Climate Progress

Global warming makes wildfires more likely and more destructive — an amplifying climate feedback that releases more carbon into the atmosphere. The full committee of the Senate for Energy and Natural Resources is having a hearing on the subject today. You can get live video here — click on Live Webcast.

I’m looking forward to this hearing since one of the witnesses is Dr. Thomas Swetnam, Director of the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research and Professor of Dendochronology, University of Arizona. He coathored the August 2006 Science cover story, “Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity” (subs. req’d). The abstract is viewable online — here is the conclusion:

(more…)

The ethanol backlash continues with a New York Times editorial titled The High Costs of Ethanol:

The distortions in agricultural production are startling. Corn prices are up about 50 percent from last year, while soybean prices are projected to rise up to 30 percent in the coming year, as farmers have replaced soy with corn in their fields. The increasing cost of animal feed is raising the prices of dairy and poultry products….

A recent report by the OECD, an economic forum of rich nations, called on the United States and other industrialized nations to eliminate subsidies for the production of ethanol which, the report said, is driving up food costs, threatening natural habitats and imposing other environmental costs. “The overall environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel can very easily exceed those of petrol and mineral diesel,” it said.

(more…)

Hitting a record low on September 16, 2007, the Arctic lost half a million square miles of ice compared to its last record low just two years ago.

For all the details, check out the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) website, which notes “the Northwest Passage is still open, but is starting to refreeze. We are still on track for an ice free Arctic by 2030, decades ahead of the climate models.

UPDATE: I omitted the fact cited in the headline: Compared to its “long-term average minimum, based on averaging data from 1979 to 2000,” the Arctic has shrunk one million square miles, “an area approximately equal to the size of Alaska and Texas combined.” My apologies for the confusion.

Bush may be hosting a climate summit this week, but “what he will not do, officials said, is chart any shift in policies.” Specifically, the Washington Post reports:

Top Bush administration officials said the president is not planning to alter his opposition to mandatory limits on greenhouse gases or to stray from his emphasis on promoting new technologies, especially for nuclear power and for the storage of carbon dioxide produced by coal plants.

This is straight from the Frank Luntz playbook on how to seem like you care about the climate when you don’t: Technology, technology, technology. Yada. Yada. Yada. Delay, delay, delay.

Bush is no climate magician. He will not be pulling a rabbit out of a hat this week. Bush has nothing up his sleeve — you can’t solve the climate problem without mandatory limits.

James Connaughton, head of the president’s Council on Environmental Quality, said Bush’s goal is to aim for a “solid handoff to the next president, regardless of party.” Yeah, just like Iraq. Run out the clock.

The article did offer one (bizarre) new line of argument — why the administration opposes a cap-and-trade system:

(more…)

from July, you can finally read the testimony at the committee web site. The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming has also revamped their site with some nice graphics and info. Check it out.

John D. Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress, gave a talk last week to National Association of State Treasures. Here are some key points:

You have seen the overdue shift in the global warming debate: from whether climate change is real to a sense of urgency about how to address it.

The science and the economics are conclusive: doing nothing about global warming presents a far greater cost than addressing it.

Global warming, if not reversed, will consume our national resources and threaten the well-being of future generations, and volatile energy prices and more extreme weather will devastate our economy.

The urgency of this issue demands a president and a Congress willing to make climate challenge a centerpiece not only of their energy policy but also of their economic program, to produce broad-based growth and sustain American economic leadership in the 21st century.

Society faces mounting physical risks, and businesses face grave financial risks if they fail to adapt to a changing policy climate because of the rapidly changing physical climate.

The challenge we face is nothing short of transforming our economy from a high-carbon model–which is putting both our economy and planet at risk–to a low-carbon model that can create new markets and a healthier environment.

He has an important point to make on the politics:

(more…)

The AP just released the following story:

Global warming — through a combination of melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets and warmer waters expanding — is expected to cause oceans to rise by one meter, or about 39 inches. It will happen regardless of any future actions to curb greenhouse gases, several leading scientists say. And it will reshape the nation.

Wow! The first amazing thing is the confidence with which AP makes a statement beyond the IPCC’s scientific consensus. This is what most of the experts I spoke to for my book said, and I’m glad to see it in print (kudos to AP reporter Seth Borenstein):

Few of the more than two dozen climate experts interviewed disagree with the one-meter projection. Some believe it could happen in 50 years, others say 100, and still others say 150.

The second amazing thing is this quote:

Even John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a scientist often quoted by global warming skeptics, said he figures the seas will rise at least 16 inches by the end of the century. But he tells people to prepare for a rise of about three feet just in case.

Looks like Christy needs to straighten Lomborg out.

The third amazing thing — and the one I (and I think Hansen) would take some exception with is “It will happen regardless of any future actions to curb greenhouse gases.” Still, Borenstein gets a stunning quote here:

(more…)

A friend of mine “assigned” my book to his 15-year-old daughter over the summer. When she was done, she wrote me a letter. The letter really touched me, and I thought I would share it here. The letter gives me some hope about the next generation — and boosts my desire not to leave them an irreversibly ruined world. They deserve a fighting chance to undo our mistakes. Anyway, here is the letter:

(more…)

Once again, I am writing this mostly off-topic post as part of a blog post writing contest — but I am hoping to become a better blogger and bring in some new readers. I have to pick the best of the submissions on “Tips & Tricks” (the full list is here) –and I’ve tried to pick ones that will be of most interest to general readers (and I included mine since you gotta vote for yourself, no?):

• Five Quick Tips On Evaluating Your Kids’ Teachers
• Beware of Fakes on Ebay
• Tips and Tricks to Get More Out of Your Laptop Battery
• Warning: These 9 Photoshop Techniques May Result In Great Photos
• Must Read Tips for Writing a Post that Attracts 15,000 Readers

Lehman Brothers has just released a terrific report, The Business of Climate Change II. The theme is, “Policy is accelerating, with major implications for companies and investors,” but the piece has a lot of breadth, with cogent comments on everything from the social/damage cost of carbon to auctioning vs. granfathering to the Stern Report. Here are some extended excerpts:

What are the chances for a global climate agreement?

The probability of some sort of international greenhouse-gas-limiting agreement in the next three to five years involving the US, China, and perhaps India, which earlier this year we put at 50%, will continue to rise. We now put the probability at around 75%.

Why does climate change matter to business now?

Many clients have asked for our view on the argument that, even assuming that scientists’ projections of the likely effects of climate change are broadly correct, the effects will be felt only slowly, with little effect on asset prices over most investors’ time horizons.

We judge this argument as flawed, for three, linked, reasons. First, markets anticipate even slow-moving variables, such as climate change. Second, policy made in the name of climate change could have an almost immediate, up-front effect on asset prices. And third, markets anticipate policy itself. In this way, expected future effects of climate change become brought right forward to the present.

Fundamentally, the economic case for considering climate change ultimately depends on the science. Our judgement is that the science will increasingly be seen as broadly correct; that this view will be progressively accepted by the weight of market opinion; and that, while the adjustment of asset prices has begun, full adjustment will take years, rather than months.

What is the “social” or “damage” cost of carbon?

(more…)