R&D for Sunlight Blocking Schemes Advocated by US for UN Climate Change Report

The Guardian has reported that the US response to a draft of the UN report on climate change prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which will be released in three parts beginning on February 2nd says that a statement advocating research on the development of technology to block sunlight as a way of stopping global warming if other measures fail should be included. Schemes to block sunlight that have been suggested so far include giant space mirrors, sulphate droplets scattered into the atmosphere, and distributing into the atmosphere tiny shiny balloons. According to the Guardian the US wants the following statement placed in the policymakers statement at beginning of each report:

“Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered.”

The IPCC draft said that sunlight blocking schemes were “speculative, uncosted and with potential side-effects.”

Although these ideas to block sunlight as a way to combat global warming are often considered as wacko, and in most cases the US position seems counterproductive to stopping global warming, in this instance I have to say that I agree with the US. If the goal as is often stated is to limit global warming to a 2°C increase above preindustrial levels and to achieve this requires that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels can not rise above 450 parts per million and this would require a worldwide reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the order of 70% to 80% by the year 2050 then I think we have to face the fact that although this is probably theoretically possible the political obstacles make it an almost impossible goal to reach. The list of political hurdles to overcome seem nearly endless. A large majority of the US population would have to be convinced that global warming is linked to human activities. A carbon tax or the equivalent would have to accepted around the world. People in developed countries would have to accept limitations on lifestyle. China and India would have to agree to reduce emissions and Western countries would probably have to pay for their implementation of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures to make this possible. Tremendous investments would have to be made for research on new energy technologies. The ability of the oil and coal industries to successfully fight change would have to be overcome. Etc, etc, etc.

Sunlight blocking schemes at best can only buy time and might cause unexpected adverse consequences. However, we are now at point of time where I think we need a Plan B.

Poll Finds Most Americans Still Unconvinced About Human Role in Global Warming

The results of a recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that although about three fourths of Americans believe our planet is warming only 47% believe that there is solid evidence to implicate human activity as the main cause. If Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and our leading climate scientist James Hansen can’t convince the majority of Americans that human activity is to blame for the rising global temperature who can? Does it have to be written in the Bible? Actually, perhaps the polling results are not surprising. Tens of millions of Americans don’t believe in Darwinian evolution although the scientific evidence is overwhelming. How about this statistic? Whereas 61% of Americans thought that an immediate government response to global warming was needed when polled last August the number fell to 55% this January. Sounds as though not enough Americans read about the Stern report a couple of months ago which predicted economic disaster from climate change if action was not taken. Supposedly the fourth report from the Intergovermentmental Panel on Climate Change which will be released on February 2nd contains a statement that there is a 90% probability that global warming is due to human activity. In scientific terms, that is a very strong statement. But with the report being released only two days before the Super Bowl will Americans be paying attention?

Beware of Bush’s “Clean Fuel” Proposal

George W. Bush may have gained a little political breathing room on the global warming issue in his State of the Union address with his proposal to replace a portion of gasoline use with biofuels but many environmentalists are far from impressed by the proposal according to an article in The Independent. One environmentalist pointed out that using ethanol to replace gasoline would result in carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation and processing of ethanol. Also, in industrialized countries fossil fuels play a large role in growing crops such as corn that can be used for making ethanol. Another criticism involved transforming coal into a liquid for use as a transportation fuel. It was pointed that this technology would result in twice the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted as fuels based on petroleum. Although Bush seems to have at least grasped that global warming is a serious problem it is apparent that we will have to wait for a new president in 2009 before anyone occupying the Oval Office offers truly serious proposals, such as a mandatory cap on carbon emissions, to avert the very real risk of catastrophic climate change.

Urgency to Curtail Global Warming Missing from State of the Union Speech

George W. Bush did manage to utter the words “global climate change” in his State of the Union speech last night but only as an afterthought to the issue of energy independence. Leading climate scientists such as James Hansen from NASA who have been warning us that we have less than 10 years to begin worldwide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the risk of unstoppable global warming may as well be residing on another planet as far as Bush’s descriptions of the major problems that we face. It appeared that television commentators were complicit in ignoring the urgency of addressing global warming as usual. The rebuttal by the Democrats also completely ignored the problem which didn’t help.

Perhaps some Democrats who are campaigning for president can elevate the issue of global warming to the top of the national agenda where it belongs. Perhaps they can close the present disconnect between scientific understanding and political policy. Perhaps one or more of the candidates can break through the denial which still seems to envelop much of the US population. There are about 150 coal-fired power plants on the drawing board in the US and in China about one such plant is built every week. Someone better do something fast.

Organizing for Global Warming Actions on April 14th

Author Bill McKibben and a few of his associates are trying to start a global warming movement and they have picked April 14th as the day to begin. The idea has received a warm reception and people all over the country are beginning to organize. I am trying to pitch in here in Westchester County, New York. According to McKibben:

If we're going to make the kind of change we need in the short time left us, we need something that looks like the civil rights movement, and we need it now. Changing light bulbs just isn't enough.

I agree that we need to take to the streets but I can’t imagine a global warming movement ever approaching the civil rights movement in size or intensity. How many people are willing to go to jail over global warming? Or worse, risk death? I think if a global warming movement does gain traction it probably will look much different than the civil rights movement. Nonviolent civil disobedience simply doesn’t seem appropriate in the global warming context. Perhaps a new model for a movement needs to be invented. Building an effective global warming movement may be as difficult as taking the needed type of actions to curtail global warming. But, ultimately I think that McKibben is right in trying.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue to Spike

It is bad enough that climate change is occurring more rapidly than scientists predicted, but things may be even worse because now we are finding out that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing faster than they predicted. For 30 years, starting with 1970, the average increase in carbon dioxide was about 1.5 parts per million. Based on estimates of carbon dioxide emissions there did not seem to be any reason for this trend to change. Yet, beginning in 2001 carbon dioxide levels have spiked to average about 2.2 parts per million and that trend has continued through 2006 according to a report in the Guardian. What this seems to mean is that when climate scientists such as James Hansen say we have less than 10 years to begin to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid extremely serious consequences of global warming this warning may not even be urgent enough. Further concerns are raised because the cause of the spike has not yet been identified. Whether it is due to warming itself, emissions that actually exceed estimates, or some other reason remains obscure. As time goes on it appears that the truth about global warming is growing more and more inconvenient.

Are Pelosi and Dingell on a Collision Course Over Global Warming?

Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representative, wants to legislate a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. John Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who is from Michigan has been a long time protector of the US auto industry which seems to specialize in selling Americans gas guzzling SUVs and trucks. Pelosi knows that Dingell is a formidable roadblock to getting her legislation through and according to the Associated Press has come with the idea of sidestepping Dingell and any other House committee chairmen in her way by forming a select committee to work on global warming legislation. If Pelosi succeeds with her strategy she would ultimately have to confront President George W. Bush, an even more formidable roadblock to achieving mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Pelosi clearly has her work cut out for her as she sets out on this political obstacle course that she needs to somehow navigate through if the problem of global warming is ever going to be seriously confronted.

Climate Change Edges Doomsday Clock Closer to Midnight

The well known “Doomsday Clock” with a minute hand that has been moved over the years closer and further from midnight as fears of nuclear war have increased and ebbed has now been moved two minutes closer to midnight because of increasing fears about climate change. According to BBC News the lastest move puts the minute hand at five minutes to midnight, which is as close as it has been to the doomsday mark since the height of the Cold War. This is the first time that the famous clock, which was devised by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, has reflected any threat other than nuclear weapons.

Whereas the threat of nuclear war tends to waiver back and forth it is hard to see how the threat of climate change will do anything but grow during the coming decades. With climate change in the mix the minute hand may in the future be moved in only one direction as the countdown to what seems like almost inevitable catastrophe begins.

Former US Kyoto Protocol Negotiator Pessimistic About US Entering International Global Warming Agreement

Stuart Eizenstat, who during the 1990s led the US team that was involved in negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, doubts that the US will enter into a binding international-level agreement to reduce carbon emissions any time soon. According to Eizenstat, for the US, the Kyoto agreement is “radioactive.” Of course, given the short time frame that is now available to take worldwide action to begin reducing emissions soon enough to avoid catastrophic climate change if Eizenstat is right we are charging headlong toward eventual disaster. Intense public pressure should be able to speed up US actions to take a leadership role on the global warming issue but whether such political pressure from the public can be generated in time remains to be seen.

Slide Shows Featured in Global Warming Grassroots Movements

Large numbers of Americans will see a global warming slide show in person this year as slide show presenters from Al Gore’s global warming campaign and from the Sierra Club give presentations before audiences in communities across the country. Al Gore has trained about 1,000 people to give a version of his "An Inconvenient Truth” slide show which was seen in his very successful documentary film. The original slide show was almost all science but the newer version will contain more slides on solutions to the problem. The Sierra Club’s slide show is all about solutions and is named “Smart Energy Solutions.” Presenters have to train themselves using the files that they can download to their computers. Since the Sierra Club is relying on volunteer members in hundreds of groups throughout the country to become presenters it is not possible to predict how many members will be giving presentations.

Perhaps the best hope that the US will take the lead in combating global warming is that these grassroots movements will energize enough people to write e-mails and letters and call their representatives in Washington and perhaps even take to the streets to demonstrate. Overcoming the efforts of the powerful oil and coal industries to prevent Americans from turning away from these industries’ products to use renewable energy sources and energy efficiency instead to meet our energy needs and provide leadership for the rest of the world to do the same will not be easy.

Livestock Are Major Contributor to Global Warming

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has issued a report called “Livestock’s Long Shadow” which says that together cows, sheep, goats, and pigs account for more of global warming effects than all of the transportation sources in the world, a hefty 18%. With worldwide meat production expected to double by 2050 and scientists calling for at least a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by that year to prevent catastrophic climate change the livestock situation clearly presents a major challenge. With so much attention with regard to the global warming problem focused on transportation, industry, and electricity generating sources of greenhouse gases the emissions from livestock are sort of getting a free pass. It’s the cows, stupid.

Global Warming a Top Priority for Presidential Hopeful John Edwards

In his entry into the presidential sweepstakes as a candidate for the Democratic party John Edwards named fighting global warming as one of his top priorities. It will be interesting to see if other candidates are as bold, in essence saying that they are willing to take on the powerful oil, coal, and auto industries. It will also be interesting to see if Edwards continues to put global warming at the top of the list should he eventually be the Democratic party’s candidate for president.

For now, Edwards' vow to make fighting global warming part of his campaign agenda seems like one of the few positive events on the global warming scene which has largely consisted of one gloomy piece of news after another throughout the entire year. During the recent congressional election little was heard about global warming although a lot was heard about energy issues, particularly the goal of obtaining energy independence. However, trying to attain energy independence does not involve reducing the use of coal for generating electricity which is the largest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. The United States needs to drastically reduce its reliance on coal. It also needs to convince China to do the same.

Clearly we need strong leadership on the presidential level to have any hope of combating global warming. Edwards making the global warming issue a top priority does provide some hope as this year draws to a close.

Bill McKibben Says Individualism Increased by Fossil Fuels

Writing in the January/February 2007 issue of Sierra magazine, Bill McKibben looks at our global warming predicament and offers some hopeful suggestions for stabilizing the climate. In his analysis he makes the following observation about how fossil fuels has transformed many of us as human beings:

And it's when you start thinking about those kinds of shifts that you understand what fossil fuel, with all its magic, has really produced. Not just wealth and global warming--but also a redefined human being, one far more individualistic than before. One, in the extreme American version, who lives in a big house (twice as big as in 1950) on the far edge of a distant suburb and drives everywhere (usually alone). One who depends very little on neighbors. In fact, one survey found that three-quarters of Americans don't even know their next-door neighbors, a novel condition for any human being at any time in history. (A novel condition, for that matter, for any primate.)

McKibben contrasts Americans with the more community-minded Europeans and points out that the greater emphasis on community results in the average European using only half of the energy that the average American uses. Unfortuately, believing that the trend toward increased individualism in the United States can be reversed quickly enough to combat global warming seems like a stretch. McKibben points to the increase in farmers’ markets with local produce as an example that the first step is being taken, however, the houses in the United States are still getting bigger and the suburbs are still being pushed further and further out from urban cores. If stopping global warming requires Americans to become more community oriented we may be in even bigger trouble than we think.

Representative John Dingell’s Take on Global Warming Does Not Bode Well for Effective Legislation

When the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives next month John Dingell from Michigan will for the first time in over a decade take over the powerful position of House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman. During his last stint he frustrated environmentalists who wanted to significantly raise fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. But that was before concerns about global warming reached the threshold levels that they have today. Like so many people he may now recognize the urgency of the threat and be willing to go along with raising the fuel efficiency standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. After reading an interview with Dingelll on the blog Gristmill I am afraid that thinking he may have softened his position is just so much wishful thinking.
When asked by the interviewer whether a scientific consensus on global warming has been established Dingell replied with this little pearl of wisdom:

This country, this world, the [human] race of which you and I are a part, is great at having consensuses that are in great error. And so I want to get the scientific facts, and find out what the situation is, and find out what is the cure, and find out what is the cure that is acceptable to the country that I represent and serve.

It kind of makes you want to move to Michigan just so you can vote against him in 2008. Then again, if he ever lost his seat in auto manufacturing land, which he has held for decades, would his replacement be any better on this issue?

Harvard Scientist Blasts Inhofe’s Global Warming Hearing

Daniel P. Schrag, who was one of two witnesses invited by the Democratic staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee to counter the view that global warming is a hoax at a recent hearing held by committee chairman Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma to find out if the media is hyping the threat of global warming, did not mince words about what he thought about the proceedings in a Boston Globe op-ed. Schrag, who is professor of earth and planetary sciences at Harvard, called the hearing ”a gathering of liars and charlatans, sponsored by those industries who want to protect their profits.”

After providing a scientific explanation of global warming in his opening statement he then says that he:

“watched in horror as Inhofe's witnesses spouted outrageous claims intended to deceive and distort. Two were scientists associated with industry-funded think tanks. They described global warming as a "mass delusion" among the scientific community, sowing confusion by misrepresenting the ice core data that connects carbon dioxide and temperature over glacial cycles, and claiming that "global warming stopped in 1998" -- an anomalously warm year. They even recommended burning as much fossil fuel as possible to prevent another ice age.”

Following the hearing Schrag had another surprise. He says that:

I later learned that Inhofe's communications director, Marc Morano, was a key figure in publicizing the swift boat veterans' attack on John Kerry in 2004. Morano, it seems, is still up to his old tricks, twisting the facts to support his boss's outrageous claims. This made my visit complete: a glimpse at our government that sees the world only through glasses tinted by special interests, which treats science as a political football, no matter what is at stake.

I have to agree with the conclusion that Schrag reached after his experience in Washington. He put it this way:

As our leaders accept the outrageous spectacle I saw the other day as just a normal day in Congress, we will have to take the first step without them.

Hopefully more and more scientists and other citizens will come to this realization and the first step will be taken before it is too late.

Is Global Warming Hopeless as a Main Political Issue?

David Roberts writing in Gristmill blog has made the following observation:

I doubt global warming will ever be a primary political issue. By that I mean, we'll see lots of policies pitched like this: "Policy X will solve Problem Y ... and will also help fight global warming." But "Policy X will fight global warming" will never be enough, on its own.

He reasons that:

While voters claim to be concerned about global warming, it takes almost nothing to knock it back among their priorities. They're concerned, sure, but they don't want higher gas prices, or any new taxes, or any new government bureaucracies, or any lost jobs, or any, you know ... cost.

Perhaps Al Gore, the Sierra Club, etc. will prove him wrong over the next couple of years and a powerful grassroots movement built specifically around the issue of global warming will emerge. Who would have expected grassroots political movements to have peacefully overthrown the Soviet empire? Anything can happen.

2006 Appears to Be Headed for Fifth or Sixth Warmest Year

The global warming skeptics are probably out there lurking in the weeds just waiting to pounce if climate scientists announce that the most recent year will not be among the warmest ever recorded since such recordings began in the late 1800s. It looks like the skeptics are going to be disappointed again because as reported in The New York Times, 2006 is on course to be the fifth warmest year according to NASA scientists and sixth warmest year according to the World Meteorological Association. The skeptics should not get their hopes up for 2007 either as NASA climate scientist James Hansen says that 2007 should be warmer than 2006 because the tropical Pacific Ocean is in the midst of a periodic hot spell and this high temperature condition should last into next spring.

U.S. Senate May Be Next Battleground in Global Warming Political Fight

With Senator Barbara Boxer gearing up for weeks of hearings on global warming after she assumes chairmanship of the Environmental and Public Works Committee next month there is speculation about what might happen. An article from the San Jose Mercury News provides some insightful analysis. Boxer is presently advocating that the United States use California’s greenhouse gas emission capping program as a model. The article lists several formidable obstacles that Boxer will likely encounter: “industry resistance, budget constraints, disagreements among party leaders, and the problem’s daunting complexity and global scope,” and emphasizes that there is still fierce opposition to emission controls from “many energy companies, utilities, and the auto industry.” Also in Boxer’s way may stand two new Democratic chairmen of House committees, Nick Rahall from the coal-producing state of West Virginia who will chair the House Resources Committee and John Dingell from the auto manufacturing state of Michigan who will chair the Energy and Commerce Committee. Whether this upcoming battle in the Senate leads to more than providing entertainment for political junkies remains to be seen. A quote from Henry Lee, an environmental expert from Harvard, who says that “ ideological polarization, large budget deficits, an unwillingness to take risks…leads to the inability to reach decisions,” provides good reasons why expectations about the ultimate results of Boxer’s efforts should not be raised very high.

For Federal Climate Scientists Saying “Kyoto” Was a No-No

Once again charges are flying that that Bush administration has been trying to muzzle climate scientists who work for the federal government. The Associated Press has reported that Pieter Tans, a senior scientist at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, claims that about 4 years ago scientists at the lab were banned from using the word “Kyoto,” as in Kyoto Protocol to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Another NOAA senior scientist who works at the Boulder laboratory, physicist James Elkins, confirmed the ban and said it was lifted after the Russians finally ratified the Protocol. Hopefully, inspectors general from NASA and the Commerce Department, who according to Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey have launched investigations into reports of censorship of global warming science by the Bush administration, will soon get to the bottom of this charge and similar charges that have been made.

Hydropower Said to Cause More Global Warming Than Coal-Fired Plants

Hydroelectric power’s reputation as a clean source of energy continues to take a pounding. The results of a 3-year study of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs in Southeast Asia which was published today in Taiwan found that hydropower is a greater contributor to global warming than power plants run on coal or oil. The researchers explained that the dead organic matter at the bottom of a reservoir behind a dam does not receive enough oxygen to decompose which results in the production of methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by a factor of 21, and nitrous oxide, a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by a factor of 200. A member of the research team predicted that the Three Gorges Dam built on the Yangtze River in China, which is now in operation, will be a serious contributor to global warming. (Photo of Three Gorges reservoir behind the dam credited to Three Gorges Probe.)