 hurricane as it passes over the warmer Gulf waters on a path that includes New Orleans as a possible landfall target.

Gustav churns toward the U.S. Gulf Coast on a similar path to Katrina (see below). Residents in its projected path have been warned to either evacuate or to prepare to do so. New Orleans has made the evacuation order mandatory.

The infamous SuperDome (now renamed) is not intended as a shelter this time. The Humane Society reminds residents to take their pets with them; not to leave them as so many were left with Katrina and/or to stay behind with them, if they are headed to buses and shelters provided for evacuation. For buses that are headed to emergency flights, there are some limitations on pets. Citizens should check with pet shelters about their animals if that is their only way out for other modes of transportation that have been instructed to allow evacuees' pets to accompany them.

Offshore oil rigs have been evacuated, as well and oil and gas prices in the region have risen in anticipation of the possible shortfalls (and possible gauging).

With the cone of possible landfall sites still in flux (<--see graph), it is uncertain exactly where Gustav will strike. The damage in the Caribbean thus far, over 80 killed and many more left homeless, points to a severe event.

Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans, in issuing the mandatory evacuation order, warned his residents to 'be scared' and referred to Gustav as "The Storm of the Century."

The high temperature of the Gulf waters means it is likely that the impact could be even severe to catastrophic, depending on where it hits, the upper atmosphere wind shear patterns and how much time it has to draw strength from the warmed gulf waters.

Two more storms are building behind Gustav. It is unknown whether the warmth that Gustav may draw off the waters will mollify their strength or if we could be look at a one-two-three punch in the Gulf Region.

A note to anyone still in the target area:

We've had reports of people ignoring the mandatory evacuation order. Here's what those who stay will (not may, will) face:

Gustav is pulling more heat out of the Gulf than Katrina.

The Gulf loop current is nearing 90 degrees. That exceeds the high temperature that fed Katrina.

Tidal surges could exceed 20 feet; greater than Katrina.

The cone is narrowing toward Louisiana with New Orleans in the bullseye.

While it may not hit New Orleans, it still may.

There will be no city services.

The cool waters just offshore may not be able to sufficiently stop its momentum.

The wetlands, New Orleans' only protection, are not returned enough to health to slow it down.

The levees are not built to hold above a certain strength of surge; one that Gustav may exceed.

Anyone still there should get out fast. Don't leave it until the last minute. The evacuations could break down at any time.

This story will be updated as events unfold.

Labels: Chicago Sun-Times, Climate Change, Environment, Global Warming, Gustav, Hurricanes, Katrina, Reuters

James Hansen's Travel Report: Geophysical Boundaries and Climate Change

2008-08-05T02:29:00.000-07:00

by The Environmentalist Staff

Dr. James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has returned from his recent trip abroad with a comprehensive report on the need to define a global climate strategy:

Geophysical boundary conditions must be considered in defining a global climate strategy. The Kyoto Protocol and proposed extensions are an exercise in self-delusion and a prescription for global disaster.

In July, Dr. Hansen sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Japan, host of G8 conference, warning that we'd exceeded safe C02 levels (safe being below 350 ppm; current levels exceed 385 ppm). His new report begins with a recounting of his meeting with the German Minister of the Environment, Sigmar Gabriel, which included a warning about the use of coal-fired plants:

I am grateful for Minister Gabriel’s generosity with his time, and I have no doubt about his sincerity in dealing with climate change. However, we did not come to a common understanding about the implications of geophysical boundary conditions on fossil fuels. The stark policy implication of the data, I assert, is urgency for a moratorium on coal-fired power plants.

Fig. 1. (a) carbon sources, and (b) CO2 scenarios if coal emissions are phased out linearly over 2010-2030 period; return below 350 ppm can be hastened via reforestation and carbon sequestration in soil, and further via capture of CO2 at gas-fired power plants.

The report continues with the United Kingdom and offers Hansen's concerns about the problems inherent with geophysical boundaries while attempting to define a global strategy and his concern about the countries' position on carbon sequestration and "clean coal":

The approach in the UK involved a number of people. At a dinner for VIPs organized by George Polk, I made the case re coal, that a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants is the essential first action.

In a response from the UK government key phrases were as follows:

“For the UK, the starting point…is to recognize the central role of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), particularly given the EU’s ambition that ‘cap and trade’ should form an integral part of a global climate change deal.” “A key priority for us is therefore to see this scheme strengthened…”

Doctor Hansen: "the letter continues with sobering self-deception about how mandating ‘carbon-capture-ready’ will solve the coal problem."

The report can be found at this link:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080804_TripReport.pdf

Labels: Climate Change, Environment, Global Warming, GISS, James Hansen, NASA, Reuters, USA Today

Published on Reuters, USA Today

EPA: Global Warming Is Endangering Americans

2008-07-26T17:58:00.000-07:00

by Patriot Daily

Published on Reuters

EPA administrator Stephen Johnson informed the Bush Administration last December that there is "compelling and robust" evidence that our recent temperature increases are caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions which endanger the American people:

WASHINGTON — - The head of the Environmental Protection Agency told the Bush administration in December that high levels of man-made heat-trapping gases are causing global warming and endanger the American people, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Thursday after she reviewed the EPA finding, which has not been made public.

The White House declined to open the email with the warning contained in a 38-page document because:

The document is important because the Supreme Court ruled last year that if the EPA administrator finds greenhouse gases endanger the public, then the government must regulate them — a move the administration opposes.

Last week, the EPA issued a 283-page report which details how global warming endangers Americans. The EPA Inspector General issued another report that the Bush Administration's voluntary programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions "have limited potential."

The EPA report on global warming impacts explains how climate change endangers us all:

1. Temperature: Heat waves will increase while cold days and nights will become less frequent. The EPA reports a predicted increase in temperature-related morbidity and mortality, which will affect everyone. During 1979-2002, 4,780 people died from heatwaves, although the report acknowledges that the figures are underestimated because the death certificate may not always list heat as the cause of death. Moreover, heat waves may cause death by exacerbating chronic health conditions, such as cardiovascular, renal, respiratory diseases, diabetes, and nervous system disorders.

While everyone will be affected by temperature extremes, certain subpopulations face an added risk: Children, older adults, impoverished populations, people with chronic medical conditions or compromised immune systems, people with mobility and cognitive constraints, outdoor workers, city dwellers, the less educated, people without access to air conditioning and recent migrants and immigrants.

One factor in heat-related mortality is age. The number of Americans over age 65 is projected to reach 13% by 2010 and 20% by 2030 or over 50 million people. The EPA reports that older Americans are more "vulnerable" to higher temperatures, which means that "heat-related mortality could increase."

City dwellers will be impacted by the urban heat island effect which will increase city temperatures by 2-10 degrees more than suburban and rural areas due to "absorption of heat by dark paved surfaces and buildings, lack of vegetation and trees, heat emitted from buildings, vehicles, and air conditioners, and reduced air flow around buildings."

The plan to reduce heat-mortalities includes "heatwave early warning systems, urban design to reduce heat loads, and enhanced services during heatwaves."

2. Extreme Climate Events: Our weather will include extreme climate events, including hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, blizzards, windstorms, droughts, wildfires, heat waves, and heavy downpours. Climate change may increase hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity and storm surge levels while sea levels will rise, causing coastal and riverine floods.

The gravity of this report is illustrated by the EPA's acknowledgment of the role of climate change in increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes, indicating that, while further studies can be productive, it is time to stop debating causation and move toward taking action.

The EPA states that "theoretically, climate change could increase the frequency and severity of hurricanes by warming tropical seas where hurricanes first emerge and gain most of their energy," noting that "[c]ontroversy over whether hurricane intensity increased over recent decades stem less from the conceptual arguments than from the limitations of available hurricane incidence data." However, "[e]vidence suggests that the intensity of Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms has increased over the past few decades" and "there is evidence for a human contribution to increased sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic and there is a strong correlation to Atlantic tropical storm frequency, duration, and intensity. However, a confident assessment will require further studies." It has also been concluded that the "wind speeds and core rainfall rates will increase" for North Atlantic hurricanes. In addition, storm surge will increase due to "projected sea level rise."

The report acknowledges the role of climate in the incidence and severity of wildfires in the Western US.

Between 1987-2003 and 1970-1986, there was a nearly fourfold increase in the incidence of large Western wildfires (i.e., fires that burned at least 400 hectares) ... . The key driver of this increase was an average increase in springtime temperature of 0.87°C that affected spring snowmelt, subsequent potential for evapotranspiration, loss of soil moisture, and drying of fuels ... .

Studies have also projected "increasingly severe wildfires, measured both in terms of energy released and the number of fires that avoid initial containment" in areas that will be "increasingly dry."

In terms of extreme precipitation and flooding, the report states that there are "theoretical arguments" for increased precipitation and flooding "based on the principles of the hydrological cycle where increasing average temperature will intensify evaporation and subsequently increase precipitation." The theory appears to be valid as the "evidence suggests that the number of extreme precipitation events in the United States has increased."

The deaths caused by even one extreme climate event category, such as hurricanes, can be high:

From 1940 through 2005 roughly 4,300 lives were lost in the United States to hurricanes. The impact of the 2005 hurricane season is especially notable as it doubled the estimate of the average number of lives lost to hurricanes in the United States over the previous 65 years.

During this same time period, floods killed 7,000 people.

3. Human Settlements: Where you live will determine which climate change impacts may affect your life and health. Certain locations are more vulnerable, such as Alaska due to increased permafrost melt, coastal zones due to increased flooding from coastal surges or riverine flooding and rising seas, and arid states that already suffer from water droughts and water scarcity. Low-lying coastal regions face hurricanes, flooding and sea level rises that threaten water supplies while the Gulf Coast region faces more intense storms, greater rises in sea levels, coastal erosion and damage to freshwater resources. The Southwest and Great Lakes areas face increased strains on water resources while interior continental zones of the US will face more intense heat waves and densely populated urban areas face the heat island effect.

Climate change impacts on human settlements varies regionally but several factors will affect where we live as populations migrate to avoid global warming impacts.

a), health impacts from climate change may be higher in certain locales. For example, higher temperatures in cities are related to higher ozone levels which cause respiratory and cardiovascular problems. b), the ability of regions to sustain populations based upon changed precipitation patterns that decrease or eliminate water availability. Potable water supplies will decrease due to reductions in snowmelt, river flows, groundwater levels and increased saltwater intrusion which impairs the quality of fresh water supplies. Our increased population will increase the demand for water supplies notwithstanding changed precipitation patterns across the country. c), the age and condition of infrastructure. Severe weather events will "affect infrastructure such as sanitation, transportation, supply lines for food and energy, and communication." Moreover, our aging infrastructure, such as bridges, will be subject to collapses. The impact can be enhanced due to interconnected infrastructures, which are already old and stressed from increasing demands. d), global warming has and will increase energy requirements, such as the demand for air conditioning which may impact reliability due to overloaded systems. e), there will be regional, national and international economic impacts as well as localized economic impacts related to areas whose economy is dependent upon agriculture, forestry, water resources or tourism, which will all be affected by global warming. f), the social and political structures will be stressed by increasing budget requirements for public services. And, f), settlements in certain regions will be exposed to a number of climate change impacts, such as rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of storm events.

As climate events increase, settlement patterns will be affected by regional risks and the availability of insurance as companies either withdraw private insurance coverage or impose prohibitive costs, thus pushing migration to another locale. Global warming will cause changes in comparative living costs, risks and amenities that may reduce the desire to live in certain areas, causing more migration. For example, the increased costs associated with buying basic services such as water may cause moving to a wetter region. Another example, which the report says is "highly uncertain," is a "gradual migration of the "Sun Belt" northward, as retirees and businesses attracted by environmental amenities find that regions less exposed to very high temperatures and seasonal major storms are more attractive as places to locate."

Not all the news is bad. The EPA reported some beneficial effects of climate change on settlements. Warmer temperatures in winter can reduce utility heating costs as well as snow removal costs. As our spring and summer seasons expand, there will be a longer growing season for crops, flower gardens and more time for summer recreation. Global warming may also improve "competitiveness":

"While some settlements may turn out to be "losers" due to climate change impacts, others may be "winners," as changes in temperature or precipitation result in added economic opportunities ..., at least if climate change is not severe."

One table in the EPA report sets out some of the global warming impacts regionally, which provides a handy reference to make settlement migration decisions in terms of what impacts you are more willing to live with and which impacts you wish to avoid:

4. Health (Injuries, Illness and Death) : The EPA acknowledged that "heat-related morbidity and mortality will increase over the coming decades." However, the existing economic disparities of our health care system will cause a disproportionate burden of climate impacts on the poor, elderly, disabled and uninsured.

There are a number of direct health risks associated with climate change as extreme climate events (floods, droughts, windstorms, fires and heatwaves) sicken, injure or kill Americans. Higher temperatures can help cause and exacerbate cardiovascular and pulmonary illnesses. Climate change can produce stagnant air masses that degrade air quality.

There are also indirect climate change impacts on our health caused by the alteration or disruption of natural systems causing an increase in the spread of water and foodborne pathogens to areas where they had not existed before or an exacerbation of a previously limited existence.

Transmission of infectious diseases may occur by insects or rodents. Increasing temperatures may spread the range of some illnesses north into the US, such as dengue virus, which had a recent epidemic in southern Texas and northern Mexico. "[S]tudies provide evidence that climate affects the abundance and distributions of vectors that may carry West Nile virus, Western Equine encephalitis, Eastern Equine encephalitis, Bluetongue virus, and Lyme disease."

Presently, waterborne and foodborne diseases cause "significant morbidity in the United States." However, studies indicate that these diseases are "highly unreported" and that the incidence is actually in the millions each year, resulting in thousands of deaths.

Using a combination of underreporting estimates, passive and active surveillance data, and hospital discharge data, Mead et al. (1999) estimated that over 210 million cases of gastroenteritis occur annually in the United States, including over 900,000 hospitalizations and over 6,000 deaths. More recently, Herikstad et al. (2002) estimated as many as 375 million episodes of diarrhea occur annually in the United States, based on a self-reporting study. These numbers far exceed previous estimates. Of the total estimated annual cases, just over 39 million can be attributed to a specific pathogen and approximately 14 million are transmitted by food (Mead et al., 1999).

Then there are diseases reemerging in the US. Leptospirosis has not been a reportable disease since 1995, but is now reviving in the US. Given that "increased disease rates are linked to warm temperatures, epidemiological evidence suggest that climate change may increase the number of cases." The CDC states that if this disease is "not treated, the patient could develop kidney damage, meningitis (inflammation of the membrane around the brain and spinal cord), liver failure, and respiratory distress. In rare cases death occurs."

The US is also now experiencing climate related diseases that were never here before due to increasing temperatures which have expanded the geographic area for the disease. In fact, during 2002-2004, studies showed an increase in the geographic range and diversity of some pathogens in northern Atlantic waters of the US "coincident with warm water." For example, in 2004, the range of one pathogen expanded for the first time to Alaskan oysters because the Alaskan waters were no longer a cold inhospitable environment. Another now rare disease is caused by the Naegleria fowleri or "brain-eating amoeba," which is associated with warm water, and thus, its range may increase as global warming heats up our waters. The report states that "infections are almost always fatal."

In addition to warmer waters, some waterborne disease outbreaks associated with both surface and groundwater drinking water supplies are triggered by precipitation levels. Valley Fever is "an infectious disease caused by inhalation of the spores of a soil-inhabiting fungus that thrives during wet periods following droughts" and thus "climate change could affect its incidence and geographic range."

There are also indirect health impacts from extreme climate events, such as post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression resulting from the extreme climate event and the aftermath of recovery:

During the recovery period, mental health problems can arise from the problems associated with geographic displacement, damage to the home or loss of familiar possessions, and stress involved with the process of repairing. The full impact often is not appreciated until after people's homes have been put back in order. For instance, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, mental health services in New Orleans were challenged by an increased incidence of serious mental illness, including anxiety, major depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Shortly after Katrina, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention poll found that nearly half of all survey respondents indicated a need for mental health care, yet less than 2% were receiving professional attention... .

Another factor in morbidity and mortality is changes in our air quality. Presently, millions of Americans live in areas that do not satisfy the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The EPA reports that "levels of these two pollutants have the potential to be influenced by climate change in a variety of ways." Ozone formation increases with more sunlight and higher temperatures. Studies have "firmly established" that breathing ozone causes decreases in lung function, premature mortality and may cause asthma. Studies have also shown that PM2.5 is associated with a "variety of adverse health outcomes including respiratory symptoms such as coughing and difficulty breathing, decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, development of chronic bronchitis, heart attack, and arrhythmias. Associations have also been reported for increased school absences, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and premature mortality."

Increasing temperatures will increase air quality mortality rates, as demonstrated by one study which compared the health impacts of pre-industrial versus present day atmospheric concentrations of CO2:

The results suggest that increasing concentrations of CO2 increased tropospheric ozone and PM2.5, which increased mortality by about 1.1% per degree temperature increase over the baseline rate; Jacobson estimated that about 40% of the increase was due to ozone and the rest to particulate matter.

Another climate change factor that will increase air pollution in the Midwest is the "decreases between 2000 and 2052 in the frequency of Canadian frontal passages that clear away stagnating air pollution episodes."

5. Ecosystems: The EPA report acknowledges that ecosystems provide functions or services which "sustain and fulfill human life." Ecosystems provide functions, including food, fiber, regulation of air and water quality, photosynthesis, recreation, and aesthetic and spiritual values. Impacts on ecosystems then create additional impacts for people:

For example, a variety of ecosystem changes may be linked to changes in human health, from changes that encourage the expansion of the range of vector-borne diseases ... to the frequency and impact of floods and fires on human populations, due to changes in protection afforded by ecosystems.

Human activity --- such as "habitat destruction, releases of pollutants, over-harvesting of plants, fish and wildlife, and the introduction of invasive species into fragile systems" --- has degraded 15 of the 24 vital ecosystem services. Climate change is another human activity which threatens adverse impacts to biodiversity.

Climate change will cause the "shifting, breakup and loss of ecological communities." Some species will need to relocate their geographical range poleward or to higher elevations in search of cooler temperatures. Climate change has already caused northward migration of some species, such as the red fox in the Canadian arctic and a number of bird species. Even if range shifts are an option, the species face obstacles in the form of geology (such as plants confined to specific soil types), or human activities (such as the presence of cities, agricultural land etc) that block migrating northward. Other species that are restricted to alpine tundra habitats or coastal habitats will not have the choice of relocation. And, not all species will adapt to the increased temperatures and other effects of climate change, leading to "extinctions of plants and animals and reduced biodiversity." The report acknowledges the likely result of acceleration of current extinction rates. In fact, some species are "already undergoing local subpopulation extinctions due to climate change."

Some species lose populations due to seasonal timing changes caused by global warming that affect breeding or hibernation seasons:

Such effects have already been observed in Europe where forest-breeding birds have been unable to advance their breeding seasons sufficiently to keep up with the earlier emergence of the arboreal caterpillars with which they feed their young. This has resulted in declining productivity and population reductions in at least one species.

Global warming also causes "changes in ecosystem processes, such as nutrient cycling, decomposition, carbon flow" so that areas that functioned as CO2 absorbers now are emitters:

Increasing temperatures over the past few decades on the North Slope of Alaska have resulted in a summer breakdown of the permanently frozen soil of the Alaskan Tundra and increased activity by soil bacteria that decompose plant material. This has accelerated the rate at which CO2 (a breakdown product of the decomposition of the vegetation and also a greenhouse gas) is released to the atmosphere—changing the Tundra from a net sink (absorber) to a net emitter of CO2.

6. Resolutions: Mitigation and/or Adaptation: The report concludes that there are three options for US settlements and population. One, the US can take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by employing climate change mitigation strategies and "showing leadership in encouraging others to support such actions." Two, the US can respond by adapting to climate change impacts, such as "hardening" coastal structures to sustain sea-level rises or forming response strategies, such as emergency preparedness for the adverse impacts of global warming. A third response is some combination of mitigation and adaptation.

The report acknowledges that it is politically difficult to allocate "massive amounts of funding or management attention to current climate change actions" because the public awareness of impacts is still fairly low, future impacts are uncertain and the implications are long term. The report thus suggests a "co-benefits" approach where decisionmakers can advocate changes needed to existing infrastructure or systems based on non-climate change reasons but the change will also have the benefit of reducing vulnerabilities from climate change impacts:

What generally makes more sense is to consider ways that actions which reduce vulnerabilities to climate change impacts (or increase prospects for realizing benefits from climate change impacts) are also desirable for other reasons as well: often referred to as "co-benefits." Examples include actions that reduce vulnerabilities to current climate variability regardless of long-term climate change, actions that add resilience to water supply and other urban infrastructures that are already stressed, and actions that make metropolitan areas more attractive for their citizens in terms of their overall quality of life.

The report cited examples of current climate change adaptation strategies, many triggered by grassroots activities:

Bottom-up grassroots activities currently under way in the United States are considerable, and that number appears to be growing. For example, Boston has built a new wastewater treatment plant at least one-half meter higher than currently necessary to cope with sea level rise, and in a coastal flood protection plan for a site north of Boston the U.S. Corps of Engineers incorporated sea-level rise into their analysis. California is considering climate change adaptation strategies as a part of its more comprehensive attention to climate change policies. And, Alaska is already pursuing ways to adapt to permafrost melting and other climate change effects.

...While no U.S. communities have developed comprehensive programs to ameliorate the effects of heat islands, some localities are recognizing the need to address these effects. In Chicago, for example, several municipal buildings have been designed to accommodate "green" rooftops. Atlanta has had a Cool Communities "grass roots" effort to educate local and state officials and developers on strategies that can be used to mitigate the UHI. This Cool Communities effort was instrumental in getting the State of Georgia to adopt the first commercial building code in the country emphasizing the benefits of cool roofing technology.

We have a long way to go, but at least the EPA is now disclosing how our lives our endangered by global warming.

Guest contributor Patriot Daily is an environmental lawyer in California who blogs regularly at Daily Kos on environmental, water, political and human rights issues.

Labels: Barbara Boxer, Climate Change, Environment, EPA, George W. Bush, Global Warming, Health, Reuters, Science, Stephen Johnson

James Hansen to the G8: We've passed safe C02 levels

2008-07-03T17:04:00.000-07:00

By The Environmentalist Staff

On the eve the annual G8 Summit where NASA's Dr. James Hansen will announce that we've passed safe C02 levels (safe being maximum 350 ppm; we're now at 385 ppm), Hansen has penned a comprehensive letter (PDF) to Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, host of the G8 Summit, requesting his leadership in addressing his findings:

Dear Prime Minister [Yasuo Fukuda],

Your leadership, and continued leadership by Japan, is needed on the matter of climate change, a matter with ramifications for life on our planet, including all species. Prospects for today’s children, and especially the world’s poor, hinge upon success in stabilizing climate. ~snip~

Japan has been a strong supporter of actions to mitigate dangerous climate change, including the Kyoto Protocol. It is not Japan’s fault that international action has failed so far to slow emission of dangerous gases. But as the host for the upcoming G8 meeting, you can initiate discussion of an approach that could meet the challenge humanity faces.

The past approach, and extensions now under discussion, are fatally flawed and would doom our children and grandchildren to an increasingly impoverished life on a more desolate planet. Clear thinking and bold leadership of the international community are essential in the next 1-2 years to change the course of human history.

The letter, which includes extensive supporting data, opens with current climate status: the loss of sea ice, the approaching tipping points, the effects on people and wildlife, the unstoppable sea level rise, shifting of climate zones, species extinctions, loss of glaciers, water supply for hundreds of millions, droughts and forest fires, rains and floods, intensified thunderstorms, tornadoes and tropical storms.

My address tomorrow to the United Nations University G8 Symposium summarizes scientific data revealing that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million), and is likely less than that. Implications for energy policy are profound, as atmospheric CO2 is already 385 ppm.

Dr. Hansen goes on to write that "basic fossil fuel facts must be acknowledged" to minimize the impact of climate change.

Dr. Hansen's full letter is here (PDF):

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080703_DearPrimeMinisterFukuda.pdf

Labels: C02, Climate Change, Environment, G8, Global Warming, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Huffington Post, James Hansen, NASA, Tipping Point, United Nations

Cross-posted on the Huffington Post

A New Climate Reality

2008-07-01T17:04:00.000-07:00

by The Environmentalist Staff

The world is changing so fast, it's often difficult to see it in context. We watch it from a mathematical point of view, points on a graph, comparative analyses, blips on radar from sensors slapped on the bows of ships, dry bits of brain matter fighting the brain freeze caused by information overload of drought on the Southwest U.S., typhoon caused floods in Bangladesh, tornadoes in the U.S. and where is all that snow coming from?

It begins to look horrifyingly familiar: one person's agony is another's data.

Once in a while, however, we do try to step back and take empathetic stock.

First and foremost with the actual climate events: storm, drought, wind, fire, flood.

There are the forces (forcings) behind those events: The increase in greenhouse gases, the loss of glaciers and sea ice, the inability of the Southern Ocean to function as a carbon sink (in case you were wondering why things seemed to be changing so quickly), the greater wind speeds due to the increased temperature differential between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, pollution, of course; the C02 released into the atmosphere from the recent fires in Southern California and in Greece last summer and don't get me started on whether the Methane once trapped in the tundra, now no more, is over-hype or horror...

Then there is the impact upon so many species, fully one-third of which the new IPCC report warns may be lost due to climate change. Polar bears are the most obvious indicator, but there are also the diminishing pollinators we depend upon, which could be climate change or misuse of colonies, or disease, or all of the above; the coral in the Great Barrier Reef, the wolves that are about to be removed from the endangered list, so hunters can shoot them and put them back on again...

One might begin to understand why we gravitate toward cold data over warming empathy.

Then there was a curious incident in Northern Ireland recently. Don't know if you heard about it, but a ten-mile wide migration of billions of Mauve Stinger Jellyfish swam, as one, all the way to the Northern Irish Sea and killed every Salmon within their reach (est. 100,000).

The fishermen who desperately tried to reach the trapped fish (there were wide nets placed a mile offshore to create a near-wild farm environment) stopped and stared in shock as they faced a solid block of glowing red jellyfish to the horizon, and then in horror when they realised they could not get through to their prized and beloved stock, the salmon that had been so revered, it had been served at the Queen's table for her 80th birthday. The salmon died.

What makes this alarming, aside from the fact that billions of glowing red jellyfish killed 100,000 salmon, was that they traveled from the warm waters of the Mediterranean to (what are supposed to be) the cold waters of the North Irish Sea to do it.

Scientists have attributed it to global warming. We have not seen their data, but we doubt we've seen the last of this type of bizarre event.

Which is our way saying that, no matter what the outcome of the Bali Conference, no matter who signs onto the resultant climate accord or to its predecessor, Kyoto, as they should have done years ago (thank you, Kevin Rudd), no matter how much time Al Gore spends with George W in the Oval Office showing him his Nobel medal, while the Bush administration insists they can make a better climate deal than Kyoto...

Without mentioning the deals behind the scenes being worked out between Bush and Putin and Beijing to emasculate the binding portions of the upcoming Bali Accord...

It is time for everyone to adjust to a new reality.

That reality includes the need for increased humanitarian commitment, as evidenced by the US Naval vassels that recently arrived in Bangladesh to provide aid. It includes following Australia's lead and voting in a greener US leader. That's an interesting feature to the Bali Conference, by the way -- the way everyone's talking about how we just need to wait out George Bush -- while not wanting to hear a tall, skinny ex-patriot Scot who tries to remind his colleagues that there's still Putin and the Chinese and the Sudenese and the Burmese (I will not dignify that regime with the name they chose), and the (fill in blank)...

The time is now, not a bit over a year from now, to change policy.

Which has become a written commitment from diverse and, in some cases, unlikely sources. Are you aware that Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp is among the big business signatories calling for binding carbon targets to come out of Bali? As this post points out, when even Fox News calls for policy change on global warming, it's time to deny the deniers a voice.

And then there was this report from the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College warning that climate change will lead to political instability and, potentially, to global war.

Our empathy meter is now pinned with fear.

In the long run, the solution, of course, includes weaning everyone off oil. It includes everyone reducing their carbon footprint. But those are big ideas and far removed from most peoples' consciousness and everyday life.

But, perhaps, not for long. The question of the new reality is how everyone will learn to live in an increasingly unstable climate, where droughts last months instead of weeks, and then years instead of months. Where storms speed up as they approach land (Cyclone Sidr). Where floods happen so fast they defy forecast. Where food becomes less tasty, less nutritious, less interesting, as we lose more pollinators. Where the loss of species becomes a psychic wound upon the planet's soul because we can feel that loss, even if we can't identify the empty hole in both our planet's and our own souls as they go.

We all must do what we can to reverse climate change. No one should give up because we've let it go too far. But it's a new reality that the loss of the carbon sink in the Southern Ocean has sped up the timetable for change and we now have to adjust to that new reality while we work to reverse that change. That includes facing the pain that empathy brings when we peer out from under our numbers and realize that there are millions who will be leading a very different life. It also means facing the many enemies we'll have created as the deprivation of drought and flood topples unstable governments, providing new footholds for extremism where none existed before.

It's been a hell of a fossil fuel party we've been enjoying for the last century or so. It's time to clean up, do the dishes, recycle the garbage, polish the windows, and walk (don't drive) outside.