1Sky Blog Posts about everything

Rebuilding our economy by solving climate change

Nami — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:52:05 -0700

Yesterday I wrote a pretty grim assessment about the consequences of inaction when it comes to climate change. But today I'm here to tell you that it's not all doom and gloom! Today I want to talk about some of the the exciting opportunities that tackling climate change presents.

It's clear that we need to take action on global warming, but it's also clear that our nation is in a deep recession. Can we fight global warming and rebuild our economy at the same time? The answer is an emphatic yes!

Despite what some might say, bold climate action is economically attractive. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that there is substantial potential for positive economic growth in decreasing GHG (greenhouse gas) pollutants (pdf).

Let's take a gander:

Clean/renewable energy, such as wind energy, will increase your property value, decrease your property taxes, and leave money left over for improving your community and creating local jobs. Switching just 10% of the nation's energy to clean/renewable energy will save between $13-18 billion over 20 years.
Thousands of green jobs will be created: renewable energy creates 4x as many jobs/megawatt than natural gas and 40% more jobs/dollar than coal (pdf). $30 billion of investments in renewable energy markets will create $157 billion in GDP, $103 billion in personal income, and 365,000 new jobs.
Investing in Energy Efficiency will cut down on your energy prices and augment your personal income. Greening buildings will create almost 2x more jobs per $1 million invested than jobs in natural gas and cut down drastically on energy consumption and costs (pdf). An estimated $42 billion investment in energy efficiency would create $220 billion in personal income and 741,912 jobs.

It's not all about the money, of course. The health – both environmental and physical – benefits are numerous. But the numbers show that bold legislation is possible and furthermore, that it is viable. Whether the numbers are for an illness rate, death toll, cost of damages, or return on investment, they do not lie. It's quite simple: we are losing a great deal by not acting, but will gain immensely if we do.

Tom Friedman on renewable energy credits

Luis — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:04:43 -0700

As you probably know, a few weeks ago the Senate added the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act to a growing list of climate change bills it has killed this year. The bill would've extended several tax incentives for the development of renewables such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and others. The public opinion backlash on this and other climate failures has been swift. Example: Earlier this week, NY Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman wrote a scathing column taking the Driller-in-Chief to task for his lack of leadership on renewable energy.

Friedman begins by reminding us of Bush's acceptance of America's oil addiction -- then contrasts this admission with his current solution for curing our skyrocketing energy gas prices: drill for more oil.

It's as if our addict-in-chief is saying to us: "C'mon guys, you know you want a little more of the good stuff. One more hit, baby. Just one more toke on the ole oil pipe. I promise, next year, we'll all go straight. I'll even put a wind turbine on my presidential library. But for now, give me one more pop from that drill, please, baby. Just one more transfusion of that sweet offshore crude."

Never mind that this "transfusion of sweet offshore (and ANWR) crude" would do nothing to lower gas prices in the short term -- and next to nothing in the long run -- but would surely destroy important natural habitats and increase CO2 emissions. Addiction is usually impervious to reason, after all.

Friedman goes on to catalogue all of the president's failures of leadership when it comes to promoting conservation and renewable energy:

This from a president who for six years resisted any pressure on Detroit to seriously improve mileage standards on its gas guzzlers; this from a president who's done nothing to encourage conservation; this from a president who has so neutered the Environmental Protection Agency that the head of the E.P.A. today seems to be in a witness-protection program. I bet there aren't 12 readers of this newspaper who could tell you his name or identify him in a police lineup.

(For those of you keeping score, the current head of the EPA is Stephen L. Johnson. Here's his picture, in case you do need to pick him out of a lineup some day.)

But Friedman saves his greatest scorn for the president's failure to push for passage of the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act:

People forget, wind and solar power are here, they work, they can go on your roof tomorrow. What they need now is a big U.S. market where lots of manufacturers have an incentive to install solar panels and wind turbines — because the more they do, the more these technologies would move down the learning curve, become cheaper and be able to compete directly with coal, oil and nuclear, without subsidies.

Friedman ends with a draft of the speech he believes a president -- a real president, as he puts it -- should give on energy right now:

"Oil is poisoning our climate and our geopolitics, and here is how we're going to break our addiction: We're going to set a floor price of $4.50 a gallon for gasoline and $100 a barrel for oil. And that floor price is going to trigger massive investments in renewable energy -- particularly wind, solar panels and solar thermal. And we're also going to go on a crash program to dramatically increase energy efficiency, to drive conservation to a whole new level and to build more nuclear power. And I want every Democrat and every Republican to join me in this endeavor."

Given Mr. Bush's prior history when it comes to climate change and renewable energy, we probably shouldn't hold our breaths waiting for this one. But perhaps if we start now, we can get the next president to lead.

Climate change: It's personal

Nami — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:08:11 -0700

It’s easy to think of climate change as something that is happening way out there, somewhere beyond the realm of our personal lives. Yes, the climate is changing, some ask, but how will it change my life -- how will it affect me?

The consequences of such change may be widespread and far-reaching, but they are also very personal and very present. Climate change impacts your health and your money, along with the health, economy and infrastructure of your city, your nation, and your world. Unless we act now and unless we act big, everyone/thing we know is at risk. Rather than think about climate change as something that impacts the "environment", let’s consider how it will affect you:

YOUR HEALTH

Hot, Hot, Hot: You'll experience dehydration, heat stroke, and heart attacks as the number of extreme heat waves grow and intensify.
Diseases: You'll suffer from worsening allergies, asthma, and perhaps even develop other respiratory conditions as concentrations of ground-level smog and ozone elevate (according to the IPCC's "Climate Change 2007" report -- pdf). You'll also be more susceptible to malaria, dengue fever, and Lyme disease, as conditions grow favorable for both mosquitoes and ticks. And you'll be more likely to suffer from diarrhea, given the increasing incidences of both salmonella and cholera.
Hunger & Thirst: You will be hungrier and thirstier, suffer from malnutrition and consequent disorders, with possible implications for your child’s growth and development from decreased food and freshwater availability (IPCC report -- pdf).

YOUR MONEY

Cost of Damages and Adaptation: You and your country will have to absorb skyrocketing costs associated with relocation, damage repair, and implementation of new infrastructure (IPCC report -- pdf). The average estimate for damages done by climate change is $600 billion/year.
Tourist Industry: Your country will lose billions as climate change jeopardizes both summer and winter tourism (IPCC report -- pdf). You'll also lose popular vacation destinations, such as the Great Barrier Reef: A projected 3.6 degree temperature increase will wipe out 97% of the world’s coral reefs.
Energy Costs: Your'll pay exorbitant energy prices (in fact, you already are!) as demand increases due to rising temperatures and supply plummets from a reduction in hydroelectric power caused by decreased steam, snowmelt runoff, and changes in precipitation .
Productivity: You'll have access to fewer crops, as the length of the growing season shortens and crop productivity declines due to soil damage (IPCC report -- pdf). The National Research Council reports that abrupt climate change could cause $100 to $250 billion in damages to U.S. agriculture (NRC report -- pdf). Meat and dairy will become scarce, as rising temperatures impair livestock longevity and productivity (IPCC report -- pdf). So will wood, as droughts, fires, and windthrow devastate forests: For example, the South American tropical rainforest is slowly transmogrifying into a savannah (IPCC report -- pdf). Finally, you'll have less seafood, as rising temperatures and sea levels destroy mangrove forests, which are vital to sea life, and increasing acidity of the ocean decreases fisheries resources.
Infrastructure: Get ready to pay for improvements on and repairs/construction of innumerable infrastructures -- such as housing, sewage systems, electricity plants, irrigation, dams, transportation systems, and water supplies -- as climate change renders current systems ineffective.

Depending on who you are -- where you live, the color of your skin, the size of your wallet -- vulnerability varies. Those affected most by climate change are often poor communities, people of color, developing countries, coastal residents, the very young, very old, and very sick; those who have it hardest, get hit the hardest:

If you live on the coast, you are the most vulnerable to climate change and are at very high risk of experiencing flooding and coastal erosion.
If you're poor or live in a developing country, you will have very limited adaptive capacities and many fewer resources to deal with all the disasters of climate change. You’ll definitely experience the most heat and water stress.
If you live in a city, you’ll be warmer than most – cities are around 9° Fahrenheit warmer than surrounding areas. By 2030, most people – 61% of the world’s population – are expected to live in such heat traps.
If you’re a person of color, especially African American or Latino, you will be disproportionately burdened by the health effects of climate change. You are more likely to be uninsured, exposed to higher levels of air pollution, and live in heat wave-prone areas. Your risk of developing respiratory and pulmonary illnesses will increase while your ability to seek proper care won't.
If you’re old, young, or sick, your risk of dying from diarrhea will increase dramatically and you’ll be at highest risk of experiencing heat stress and dehydration.

Climate change is everyone’s problem -- from your best friend to your three-year old toddler to your 70-year old grandmother. I don’t know about you, but I am definitely not up for living under such substandard conditions – growing poorer, hungrier, thirstier, hotter, and sicker with each excruciating orbit around the Sun.

Dr. Hansen: After twenty years, the science is still clear

Emily — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:07:06 -0700

Yesterday, on the 20th anniversary of his initial testimony to Congress about human impact on the earth's climate, Dr. James Hansen was celebrated for his work as a "hero of science and our planet." (To read more about the 1988 hearing, check out yesterday's post from Luis).

Although it was a moment to honor his work, Dr. Hansen was quick to bring the conversation back to the science and the need for action now. As he put it, "This is not a time to celebrate."

The last 20 years were a warm up for the work that needs to be done in the next few years. I was able to attend Dr. Hansen's presentation at the National Press Club, as well as his briefing to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, chaired by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA). Spending the day listening to Dr. Hansen just emphasized what we are working for here at 1Sky. The science is clear and this isn't a time to celebrate, but to rally our efforts and create the change we need.

After explaining the most current science and several clear indications that we have gone past the safe point for levels of carbon in the atmosphere, Dr. Hansen reiterated that we are nearing tipping points that will accelerate the process and may take solutions out of our hands. While Dr. Hansen's testimony isn't yet available on the Committee's website, here's an excerpt from his piece on Huffington Post regarding the looming tipping points:

Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.
More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well under way, it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely within a century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees, and no stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.

Animal and plant species are already being stressed by climate change. Species can migrate in response to movement of their climatic zone, but some species in polar and alpine regions will be pushed off the planet. As climate zones move farther and faster, climate change will become the primary cause of species extinction. The tipping point for life on the planet will occur when so many interdependent species are lost that ecosystems collapse.

But we can make a difference if we take action now and phase out CO2 emissions from coal, while creating a rising carbon price that prevents the extraction of unconventional fossil fuels and hard-to-reach oil. These are necessary actions if we are to bring the level of carbon in the atmosphere to under 350 parts per million, which is the maximum level that science says is safe.

Why is it more important to cut off coal emissions than other sources of carbon to the atmosphere? Because of the estimated supply of coal compared to oil. Due to the quantities available, we could survive the burning of the rest of the easy oil supply (as long as we don't begin to extract from difficult places like the Arctic and unconventional sources like tar sands). But if we continue to burn coal until the supply runs out, it will be impossible to reverse that level of carbon and return to the necessary 350 ppm:

Since we are currently at 385 ppm of carbon in the atmosphere, we need strong action now. In order to move out of the current planetary emergency, Dr. Hansen suggested a moratorium on CO2 emitting coal plants and a carbon tax with 100 percent dividend that is directly returned to the people on a per capita basis, with very little government involvement. He would like to see the government involved instead by building a low loss electric grid that could make renewable energy feasible to power the country.

We won't have fossil fuels forever, but if we wait until we use them all to change our way of doing things, it will be too late. As Dr. Hansen said, "Why not figure it out now?" We can cut our carbon emissions and set the path to a new green economy, so let's do it! We need to hold our leaders accountable and let them know we need strong federal policy in order to move towards a clean, green future.

See you later, 1Sky!

Carolynn — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:23:50 -0700

Having finished my fellowship with Young People For, last week was my last "official" week at 1Sky. But before moving on, I wanted to post here one more time to say goodbye (or rather, see you later), and to share some (albeit chee-zee) thoughts with all of you.

During my fellowship retreat last week, I talked to my peers about this idea of climate change "conversions" -- that moment a lot of people have when they realize how huge and urgent climate change is. I had that moment last fall at a conference at the UN. I went into it thinking "I get this" and understood climate change as another, more severe ecological disaster. I sat there for three days in talk after talk about water and food security, worldwide economic depression, the lack of action, and was having difficulty digesting it all.

Then, at the end of the third day, during the closing ceremony, while the lights were low and someone was reading a poem or something, all of a sudden it hit me -- I mean it really hit me. All at once, I understood the severity, urgency and true depth of the situation and what was needed from me and everyone I know.

That was my moment of climate change "conversion" and I felt a real sense of clarity, purpose and urgency. Some of the only other times when I can tap into that are at these conferences, when I see and know the community that is working together on this. Those are the times when I feel that this is truly possible. And that’s what I love about 1Sky, because that is our job -- to build community around this really difficult situation. We need absolutely as many people on board for this fight, and 1Sky helps spark possibility and empower regular people to do extraordinary things.

I am very glad that I got to know you all in one way or another, and got a sense of the people, faces, talents and personalities behind this moment. This has been an amazing experience -- thank you!

James Hansen, 20 years later

Luis — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:35:09 -0700

Twenty years ago today, Dr. James Hansen gave his seminal testimony on global warming before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. In the middle of a horridly warm day -- even for Washington DC in the summer -- the man Rolling Stone calls "the Paul Revere of climatology" went before the committee, armed with evidence he'd collected as head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, and declared emphatically that "the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now."

Here's a blast from the past: From the following day's New York Time's story:

Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate
By PHILIP SHABECOFF, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: June 24, 1988

LEAD: The earth has been warmer in the first five months of this year than in any comparable period since measurements began 130 years ago, and the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution, a space agency scientist reported today.

The earth has been warmer in the first five months of this year than in any comparable period since measurements began 130 years ago, and the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution, a space agency scientist reported today.

Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the ''greenhouse effect.'' But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.

Dr. Hansen, a leading expert on climate change, said in an interview that there was no ''magic number'' that showed when the greenhouse effect was actually starting to cause changes in climate and weather. But he added, ''It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.'' An Impact Lasting Centuries

If Dr. Hansen and other scientists are correct, then humans, by burning of fossil fuels and other activities, have altered the global climate in a manner that will affect life on earth for centuries to come.

Given how far the science has come and how strong the scientific consensus has become, the statement "[i]f Dr. Hansen and other scientists are correct" seems rather quaint in retrospect: Dr. Hansen and other scientists have been proven right, in spades. At the time, of course, the scientific weight of Dr. Hansen's conclusions (not to mention his credentials) didn't stop friends of the fossil fuel industry from casting doubt:

That early alarm earned Hansen a reputation as the "Paul Revere of climatology." His testimony drew on extensive scientific data he had gathered as head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA -- but that didn't stop the energy industry from attacking him. When Hansen testified again, the first Bush administration inserted a disclaimer into his remarks, portraying his findings as "not reliable." Hansen, a mild-mannered Iowan, blew the whistle on the White House tampering -- and quietly collected more evidence of global warming.

A Bush administration tampering with global warming science? Who would've think it.

There's no shortage of coverage today on the anniversary of the day when global warming went from obscure science to breaking news. The Washington Post chronicles how the day's exceedingly warm temperature undescored Hansen's point:

There have been hotter days on Capitol Hill, but few where the heat itself became a kind of congressional exhibit. It was 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, and the warmth leaked in through the three big windows in Dirksen 366, overpowered the air conditioner, and left the crowd sweating and in shirt sleeves.
James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist, was testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He was planning to say something radical: Global warming was real, it was a threat, and it was already underway.

Hansen had hoped for a sweltering day to underscore his message.

"We were just lucky," Hansen said last week.

Meanwhile, twenty years later, the New York Times, previews Dr. Hansen's briefing today on Capitol Hill:

On Monday, Dr. Hansen, 67, plans to give a briefing organized by a House committee and say that it is almost, but not quite, too late to start defusing what he calls the “global warming time bomb.” He will offer a plan for cuts in emissions and also a warning about the risks of further inaction.
“If we don’t begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next several years, and really on a very different course, then we are in trouble,” Dr. Hansen said Friday at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, which he has directed since 1981. “Then the ice sheets are in trouble. Many species on the planet are in trouble.”

In his testimony, Dr. Hansen said, he will say that the next president faces a unique opportunity to galvanize the country around the need for a transformed, nonpolluting energy system. The hearing is before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

The very fact that there even is a "House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming" underscores not only how far we've come in imprinting the urgency of the issue on the public consciousness, but how influential Dr. Hansen's work has been in this regard. Twenty years later, Dr. Hansen is once again right: The next president does face a unique opportunity "to galvanize the country around the need for a transformed, nonpolluting energy system." Please tell the next president when you have a minute.