Tag Archives: climate change
Obvious answers for obvious questions at Copenhagen.
The obvious questions provoke the obvious answers. From my reading of the literature over the last month, and from everything I have learned at Copenhagen, there can be no doubt that the scientific consensus on climate change is consistent and overwhelming. So it leaves us with a quandary. All of these researchers, across a half dozen academic disciplines, are either right or they are terribly wrong. If wrong it calls into question our entire cult of modernity which in good measure is based on our faith and confidence in the scientific method and the brilliance of the technologies it has spawned. If however the scientists are right, as I believe them to be, then it begs an obvious question. If, as they suggest, the entire fate of the world hangs in the balance, if a rise in sea levels promises to inundate much of the Nile Delta, if by 2030 nearly half of the world’s population will live without certain access to water, if the glaciers of the Andes and the Tibetan plateau, source of life for much of Asia, will be largely be gone, then why has not our response been in any way commensurate with the severity of the crisis? Why have we not responded with even a modicum of the intensity of devotion and sacrifice that we have brought to other moments of national and international crisis? Why have we not fully mobilized, declared the equivalent of war, with the potential consequences of global warming fully in mind? According to the Chair of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, who spoke last evening at the conference and dinner I attended at Kornborg Castle, the climate crisis could be fully mitigated and the world’s economy transformed with an investment equivalent to some 3% of global GNP. During World War 2, the United States devoted 38% GDP to military victory. Nobody complained. I don’t understand this disconnect and over the next couple of days I hope to find some answers.
About Wade Davis
Wade Davis holds degrees in anthropology and biology, and received his Ph.D. in ethnobotany, from Harvard University. He spent over three years in the Amazon and Andes as a plant explorer, and later went to Haiti to investigate folk preparations implicated in the creation of zombies. The Haiti assignment led to his writing The Serpent and the Rainbow (Simon and Schuster, 1986), an international bestseller that was later released as a feature motion picture. He has published more than 90 scientific and popular articles on subjects ranging from Haitian vodoun and Amazonian myth and religion to the global biodiversity crisis, the traditional use of psychotropic drugs, and the ethnobotany of South American Indians. Among his other books are Nomads of the Dawn (Pomegranate Press, 1995), Passage of Darkness (University of North Carolina Press, 1988) and One River (Simon and Schuster, 1996).
We have the data on climate change–but can it spur action?
In a dramatic break with recent policy, the Environmental Protection Agency has just formally announced plans to regulate climate changing pollution under the Clean Air Act, declaring clear evidence that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.” President Obama has pledged to attend the second week of the COP15 climate change talks in Copenhagen; which is widely viewed as a positive indication of an international agreement to take significant steps in curbing greenhouse gasses.
The EPA has indicated a willingness to let Congress take the reins, but with Congressional Republicans and business interests having already said they will fight any new legislation, this latest ruling from the EPA illustrates the federal government’s intention to take the steps necessary to move forward. In The Climate Solutions Consensus, David Blockstein and Leo Weigman present an agenda for the United States. It incorporates specific recommendations by the nation’s leading scientists, offering solutions that don’t need to wait for new laws. From changing our eating and consumption habits to land use and education, the book addresses controversial topics head-on and provides a clear-cut path to reversing the driving factors behind climate change.
Some industries are getting ahead of the game. People on the front lines of the energy revolution are ready to create the world’s most powerful solar energy systems and most sophisticated hybrid cars to save the planet. Apollo’s Fire: Igniting America’s Clean Energy Economy, written by Representative Jay Inslee and Bracken Hendricks, not only introduces the pioneers behind these innovations but it also presents a pathway towards energy independence and a cleaner future.
A clean energy future doesn’t have to break the bank. Climate 2030, published by The Union of Concerned Scientists, shows that meeting strict emissions cap regulations is not only feasible, it can be done cost-effectively. Within a timeframe of 2030, the book’s authors visualize a set of smart environmental policies that save consumers and businesses money on their energy bills, while also keeping the economy moving forward.
These are important first steps, and ones that Island Press authors have been advocating for decades. We urge you to learn more about the climate change debate and follow our updates on the COP15 conference.
This post was originally sent to our email subscribers. Sign up for the next one!
The zero-sum game.
Terry Tamminen has a new post on Fast Company’s blog about the carbon taxes and cap and trade:
Climate negotiators favor a system where either a carbon tax or cap-and-trade market system would have businesses and consumers pay the full cost of energy, technology, and consumption of scarce natural resources. Some states in the northeast have already added that cost to electricity and have earned billions of dollars that they can now use to pay for the externalities, like higher costs for health care or crumbling coastal barriers. If the world moves to this more candid accounting, what else will cost more–or less–in such a zero sum game?
Read it all here.
EPA “fighting to make up for lost time.”
Over on Post Carbon, Juliet Eilperin notes the EPA’s changing stance on greenhouse gases:
Making a pitch to an international community that has demanded bolder action from Washington on climate change, [Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa] Jackson detailed a list of measures ranging from stricter fuel economy standards to the promotion of renewable offshore energy projects.
But Jackson’s biggest applause line came when we said she was “proud” of the EPA’s declaration Monday that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. “That is a decision that has been a long time coming,” she said to a packed crowd in the U.S. Pavillion.
Jackson said that in light of the scientific finding, the EPA is obligated “to take reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act.”
Read more about Jackson’s speech here.
Fact-checking Sarah Palin’s newest op-ed.
Marc Ambinder has a point-by-point rebuttal of Sarah Palin’s latest column in the Washington Post:
Remember, the “revelation” was born from an potentially illegal e-mail hack. “So-called” — untrue. These are experts. Their science has been validated, independently. Their “actions” here consist of insulting climate change skeptics, immature name-calling, and, at worst, devising a strategy to keep the climate change deniers out of debates and peer-reviewed journals. The “concerns” that Palin speaks of are the result of years of accumulated science denialism that now, conveniently, has been seemingly “validated” by the fog of a grand conspiracy, suddenly revealed.
Read the rest here.
Is two degrees too much?
Today on Post Carbon, Juliet Eilperin writes:
Back in the mid-1990s, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected this would give the world a decent shot at avoiding dangerous climate impacts.
Most leaders have signed off on this goal, including members of the G-20. However some scientists, environmentalists and leaders from vulnerable island nations–including the IPCC’s chair, Rajendra K. Pachauri–now say it’s too modest. Any new climate deal should identify 1.5 degrees Celsius–or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit–as the upper limit of a global temperature increase, according to this camp. There’s even a billboard on Copenhagen’s streets featuring a polar bear and the slogan, “2 Degrees is Too Much.”
Unfortunately, she also points out that there’s very little chance we’ll hit that goal:
We’re headed for an increase of 3.8 degrees Celsius, or 6.8 degrees Fahrenheit, if every nation fulfilled its current climate pledge.
The carbon calendar.
Tens of thousands of modern-day crusaders, charlatans, Nobel laureates, CEOs, quick-buck artists, earnest politicians, and assorted movie extras of every conceivable socio-political-ethnic-economic background will descend on Copenhagen for the next three weeks to participate in an orgy of carbon-bashing and flag-waving. The goal will be to agree on a blueprint – - not quite the precise Earth owner’s manual that some had hoped for, but at least a quick-start guide – - for reducing greenhouse gas emissions fast enough so that the world avoids the most expensive and unpredictable consequences of climate change.
As the Danes clean up the mess when the party’s over on December 18th, the question becomes “what does this all mean on December 19th and beyond?” Starting on that day, as the heavy lifting begins for global negotiators who will be filling in the details of that blueprint, we will be inundated with advice, predictions, and hand-wringing on all sides. Here’s a clip-and-save cheat sheet, suitable for framing or taping to your refrigerator, that will save you time – - and money – - as you try to crack the “Carbon Code” for yourself, your business, and your investments:
- December 2009: Conference of the Parties #15 (“COP15”) in Copenhagen. “Parties” to the deals struck so far by the United Nations’ climate club will meet to create a political framework that punts the details of how to reduce carbon (and how fast) to negotiators who will hammer this out over the next 12 months. President Obama will speak to the party of Parties December 9th.
- January 2010: President Obama and Congress will begin serious work on a Senate version of the House bill (HR 2454) already passed (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454).
- January 2010: At least 10,000 US facilities must begin measuring carbon emissions under new USEPA rules (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghg_faq.html)
- January 2010: California starts “early action” regulations/incentives to pick the low-hanging carbon fruit and get some quick reductions. Other states and the feds will follow this, so pay attention even if you’re not in the Golden State (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/ccea.htm)
- April 2010: Earth Day signing of a US climate bill. The bill will set modest targets for reducing carbon and will authorize the creation of a nationwide carbon cap-and-trade market. To get the votes, the bill will be full of pork for nuclear, “clean coal”, renewables, and more farm biofuel subsidies. Most significantly, the bill will allow states, like California, to set more stringent limits and use both regulation and carbon markets to accomplish their goals.
- June 2010: Dozens of states that have developed “climate action plans” begin to impose limits on carbon through energy efficiency measures, renewable energy mandates, and participation in a regional cap-and-trade program. Although each measure and each state’s program will roll out on various timelines, you should know what’s happening in states where you do business by this time. Keep track of it all in real time at: http://www.seventhgenerationadvisors.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20&Itemid=19
- Fall 2010: Expect Walmart to announce its requirements for sustainability labels on products, including carbon footprints. If you are part of the Walmart supply chain – - and what company is not? – - hire staff or a consultant to start measuring, whether or not you are required to do so by USEPA, Chinese authorities, or anyone else.
- December 2010: COP 16 in Mexico City. World leaders adopt the deal that will replace the Kyoto Protocol. All this means is that the UN is organizing each nation’s response to climate change under one roof, but the regulations and low-carbon economic opportunities that matter will still be found in your own backyard.
- January 2011: California adopts final rules and regulations for its cap-and-trade system (working with a dozen other western states and Canadian provinces) for launch in 2012.
- March 2011: US facilities must report 2010 carbon emissions to USEPA (and annually thereafter).
- 2012: Walmart has a carbon footprint label on every product it sells; myriad carbon-busting rules go into effect in states; regional carbon cap-and-trade markets expand in the US. Carbon now has a price globally.
These are just a few of the key dates to add to your carbon calendar, but if you pay attention to these milestones, everything else that comes from government or commerce will make sense. And if you happen to be in Denmark in December, don’t be surprised when the bar conversation turns from “what’s your sign?” to “what’s your carbon footprint?”
About Terry Tamminen
From his youth in Australia to career experiences in Europe, Africa and the United States, Terry Tamminen has expertise in business, farming, education, non-profit, the environment, the arts, and government. Tamminen is a U.S. Coast Guard-licensed ship captain, has run a real estate company, a recreational services business, a tropical fish breeding business, a sheep ranch, and assisted Nigeria with the creation of their first solid waste recycling program. An accomplished author, Tamminen’s latest book, Lives Per Gallon: The True Cost of Our Oil Addiction, is a timely examination of our dependence on oil and a strategy to evolve to more sustainable energy sources. Tamminen helped to found and lead the Santa Monica Baykeeper, the Environment Now Foundation, and the Frank G. Wells Environmental Law Clinic at the University of California Los Angeles. In 2007, he was named the Cullman Senior Fellow and Director of the Climate Policy Program of the New America Foundation, and an Operating Advisor to Pegasus Capital Advisors. Tamminen was appointed as the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Chief Policy Advisor to the Governor. He continues to advise the Governor on energy and environmental policy. He currently travels throughout the world, lecturing and providing private consulting services to clients, including several Governors and Canadian Premiers on climate and energy policy.
Jay Inslee on Grist.org
This story about the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, and a presidential gym rat may sound like the set up of a pedestrian joke, but it represents a troika of forces that are on the cusp of the greatest industrial revolution yet. The Dalai Lama represents the morality of the necessity of change, the physicist represents the economic and scientific necessity of change, and the presidential gym rat represents the political possibility of a clean energy revolution. Together those three men I met last week are the embodiment of hope.
Read the full article at Grist.
Are Your Kids Destroying the Earth?
Many families who dutifully recycle, take mass transit, and have a house full of compact fluorescent light bulbs, would say they’re doing their part to save the earth. However, a new study from the London School of Economics suggests that in developed countries, making the decision to have children dramatically increases your negative impact on the environment. The study shows that, on average, each baby born in the United States adds 1,644 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during their lifetime, and argues that smaller family sizes are crucial to reducing carbon emissions. “There is no possibility of drastically reducing total carbon emissions, while at the same time paying no attention whatever to the drastic increase in the number of carbon emitters,” said Roger Martin, chairman of the nonprofit Optimum Population Trust.
Although this argument may be shocking, smaller family sizes are nothing new. Noting the worldwide trend towards smaller families in More, Robert Engelman points out that instead of having more children, mothers want more opportunities for their children. He argues that this trend would lead to less hunger and illness, and would benefit the environment as a result–but it hinges upon society’s willingness to give women the freedom to make their own decisions about reproduction. Noted scientist and author Paul Ehrlich agrees. He has been advocating for women’s reproductive rights and a smaller population since the publication of his book The Population Bomb. In his newest book The Dominant Animal, he makes the case that now, more than ever, our decisions about family size will have far-reaching impacts on our culture and our environment. The authors of the upcoming book A Pivotal Moment make a similar point, arguing that to build a sustainable future, both men and women need access to voluntary family planning, education, and employment; and, just as importantly, the need to address the deep inequalities that come with rapid population growth and unsustainable resource consumption.
The issue of what to do about population growth has been and will be debated for decades, but scientists agree there is no question about its impact on climate change. Population is an integral part of the discussion on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. With global warming becoming a more pressing concern every day, we can’t afford not to discuss it.
This post was originally sent to our email subscribers. Sign up for the next one!
Hurricanes and sea level rise threaten us all.
Although the summer’s first tropical storm to make U.S. landfall, Claudette, avoided doing significant damage, we’re now in the midst of hurricane season. As Hurricane Bill looms in the Atlantic, a National Hurricane Center spokesperson warns that thanks in part to warm ocean water, Bill is “in a very good environment to continue to strengthen.” However, despite the large number of people who live in the paths of coastal storms and the threat climate change and its impacts on weather and oceans present, governments still treat each tempest as an individual crisis rather than incorporating them into an ongoing disaster response strategy.
As Timothy Beatley notes in Planning for Coastal Resilience, this case-by-case basis method has failed us time and time again. He argues that in the face of climate change, causing increased intensity and frequency of storms and sea level rise, coastal planning must go beyond reactive strategies. We must initiate a concept of resilience-the ability to withstand or quickly recover from a natural or human-induced disaster by building smaller, decentralized networks for energy, water, and transportation. His book pushes for anticipating future disasters and planning accordingly, instead of waiting for the next $80 billion storm surge.
Threats from climate change go far beyond more intense storms, they also include an anticipated rise in sea level by as much as seven feet as projected in a 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change study. From London to South Australia to Alaska and South Carolina, governments are beginning to realize the impact these rising sea levels will have on communities and infrastructures. In The Rising Sea, Orrin Pilkey and Rob Young assert rising sea levels are inevitable, and many coastal cities will have to adapt quickly. With over half the U.S. population living in coastal regions, and entire islands and nations facing the prospect of slipping under the sea, there is much work to do, and there are many difficult choices to make, but there is hope–if we act quickly.
This post was originally sent to our email subscribers. Sign up for the next one!
