Climate Progress

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wa.) is up to his ears with climate and energy these days (and we love it).

Not only is he a member of the House’s newest Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, he’s also been working on a book, “Apollo’s Fire: Igniting America’s Clean Energy Economy“, with Bracken Hendricks, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

But one unique aspect of the book is that you can contribute, too. From the authors:

Are you, your company, or community building the clean energy economy today? We want to tell the world about it. We will share clean energy stories on the website, and selected ones will be published in a special chapter of the forthcoming book, due for release by Island Press in September 2007.

Tell us how you are taking action to stop global warming, break our oil addiction, or create clean energy jobs. We want to share your diverse stories of green building, innovative cars, advanced biofuels, public transportation, “green collar” jobs, and clean and renewable energy.

America needs to hear about it.

Let’s build a new energy economy together! Start by telling us what you’re doing right now. Stories submitted before April 15th will be considered for publication in “Apollo’s Fire”. Join the discussion online now at www.apollosfire.net.

In response to the National Journal poll on global warming, there has been an explosion of discussion to which Hell and High Water is notably relevant.

Jonathan Chait wrote an op-ed in the LA Times in which he offered an explanation for the Great Political Divide on global warming. Republicans strongly favor nuclear power as an alternative source of energy to fossil fuels combustion, in part to spite their ideological opponents (environmentalists and “lefties”).

Chris Mooney places the climate science debate into a much broader context of historical motives and methodologies used to spread a conservative message. But also notice the second comment by jbatch on his post - “If you want to know why Republicans don’t buy into global warming, read Joseph Romm’s excellent book, Hell and High Water…. Romm has it right. It’s not the problem they hate — it’s the solution.” They hate international treaties and crucial government-led efforts like carbon regulations and clean technology programs.

Conservatives have twisted their arms - and others’ - to finance and promote a campaign of denial on climate science and climate change solutions. Read Hell and High Water to explore the political issue more or take a glimpse of a chapter excerpt.

The House Science and Technology Committee gathered today to hear the testimony of several experts on ‘media strategies to influence public policy‘. The names of the witnesses and their statements can be found on the Committee’s website.

The hearing was convened around a recent report from the Government Accountability Project written by one of the witnesses, Tarek Maassarani. The report, “Redacting the Science of Climate Change“, investigates the extent to which current policies and practices have distorted scientific climate information from publicly-funded institutions (NOAA, NASA, etc). Ironic that the public pays for information it is not allowed to see honestly and entirely.

A recurring topic was ExxonMobil’s disinformation campaign, which has been compared to the tobacco industry’s campaign in the 1990s. The hearing room was small and so the handful of attendees in the audience with Expose Exxon shirts, conveniently placed directly behind one of the witnesses, stood out quite well. For further explanation of their objectives, a message we have also blogged on, check out their website, www.exposeexxon.com.

How high and fast will sea levels rise? An important piece by Stefan Rahmstorf in Science concludes,

A rise of over 1 m by 2100 for strong warming scenarios cannot be ruled out, because all that such a rise would require is that the linear relation of the rate of sea-level rise and temperature, which was found to be valid in the 20th century, remains valid in the 21st century.

These scenarios, which are really nothing more than business-as-usual emissions plus amplifying carbon-cycle feedbacks, would give us sea level rising at a rate 6 inches a decade in 2100. In such an inundated world, “adaptation” is almost meaningless term.

And this again isn’t even the worst case scenario because ice sheet dynamics are clearly non-linear, as NASA’s James Hansen makes clear in a new article.

But didn’t the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just lower their projections for sea level rise in their recently-released Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)? No. That mistaken view was the result of a lot of misreporting by the media. Rahmstorf clears up the confusion in a lengthy post on Realclimate.org, which concludes:

The main conclusion of this analysis is that sea level uncertainty is not smaller now than it was at the time of the TAR [Third Assessment Report], and that quoting the 18-59 cm range of sea level rise, as many media articles have done, is not telling the full story. 59 cm is unfortunately not the “worst case”. It does not include the full ice sheet uncertainty, which could add 20 cm or even more. It does not cover the full “likely” temperature range given in the AR4 (up to 6.4 ºC) — correcting for that could again roughly add 20 cm. It does not account for the fact thatpast sea level rise is underestimated by the models for reasons that are unclear. Considering these issues, a sea level rise exceeding one metre can in my view by no means ruled out.

The subject is a complicated one, and the IPCC has not done a good job of clearing up the confusion. But everyone needs to become knowledgeable on this potentially devastating climate impact.

Solving our energy and climate crisis is bound to be a delicate (but not impossible) voyage, and the tension between deforestation and biofuel production is a looming example of why.

ClimateProgress has covered one tricky facet of our forests before by looking at how misplaced afforestation can propel warming. Now word is spreading that plantation forests for biofuel and ethanol crops are rivaling natural forests. In the process, clearing the land emits mass amounts of carbon dioxide and the ecosystem replanted to harvest fuel tends to be worse for the environment.

The fuel produced has acquired the name “deforestation diesel” to reflect the process and has been prevalent in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia in pursuit of palm oil. Talk about unintended consequences.

At least once or twice a week global warming is the topic of either a House or Senate hearing, whether it’s political interference with the science, exploring coal sequestration, evaluating CAFE standards, or Al Gore making an appearance.

Momentum is building for climate legislation, but as you can tell from the graph below (from John Larsen at the World Resources Institute), the difference in emissions allowed by various proposals is vast. We need to keep tabs on the legislators to guarantee long-term thinking, as well as short-term.

The latest UK Draft Climate Change Bill sets an admirable example of short-, medium-, and long-term thinking. One cumulative target is set (60% below 1990 levels by 2050) and a handful of 5-year budgeting periods are used to incrementally step emissions down.

For summaries and analyses of legislation proposed in our own Congress, there are several resources available. Check out the National Wildlife Federation’s Guide, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change’s summary of Senate cap-and-trade pieces, and bill-specific analyses by the National Resources Defence Council, in addition an assortment from Resources For the Future - including their most recent and comprehensive comparison and analysis.

Here is the link for the interview I gave on EcoTalk, Air America’s environmental program.

In the wake of the IPCC’s report on the scientific basis of climate change from the first working group, news has begun leaking from the second working group (WGII), which concentrates on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.

The WGII’s summary report will be officially released April 6–on a Friday, again, which will no doubt mute coverage–but its conclusions are in circulation now. In a few words, we are very vulnerable. The experts anticipate:

• Water shortages affecting tens of millions in Latin American, hundreds of millions in Africa, and a billion people in Asia by 2050, with numbers growing expontentially by 2080.
• The rampant spread of tropical diseases, accompanying warmer weather and water management issues.
• Over 100 million flooded by storms and rising sea levels by 2080 (Exit Bangladesh).
• The disappearance of unknown numbers of plant and animal species.
• An initial agricultural boom followed by sporadic, extreme instances of drought that cause massive starvation and food shortages.

This segment of the four-part report by the IPCC is said to be the ‘emotional heart’ of the overall product. If destroyed ice sheets don’t pull at your conscience, these impacts should.

At the Environment and Public Works hearing this afternoon, Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) displayed an amazing lack of understanding about energy as he tried to get Gore to make a meaningless pledge. Now the EPW Minority web page repeats the inane charge:

Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household.

But why should Gore take such a pledge? Gore is a champion of greenhouse gas reductions, not energy reductions. Gore explained he buys 100% renewable power and is planning to build a solar power system. Thus the electricity Gore consumes in his Tennessee home does not contribute to global warming.

It is conservatives who mistakenly argue that the only way to meet emission reduction targets is by sharply reducing energy use. Conservatives make this argument to try to scare the public into opposing action on climate change. But Gore’s whole point is that smart energy use, including renewables, can allow us to grow the economy while fighting global warming.

Inhofe then introduced another red herring:

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do.”

But directly purchasing renewables is completely different from buying carbon offsets, and such purchases are not a gimmick for the wealthy–millions already do the same. Inhofe seems completely unaware of that fact. His entire attack on Gore was both inaccurate and shrill, a sharp contrast to Gore’s statesmanlike tour-de-force, truly a “triumphant return” for the former Representative and Senator.

Tomorrow Air America’s environmental program runs an interview with my comments on Gore’s tour-de-force on Capitol Hill. I will post a link when it is available online for those who don’t get the program on local radio.