Climate Change

This brilliant little cartoon by Kevin Kallaugher in this week’s number of “The Economist” sums up the “land rush” (or, more accurately, seabed rush) that’s on to claim mineral rights at the North Pole. 

See this article from “The Guardian” for good background on what’s going on here, and this from Reuters.  Also, there’s an excellent multimedia feature available from the “Financial Times.”  Go here for their interactive Scramble for the Arctic feature.  (Requires Macromedia Flash Player 7 or higher. Go here to download if you need it.)

Speaking of “The Economist,” it’s got special coverage on energy alternatives.  It’s a very useful collection of articles and other special features on renewables and other energy issues such as storage.  Good stuff.

Meanwhile, of course, the cartoon illustrates another story about the Arctic:  the breaking up of the ice.  It’s a startling and scary story, I’m forced to admit.  There’s been a lot of excellent coverage, including this comprehensive coverage, with compelling video, from CBS News.   Their science and technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg spent three weeks aboard a Canadian research ship studying arctic climate change.  (You can also get some of this story through Google Earth at the CBS website.) 

Related to the story of the massive ice melt taking place in the Arctic, and also on Greenland, is the “conveyor belt” in the Atlantic.  More properly called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), this is an ocean circulation system that carries warm upper waters North and returns cold deep waters South.  As reported in “An Inconvenient Truth”, the conveyor belt could, given too much thaw, change direction and radically alter the climate of the Northern Hemisphere.  This story, Scientists Track Climate-Driving Atlantic Current, from Reuters, says the dire effects of Arctic ice melting haven’t yet effected the conveyor belt, but scientists are building a vast array of monitoring devices to get key readings.  Here’s a link to the monitoring project itself.

First of all, I have to apologize for being off the airwaves for so long.  We closed on a new apartment on Friday and that’s got all sorts of busy work associated with it – and I’ve been decompressing a little since.  Plus, I had a print article on sustainability at airports that I was wrapping up, and getting all the artwork in order.  Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Bad News:  According to Britain’s Hadley Center (of their Met Office), which has had a very high profile indeed on climate science:  “At least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.”  Here’s their release from last Friday.  Reuters used this language:  “Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009…”  See their story.   “Science” has the full article.  You can see the abstract here, and then decide if you want the whole story.

Actually, there’s some good news in this:  better modeling.  Bill Connolley’s terrific climate science blog, “Stoat,” has some input, including a link to a story by “Nature” focusing on one critical part of the Hadley Center’s report:  that they’ve come up with a much-improved climate model “…that is capable of including natural variability in the climate system — such as that arising from anomalies in ocean circulation or ocean heat content — into modeling carried out by a global climate model.”  “Nature” quotes a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology:  “We now have a convincing concept for combining observations and models.”  “Nature” also has a great blog, “Climate Feedback,” that covered this as well, with links to scores of news stories.  Go here for the blog post and to check out this really worthwhile source.

Good News:  Do you remember the roller coaster ride I was writing about here regarding New York City’s congestion pricing scheme?  (Congestion Pricing in New York from July 17 and Mike Bloomberg’s Earth Day from April.)  Well, as you might recall, the powers that be in New York City and State, managed to set aside politics and ego long enough to come up with a compromise that will further the congestion pricing scheme by having a commission draft something, then having it approved by all the relevant bodies.  (Am I cynical about New York politics?  A bit, I’ll admit.  If you haven’t experienced it first hand as I have for 25 years, inside government and campaigns, and from the outside too, as an environmental activist and professional, as a writer and bemused observer, you can always try Robert Caro’s truly extraordinary The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York.)

The good news is that the US Department of Transportation has pledged $354 to help underwrite the costs for this and to improve mass transit as an adjunct to the program if the local and state government get their act together.  See this from “Crain’s NY Business” plus the release from Mayor Bloomberg’s office.

“Make it so, Number One.”

Climate Change “Skeptics” - The big story is that “Newsweek’s” cover this week has an arresting burning planet image, and the copy reads:  Global Warming Is A Hoax*  and the asterisked portion says “Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change.  Inside the Denial Machine by Sharon Begley.”  Now “Newsweek” is not exactly the capital of Left Blogostan.  It’s as MSM as you get.  Here’s a pungent quote though:  “…outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.  Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.”  Ouch!  There are great links, some videos from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and graphics here, even a quiz, and an archive of “Newsweek’s” excellent coverage of climate change.  You must see this article.  It’s quietly revolutionary.

Meanwhile, history’s most famous American vice-president who never became president, Al Gore, is making news along the same lines from Singapore.  See this article from today’s “Daily Mail.”

If you’d like a little more depth, go to “SourceWatch’s” comprehensive coverage of global warming skeptics. 

Richard Branson – I’m writing a magazine article on “green airports” (for print, if you can believe it) and coming up with some great, great material.  I’ve been meaning to write about Richard Branson and his commitment to fighting against a climate change crisis.  If you go to the Virgin Atlantic’s “Sustainability Challenge” webpage, you’ll find some pretty interesting and useful information.  You can also read about “The Virgin Earth Challenge” and the $25 million prize. 

The FPA Climate Change Challenge – Now maybe if we work together here, we can come up with some good ideas.  Who’s got a good idea?  Okay, I’ll start this off.  Are you ready?  Since light color reflects heat efficiently (albedo effect), then why don’t we start breeding white grass and get people to accept this for their lawns and golf courses?  We should also use these on roofs. 

Not incidentally, there is a wonderful, growing movement for, at least, green roofs.  Check out these good people and their important work - Greenroofs.com.

If you don’t like white lawns, then let’s have some good ideas.  I promise not to poach them.  You can apply for Branson’s prize and I’ll just be happy to tell people that you “heard it here first.”

National Petroleum Council Report – Okay, I will admit it:  Because this was a report by the National Petroleum Council, from a task force led by ex-Exxon chief and vociferous global warming “skeptic” Lee Raymond, commissioned by a presidential administration that has been famously indifferent, if not hostile, to the environment, I didn’t take much of a look at the news yesterday on this.  However, Facing the Hard Truths About Energy appears to have a few important, timely and surprising, given the source, messages.   An analysis in the “FT” today says the report highlights that we are in “…for a sustained period of tight supply - and that policy needs to start responding to that right now.”  The first and foremost recommendation is to go to the “…fastest technically possible increase in vehicle fuel economy standards.”  Another recommendation is to build an international framework for reducing GHG emissions.  Wow.  Is this really the voice of the oil industry?  The “FT” quotes Daniel Yergin, the task force Vice-Chairman:  “I think it will change the framework of the debate, not just in the US but around the world.”  Yergin is the head of Cambridge Energy Associates and the author of an extraordinary history of the oil industry, The Prize.  If the NPC is serious, they ought to beat the heads of every member of the House of Representatives with a copy of this report, particularly John Dingell.  This report is timely because we are being held up on energy in the House largely because of the MPG problem.  Here’s a major American industry – an understatement if you hadn’t noticed – that says we should be “…doubling miles per gallon by 2030, saving 3m-5m barrels a day of oil demand.”  Yergin also says “The study demonstrates that energy efficiency is a very near-term energy resource, and tapping it is essential to national energy strategy.”

Two Media Notes -  “The Baltimore Sun” has a clear message for Nancy Pelosi:  Bring the fight on MPG to the floor of the House.  Go around John Dingell.  In A fuelish choice, they say “Ms. Pelosi should bring her leadership persuasion to bear…”  Meanwhile, the “L.A. Times” took a big stick to Big John yesterday.  It begins thus:  “A million years of compression and heat may someday convert Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) into petroleum, just as it did the other dinosaurs.”  Ouch.  The editorial centers on Dingell’s cynical offer to introduce carbon tax legislation, admittedly designed to fail, to show that taxes are not going to be embraced by the American people, even if they are to mitigate the climate change crisis.

Center for American Progress – Energy and Congress is at the top of the list today in the daily “Progress Report” from the Center for American Progress.  Here’s an excerpt:  “At least 150 lawmakers have signed onto legislation proposed by Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Todd Platts (R-PA), which would require a combined average of 35 mpg by 2018. While automakers have vigorously opposed these efforts, better fuel standards may be a boon for both them and drivers. ‘Increasing the average fuel economy of America’s new autos to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2018 would save consumers $61 billion at the gas pump and increase U.S. employment by 241,000 jobs in the year 2020, including 23,900 in the auto industry,’ according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, as stricter fuel economy would force large automakers to invest in new, cleaner technologies and machinery.”

Stay tuned.

“Tell the teacher we’re surfin’, surfin’ USA.”

From BlueClimate:  A report on an important analysis of Congress’ draft energy legislation from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

From DeSmogBlog:  Some informative and fun “TV.”    

At TreeHugger:  A good review of Chris Mooney’s new book, Storm World.  Chris is a really interesting thinker and writer and has a great blog his ownself:  The Intersection.

Over at GristMill:  A pretty informed discussion of energy storage from a couple of real experts.  (This follows on the “NY Times” piece from Monday on solar energy which included a discussion of the related problem of storage.)

From The New Security Beat:   This is the blog for the folks who study the critical intersections of environment and conflict at the Environmental Change and Security Program, part of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.  Here’s a very hopeful take on the opportunities inherent in the growth of urban centers internationally.  (This brings you to a podcast.) 

Check these out.

Carbon Offsetting – I’ve touched on offsets a few times along the way since March:  in “The Business of Green” and in Markets, and of course, in the last post below from Kate Hamilton on Carbon Expo.

Here’s a succinct description of offsets from a “NY Times” article from May 8, Sale of Carbon Credits Helping Land-Rich, but Cash-Poor, Tribes:  “Carbon is a constituent of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide. Trees can pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store the carbon in their tissue. Companies may be able to offset the carbon dioxide they send into the atmosphere by paying for projects that pull carbon out of the atmosphere.”  Also, here’s a great article from “USA Today” that talks specifically about offsets for travel.  There’s an awful lot of back and forth on what constitutes an offset and how much one should charge for it.

Now comes a cautionary article from the venerable “Financial Times” - Beware the carbon offsetting cowboys, the risk of fraud being a real danger.  (This article comes courtesy of the estimable World Business Council for Sustainable Development.) 

There is a considerable concern, understandably, about standards - in evaluating projects, in pricing, in how to trade and charge commissions, etc.  There is work afoot on a Voluntary Carbon Offset Standard.  The Climate Group, among others, has been assiduously working on this.

Fear and Loathing in Coal Country – An opinion piece came across the transom that I thought should be shared:  Coal Man, from the “Wall St. Journal.”  Robert Murray is a coal-mine owner with $800 million in sales and 3,000 employees.  His case is that “The science of global warming is speculative,” and that cap-and-trade or some other constraint on coal production and use will bankrupt his industry and the American economy.  He’s outraged at the “collaborationists” in the corporate leadership community, such as those in the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP).  He accuses them of being more concerned with their bottom lines than about jobs and the economy.

Mr. Murray and the member of the WSJ editorial board who wrote this piece, Kimberly Strassel, seem to leave virtually no stone unthrown.  The headline writer is even in on the action, talking about global warming “hysteria.”  Mr. Murray refers to the “elitists” and “fear-mongers.”  Ms. Strassel gave us “collaborationist” here, the USCAP CEO’s are “polished titans,” in contrast to Mr. Murray who is “straight-talking,” and a “no-nonsense guy.”  Mr. Murray is like “… most honest participants in this debate.”  As Jack Benny might’ve said:  “Well!”

But the presumably dishonest folks at the IPCC have done precisely what Mr. Murray says they have not:  looked at the costs as well as the benefits of various mitigation strategies, and one of the guiding principles of USCAP is to “Be fair to sectors disproportionately impacted” and they discuss this in their “Call for Action.”  What Mr. Murray and Ms. Strassel seem to ignore, however, are the economic costs to the U.S. and world economies of not acting.  The IPCC discusses this at some length, as does the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, and the report from Lehman Brothers, The Business of Climate Change. 

Let me take a bit from an earlier post (If You Don’t Like Al Gore, Then …):  “Lord Peter Levene, chairman of Lloyd’s of London:  ‘We cannot risk being in denial on catastrophe trends,’ Levene said January 12 in a speech to the World Affairs Council at the National Press Club. ‘We urgently need a radical rethink of public policy, and to build the facts into future planning.’ See Lloyd’s webpage on climate change here.”

The War on Rachel Carson – Elizabeth Kolbert, the superb writer for “The New Yorker,” has another great piece this week:  Human Nature about Rachel Carson and her legacy.  “As much as any book can, ‘Silent Spring’ changed the world by describing it. An immediate best-seller, the book launched the modern environmental movement…”

So do we honor this extraordinary woman at the centenary of her birth?  No, a Senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, has decided that she reported “junk science” and that he’ll hold up a bill honoring her.  See this article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  What’s Coburn’s main contention?  That Carson’s work in eradicating the indiscriminate use of DDT caused millions of deaths from malaria.  Only thing is, folks, that DDT was never banned as an anti-malarial pesticide, but for agricultural use.  See this from Wikipedia or this from the blogosphere.  What it comes down to is that Carson’s work, coming when it did, probably saved millions of lives.

Nota Bene -   I put Betsy Kolbert in a class with Rachel Carson.  Kolbert’s Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change is a stunning picture of what we’re up against in confronting the specter of global warming.  About 20 years ago, I was helping run a workshop on acid rain for some Sierra Club activists and we’d invited some press, not thinking anyone would show up, but lo and behold, a young reporter for the “NY Times” did:  Betsy Kolbert.  We thought that was cool and so was she.

Biofuels – “All that glisters is not gold” – In this item from Nature.Com’s excellent new blog, Climate Feedback, we read:  “Warnings that switching to biofuels as a ‘clean’ energy source could threaten food security and increase deforestation have become increasingly stark this week.”  Referencing a report from the U.N. on sustainable bioenergy, the good folks at Nature say that there are real concerns.  This is certainly echoed in what we’ve recently seen in Mexico regarding spiking prices for corn.  Here’s a blockbuster, How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor, from “Foreign Affairs.”  See also this thoughtful piece from two agricultural policy experts:  Don’t use corn for ethanol.

*********

Comments – Remember, we are here for you.  Please feel free to jump in and tell us what’s on your mind.

Not having seen this program, I am making no judgements.  However, I have found Frontline to be consistently informative and to the highest journalistic standards.

There were a number of developments this past week worth noting. Here’s a rundown:

U.N. Security Council - On Tuesday, Britain, holding the rotating presidency of the Security Council, brought the issue of climate change forward. (See this from “The International Herald Tribune” and this from the BBC.) The U.K.’s Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, for five years her country’s lead climate change negotiator, said: “There are few greater potential threats to our economies, too, but also to peace and security itself.” (See the Stern Report for further background on her reference to the world’s economies.) Beckett gave a speech the night before to the Foreign Policy Association and its partners titled “Climate Change - The Gathering Storm.” She concluded by saying: “Now it is time for us to rise to our newest and biggest challenge: to fight the first great war of interdependence, the struggle for climate security.”

At the Security Council on Tuesday, there was a considerable push back by developing nations. China’s delegate didn’t quite see it the way that Beckett did. Ambassador Liu Zhenmin asserted, “Developing countries believe that neither has the Security Council the professional competence, nor is it the right decision making place for extensive participation leading up to widely acceptable proposals.” The “Times of India” reported:  “Indian ambassador to the UN Nirupam Sen rubbished the idea that climate change presented any kind of imminent security issue that the Security Council should deal with.” Ouch.

UNSG Ban Ki-Moon playing conciliator, as is appropriate, had this to say:  “We must focus more clearly on the benefits of early action. The resources of civil society and the private sector must be brought in. And this Council has a role to play in working with other competent intergovernmental bodies to address the possible root causes of conflict discussed today.”

For some more perspectives from journalists from China, Brazil, India, Indonesia and elsewhere, go to PostGlobal.

U.S. Security Concerns – Last Monday, the non-profit CNA Corporation, issued a report called “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.” The report was prepared by some serious former American military top brass. The website says:  “Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions …” That’s unequivocal. General Gordon Sullivan, Chairman of CNAC’s Military Advisory Board, followed up with a release applauding the Security Council’s activity on the subject (see item above) and then testified before the “Select Committee On Energy Independence And Global Warming” in the House Of Representatives. (Their website is pending.) He testified:  “After listening to leaders of the scientific, business, and governmental communities both I and my colleagues came to agree that Global Climate Change is and will be a significant threat to our National Security and in a larger sense to life on earth as we know it to be.” One more radical leftist tree hugger on record. (See my post “If You Don’t Like Al Gore, Then …)  A “NY Times” editorial from yesterday included this zinger:  “In an alliance of denial, China and the United States are using each other’s inaction as an excuse to do nothing.” 

IPCC – On North American Climate – As a follow-up to the IPCC report from April 6 – see my post “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” – regional briefings have been given all over the world. The one for North America was given in Washington on Monday. See this coverage from “ABC News” for example – “Global Warming May Put U.S. in Hot Water.” Another news organization, McClatchy Newspapers, reported here:  “More droughts, floods, heat waves, infectious diseases and extinctions are possible for two of the most prosperous countries on the planet …” One of the lead authors, Michael Oppenheimer, put it this way:  “Water at large is the central (global warming) problem for the U.S.” (The North American section of the report has not yet been posted at the IPCC website but should appear here when it does, soon one presumes.)  Another of the lead authors, Cynthia Rosenzweig, talked to WNYC radio last week:  “Ground Water: Climate Change Could Flood Subways.” This sort of flooding, not incidentally, was the theme of the event I attended last Saturday, the Sea of People – part of the national Step It Up campaign. (See my post on it below.)

How Green is Your City? – This is a new book from SustainLane, “the first internet and media company dedicated to empowering consumers, businesses and government to go green.” Their 2006 US City Sustainability rankings are contained in a new book. You can find a great teaser for the book here. #1 sustainable city?  Portland, Oregon. No surprise there.

How’d my home town, New York City perform? #6 on the list! Mayor Bloomberg is going to have a big speech for tomorrow, Earth Day, on how we are going forward in all this. One of the newsiest components for his speech is on his embrace of congestion pricing. London’s certainly had great success. You go, Mike!  (I’ve been saying this for years and years, before the term congestion pricing was even coined.)

The new Governor of New York State, Eliot Spitzer, put out his comprehensive plan for energy and the environment, on April 19. The reviews from environmentalists were enthusiastic. NRDC energy expert Ashok Gupta said: “Governor Spitzer’s commitment to energy efficiency will make New York the benchmark against which all other states will be measured.” 

Media Notes

• “The Nation” devotes much of its issue of May 7 to “Surviving the Climate Crisis – What Must Be Done.”
• “Newsweek” and “MSNBC.com” have devoted a huge amount of coverage recently to climate change. See their website “Learning to Live with Global Warming” which has a great body of useful material.
• “NY Times” foreign affairs columnist, Thomas Friedman, made a big splash this week with a cover story in their magazine:  “The Power of Green.” There’s more:  a Discovery Channel series on energy with Friedman starting tonight:  “Green: The New, Red, White and Blue.” Here’s some commentary on Friedman’s magazine article from Harvey Wasserman at the Huff Po.
• Finally, “The Weather Channel Unveils Number One Weather Moment: Global Warming.” See the video. 

Not Incidentally, Comments -  Dear Reader, you are cordially invited to make comment at this website on this or any of the posts. One of the principal reasons the Foreign Policy Association has created this blog and its seven sister blogs is to provide not only some ongoing information on the subject at hand but also to engage you in a dialogue. We really do want to hear what you have to say. Feel free.

*************

* “That Was The Week That Was” or TW3 as it was more affectionately known, was a British television satire from the early 1960’s, with an American spin-off a little later.