Climate Progress: An insider's view of climate science, politics, and solutions

What is the best, most accurate soundbite for climate science advocates asked about projected climate impacts on this country by 2100 assuming we stay on business-as-usual emissions — according to the latest science?

I suggest some version of

On our current emissions path we are projected to warm most of the United States 10 – 15°F by 2100, with sea level rise of 5 feet or higher, the U.S. Southwest a permanent Dust Bowl, half or more species extinct, and much of the ocean a hot, acidic dead zone.

I say that, of course, because that is what the latest science says, as I document at length with links to the literature here:  An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water.

You can quibble with the word choice, and sometimes I don’t remember to say every word or phrase I’d like to, such as “from preindustrial levels” [or "from Kansas and Oklahoham to California"].   But this is now the median projection for business-as-usual emissions and warming.  It might not be that bad, but it could be much worse.

If you like to err on the conservative side, you can throw in “up to” — i.e. “we are projected to warm most of the U.S. up to 15°F or more by 2100, with sea level rise of up to 5 feet or more….”

Now conservatives, who err all the time, don’t like blunt progressives who know their science.  So they are trying to shout down this soundbite by misstating the science.

(more…)

A number of commenters suggested I write about population and global warming (see here).  Leading environmental journalist Fred Pearce beat me to the punch with an excellent piece at Yale’s e360 that I almost entirely agree with.

Pierce’s key point is that the rapacious consumption of hydrocarbons and other non-renewable resources practiced by the planet’s wealthiest 10% far outweighs the effects of population growth in developing nations:

It’s over-consumption, not population growth, that is the fundamental problem: By almost any measure, a small portion of the world’s people –- those in the affluent, developed world -– use up most of the Earth’s resources and produce most of its greenhouse gas emissions.

Precisely.

The world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.

This is not to say that population isn’t important, but mainly that the the population ship has sailed, as it were:

(more…)

Top Stories

A Revived EPA Takes on Climate Change and More

Over the past 10 weeks, the Environmental Protection Agency has been pumping out proposals and directives on everything from climate change to pollution from ships. In one high-profile move last month, the EPA said it will launch detailed reviews of permits for mountaintop coal mining operations, which can have profound effects on nearby waterways.

By moving so quickly, President Obama’s EPA has in effect reproached the Bush administration for dawdling on climate change. In calling for tougher regulations, it has also criticized Bush officials for catering to businesses and industry.

The White House is expected to sign off this week on the most important finding the EPA will make in his administration (see “EPA makes landmark finding: Global warming threatens public health and welfare“).

Rich-Poor Divide Still Stalls Climate Accord

Elisabeth Rosenthal writes at DotEarth:

Little concrete progress was achieved at the climate talks that ended here this week, but the fault lines that will divide the world as its attempts to negotiate a new climate treaty by the end of this year became vividly clear in the corridors of the Maritim Hotel Conference Center.

A host of developing countries, from China to Bolivia to the Philippines, took to the podium to insist that developed countries cut their emissions very rapidly by far more than they had planned. Most said the appropriate figure would be at least a 40 to 50 percent reductions compared to 1990 levels by 2020.

Note to Rosenthal, NYT:  It is time to start writing about China differently. It is I think absurd to continue to lump China in the same sentence or the same “developing country” category as the likes of Bolivia or Philippines, given that China can pretty much single-handedly finish off the climate and that China is a hyper developing, exporting giant that is a leader in many clean technologies (see one example below).

For a different, albeit more fanciful take, see Andrew Jones’ “Developed World Strikes a Climate Deal with Developing World (in a sim at least).”

(more…)

Investing in a Clean-Energy Smart Grid is a critical step towards addressing both our economic and energy crises [see "A smart, green grid is needed to enable a near-term renewable revolution"]. Clearly, we need energy policies for the 21st century that will increase jobs and help us become more competitive, while reducing our use of foreign oil and curbing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

A National Conversation about the Clean-Energy Smart Grid
If we build a modern interstate energy transmission system, we will strengthen our national security, create quality jobs, and provide the backbone for broad economic growth, just like building the Interstate Highway System did in the 1950s and 1960s. And since this is a national problem that requires a national solution, it is important to make this a national conversation.

If we can get people across the entire country talking about the need for a clean-energy smart grid, the odds we can get it built will go up dramatically. That is why the Center for American Progress Action Fund is promoting a week-long national conversation about the clean-energy smart grid Monday, April 13 through Sunday, April 19 [See www.WiredforProgress.org to participate].

Will you join the conversation?

(more…)