Jeff Goodell: ‘It’s a bad idea for geoengineering to be the equivalent of the Pompeii sex room’:
To head off the worst impacts of climate change, should human beings deliberately engineer the earth’s climate? Or rather, should they try, with uncertain odds of success and at least some chance of inadvertent catastrophe? Should they even learn how, or would the knowledge itself wreak havoc?
These are the sorts of questions journalist Jeff Goodell grapples with in How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth’s Climate, due out on April 15. As readers of his previous book Big Coal know, Goodell’s talent lies in addressing heavy economic and political issues through the prism of individual human narratives. Once again he’s gathered a cast of eccentric characters and darkly entertaining stories that carry the reader through choppy conceptual waters.
Goodell and I discussed the promise and perils of geoengineering in wide-ranging conversation earlier this month. Here are some highlights, followed by more in-depth excerpts from our conversation.
Click on through for the short interview (and an explanation for the gratuitous porn reference in the title of this post).
My view of geoengineering hasn’t changed much, if at all, in recent months:
See also Joe Romm’s take on this: Sole “Strategic Partner” of landmark geo-engineering conference is Australia’s “dirty coal” state of Victoria
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
About bloody time…
Open Letter from U.S. Scientists on the IPCC:
An Open Letter from Scientists in the United States on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Errors Contained in the Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
[Note: Over 250 scientists have already signed this open letter and signatures are still being collected. For a full list of signers please visit this page. On March 13, 2010, the letter was sent to federal agencies. The vast majority of the signers are climate change scientists who work at leading U.S. universities and institutions. They include both IPCC and non-IPCC authors. Additional signers include professionals from related disciplines, including physical, biological and social scientists. If you are a scientist wishing to sign the letter, please fill out the form on the this page. If you have any questions, please contact the letter’s authors, contact information is below.]
***********************************************
Many in the popular press and other media, as well as some in the halls of Congress, are seizing on a few errors that have been found in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in an attempt to discredit the entire report. None of the handful of mis-statements (out of hundreds and hundreds of unchallenged statements) remotely undermines the conclusion that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Despite its excellent performance for accurately reporting the state-of-the-science, we certainly acknowledge that the IPCC should become more forthcoming in openly acknowledging errors in a timely fashion, and continuing to improve its assessment procedures to further lower the already very low rate of error.
It is our intention in offering this open letter to bring the focus back to credible science, rather than invented hyperbole, so that it can bear on the policy debate in the United States and throughout the world. We first discuss some of the key messages from climate science and then elaborate on IPCC procedures, with particular attention to the quality-control mechanisms of the IPCC. Finally we offer some suggestions about what might be done next to improve IPCC practices and restore full trust in climate science.
The Climate Challenge
Our understanding of human contributions to climate change and the associated urgency for humans to respond has improved dramatically over the past two decades. Many of the major components of the climate system are now well understood, though there are still sources of significant uncertainty (like the processes that produce the observed rapid ice-sheet melting and/or collapse in the polar regions). It is now well established, for example, that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from human sources have increased rapidly since the Industrial Revolution. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reduce the heat going out of the climate system, i.e., the radiation balance of the Earth – and so first principles of physics tell us to expect, with a very high likelihood, that higher temperatures should have been observed.
Indeed, measurements of global average temperatures show an increase of about 0.6 degrees C over the twentieth century and about 0.8 degrees C warming since mid-19th century. The pattern of increase has not been smooth or monotonic. There have been several 10- to 15-year periods of stable or declining temperatures over the past 150 years, but 14 of the warmest 15 years on record have been experienced between 1995 and 2009. Since 1970, observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are already being affected by these temperature increases.
Because the long-term warming trends are highly significant relative to our estimates of the magnitude of natural variability, the current decadal period of stable global mean temperature does nothing to alter a fundamental conclusion from the AR4: warming has unequivocally been observed and documented. Moreover, well-understood lags in the responsiveness of the climate system to disturbances like greenhouse gas increases mean that the current temperature plateau will very likely not persist much longer. Global climate model projections show that present-day greenhouse gas concentrations have already committed the planet to about 0.5 degree C in warming over this century.
Increasing emissions of carbon dioxide from the consumption of coal, oil and natural gas as well as deforestation have been the major drivers of this observed warming. While we cannot predict the details of our climate future with a high degree of certainty, the majority of studies from a large number of research groups in the US and elsewhere project that unabated emissions could produce between 1 and 6 degrees C more warming through the year 2100.
Other research has identified multiple reasons to be concerned about climate change; these apply to the United States as well as globally. They include (1) risks to unique and threatened systems (including human communities), (2) risks from extreme events (like coastal storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires), (3) economic damages (driven by, for example, pest infestations or inequities in the capacity to adapt), (4) risks from large-scale abrupt climate change (e.g., ice-sheet collapse, ocean circulation slowing, sharply increased methane emissions from permafrost) or abrupt impacts of more predictable climate change (generated by thresholds in the coping capacities of natural and human systems to climate variability), and (5) risks to national security (driven largely by extreme events across the world interacting with already-stressed situations).
These sources of risk and the potential for triggering temperature-driven impacts at lower thresholds, as well as the explicit recognition in the AR4 that risk is the product of likelihood and consequence, led the nations of the world to take note of the Copenhagen Accord last December. The Accord highlights 2 degrees C in warming as a target that might reduce the chance of “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” to more manageable levels. Research has shown that increasing the likelihood of achieving this goal over the next century is economically and technically feasible with emission reduction measures and changes in consumption patterns; but it will not be easy without major national and international actions to deviate substantially from the status quo.
The IPCC and the Fourth Assessment Report
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the IPCC in 1988 to provide policy makers regularly with balanced assessments of the state of knowledge on climate change. In so doing, they created an open intergovernmental organization in which scientists, policy analysts, engineers, and resource managers from all over the world were asked to collaborate. At present, more than 150 countries including the United States participate in the IPCC. IPCC publishes an assessment report approximately every six years. The most recent Fourth Assessment, approved by member countries and released in 2007, contained three volumes: The Physical Science Basis (Working Group I); Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (Working Group II) and Mitigation of Climate Change (Working Group III) and a Synthesis Report. More than 44 writing teams and 450 lead authors contributed to the Fourth Assessment – authors who have been selected on the basis of their expertise in consultation with all member countries and who were assisted by another 800 scientists and analysts who served as contributing authors on specific topics. Authors donated their time gratis, and the entire process was supported by four Technical Support Units (TSUs) that employ 5 to 10 people each.
Errors in the Fourth Assessment Report
It was hard not to notice the extraordinary commotion that erupted around errors that were eventually found in the AR4. The wrong year for the projected disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers and the wrong percentage of ‘land below sea level’ in the Netherlands are examples of errors that need to be acknowledged frankly and rectified promptly. In a few other cases, like the discussion of the correlations between crop yields, climate change, and climate variability in North Africa, caveats that were carefully crafted within the chapters were not included when language was shortened for the Synthesis Report. While striving to simplify technical details and summarize major points, some important qualifications were left behind. These errors of omission in the summary process should also be recognized and corrected. Other claims, like the one reported at the end of February suggesting that the AR4 did not mention the millions of more people who will see increases in water availability that were reported in the cited literature along with the millions of more people who will be at risk of water shortage, are simply not true. In any case, it is essential to emphasize that none of these interventions alter the key finding from the AR4 that human beings are very likely changing the climate, with far-reaching impacts in the long run.
The heated debates that have emerged around these instances have even led some to question the quality and integrity of the IPCC. Recent events have made it clear that the quality control procedures of the IPCC are not watertight, but claims of widespread and deliberate manipulation of scientific data and fundamental conclusions in the AR4 are not supported by the facts. We also strongly contest the impression that the main conclusions of the report are based on dubious sources. The reference list of the AR4 contains about 18,000 citations, the vast majority of which were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The IPCC also has transparent procedures for using published but not peer-reviewed sources in their reports. These procedures were not properly followed in the isolated Himalaya case, but that statement was never elevated into the Summary for Policymakers of either Working Group II or the Synthesis Report – documents that were approved unanimously and word for word by all member nations.
Nonetheless, failsafe compliance with these procedures requires extra attention in the writing of the next round of assessments. We propose implementing a topic-based cross-chapter review process by which experts in an impact area of climate change, such as changes in water resources, scrutinize the assessment of related vulnerability, risk analyses, and adaptation strategies that work downstream from such changes. Here we mean, to continue the example, assessments of possible increases in flooding damage in river basins and the potential for wetlands to provide buffers in the sectoral and regional chapters. This would be most productively implemented just before the first-order draft, so that chapter authors can be alerted to potential problems before the major review step.
Quality Control within the IPCC and US Review
The impression that the IPCC does not have a proper quality-control procedure is deeply mistaken. The procedure for compiling reports and assuring its quality control is governed by well-documented principles that are reviewed regularly and amended as appropriate. Even now, every step in the preparation of every chapter can be traced on a website: First Order Drafts (with comments by many scientists as well as author responses to those comments), Second Order Drafts in which those comments are incorporated (and comments by experts and country representatives on revised versions as well as another round of author responses), and so on, up through the final, plenary-approved versions.
To be clear, 2,500 reviewers together provided about 90,000 comments on the 44 chapters for the AR4. Each comment is documented on a website that also describes how and why the comment was or was not incorporated in the next revision. Review editors for each chapter worked with the authors to guarantee that each comment was treated properly and honestly in the revision; in fact, no chapter can ever move forward for publication without the approval of its set of two or three review editors.
The US Government opened its reviews of the draft IPCC report to any US expert who wanted to review it. In order to protect against having this preliminary pre-reviewed draft leaked before its ultimate approval by the IPCC Plenary, the US Government asked all potential reviewers to agree not to disclose the contents of the draft. For each report, the US Government assembled its own independent panel of government experts to vet the comments before submission to the IPCC. Anything with scientific merit was forwarded. There were multiple rounds for each of the Working Group reports and the Synthesis Report, and opportunities for US experts to review the drafts were posted as Federal Register notices.
IPCC principles also govern how authors treat published but non-peer reviewed sources. These procedures acknowledge that peer-reviewed scientific journals contain little information about on-the-ground implementation of adaptation or mitigation – matters such as the emission reduction potential in a given industrial sector or country, for example, or catalogues of the specific vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies of sectors and regions with regard to climate change. This information is frequently only available in reports from research institutes, reports of workshops and conferences, or in publications from industries or other non-governmental organizations. This is the so-called gray literature. The IPCC procedure prescribes that authors are obliged to assess critically any gray source that they wish to include. The quality and validity of a finding from a non-peer reviewed source needs to be verified before its finding may be included in a chapter text. Each source needs to be completely traceable; and in cases where gray sources are used, a copy must be deposited at the IPCC Secretariat to guarantee that it is available upon request for third parties.
We conclude that the IPCC procedures are transparent and thorough, even though they are not infallible. Nonetheless, we are confident that no single scholar or small group of scholars can manipulate the process to include or to exclude a specific line of research; authors of that research can (and are fully encouraged to) participate in the review process. Moreover, the work of every scientist, regardless of whether it supports or rejects the premise of human-induced climate change, is subject to inclusion in the reports. The work is included or rejected for consideration based on its scientific merit.
It is important to note that we are not addressing here the criteria and procedures by which the IPCC selects chairs and authors. These are handled exclusively by the IPCC and its members according to terms of reference that were initially defined in the authorizing language of 1988. That is to say, governments or their appointees frame and implement these policies; and they create, approve and staff Technical Support Units for each working group. We do not make suggestions on these topics since they lie beyond our purview.
What comes next?
We expect that the robust findings of the AR4 will be continue to be supported by new information gleaned from literature published since 2006 — i.e., that the climate change issue is serious and real. Given these findings, we believe that the climate change issue deserves the urgent and non-partisan consideration of the country’s legislative and administrative leaders. We feel strongly that exaggerated focus on a few errors from 2007 cannot be allowed to detract from open and honest deliberations about how to respond to climate risk by reducing emissions and promoting adaptation at home and abroad.
As the process of producing the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) begins, the IPCC should become more responsive in acknowledging errors rapidly and openly as they become known. To this end, we urge the IPCC to put an erratum on its website that rectifies all errors that have been discovered in the text after publication. In doing so, a clear distinction needs to be made between errors and progressing knowledge. IPCC assessments are detailed snapshots of the state of scientific knowledge at a given time, while knowledge evolves continuously through ongoing research and experience; it is the errors in the assessments that need immediate attention. In contrast, progressing knowledge is published in new scientific journal articles and reports; this information should be used as a basis for the AR5, but it cannot be listed as errata for the AR4 because it was not available when that assessment was conducted. The website should, as well, respond rapidly and openly when reports of errors in past assessments are themselves in error. We cannot let misperceptions fester anymore than errors go uncorrected.
Climate research and the IPCC reports on the state of knowledge provide a scientific foundation for climate policy making, whose agenda is defined by the governments of the IPCC and not the lead authors per se. The quality of and the balance in the knowledge delivered by any assessment is certainly essential, as is clear and explicit communication of associated uncertainties. Given the recent political and media commotion surrounding a few clear errors, it is now equally essential that we find ways to restore full trust in the integrity of the overwhelming majority of the climate change research and policy communities. To that end, we are pleased that an independent critical evaluation of IPCC procedures will be conducted; we hope that the process will solicit participation by the National Academies of the member nations.
The significance of IPCC errors has been greatly exaggerated by many sensationalist accounts, but that is no reason to avoid implementing procedures to make the assessment process even better. The public has a right to know the risks of climate change as scientists currently understand them. We are dedicated to working with our colleagues and government in furthering that task.
March 10, 2010
Signed:
Gary W. Yohe Wesleyan University and Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
gyohe@wesleyan.eduStephen H. Schneider Stanford University
shs@stanford.eduCynthia Rosenzweig NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University
crosenzweig@giss.nasa.govWilliam E. Easterling Pennsylvania State University
billeasterling@psu.eduFor a full list of signers please visit this page.
Please note that the opening bracketed comment is in the original.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
Getting to work in 2010: Our new plans…:
After a month-long retreat in the mountainous US state of Vermont, and following much reflection, listening and movement-storming with allies & organizers from around the world, we’re excited to share our new plans for 2010 — and can’t wait to learn what you think! Bill’s letter below is about to go out to our entire list — make sure you’re signed up for more exciting updates in 2010!
Dear Friends,
Well, no one said it was going to be easy.
Last year, thanks to many of you, we built up enormous momentum for climate solutions. The global day of rallies you pulled off on October 24th turned out to “the most widespread day of political action in the planet’s history,” according to CNN, with 5200 actions in 181 countries.
And in Copenhagen that translated into 117 countries–most of the world’s nations–supporting a tough 350 target.
But it didn’t translate into political victory. The biggest polluters wouldn’t go along. So we still have work to do.
In fact, our slogan for 2010 is “Get To Work.” Get to work to start changing our communities, and get to work to make our leaders realize that they actually need to lead. We’ve sifted through thousands of your emails from all over the world, and come up with an action plan for this year that we think may break the logjam and get us moving. But only, of course, if we act together to make it happen.
The first date to mark on your calendar: October 10. Working with our friends at the 10:10 campaign, we’re going to make the tenth day of the tenth month of the millennium’s tenth year a real starting point for concrete action. We’re calling it the 10/10 Global Work Party, and in every corner of the world we hope communities will put up solar panels, insulate homes, erect windmills, plant trees, paint bikepaths, launch or harvest local gardens. We’ll make sure the world sees this huge day of effort–and we’ll use it to send a simple message to our leaders: “We’re working–what about you? If we can cover the roof of the school with solar panels, surely you can pass the legislation or sign the treaty that will spread our work everywhere, and confront the climate crisis in time.” 10/10/10 will take a snapshot of a clean energy future — the world of 350 ppm — and show people why it’s worth fighting for. It’s not too early to sign up here: www.350.org/oct10
Every nation is not created equal in this climate crisis, of course. If we can’t get the biggest polluters and the biggest economies to change, then we’ll never win. So we’re going to focus some particular attention on China, the United States, and India with a Great Power Race–college and university campuses will compete to see who can come up with the most, and the most creative, climate solutions. We hope friendly competition will help governments see that they have a lot to gain by diving into clean energy–and a lot to lose by missing this opportunity.
And we’ll keep figuring out ways to apply political pressure where it counts–in the U.S. Senate, say, where we’re joining a group of our best allies in backing the proposed Cap-and-Dividend approach that would stop letting big polluters pour carbon into the sky for free. In other parts of the world, we’ll hold more of the climate leadership workshops that produced so many great leaders last year.
And as the next UN conference approaches in Mexico in December, we’ll stage the largest piece of public art in the planet’s history–a reminder that we have to bring passion to bear along with science and economics if we’re going to move this process.
We know, from the calls and emails we’ve been getting, that people all over the world are ready to go to work. We think this plan can increase the odds of real action. We know that we have no choice. When, years down the road, the next generation asks what we did to save the planet, we want to be able to say: “We rolled up our sleeves and got to work.” There’s no guarantee we can beat the rich and powerful interests that we’re up against–but thanks to you we’ve got enough momentum to have a real chance. Let’s use it now.
Onwards,
Bill McKibben and the 350.org Team
P.S. We’ve learned that there’s great power in pictures, and so we decided to make an audio slideshow that walks through our plan for 2010 and how we got here. Please watch it here, and share the piece with family & friends by spreading this link: www.350.org/audio-slideshow. Also, please forward this message far and wide–2010 needs to be a year of unprecedented growth for this movement.
P.P.S. We want to know what your reaction is to the plan for 2010–will you share your ideas and thoughts with the Global 350 Facebook Community by leaving a comment in the latest message? (www.facebook.com/350.org)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
A recently published study that looks at the carbon emissions of traded goods, and which countries those goods trvel from and to, is getting a lot of attention. One good example is the Time article Who Pays for Emissions in Global Trade?:
Popularly, China is a villain in climate change. Many people who attended last year’s chaotic U.N. climate-change talks in Copenhagen — especially those who belonged to the U.S. delegation — singled out China as the main reason the summit nearly collapsed. Chinese diplomats fought hard against any form of emissions regulation, even though their country is now the world’s No. 1 national carbon emitter, and will emit far more carbon in the future than any other. In Washington, opponents of carbon cap-and-trade also point to China, which is unlikely to take on a carbon cap of its own, and wonder why the U.S. should have to restrain its emissions.
But a new study published in the March 8 edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) shows that the carbon equation isn’t as straightforward as we might think. Scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington at Stanford University synthesized carbon emissions and trade patterns and found that more than one-third of CO2 emissions related to the consumption of goods and services in developed countries are actually emitted outside their national borders. Rich nations are essentially outsourcing some of their carbon emissions to developing nations through global trade — by importing goods and services from abroad — thereby shrinking their carbon footprints while inflating those of major exporting nations like China. “It’s surprising just how much this effect is driven by the U.S. and China,” says Steven Davis, an ecologist at the Carnegie Institution and the lead author of the PNAS paper. “It is significant.”
…
What’s clear is that for all the blame being put on major developing countries for failing to take on carbon regulations, climate change is still chiefly the responsibility of rich nations. We emitted most of the man-made CO2 currently warming the planet, and even today, thanks to trade, we are still responsible for the majority of new carbon emissions. As Davis and Caldeira write, “Consumption-based accounting of emissions provides grounding for ethical arguments that the most developed countries — as the primary beneficiaries of emissions and with greater ability to pay — should lead the global mitigation effort.” That’s hard to argue with.
I almost don’t know where to begin with this and similar coverage.
First and most trivial: Why are these results so “surprising”? Anyone even remotely aware of the level of international trade, and the fact that developing countries tend to use dirtier energy technologies (as in the very high percentage of China’s electricity that comes from incredibly dirty coal plants) should have expected this outsourcing of CO2 effect to be even greater. I certainly did.
Second, this notion that the importing nations are “responsible” for the emissions created in making the goods they buy is absurd, for one very simple reason that seems to have eluded so many commentators: The importing countries have no control over the energy infrastructures in the exporting countries. Let the US control how China generates the electricity used to make the goods we buy from them, and then it’s reasonable to say we’re responsible for those emissions.
What are the options in this specific situation? China can give the US control over their energy systems, but don’t hold your breath; there’s precisely zero chance of that happening. The US can stop buying goods from China. That doesn’t work for either country; China is as dependent on that trade as the US is, albeit for different reasons. The US can fund the conversion of the energy infrastructure in China. Good luck getting that through the US House or Senate, especially given the trade deficit the US has with China ($226 billion in 2009, out of nearly $300 billion in total imports from China to the US, for example). Or China could fund their own clean energy infrastructure conversion, using the money they make from selling goods to the US and other countries.
Which of those options seems to be the most likely?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
The ongoing discussion about the recent Science paper by Shakhova, et al. on methane emissions from the East Siberia Arctic Shelf reveals at least as much about us and how we deal with such news as it tells us about the world.
Dismissing for the present, blissful moment the extremists from both ends of the spectrum, there are two noticeable groups, the Pure Scientists and the Pragmatists.
The Pure Scientists are looking mostly at the present and the past, and saying, “Look, we don’t even know yet how long these emissions from the ESAS have been going on, and there’s no evidence that they’ll escalate to dangerous levels. Currently, those emission are tiny compared to those from swamps, agriculture, farm animals, and the use of fossil fuels. Stop panicking! But since this is news (whether or not it’s a new phenomenon) we should take appropriate measures to find out as soon as possible how long this has been going on and whether there’s any chance of it adding significantly to our total, worldwide methane emissions.”
In fact, Shakhova et al. end their paper by saying:
To discern whether this extensive CH4 venting over the ESAS is a steadily ongoing phenomenon or signals the start of a more massive CH4 release period, there is an urgent need for expanded multifaceted investigations into these inaccessible but climate-sensitive shelf seas north of Siberia.
I find it very hard to understand how anyone could argue with that viewpoint. It’s a prudent application of the scientific process, and, dare I say it, the only rational one, in response to a major, unsettling discovery.
The Pragmatists, by contrast, are looking almost entirely at the future and thinking in terms of risk analysis, even if not quite that formally or by name–what happens if the immense store of methane up north starts to cut loose? Could we be seeing the beginning of the dominoes falling: We emit CO2 which causes some warming, and that starts to release methane hydrates and carbon in the permafrost (the latter in the form of CO2 and methane), which kicks off the mother of all feedbacks? Could this escalate into an unstoppable warming trend that would make the endlessly discussed 2C increase in global temperatures look like utopia?
I find it equally hard to dismiss this second viewpoint, simply because we know all that methane and carbon is up there and we know that some amount of warming will set it loose. We don’t know what that specific level of warming is, or if those releases will happen quickly enough to matter. CO2 has a virtually infinite lifespan, at least in terms of human planning horizons, while methane has a lifespan of under a decade. Any CO2 release is very bad because it simply accumulates (minus that portion absorbed by the oceans and plants, obviously), but a slow enough release of methane could effectively add almost nothing to the atmospheric level of that particular gas because it won’t hang around long enough to build up continuously.
We need to recognize that scientists, in being extremely conservative, are doing exactly what we need and want them to do. They’re not jumping on the doomer bandwagon, and they’re calling for more work to give us a better view of what’s going on up there. But scientists don’t wave a magic wand and make funding appear on demand. They need grants from governments and private organizations, and those funds are much more likely to appear if we non-scientists take a step back from the narrow view of the Pure Scientists, do a sober risk analysis of the situation, and conclude (correctly, in my opinion) that this situation has the potential to be a very big problem, and we should therefore learn as much about it as we can, as soon as possible. (This effort should also be extended to the land-resident, permafrost-based carbon, of course.) The critical detail is that we non-scientists have to do our part in pushing those entities that provide funding to make sure the needed science is done. We should not simply sit back and assume the money will appear right away, especially at a time of massive budget deficits in some countries, like the US.
In particular, it would be a very serious mistake to fall into the trap of looking for a false dichotomy and insisting one side is “right” about how to view this discovery and the other is “wrong”. That kind of knee-jerk reaction, fueled by righteous indignation on one side and an overly active sense of propriety on the other, only leads to further polarization in a very serious discussion. Different people have different roles to play, and those roles can dovetail, with the resulting synergy leading us to accurate and optimally useful-to-humanity conclusions–what’s going on in the Arctic and what, if anything, we can and should do about it–if we’re smart enough to seize that opportunity.
Or we can turn this into yet another pointless fight, this one between those of us on the same “side” of the ridiculous “debate” with the climate change deniers, and toss over the deck rail yet another chance to benefit from enlightened self-interest, even as they continue to steer us toward the nearest iceberg.
Some related links of interest:
New observations find underwater Arctic Shelf is perforated and venting methane
The ‘Real’ Take on Methane and Warming - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
Erik Vance has an excellent, albeit depressing, article up at environment.change.org, Speaking Science to the Public:
Every year, the AAAS meets to share the important science being done around the country. It’s a chance to catch up on astronomy, medicine, and geology while hobnobbing with the press. This year, however, the meeting was dominated by climate scientists scratching their heads and trying to figure out what is going wrong.
Maxwell Boykoff summed it up best when he presented this graph demonstrating that the number of stories on climate change spiked when the angle took a skeptical turn as a result of so-called Climategate. He called it “a different kind of hockey stick.” Both in public and in private, scientists are fretting over the perceived scandal around the leaked e-mails. More than that, though, they are panicked that the American public simply isn’t listening to them.
The dozen or so meetings on climate change denial illustrated two things. One, most of America’s top scientists have no idea how to communicate to the public. Many of the presentations dragged out the same data. Scientists approach the world through data, and they can’t understand why the public won’t finally reach a data-induced tipping point and collectively say “Ooooh, now we get it.”
Here’s a small example of how scientists fail to quash ill-informed, even loony, theories: In a meeting titled “Can Geoengineering Save Us from Global Warming?” a panel of scientists laid out the newest results in human-moderated climate solutions. Unbeknownst to them, it was crashed by activists from a conspiracy theory group that thinks the government is already secretly releasing experimental chemicals from behind jetliners. Afterward, the group peppered the panel with bizarre questions about sulfur cover-ups.
One baffled panelist just repeated the group’s website, suggesting people go there for answers. Another patiently tried to explain that what these people are seeing are vapor trails - tiny ice crystals that form outside a plane and, under the right conditions, can hang around all day.
This did not work. The group immediately podcasted about the government’s continued cover-up while scientists went to the next meeting to discuss how best to communicate to the public.
This has to stop. Scientists are not designed for policy, yet increasingly are being dragged into political fistfights and getting their glasses stolen and their noses bloodied. This has led to a common theme at the meeting with scientists insisting they need to become more like Rush Limbaugh and less like Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Yep. The rules of the “game” have changed, and suddenly scientists are being forced into roles they aren’t trained for and in many cases don’t like. It reminds me all those scenes in movies where some Average Joe or Jane, a bank teller or store clerk or just some random person on the street, is thrust into a terrifying situation and is quickly handed a big honkin’ gun by Joe Action Hero who says something like, “If that guy moves, shoot him. I’ll be right back.” The situation is very far from good, but it’s the best alternative we have.
I know that a lot of people make heartfelt arguments about how scientists “shouldn’t” be turned into “advocates” for any public policy, etc. Well, if they’re the ones who know best what’s going on and what the consequences are of inaction, in terms of sea level rise, ocean acidification, drought, etc., then we need them to step up. And those of us already in this fight who aren’t scientists need to support and help them as much as we can, so that the rest of us can understand the urgency of our situation and help create the world we need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
A couple of weeks ago I pointed readers to a document about the Great Lakes and the Energy Water Nexus (see The Great Lakes and the Energy-Water Nexus). Here’s some detail on a project to examine how the energy water nexus and the Great Lakes intersect.
New Commission energy and water initiatives to inform Compact implementation:
Ann Arbor, Mich. – In January 2010, the Commission launched two new initiatives that will engage regional and national talent to generate new information that can help the states collectively achieve the goals of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact and Agreement.
The Great Lakes Energy-Water Nexus initiative will advance integration of energy and water resource decision-making and inform next generation energy development and deployment that better reflects the impacts of power generation on the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Commission is partnering with the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories, Cornell University, and a host of other institutions and individuals who are leaders on the relationships between water and energy. “Many people don’t realize how much water is required to produce energy. This project will enable a better understanding of the connections between energy and water resources,” said Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, chairman of the Great Lakes Commission.
The first phase of this initiative is an 18-month project that aims to develop new tools and processes for integrating environmental considerations into existing energy planning and regulatory decision-making. This includes developing Great Lakes region-specific energy-water nexus maps, a modeling tool that can demonstrate water resource impact tradeoffs under different energy production scenarios, and a report on the region’s energy-water nexus that analyzes the relationships between energy and the Great Lakes environment and offers a new framework for analyzing power generation impacts on Great Lakes aquatic resources.
“I’m delighted to be part of the Great Lakes project team,” said Michael Webber, associate director, Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy, and prominent energy-water nexus expert. “It’s exciting to see the Great Lakes region, which has relatively abundant water supplies, proactively addressing this critical issue.”
A final objective of this phase is to design a follow-on pilot project that will test and refine the outputs from this planning phase. For more information, contact Victoria Pebbles, vpebbles@glc.org.
The Value of Great Lakes Water initiative will study the pricing of public water in the Great Lakes region and look at ways that pricing can be used as a tool to better manage this precious water resource. The first phase of this initiative engages regional and national experts on water conservation and efficiency. The project will try to answer questions such as: What is the importance of energy costs in a water bill? Does water use reflect the full costs of providing water, including ecological costs? Can water pricing incentivize water conservation in the region?
“Great Lakes states and provinces are eager for new information that can help them develop effective conservation policies and programs called for by the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact,” affirms Todd Ambs, Great Lakes Commission vice chair and Administrator for the Division of Water, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources. “This project will answer important questions that states and provinces are facing as they design their water conservation and efficiency programs required by the Compact and Agreement.”
The project will also help inform public water utilities that are looking to implement more sustainable practices in providing water. An end goal of the 18-month planning phase is design of a demonstration pilot where efficiency-oriented public water rate structures could be compared to more traditional rates structures to determine their potential for broader application in the region. For more information, contact Becky Pearson, bpearson@glc.org.
The Great Lakes Protection Fund—a private, nonprofit corporation formed in 1989 by the Governors of the Great Lakes States—is providing funding for the two initiatives. The Fund is a permanent environmental endowment that supports collaborative actions to improve the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. To date, the Fund has made 229 grants and related investments, investing over $57 million in projects to restore the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
You can also download the slides from the project’s kick off meeting here [PPT].
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
Honestly, there are times when I think satire is superfluous when talking about energy and enviro issues.
The latest case in point? Try the brain-bender, Steven Newton: Denying Science, Legislating Reality:
Last week, the South Dakota House of Representatives passed HCR 1009, a resolution calling for the “balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota.”
HCR 1009 is so egregiously inaccurate, so appalling wrong in its contemptuous dismissal of established science, so mind-numbing in its appeals to long-debunked pseudoscience, that it is hard not to entertain the thought that perhaps it was meant as an elaborate parody. However, HCR 1009 was not a jest, but rather a serious attempt to influence the science South Dakota students learn. It is the latest volley in a broader assault on science itself.
…
Instead of taking the time to understand the science, South Dakota legislators submit as proof against climate change this remarkable list: “[T]here are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological [sic], thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics…”
No, that isn’t a misprint. South Dakota legislators actually proposed astrology as evidence against climate change. Do they think glaciers melt slower when Virgo is ascending?
South Dakota legislators probably meant to say “astronomical,” but that also makes no sense. The astronomical influences on climate are well-understood by scientists. Recent climate changes are occurring independently of astronomical influences.
…
Even more disturbing than these errors is the underlying premise of HCR 1009: the assumption that political bodies, rather than scientists, should have the final say over scientific issues. We have recently seen this kind of thinking in Louisiana, where a 2008 law opened the door to non-scientific attacks on evolution and climate change. Last year, the Texas State Board of Education rewrote science standards to remove the age of the universe, mandate “different views” on global warming, and include standard creationist talking points against evolution.
Science cannot be legislated. Science is not determined by opinion polls and petitions. South Dakota can outlaw global warming if it wishes, but such decisions mean as much to science as arguments among ornithologists mean to birds.
This political interference in science education is a problem that extends beyond merely getting the facts wrong. Students deserve better than to be pawns of science denialists.
Since this does not appear to be a joke (as much as I would like to see it turn out to be just that), I can only conclude that the good people of South Dakota have decided to compete with the voters of Oklahoma (the ones who keep sending James Inhofe back to the US Senate) for the Truckload of Monkeys on PCP and Crack Award.
If you were expecting a serious piece of commentary from me on this one, sorry to disappoint you. This is so far over the freakin’ edge that all I have is outrage and snark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
You can’t make me be reasonable, that is. (Apply to all countries involved, after reading the following article.)
U.S., China at odds over climate talks in 2010:
The United States is at odds with China and other developing nations by favouring a Copenhagen climate accord as the blueprint in 2010 for a stronger deal to fight global warming, documents showed on Wednesday.
In a sign of hurdles ahead, developing nations are instead stressing U.N. texts worked out since 2007 to guide talks after the Copenhagen climate summit in December disappointed many nations by failing to agree a legally binding treaty.
A 5-page U.S. document outlining ideas for 2010 praises the non-binding Copenhagen Accord, the main outcome of the summit, as the basis for work due to culminate with a meeting of environment ministers in Cancun, Mexico, from Nov. 29-Dec. 10.
“We would welcome a further formalization of the Accord in Mexico,” according to the U.S. submission dated Feb. 22 and posted on the website of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat.
It says the accord led to “landmark outcomes that…provide the basis for an agreed outcome in Mexico”.
The Copenhagen Accord seeks to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) above pre-industrial times. It also promises aid for developing nations approaching $30 billion for 2010-12, rising to $100 billion a year from 2020.
Developing nations fear that the Accord could supplant a 1992 Climate Convention which, they say, stresses more clearly that rich nations must take the lead to avoid more floods, mudslides, sandstorms or rising ocean levels.
LEGITIMACY
A document from China says that existing U.N. texts are “the only legitimate basis for further negotiations.” Elements of the Copenhagen Accord could be considered and “where appropriate” be built into negotiating texts, it says.
Other major emerging nations including India make similar points. Saudi Arabia, which has often expressed fears that a shift to cleaner renewable energies will undermine its oil exports, is more blunt.
“Since the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ has not been formally adopted, it has no legal status…and thus can’t be used as basis or reference for further negotiations,” it said.
The U.N. texts are more vague than the Copenhagen Accord and lack firm targets after disputes focused on, for instance, the depth of cuts in developed nations’ greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. But developing nations reckon they are more balanced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
Fighting Global Warming - A Small Price for a Large Benefit:
FORECASTS involving climate change are highly uncertain, denialists assert — a point that climate researchers themselves readily concede. The denialists view the uncertainty as strengthening their case for inaction, yet a careful weighing of the relevant costs and benefits supports taking exactly the opposite course.
Organizers of the recent climate conference in Copenhagen sought, unsuccessfully, to forge agreements to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. But even an increase that small would cause deadly harm. And far greater damage is likely if we do nothing.
The numbers — and there are many to choose from — paint a grim picture. According to recent estimates from the Integrated Global Systems Model at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the median forecast is for a climb of 9 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end, in the absence of effective countermeasures.
That forecast, however, may underestimate the increase. According to the same M.I.T. model, there is a 10 percent chance that the average global temperature will rise more than 12.4 degrees by 2100, and a 3 percent chance it will climb more than 14.4 degrees. Warming on that scale would be truly catastrophic.
Scientists say that even the 3.6-degree increase would spell widespread loss of life, so it’s hardly alarmist to view the risk of inaction as frightening.
In contrast, the risk of taking action should frighten no one. Essentially, the risk is that if current estimates turn out to be wildly pessimistic, the money spent to curb greenhouse gases wouldn’t have been needed to save the planet. And yet that money would still have prevented substantial damage. (The M.I.T. model estimates a zero probability of the temperature rising by less than 3.6 degrees by 2100.)
One of the hardest things to get across to newcomers to climate change discussions is this notion that we’re dealing with probabilities and risk management, not absolute certainty. This is why James Hansen used his example of dice (and ow changing the colors of some faces would change the odds of certain colors coming on a series of rolls), and it’s also why I often resort to the less pleasant and gratuitously graphic imagery of Russian roulette. Another disturbing tactic is some version of, “If you were only 90% sure you child would get hit by a car, would you let him/her play in the street?” I have a hard time with that one, as it feels like a cheap stunt, although it does focus on the intergenerational aspect, which is a critical detail for some of us.
I’m certainly open to suggestions. If anyone here knows of a better way to communicate this particular concept to newcomers, let’s ear it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
I dare anyone here to read Jeff Masters’ piece on Weather Underground, The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole, and not be nearly knocked out of his or her chair by the similarities between that situation and climate chaos. In fact, I don’t just dare you, but I double-dog dare you.
On a more serous note, the biggest single difference between ozone depletion and climate chaos is that the economic incentives on the parts of some entities to keep pouring tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year are vastly larger than the incentives to keep using CFCs. Another major complicating factor is that we could phase out CFCs without consumers having to do anything or even be aware it was happening. CO2 emissions come from so many sources, both centralized but paid for by individual consumers (e.g. electricity generation) and decentralized (e.g. transportation), that it presents a radically different proposition.
Of course, the tactics employed by those trying to block action are hauntingly familiar…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
Glaciers: Changing at a Less Than Glacial Pace (emphasis added):
Glaciers are thought to change at, well, a glacial pace. Certainly that has been true throughout the planet’s history. The current ice age — known as the [Pliocene]-Quatenary glaciation, which began 2.6 million years ago — has witnessed some 20 cycles of glacial (freezing) and interglacial (thawing) periods, with ice sheets advancing and retreating completely on roughly 100,000-year time scales. But scientists are unsure exactly what prompts the shifts in cycles.
In glacial periods, vast ice sheets cover much of the planet, and sea levels are as much as 130 meters lower than they are today (all that extra water is locked up in ice). During interglacial periods — we are enjoying one now, East Coast blizzards notwithstanding — the ice sheets retreat, the glaciers melt and sea level rises. The expansive but quickly melting ice sheets of Greenland, the North Pole and Antarctica are all that is left of our last glacial period, which reached its peak about 20,000 years ago.
Now a new study published in the Feb. 12 issue of Science indicates that the balance of the world’s ice may be shifting faster than scientists thought, which may have consequences in a warming world. A team of scientists traveled to the Spanish island of Mallorca, where they visited a coastal cave that has been submerged off and on by the Mediterranean Sea for hundreds of thousand of years, as glacial periods have waxed and waned. They dated the layers of the mineral calcite, which were deposited by the seawater in rings on the cave walls, as on a bathtub.
…
But one of the biggest gaps in climate science is our understanding of how the major ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica will respond to warming temperatures. The science is so foggy that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which recently came under attack for hyping the impacts of global warming — has refrained from estimating how fast those ice sheets could melt and contribute to sea level rise. Dorale’s paper suggests the possibility that ice sheets may respond much more dynamically to changes in temperature, forming and melting at rates that are quicker than previously thought. “There might be a feedback with regards to ice melting,” says Dorale. “This is speculation, but it might point at some sort of catastrophic ice sheet dynamic.”
In other words, it could mean the world’s seas will rise even more quickly than we expect — bad news for those who think there’s plenty of time to adapt to a warmer world.
Just what we needed–yet another result that says the Earth system might be twitchier than we thought, and that we’re taking an even bigger chance by continuing to emit tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
One of the maddening and fascinating aspects of how we respond to climate change news involves issue like the one raised in the above article. Does this level of new uncertainty argue for doing less–”Golly, we don’t know diddly squat about how the big ol’ planet works! Best not to spend even a single penny until we’re Absolutely Sure And Not A Single Expert, Anywhere, In Any Field, Has Any Doubts!”–or should it be a more urgent call to action–”Yikes! We keep getting bad news that makes this situation even scarier! If we don’t mitigate and adapt and (gulp!) geoengineer our ass out of this fix in a hurry we’re toast!”?
I think it’s clear that the evidence is piling up and it’s getting ever harder to avoid reaching the second conclusion above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
[This post will almost surely trigger another wave of hate mail. It happens almost every time I say something that’s perceived as being negative about India or China. I would remind anyone so inclined–and you know who you are–that I’m not making any moral judgments by linking to, quoting, and discussing the NY Times article below. I’m talking purely about the “feeds and speeds” of future greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. So everyone, please take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard for a few moments, and think about the ramifications of the situation described below…]
India’s Roaring Economy Is Hitched to a Galloping Addiction to Coal (emphasis added):
While environmental groups in developed nations talk of a coming world based on solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy, India’s 8 percent economic growth rate is powered by coal. Its consumption is projected to increase by at least 400 percent by the year 2030, according to the government’s 2005 Integrated Energy Policy report.
This means that in the next 20 years, India will extract, transport, import and burn coal at record rates. It could emit between 4 billion and 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year and approach the United States’ current emission levels, according to the report.
“While others are worrying about global warming, India’s energy elite fret mainly about how to secure enough coal,” David Victor, a professor at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego, recently wrote in the Boston Review.
About 70 percent of India’s electricity comes from coal-burning plants, and that fraction is likely to grow, according to Victor. At the moment, India’s power supply is running about 12 percent behind demand, resulting in frequent blackouts. There is also a shortage of coking coal needed to feed the demands of cement and steel manufacturing.
And as for how India generates electricity, according to the IEA the historical data looks like this (click for the full-size version in a PDF file):
And yes, the purple wedge is coal/peat.
China and India scare me spitless for the following reasons:
This view I’m trying to promote, the idea that we should look at countries not as “developed” or “developing” but in terms of their potential for high future emissions, has almost no chance of being anything more than a blogosphere talking point. The major current and potential emitters will continue to act in their own self-interest, as defined in an extremely shortsighted way. This means the US won’t commit to the level of emissions reductions needed, and China and India will increase their emissions. This situation will get much messier before it sorts itself out. We’ll see finger pointing, heated and decidedly undiplomatic statements from diplomats, at least one major attempt to impost trade sanctions on countries reluctant to do what’s needed, and US domestic politics turning into a far larger and more grotesque circus. And all the while, the atmospheric level of CO2 will continue to rise, the oceans will grow more acidic, the impacts of global climate change will continue to pile up, and we’ll try to find a form of geoengineering that will miraculously save us from ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
The US House of Representatives, in the form of the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee, decided to look into that whole geoengineering thing:
Subcommittee Examines Geoengineering Strategies and Hazards:
Today, House Committee on Science and Technology’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the scientific basis and engineering challenges of geoengineering, a term that encompasses a wide range of strategies to deliberately alter the Earth’s climate systems for the purpose of counteracting the effects of climate change.
“Make no mistake, despite the sometimes far-fetched proposals, this is not a subject that should be taken lightly,” said Chairman Brian Baird (D-WA). “As Chairman Gordon has also made clear: geoengineering has been proposed as—and it can only be responsibly discussed as—a last-ditch measure in the case that traditional carbon mitigation efforts prove ineffective on their own. Even then, a tremendous amount of research is required to know what strategies may be worth deploying.”
Members questioned witnesses about the science, engineering needs, environmental impacts, price, efficacy, and permanence of select geoengineering proposals.
…
This hearing is the second of a three-part series on geoengineering in the Committee on Science and Technology. The series is intended to create the foundation for an informed and open dialogue on the science and engineering of geoengineering. The Full Committee held the first hearing on November 5, 2009, entitled Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention. The third hearing is planned forspring of 2010 and will cover issues of governance.
The series of hearings is part of a partnership with the United Kingdom House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. The two Committees are holding parallel hearings and sharing materials once they are publically available. The Commons Committee’s hearings and requests for information focus on the domestic and international regulatory frameworks that may be applicable to geoengineering.
See that link for a bit more detail on the hearings.
The witness statements from the November 9, 2009 hearing:
The witness statements from the February 4, 2010 hearing:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
As most people who read this site are likely aware, we’ve now heard from the various countries about what they will pledge to do as part of the Copenhagen deal. It ain’t pretty.
Copenhagen Deadline Comes And Goes. Now What? (emphasis added):
January 31 was the deadline under the Copenhagen accord for the world’s countries to formally submit their plans to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and help address climate change. So what happened? Well, the deadline came and went, and the vast majority of nations (more than 130) didn’t submit anything at all. On the upside, though, the handful of countries that actually pump out most of the world’s carbon-dioxide did submit plans. Here were the major pledges for cutting emissions:
[depressing country-level detail]
These are all tangible steps, but still minor ones. Add up the promises, and it’s not enough to avert serious warming: Ecofys, a consulting firm, estimates that if all those countries actually met to their targets, global temperatures would be on course to rise 3.5°C (6.3°F) above pre-industrial levels. The agreed-upon goal, recall, was 2°C. What’s more, even these goals aren’t guaranteed: The U.S. pledge, for instance, would depend on Congress passing legislation that looks like the House climate/energy bill, and the prospects in the Senate are growing dim.
The countries involved have given themselves permission to opt out of the process, but they’re still making pledges that sound impressive to those not familiar with the depth and breadth of the problem. Why do I think the universe won’t be fooled by this clever demonstration of political sleight of hand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
China Insists That Its Steps on Climate Be Voluntary:
As a Sunday target date approaches for countries to submit to the United Nations their plans for fighting climate change, China is banding together with other major developing nations to stress that only the wealthier countries need to make internationally binding commitments.
So while China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, might put down in writing its targets for slowing the growth of emissions, it will make clear that those efforts are voluntary steps it plans to take domestically that should not imply a binding international commitment.
The distinction reflects China’s strong desire to cast climate change policy as a sovereignty issue in the aftermath of rancorous negotiations last month at the environmental summit meeting in Copenhagen. It says developed nations, which emitted carbon dioxide without restriction over many decades of industrialization, cannot force developing countries to submit to international policies or regulations.
China is standing by targets it announced before Copenhagen, but previous climate change treaties say targets of developing countries are not internationally binding, said Pan Jiahua, an economics professor who advises the Chinese negotiating team. “On this China will stand firm.”
This position could draw further criticisms from Western politicians who already blame China for weakening the final accord at Copenhagen. In the United States Congress, the chances that lawmakers will pass climate legislation this year are slim, in part because some lawmakers say China and India, where carbon emissions are rising the fastest, are giving much higher priority to maintaining economic growth than to fighting climate change.
So, China is sticking to their absurd “intensity reduction” pledge, and it can’t be binding. India is also going the intensity route[1], but I’m not sure where they stand on the binding nature of any pledges. And the US is pledging a pathetic, inadequate reduction (17% from 2005, or 4% from 1990), with no guarantee that it will get within three time zones of becoming law and actually happening.
Somebody remind me again why we’re supposed to be optimistic.
Someone.
Anyone.
Hello?
Is this thing on…?
You can track who’s promising what via the U.S. Climate Action Network’s page Who’s On Board With The Copenhagen Accord?
[1] Just to be clear: I think it will take a very surprising turn of events for either China or India to realize a net reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
FACTBOX - Big emitters signal support for Copenhagen Accord:
Countries accounting for at least two-thirds of the world’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions have signalled their support for the low-ambition “Copenhagen Accord” on combating climate change.
Governments are meant to tell the United Nations by Jan. 31 if they want to be associated with the accord, worked out last month, and submit their plans for curbing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The deadline is flexible.
See the article for the details of who’s promising what, or consult the handy dandy chart below:
Who’s On Board With The Copenhagen Accord?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
Uncertain future for US climate law after Copenhagen:
The future of a US climate law is hanging in the balance in Congress as lawmakers gear up for crucial midterm elections amid a persistent economic slump, experts say.
Further reducing the impetus, UN climate talks in Copenhagen ended last month with a non-binding agreement to limit warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (two Celsius) that did not set binding targets to reduce the emissions of gases scientists say are heating up the world’s atmosphere to dangerous levels.
Among the thorniest problems facing a possible US law is striking an agreement on creating a “cap-and-trade” market for greenhouse gases that would force heavy polluters to buy credits from companies that pollute less, creating financial incentives to fight global warming.
…
Finger-pointing and sharp recriminations followed the United Nations summit’s final agreement, which has been widely panned for failing to oblige countries to carry out concrete greenhouse gas emissions cuts.
Todd Stern, the US climate envoy, told investors in New York Thursday it was “tremendously important” for the Senate to act on some form of climate legislation.
The US House of Representatives has already passed legislation on renewable energy and curbing greenhouse gases, but the Senate has yet to take up its own version of the bill.
At the UN climate talks, Obama proposed to reduce US emission by 17 percent by 2020 off 2005 levels, an offer that hinges on congressional approval.
…
Many Republicans in Congress remain deeply skeptical about adopting a market-based mechanism to cut carbon emissions, fearing it may hit the competitiveness of US firms and products on global markets, particularly while China and India refuse to make concessions in tandem.
US Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue urged lawmakers Tuesday to reconsider climate regulations he warned could raise costs and hamper recovery from the worst economic recession in decades.
“Congress, the administration and the states must recognize that our weak economy simply could not sustain all the new taxes, regulations and mandates now under consideration. It’s a sure recipe for a double-dip recession, or worse,” he said.
…
Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman are proposing to increase the use of nuclear energy, offshore oil and gas exploration, as well as step up energy efficiency and new techologies to reduce costs and possibly skirt a cap-and-trade system.
But that proposal likely will not sit well with many Democrats who champion the emissions market plan.
“We would all prefer a really good economy-wide cap-and-trade system. It’s the best, the most efficient,” said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Strategies for the Global Environment.
“But if we cannot get it, I don’t want to end up with nothing. I want to end up with something that really starts to address this problem.”
Aside from calling this train wreck a train wreck, I’ve got nothin’ to say here.
Oh, I was wrong, I do have something to add. As far as I know, Donohue still has financial ties to the railroad industry, which is poised to be one of the big losers in a US turn away from coal, thanks to the large portion of its business that comes from hauling massive amounts of it around the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
Radical sea defence rethink urged:
Rising sea levels and more storms could mean that parts of at-risk cities will need to be surrendered to protect homes and businesses, a report warns.
The authors say that “radical thinking” is needed to develop sea defences that can cope with the future threats.
About 10 million people in England and Wales live in flood risk areas.
The project, launched on Friday, is a joint venture between the Institution of Civil Engineers (Ice) and the Royal Institute of British Architects (Riba).
The report, Facing up to Rising Sea Levels, urges the government, planning authorities and the public, to act sooner rather than later.
“If we act now, we can adapt in such a way that will prevent mass disruption and allow coastal communities to continue to prosper,” said Riba president Ruth Reed.
“But the key word is ‘now’,” she added.
The study warns that rising sea levels, an increase in the frequency of storms and sinking landmasses could leave many UK coastal areas vulnerable to extreme flooding.
Facing the future
The project focuses on Kingston-upon-Hull and Portsmouth, two cities deemed among the most at-risk areas in the UK, and presents a series of six scenarios set up to 90 years in the future.
The scenarios are based on three themes:
• Retreat - moving “critical infrastructure” and housing to safer ground, allowing the water into parts of the city
• Defend - building city-wide sea defences to ensure water does not enter the existing urban area
• Attack - extending the existing coastline and building out on to the water (using stilts, floating structures and/or land reclamation)
When people like me keep screaming about the high cost of doing not enough mitigation now, this is a perfect example of what we’re referring to. Expand this kind of effort to all the coastal cities around the world and do your own cost estimate (plus the disruption to human lives), and then tell me how that’s better than taking focused, aggressive mitigation steps.
You can grab the report here [4MB PDF].
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
Longtime readers will vaguely remember The Inhofe Scale, which I invented as a way to measure statements that exhibit a willful detachment from reality. Senator Inhofe, he of the infamous “global warming is the greatest hoax” line, is as it again (which explains my busting out Psycho Clown), and his latest pronouncement is yet more proof that the people of Oklahoma (the state he represents in the US Senate) and all Americans are not well served by this man.
His latest gem is detailed in Talking Points Memo, Inhofe: I Am The Planet’s #1 Worst Enemy:
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) just can’t get any respect. Nearly a month ago, he went to the climate change conference in Copenhagen to explain that global warming was a “hoax” conceived by the United Nations and spread by the “Hollywood elite.” But the European press would have none of it. A German reporter even told the the cowboy boot-wearing senator that he was “ridiculous.” Inhofe suffered his latest indignity at the hands of Rolling Stone, which awarded him the 7th spot on its list of the “planet’s worst enemies.”
Inhofe took this as a slight. “I should have been number one,” he told KFAQ radio in Tulsa, “I guess [Warren] Buffet has a lot more money so he went first.”
Inhofe also aired his grievances in an interview with the Tulsa World. “My first response was I should have been number 1, not number 7,” he said. “I am serious about that. I have spent now literally years on this thing, and it has been a long, involved thing.'’
I keep trying to find a rationale for not concluding that Senator Inhofe is the climate equivalent of a vandal who gets his jollies from busting car windows and knocking over peoples’ mailboxes with his pickup truck, and then justifies it with some nonsensical socio-economic argument. Oh, here’s a good reason not to say that–it wouldn’t be fair to the vandals.
See also:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now on Twitter • Visit the quick graphs page
