Recently in the Climate Change Category
Mar 19 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
Climate change critics are gaining momentum in the press and recently released Gallup polling results show the public is becoming more skeptical of man-made global warming. But the scientific consensus on the credibility and danger of the issue remains steadfast. Volumes of evidence compiled by America’s leading research agencies – including NOAA, NASA, the Pentagon and the National Science Foundation – asserts global warming over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. Their research claims “the warming of the climate is unequivocal.”
Australian researchers claim science proves man-made global warming is changing an animal’s life-cycle. A recent University of Melbourne study found that because of a rise in temperature attributed to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions by humans, the common brown butterfly now emerges from its cocoon 10 days earlier than it did 65 years ago. Scientists have previously observed that biological events are happening progressively earlier in spring over the past few decades but this study is the first time the actions man can be scientifically linked as a contributing cause.
The buzz of the neon lights may hum a little softer next weekend as Las Vegas joins many other cities around the globe in preparing for the event dubbed “Earth Hour.” The event's organizers say the goal is for “hundreds of millions of people” to turn off the lights for one hour – at the same time – to call for action on climate change. This year will mark the third consecutive campaign and events are set to take place in succession at 8:30 p.m. local time all over the world. As for the energy saved by turning off the lights of the Vegas strip, the local utility NV Energy, claims last year’s event saved 65 megawatts, roughly as much as the yearly energy consumption of 10 average homes in the PG&E service territory.
Mar 12 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
Global warming may be having an adverse effect of hundreds of species of migratory birds in the United States. In the latest version of the annual State of the Birds report, the Interior Department claims that climate change is one of many environmental factors threatening bird populations by destructing natural avian habitats and lessening the availability of wetlands. The report asserts that coastal birds are the most directly threatened due to rising sea levels and rapidly changing marine environments.
Debate over the economic effects of California's first-in-the-nation global warming law flared this week, as a report was released claiming the law potentially will contribute to short-term job losses. Meantime, Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency claims there is a “misconception” in regards to the relationship between economic recovery and protecting the environment – with some people feeling the need to choose one or the other. “This is about rising to meet our most urgent environmental and economic challenges - not shrinking from them with the excuse that it’s just too hard,” Jackson said.
Lower levels of oxygen are being reported in the oceans and scientists are linking the findings to global warming. They warn that the oceans' complex undersea ecosystems and fragile food chains could be disrupted. In some areas in the Pacific Northwest, the almost complete absence of oxygen has left piles of Dungeness crab carcasses littering the ocean floor and killed off 25-year-old sea stars. In other spots, such as off the Southern California coast, oxygen levels have dropped roughly 20 percent over the past 25 years. Researchers recognize that areas of low oxygen have long existed in the deep ocean but say the depletion of oxygen recently reported is “striking.”
Mar 09 2010
Americans spent more than $1.2 trillion dollars on insurance premiums in 2008, or about $4,000 for every man, woman and child. Evidently, they understood that it pays to hedge your bets against small but real chances of catastrophic losses.
But when it comes to climate change, deniers cite scientific uncertainty as an excuse to do nothing. They say we can’t be certain that global warming will cause rising oceans to drown coastal communities, droughts to wither crops, new diseases to cause epidemics and fires to consume our forests—so why bother to act?
They have it exactly backwards.
Although climate scientists concede they can't say for sure how bad things will get if humanity keeps emitting greenhouses gases into the atmosphere, that's not cause for comfort. On the contrary, their uncertainty means life could easily become a lot worse for homo sapiens and other species than we’ve been led to believe.
As Harvard's Martin Weitzman noted in a recent paper, "We seem headed for a unique planetary experiment of subjecting the Earth's system to an unprecedented shock by geologically instantaneously jolting atmospheric stocks of (greenhouse gases) far above their highest level over the last several million years. We simply do not know what will happen under such extreme circumstances."
No less an authority than Dr. Robert Watson, chair of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from 1997 to 2002, recently conceded that the IPCC’s last major report in 2007, which sounded a strong alarm over global warming, was in many cases too conservative, leading him to warn that the world could face "unthinkable impacts."
For example, the IPCC's projections of sea level rise did not take into account the melting of Greeland’s ice sheet, which is taking place much faster than previously believed. This December, scientists writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences forecast an increase in global sea levels of five feet by 2100 if greenhouse emissions are not strongly curbed, a finding supported by many other recent studies.
"The ramifications of a major sea level rise are massive," write ocean scientists Rob Young at Western Carolina University and Orrin Pilkey at Duke University:
Agriculture will be disrupted, water supplies will be salinized, storms and flood waters will reach ever further inland, and millions of environmental refugees will be created. . . .
What terrifies these and other scientists is the possibility that ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica will melt much faster even than current models predict. Indeed, the last time CO2 levels were as high in the Earth's atmosphere, about 15 million years ago, seas were 75 to 120 feet higher.
Ice cap melting is just one of nine potential "tipping elements" that scientists say could lead to abrupt and disastrous shifts in climate. Others include massive die-off of the Amazon rainforest, disruption of the monsoon system, and wholesale changes in Atlantic and Pacific ocean currents.
One of the biggest longterm "tipping" risks is that global warming will unlock vast amounts of carbon and methane currently frozen in Arctic permafrost. Methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide, could accelerate the warming process with dire consequences. British and German researchers reported last August evidence that warming Arctic waters were melting methane hydrates stored in seabed sediments. High rates of Arctic methane seepage were reported this January by a researcher at the University of Alaska, and confirmed in a new paper published in the journal Science.
(If you want to get really masochistic, check out the 2003 paper in Geology, "Methane-Driven Oceanic Eruptions and Mass Extinctions," which makes the case that the worst mass extinction of all time, some 251 million years ago, was caused by an explosive upwelling of methane from the ocean, which may have unleashed 10,000 times as much energy as the world's entire stockpile of nuclear weapons.)
If the worst of these climate feedback loops prove real, average temperatures over the United States could jump an unimaginable 15°F to 18°F in 50 years, according to recent projections by the prestigious Met Office Hadley Centre in the UK. And a study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last year suggests that the catastrophic consequences would be "largely irreversible for 1,000 years."
So the question isn't whether we should buy insurance against climate change, or even whether we can afford to pay a little more for energy in order to phase out fossil fuels. The real question is, what are we waiting for?
Mar 05 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
Climate scientists have long declared that global warming could potentially release methane previously frozen in to the Arctic permafrost, setting off significant increases in warming trends. Now researchers at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and elsewhere say this change is underway in a little-studied area under the sea, the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, west of the Bering Strait. Scientists contend that while carbon dioxide is far more abundant and persistent in the atmosphere, ton for ton, atmospheric methane traps at least 25 times as much heat.
Nearly 570 concerned scientists have signed a letter urging Congress to “oppose an imminent attack on the Clean Air Act.” The scientists' plea comes as several coalitions of lawmakers attempt to overturn the endangerment finding using the Congressional Review Act, which establishes special procedures for disapproving regulations from federal agencies. The lawmakers claim the “Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate something like carbon dioxide.”
Is your cup of Joe on the outs? Coffee producers are creating a buzz with claims that global warming is adding risk to the long term sustainability of the industry. Many growers at the World Coffee Conference held in Guatemala this week predicted that if temperatures continue to rise, supplies of the world famous bean will decline. They contend higher temperatures are forcing their industry peers to seek higher, more costly land, driving costs up from the farm to your cup.
Feb 26 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
PG&E Corporation Chairman, CEO and President Peter Darbee and Carnegie Institution climate change expert Christopher Field released a short whitepaper for business leaders and policy makers on the scientific and economic issues central to the current conversation on global climate change and the need for a response by government and business. “My hope is that it serves to inform and engage more leaders in this issue and, ultimately, helps drive the adoption of smart climate and energy policies for our country,” said Darbee.
Want to see scientific evidence supporting global warming? There’s an app for that. Australian solar physicist John Cook of Skeptical Science has created an iPhone app that includes numerous climate skeptic arguments as well as the science-based counterarguments. So far, there are 90 climate skeptic arguments included and, of course, the scientific responses to those. You can see graphs and links to scientific papers or other sources in there as well. Cook calls the app “imperative” to the climate debate and “pretty cool.”
The non-partisan United States Geological Survey recently reported that the ice shelves on the southern Antarctic Peninsula have been retreating at an increased pace threatening coastal communities and low-lying islands worldwide. Scientists claim the pattern could lead to further accelerated glacier retreat on the continent and ultimately, sea level rise. Scientific data shows every ice front in this section of the peninsula has been retreating from 1947 to 2009, but the most dramatic changes have come since 1990.
Feb 19 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
The man responsible for leading worldwide global warming negotiations is leaving his post. The United Nations announced that Yvo de Boer, often called the United Nations Climate Chief, will step aside as of July 1, 2010. Recently, de Boer expressed discontent as to the outcome of the Copenhagen conference. Those who worked alongside de Boer claim they were not surprised by his decision to resign, saying he was “exhausted and frustrated.”
While you may not want it building up on your windowsill, new research claims dust could protect us from the harmful effects of global warming. That theory is being discussed at the annual scientific meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, taking place this year in San Diego, California. Scientists presenting at the conference assert that dust may limit the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) is pushing for a bill that he claims some lawmakers may accept as an alternative to renewable energy mandates. He calls it a broader clean energy standard that would require utilities to supply increasing amounts of power from specific sources, including wind, solar, biomass, clean coal and new nuclear generation. The big energy and climate bill the House approved last year includes a renewable electricity standard, and so does broad energy legislation the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved last June.
Feb 18 2010
Anyone who still thinks all utilities are slow and stodgy should pick up a copy of the March issue of Fast Company, a magazine that chronicles the strategies and successes of cutting-edge businesses. On its annual list of the 50 Most Innovative Companies--at no. 7--is Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Among companies in the energy industry, PG&E ranks second behind First Solar, the extremely successful maker of thin-film solar photovoltaic panels, including those used in at least one project now supplying clean, renewable energy onto PG&E's grid. The magazine notes that First Solar was the first renewable energy company to break into the S&P 500.
In fourth place among energy companies is another renewable power developer under contract to PG&E, NextEra Energy Resources. And in ninth place is Silver Spring Networks, a major partner of PG&E in the deployment of smart meters and future smart grid applications.
Fast Company cites PG&E's decision last September to resign from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, citing "fundamental differences" with the Chamber's approach to climate change legislation. Noting that PG&E produces only one percent of utility emissions while serving five percent of the total U.S. population, the magazine also praises PG&E's aggressive support of innovative renewable energy companies.
"If only all utilities attacked greenhouse gases with this much . . . energy," it concludes.
Feb 12 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
Recent polls show public support for global warming is declining but British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is denouncing warming deniers calling them “anti-science, flat-earth climate skeptics.” Brown will co-chair the United Nations High Level Advisory group on Climate Change Financing. The group aims to raise cash to halt deforestation, encourage low-carbon development and adapt to rising sea levels, extreme weather events and higher temperatures.
President Obama wants to develop a new government agency that would focus specifically on Climate Change. During his campaign, he promised the American people he would devote a good portion of his administration’s time to fighting global warming. Obama announced that in an effort to live up to that promise, he was ordering the creation of a new organization. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Service will actually be a branch of the existing NOAA but will have its own director and specific agenda.
For the next couple weeks, Olympic hopefuls will adorn their colors and put their boots into bindings in the mountains overlooking Vancouver. And they’ll be racing and jumping towards medals in mostly man-made snow. January of 2010 was the warmest January on record in Vancouver, with temperatures averaging 44.8 degrees. This is in stark contrast to recent snow storms on the east coast of the United States, which have fueled the fire for global warming skeptics. Scholars of climate science argue that neither example is proof of anything. Instead they would point to longer term trends showing a gradual warming of the whole earth over the last thirty years.
Feb 05 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
A white roof may look like a painted masterpiece to those who want to reduce urban heat. The National Center for Atmospheric Research recently completed a study demonstrating that white roofs can be an effective method for cooling. The study’s simulations provide an idealized view of different types of cities around the world and indicate that, if every roof were entirely painted white, the urban heat island effect could be reduced by 33 percent.
According to a new report released by a leading Canadian environmental group, the city of Vancouver, which will host the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, would earn a bronze medal if fighting climate change were an Olympic sport. The report claims the event’s organizers have done a good job building energy efficient venues, but have fallen a tad short when it comes to offsetting carbon emissions surrounding the Winter Games. Environment is one of the three “official pillars” of the Olympic movement.
Just before athletes from around the world will have a chance to earn their gold, silver and bronze medals, athletes from Indianapolis and New Orleans will go after the Vince Lombardi trophy. And it is estimated that this year’s Super Bowl – which the NFL says is more environmentally responsible than in the past – will produce 310,000 pounds of carbon emissions. In addition, researchers claim the stadium in Miami will use 187,000 KW of electricity and the television sets of home viewers will consume roughly 10,004,603 KW of energy. And speaking of green, it is estimated that close to 54 million pounds of avocados will be consumed by guacamole loving fans.
Feb 01 2010
Since the Obama administration didn't succeed at first, it's try, try, trying again this year to convince Congress to phase out fossil fuel subsidies to help fight global warming.
The administration's new budget proposes ending $36.5 billion in subsidies--mostly various kinds of tax credits--for oil and gas production over the next decade in order to "foster the clean energy economy of the future and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels that contribute to climate change."
And lest we forget, fewer subsidies will mean less budgetary red ink as well.
Obama is following through on a promise he made last year at the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh "to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge."
While the prospect of putting a price on carbon emissions is still controversial, calls to withdraw taxpayer subsidies from polluting sources of energy should be much easier to swallow. For years, economists of many stripes have suggested that it makes little sense to subsidize production of fossil fuels--mature and highly profitable forms of energy whose price generally does not reflect the harm they cause to human health and the environment.
Industry associations, on the other hand, argue that federal "incentives" for fossil-fuel production are merited in order to promote domestic energy security and to create jobs.
Last fall, The Environmental Law Institute, in partnership with the prestigious Woodrow Wilson International Center, published an analysis claiming that fossil fuels received a vastly disproportionate share of the $100 billion in federal subsidies for energy from 2002-2008.
Traditional oil, gas and coal interests received a bit more than $70 billion in tax breaks and direct subsidies, according to the study. Corn ethanol, a controversial fuel additive, received just shy of $17 billion. Traditional renewables received only $12 billion.
Those estimates, predictably, have fueled a lively academic debate. In the long run, however, the accuracy of specific estimates doesn't matter most. What counts more is whether Congress is willing to pay the political cost of upsetting traditional interests in order to fight global warming by tilting the energy market in a greener direction.
