Climate Progress

The series of IPCC reports are, without a doubt, some of the most highly anticipated reports of 2007. An obvious sign? Within two weeks of one report’s release, papers are already covering a leak from the next.

The IPCC Working Group III’s focus is on mitigation, meaning a fair number of policy implications can be derived from its conclusions. So, here’s a hint for America’s auto industry: the UN report is calling for urgent action on road pollution.

In the United States, there are 483 passenger cars per 1000 people (EarthTrends). The world average is about 100, and few countries outnumber our car count (Australia, for example, had 492 in 1996).

Overall, U.S. auto emissions account for seven percent of the annual greenhouse gas emissions, a huge part of Massachusett’s case against the EPA in the Supreme Court, and knowing such a significant source of the problem informs where policies are most productive. In a few words, renewable fuels such as E85, plug-in hybrids, and more stringent CAFE standards.

World energy use by transportation is expected to grow by two percent each year, but as California has demonstrated with its electricity consumption, it is possible to flatline the curve. Not to mention, both climate security and national security interests call for it.

Saturday, April 14 has been declared a National Day of Climate Action and spearheading the massive, nationwide campaign is Bill McKibben, who is asking people to take part in demonstrations demanding that Congress Step it Up and cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050.

Events are going on all over the country, in every state and major city, so it should be fairly easy to get involved. Be sure to check the Step it Up 2007 website if you’re interested.

On a similar note, worth reading from earlier youth action (January’s Climate Week of Action) is an article by Zoë Caron on how climate change is Defining a Generation. History is becoming a driving force for action on climate change, as scientists observe that paleoclimatic records disappear when glaciers retreat. Also bearing in mind another article, History Won’t Warm to ‘W‘. There’s a clear theme - past, present and future are at risk!

When the Energy Policy Act of 2005 passed, Sen. Pete Domenici called it, “a bill for the future.“ It wasn’t a prime legislative avenue to confront the climate and energy crises of our time, but this Congress has a different outlook and so McKibben’s crew encourages you to ask Congress to Step it Up.

Editor of ClimateProgress, Joseph Romm, has been featured on several radio show programs lately. Luckily, in today’s age of technology, you can catch them online:

Treehugger Radio, April 5, 2007

EarthBeat Radio - Deep Inside the Republican Mind
(with Chris Mooney)

If you’re in the DC metro area, please join ClimateProgress’ editor, Joseph Romm, at an event by the American Meteorological Society called “Managing Climate Change: The Daunting Energy Challenge Ahead” on Monday, April 16 at noon.

A description of the program is as follows:

What is the scale of effort that is likely required to address the energy challenges posed by climate change? Have we, as a society, been successful in the past in organizing grand-scale programs to address critical issues of enormous scale? What are the suite of technologies and lifestyle changes that are likely to be essential components of an energy conversion program that effectively addresses the most serious threats and consequences of climate change? The grand challenges posed by unchecked greenhouse gas emissions will, no doubt, take considerable time and effort to deal with. What are likely to be some of the most effective strategies that can be deployed in the near- and mid-term? How critical is energy conservation in such a plan? Is it reasonable to assume that technological advances alone, in the absence of fundamental changes in our lifestyles and perspectives, are sufficient to tackle the problem at hand?

Joe is one of several experts speaking, alongside Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Marty Hoffert, in a discussion moderated by Dr. Anthony Socci. The panel will take place in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Visit the website for more information or to read a summary of Joe’s expertise and position.

North America

• Moderate climate change in the early decades of the century is projected to increase aggregate yields of rainfed agriculture by 5-20%, but with important variability among regions.
• Warming in western mountains is projected to cause decreased snowpack, more winter flooding, and reduced summer flows, exacerbating competition for over-allocated water resources.
• Disturbances from pests, diseases, and fire are projected to have increasing impacts on forests, with an extended period of high fire risk and large increases in area burned.
• Cities that currently experience heat waves are expected to be further challenged by an increased number, intensity and duration of heat waves during the course of the century…
• Current adaptation [to stress posed toward coastal communities] is uneven and readiness for increased exposure is low.

In the United States, we have the most to loss from changing climate. And yet so many of our citizens are not worried. According to a recent Gallup pole, that attitude isn’t going over well globally. Historically and today, we are responsibile for a disproportionate percentage of the emissions and have yet to take responsibility or action.

That attitude needs to change because of the consequences to nature, the globe, and, we can’t forget - ourselves.

Africa

By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to an increase of water stress due to climate change

The area suitable for agriculture, the length of growing seasons and yield potential, particularly along the margins of semi-arid and arid areas, are expected to decrease. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition in the continent. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020.

Towards the end of the 21st century, projected sea-level rise will affect low-lying coastal areas with large populations. The cost of adaptation could amount to at least 5-10% of GDP.

Asia

Glacier melt in the Himalayas is projected to increase flooding, rock avalanches from destabilised slopes, and affect water resources within the next two to three decades.

Freshwater availability in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia particularly in large river basins is projected to decrease due to climate change which, along with population growth and increasing demand arising from higher standards of living, could adversely affect more than a billion people by the 2050s.

It is projected that crop yields could increase up to 20% in East and Southeast Asia while it could decrease up to 30% in Central and South Asia by the mid-21st century.

Endemic morbidity and mortality due to diarrhoeal disease primarily associated with floods and droughts are expected to rise in East, South and Southeast Asia due to projected changes in hydrological cycle associated with global warming.

Australia

Significant loss of biodiversity is projected to occur by 2020 in some ecologically-rich sites including the Great Barrier Reef and Queensland Wet Tropics.

Production from agriculture and forestry by 2030 is projected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia, and over parts of eastern New Zealand, due to increased drought and fire.

As a result of reduced precipitation and increased evaporation, water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030…

Europe

Nearly all European regions are anticipated to be negatively affected by some future impacts of climate change and these will pose challenges to many economic sectors.

Health risks due to heat waves are projected to increase

Latin America

…gradual replacement of tropical forest by savanna in eastern Amazonia. Semi-arid vegetation will tend to be replaced by arid-land vegetation. There is a risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many areas of tropical Latin America.

Changes in precipitation patterns and the disappearance of glaciers are projected to significantly affect water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.

In drier areas, climate change is expected to lead to salinisation and desertification of agricultural land. Productivity of some important crops are projected to decrease and livestock productivity to decline, with adverse consequences for food security.

Sea-level rise is projected to cause increased risk of flooding in low-lying areas.

Polar Regions

In the Polar Regions, the main projected biophysical effects are reductions in thickness and extent of glaciers and ice sheets, and changes in natural ecosystems with detrimental effects on many organisms including migratory birds, mammals and higher predators.

In the Arctic, additional impacts include reductions in the extent of sea ice and permafrost, increased coastal erosion, and an increase in the depth of permafrost seasonal thawing… Detrimental impacts would include those on infrastructure and traditional indigenous ways of life.

Beneficial impacts would include reduced heating costs and more navigable northern sea routes.

Small Islands

Small islands, whether located in the Tropics or higher latitudes, have characteristics which make them especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, sea level rise and extreme events.

The summary for policymakers of the report by the second Working Group is out!

Where does the information come from?

• The IPCC, WGI’s 4AR on the Scientific Basis of climate change
• 29,000 observational data series crossed with expected changes to physical and biological systems based on those observations, with 89% consistency between the two.
• Models, some of which account for non-anthropogenic sources of warming (solar and volcanic activity) and others that do not. The results show that, “models with combined natural and anthropogenic forcings simulate observed responses significantly better than models with natural forcing only.”

What are some of the major conclusions?

There is very high confidence (9 out of 10), based on more evidence from a wider range of species, that recent warming is strongly affecting terrestrial biological systems, including such changes as:

• earlier timing of spring events, such as leaf-unfolding, bird migration and egg-laying;

• poleward and upward shifts in ranges in plant and animal species

There is high confidence (8 out of 10) that the following changes are occurring due to warming:

• in terms of snow, ice and frozen ground (including permafrost), there is increased instability in such terrain and larger glacial lakes

• relating to hydrological systems, there are warmer lakes and increased and earlier run-off earlier greening of vegetation and longer growing seasons

• in marine and freshwater biological systems, there is rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity (water content is more acidic), oxygen levels and circulation

“Effects of temperature increases have been documented in the following systems (medium confidence):

• effects on agricultural and forestry management at Northern Hemisphere higher latitudes, such as earlier spring planting of crops, and alterations in disturbance regimes of forests due to fires and pests;

• some aspects of human health, such as heat-related mortality in Europe, infectious disease vectors in some areas, and allergenic pollen in Northern Hemisphere high and mid-latitudes;

• some human activities in the Arctic (e.g., hunting and travel over snow and ice) and in lower elevation alpine areas (such as mountain sports).”

Generally speaking, how can we proced to deal with the changes:

• “Adaptation will be necessary to address impacts resulting from the warming which is already unavoidable due to past emissions.”

• “Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation.”

• “A portfolio of adaptation and mitigation measures can diminish the risks associated with climate change.”

Oh, and, buried in the report, to make up for that huge hole about Greenland and the Antarctic in February’s report:

“Very large sea-level rises that would result from widespread deglaciation of Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets imply major changes in coastlines and ecosystems, and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas. Relocating populations, economic activity, and infrastructure would be costly and challenging. There is medium confidence that at least partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, would occur over a period of time ranging from centuries to millennia for a global average temperature increase of 1- 4°C (relative to 1990-2000), causing a contribution to sea level rise of 4-6 m or more. The complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a contribution to sea-level rise of up to 7 m and about 5 m, respectively.”

This week, the option of ignoring global warming was officially relegated to the dustbin of history. First the Supreme Court, and today the international scientific community, said that global warming is a reality impacting our lives today and must be dealt with.

The state of play on global warming is perfectly summed up by the dramatic confrontation between scientists and political apparatchiks late last night over the latest IPCC report. The politicians pushed through slightly wishy-washy language and U.S. delegates rejected suggested wording that parts of North America may suffer ’severe economic damage’ from warming. But it was the most Pyrrhic of victories - because it was entirely overwhelmed by the larger document that, in dry scientific language, depicts the end of life as we know it. The reality of droughts, water shortages, starvation and flooding facing hundreds of millions of people this century cannot be denied by spin.

Much has been made of the report findings that global warming will hit poor countries the most. But make no mistake, the developed world isn’t spared - and we have more to lose. One especially ominous warning from the report:

It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts. Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.

Today the international scientific community said that we’re already feeling the impacts of global warming - which is a scary enough headline, but you ain’t seen nothing yet. It is crystal clear that we’re on a path to Planetary Purgatory, with a fate of Hell and High Water unless we change course immediately.

One notable aspect of the IPCC’s release tomorrow is that what you read you can also look out your window to see. The paper’s topic is how climate change has begun to impact ecosystems across the globe, and the authors assert with “high confidence” that global warming is responsible for changes taking place.

For example, as the Washington Post point out, there’s a good chance that the birds in your neighborhood are subtly displaying signs of warmer temperatures. Some species have changed migration patterns, when they lay their eggs, or even their primary habitat.

Other signs of warming may not be as close, but are even more clear, such as retreating glaciers and bleached corals - both losing the essence of their being, which we have long revered and explored in awe.

And then there’s how humanity will be impacted, projections which are for the most part pessimistic. The New York Times has an interactive feature on the Winners and Losers in a Changing Climate. In short, industrialized nations’ emissions have doomed the agricultural forecast for developing nations, and yet in our globalized society we’ll all be hit with shortages.

Just one day before the official summary of the second Working Group’s paper, you wonder, ‘What changes can I see out my own window?’ and ‘Do I really want to see a summary of how this is going to get worse?’

The Supreme Court - the name says it all. A decision is made, and its supreme implications trickle down to lower courts near you, especially if you’re in California.

In 2002, California passed AB32, or the Pavley law, setting standards for automobiles (starting model year 2009) that would cut emissions 30%. The decision was approved by the California Air Resources Board but was put on hold when car industry leaders filed a claim against the state’s authority. (Both Grist and the New York Times go into a little bit more detail.)

The California judge has been delaying his decision in anticipation of Supreme Court’s ruling, and similar cases are pending in several states across the Union. Now that the ruling has been made, their decisions are expected to rapidly fall in sync.

How does this translate into action? Well, it doesn’t necessarily. It means that states wanting automobile emission standards more strict than those set by the federal government are allowed to pursue them. So it removes an obstacle. They have to receive a waiver from the EPA, but are now more likely to be granted one. States do not have to act, but ones that want to, will (and have).

It also may fare well for climate legislation. For example, Sen. Dingell (D-Mich.), who has always kept Detroit’s auto interests a priority, said about the verdict: “Today’s ruling provides another compelling reason why Congress must enact, and the president must sign, comprehensive climate change legislation.”

If better fuel economy or pollutant standards are going to hurt the auto industry, Dingell prefers other sectors of the economy (such as electricity) at least equally burdened with responsibility. As a result, a cap-and-trade program may start showing up more prevalently on interested parties’ radars.

Slowly but surely, the climate is finally manuveuring its way through Washington, DC.