U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack praised those at a biochar conference Monday at the University of Colorado, calling them innovators who potentially could help fight climate change and even create new economic opportunities for farmers.
Vilsack gave the keynote address at the conference, which is the first major biochar gathering in the United States. Biochar, created when organic materials are burned in a low-oxygen environment, is touted as an environmentally friendly way to turn infertile soils into nutrient-rich dirt.
"These are the kinds of innovations I think we're going to see all over the country," Vilsack said.
He talked about his support for a "cap-and-trade" system to reduce carbon emissions, making companies that produce more carbon emissions than allowed under a cap buy carbon permits through a government auction. The profits could pay for new energy research.
Companies also could buy "carbon offsets" at a lower cost from farms, forests and other sources. It's those offsets that could create an economic opportunity for farmers and ranchers, Vilsack said, and biochar is an offset candidate.
He said other income-generating possibilities for farmers include biomass and biofuels.
"We're seeing more interest in renewable energy on the farms," he said.
Revitalizing rural America -- and making it possible to earn a good living through farming -- is a priority for his department, he said.
A recent survey showed that mid-sized family farms have declined in the last five years, he said, though there are about 100,000 more small vegetable, fruit and specialty product farms. One of his department's initiatives is a program to help create local supply chains for small farmers.
He also told the audience that, while the agriculture department's 2010 budget is light on money for research, there's a greater research emphasis in the 2011 budget.
Jim Amonette, a biochar conference attendee who works at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said he was impressed by Vilsack's address.
"It's nice to have a secretary of agriculture who knows what biochar is and understands the role agriculture can play in energy," he said.
Deborah Martin, a Boulder research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, said she liked that Vilsack talked about the need for a worldwide approach to sustainability.
"He was terrific," she said. "He was well-educated and well-informed."
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Climate change press coverage gets weird
For those of you not familiar with this period in Earth's history, the PETM is a very singular event in the Cenozoic (last 65 million years). It was the largest and most abrupt perturbation to the carbon cycle over that whole period, defined by an absolutely huge negative isotope spike. Although there are smaller analogs later in the Eocene, the size of the carbon flux that must have been brought into the ocean/atmosphere carbon cycle in that one event, is on a par with the entire reserve of conventional fossil fuels at present. A really big number – but exactly how big?
The story starts off innocently enough with a new paper by Richard Zeebe and colleagues in Nature Geoscience to tackle exactly this question. They use a carbon cycle model, tuned to conditions in the Paleocene, to constrain the amount of carbon that must have come into the system to cause both the sharp isotopic spike and a very clear change in the "carbonate compensation depth" (CCD) – this is the depth at which carbonates dissolve in sea water (a function of the pH, pressure, total carbon amount etc.). There is strong evidence that the the CCD rose hundreds of meters over the PETM – causing clear dissolution events in shallower ocean sediment cores. What Zeebe et al. come up with is that around 3000 Gt carbon must have been added to the system – a significant increase on the original estimates of about half that much made a decade or so ago, though less than some high end speculations.
Temperature changes at the same time as this huge carbon spike were large too. Note that this is happening on a Paleocene background climate that we don't fully understand either – the polar amplification in very warm paleo-climates is much larger than we've been able to explain using standard models. Estimates range from 5 to 9 deg C warming (with some additional uncertainty due to potential problems with the proxy data) – smaller in the tropics than at higher latitudes.
Putting these two bits of evidence together is where it starts to get tricky.
First of all, how much does atmospheric CO2 rise if you add 3000 GtC to the system in a (geologically) short period of time? Zeebe et al. did this calculation and the answer is about 700 ppmv – quite a lot eh? However, that is a perturbation to the Paleocene carbon cycle – which they assume has a base CO2 level of 1000 ppm, and so you only get a 70% increase – i.e. not even a doubling of CO2. And since the forcing that goes along with an increase in CO2 is logarithmic, it is the percent change in CO2 that matters rather than the absolute increase. The radiative forcing associated with that is about 2.6 W/m2. Unfortunately, we don't (yet) have very good estimates of background CO2 levels in Paleocene. The proxies we do have suggest significantly higher values than today, but they aren't precise. Levels could have been less than 1000 ppm, or even significantly more.
If (and this is a key assumption that we'll get to later) this was the only forcing associated with the PETM event, how much warmer would we expect the planet to get? One might be tempted to use the standard 'Charney' climate sensitivity (2-4.5ºC per doubling of CO2) that is discussed so much in the IPCC reports. That would give you a mere 1.5-3ºC warming which appears inadequate. However, this is inappropriate for at least two reasons. First, the Charney sensitivity is a quite carefully defined metric that is used to compare a certain class of atmospheric models. It assumes that there are no other changes in atmospheric composition (aerosols, methane, ozone) and no changes in vegetation, ice sheets or ocean circulation. It is not the warming we expect if we just increase CO2 and let everything else adjust.
In fact, the concept we should be looking at is the Earth System Sensitivity (a usage I am trying to get more widely adopted) as we mentioned last year in our discussion of 'Target CO2'. The point is that all of those factors left out of the Charney sensitivity are going to change, and we are interested in the response of the whole Earth System – not just an idealised little piece of it that happens to fit with what was included in GCMs in 1979.
Now for the Paleocene, it is unlikely that changes in ice sheets were very relevant (there weren't any to speak of). But changes in vegetation, ozone, methane and aerosols (of various sorts) would certainly be expected. Estimates of the ESS taken from the Pliocene, or from the changes over the whole Cenozoic imply that the ESS is likely to be larger than the Charney sensitivity since vegetation, ozone and methane feedbacks are all amplifying. I'm on an upcoming paper that suggests a value about 50% bigger, while Jim Hansen has suggested a value about twice as big as Charney. That would give you an expected range of temperature increases of 2-5ºC (our estimate) or 3-6ºC (Hansen) (note that uncertainty bands are increasing here but the ranges are starting to overlap with the observations). ALl of this assumes that there are no huge non-linearities in climate sensitivity in radically different climates – something we aren't at all sure about either.
But let's go back to the first key assumption – that CO2 forcing is the only direct impact of the PETM event. The source of all this carbon has to satisfy two key constraints – it must be from a very depleted biogenic source and it needs to be relatively accessible. The leading candidate for this is methane hydrate – a kind of methane ice that is found in cold conditions and under pressure on continental margins – often capping large deposits of methane gas itself. Our information about such deposits in the Paleocene is sketchy to say the least, but there are plenty of ideas as to why a large outgassing of these deposits might have occurred (tectonic uplift in the proto-Indian ocean, volcanic activity in the North Atlantic, switches in deep ocean temperature due to the closure of key gateways into the Arctic etc.).
Putting aside the issue of the trigger though, we have the fascinating question of what happens to the methane that would be released in such a scenario. The standard assumption (used in the Zeebe et al paper) is that the methane would oxidise (to CO2) relatively quickly and so you don't need to worry about the details. But work that Drew Shindell and I did a few years ago suggested that this might not quite be true. We found that atmospheric chemistry feedbacks in such a circumstance could increase the impact of methane releases by a factor of 4 or so. While this isn't enough to sustain a high methane concentration for tens of thousands of years following an initial pulse, it might be enough to enhance the peak radiative forcing if the methane was being released continuously over a few thousand years. The increase in the case of a 3000 GtC pulse would be on the order of a couple of W/m2 – for as long as the methane was being released. That would be a significant boost to the CO2-only forcing given above – and enough (at least for relatively short parts of the PETM) to bring the temperature and forcing estimates into line.
Of course, much of this is speculative given the difficulty in working out what actually happened 55 million years ago. The press response to the Zeebe et al paper was, however, very predictable.
The problems probably started with the title of the paper "Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming" which on it's own might have been unproblematic. However, it was paired with a press release from Rice University that was titled "Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong", containing the statement from Jerry Dickens that "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models".
Since the know-nothings agree one hundred per cent with these two last statements, it took no time at all for the press release to get passed along by Marc Morano, posted on Drudge, and declared the final nail in the coffin for 'alarmist' global warming science on WUWT (Andrew Freedman at WaPo has a good discussion of this). The fact that what was really being said was that climate sensitivity is probably larger than produced in standard climate models seemed to pass almost all of these people by (though a few of their more astute commenters did pick up on it). Regardless, the message went out that 'climate models are wrong' with the implicit sub-text that current global warming is nothing to worry about. Almost the exact opposite point that the authors wanted to make (another press release from U. Hawaii was much better in that respect).
What might have been done differently?
First off, headlines and titles that simply confirm someone's prior belief (even if that belief is completely at odds with the substance of the paper) are a really bad idea. Many people do not go beyond the headline – they read it, they agree with it, they move on. Also one should avoid truisms. All 'models' are indeed wrong – they are models, not perfect representations of the real world. The real question is whether they are useful – what do they underestimate? overestimate? and are they sufficiently complete? Thus a much better title for the press release would have been more specific ""Global warming: Our best guess is likely too small" – and much less misinterpretable!
Secondly, a lot of the confusion is related to the use of the word 'model' itself. When people hear 'climate model', they generally think of the big ocean-atmosphere models run by GISS, NCAR or Hadley Centre etc. for the 20th Century climate and for future scenarios. The model used in Zeebe et al was not one of these, instead it was a relatively sophisticated carbon cycle model that tracks the different elements of the carbon cycle, but not the changes in climate. The conclusions of the study related to the sensitivity of the climate used the standard range of sensitivities from IPCC TAR (1.5 to 4.5ºC for a doubling of CO2), which have been constrained – not by climate models – but by observed climate changes. Thus nothing in the paper related to the commonly accepted 'climate models' at all, yet most of the commentary made the incorrect association.
To summarise, there is still a great deal of mystery about the PETM – the trigger, where the carbon came from and what happened to it – and the latest research hasn't tied up all the many loose ends. Whether the solution lies in something 'fundamental' as Dickens surmises (possibly related to our basic inability to explain the latitudinal gradients in any of the very warm climates) , or whether it's a combination of a different forcing function combined with more inclusive ideas about climate sensitivity, is yet to be determined. However, we can all agree that it remains a tantalisingly relevant episode of Earth history
The story starts off innocently enough with a new paper by Richard Zeebe and colleagues in Nature Geoscience to tackle exactly this question. They use a carbon cycle model, tuned to conditions in the Paleocene, to constrain the amount of carbon that must have come into the system to cause both the sharp isotopic spike and a very clear change in the "carbonate compensation depth" (CCD) – this is the depth at which carbonates dissolve in sea water (a function of the pH, pressure, total carbon amount etc.). There is strong evidence that the the CCD rose hundreds of meters over the PETM – causing clear dissolution events in shallower ocean sediment cores. What Zeebe et al. come up with is that around 3000 Gt carbon must have been added to the system – a significant increase on the original estimates of about half that much made a decade or so ago, though less than some high end speculations.
Temperature changes at the same time as this huge carbon spike were large too. Note that this is happening on a Paleocene background climate that we don't fully understand either – the polar amplification in very warm paleo-climates is much larger than we've been able to explain using standard models. Estimates range from 5 to 9 deg C warming (with some additional uncertainty due to potential problems with the proxy data) – smaller in the tropics than at higher latitudes.
Putting these two bits of evidence together is where it starts to get tricky.
First of all, how much does atmospheric CO2 rise if you add 3000 GtC to the system in a (geologically) short period of time? Zeebe et al. did this calculation and the answer is about 700 ppmv – quite a lot eh? However, that is a perturbation to the Paleocene carbon cycle – which they assume has a base CO2 level of 1000 ppm, and so you only get a 70% increase – i.e. not even a doubling of CO2. And since the forcing that goes along with an increase in CO2 is logarithmic, it is the percent change in CO2 that matters rather than the absolute increase. The radiative forcing associated with that is about 2.6 W/m2. Unfortunately, we don't (yet) have very good estimates of background CO2 levels in Paleocene. The proxies we do have suggest significantly higher values than today, but they aren't precise. Levels could have been less than 1000 ppm, or even significantly more.
If (and this is a key assumption that we'll get to later) this was the only forcing associated with the PETM event, how much warmer would we expect the planet to get? One might be tempted to use the standard 'Charney' climate sensitivity (2-4.5ºC per doubling of CO2) that is discussed so much in the IPCC reports. That would give you a mere 1.5-3ºC warming which appears inadequate. However, this is inappropriate for at least two reasons. First, the Charney sensitivity is a quite carefully defined metric that is used to compare a certain class of atmospheric models. It assumes that there are no other changes in atmospheric composition (aerosols, methane, ozone) and no changes in vegetation, ice sheets or ocean circulation. It is not the warming we expect if we just increase CO2 and let everything else adjust.
In fact, the concept we should be looking at is the Earth System Sensitivity (a usage I am trying to get more widely adopted) as we mentioned last year in our discussion of 'Target CO2'. The point is that all of those factors left out of the Charney sensitivity are going to change, and we are interested in the response of the whole Earth System – not just an idealised little piece of it that happens to fit with what was included in GCMs in 1979.
Now for the Paleocene, it is unlikely that changes in ice sheets were very relevant (there weren't any to speak of). But changes in vegetation, ozone, methane and aerosols (of various sorts) would certainly be expected. Estimates of the ESS taken from the Pliocene, or from the changes over the whole Cenozoic imply that the ESS is likely to be larger than the Charney sensitivity since vegetation, ozone and methane feedbacks are all amplifying. I'm on an upcoming paper that suggests a value about 50% bigger, while Jim Hansen has suggested a value about twice as big as Charney. That would give you an expected range of temperature increases of 2-5ºC (our estimate) or 3-6ºC (Hansen) (note that uncertainty bands are increasing here but the ranges are starting to overlap with the observations). ALl of this assumes that there are no huge non-linearities in climate sensitivity in radically different climates – something we aren't at all sure about either.
But let's go back to the first key assumption – that CO2 forcing is the only direct impact of the PETM event. The source of all this carbon has to satisfy two key constraints – it must be from a very depleted biogenic source and it needs to be relatively accessible. The leading candidate for this is methane hydrate – a kind of methane ice that is found in cold conditions and under pressure on continental margins – often capping large deposits of methane gas itself. Our information about such deposits in the Paleocene is sketchy to say the least, but there are plenty of ideas as to why a large outgassing of these deposits might have occurred (tectonic uplift in the proto-Indian ocean, volcanic activity in the North Atlantic, switches in deep ocean temperature due to the closure of key gateways into the Arctic etc.).
Putting aside the issue of the trigger though, we have the fascinating question of what happens to the methane that would be released in such a scenario. The standard assumption (used in the Zeebe et al paper) is that the methane would oxidise (to CO2) relatively quickly and so you don't need to worry about the details. But work that Drew Shindell and I did a few years ago suggested that this might not quite be true. We found that atmospheric chemistry feedbacks in such a circumstance could increase the impact of methane releases by a factor of 4 or so. While this isn't enough to sustain a high methane concentration for tens of thousands of years following an initial pulse, it might be enough to enhance the peak radiative forcing if the methane was being released continuously over a few thousand years. The increase in the case of a 3000 GtC pulse would be on the order of a couple of W/m2 – for as long as the methane was being released. That would be a significant boost to the CO2-only forcing given above – and enough (at least for relatively short parts of the PETM) to bring the temperature and forcing estimates into line.
Of course, much of this is speculative given the difficulty in working out what actually happened 55 million years ago. The press response to the Zeebe et al paper was, however, very predictable.
The problems probably started with the title of the paper "Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming" which on it's own might have been unproblematic. However, it was paired with a press release from Rice University that was titled "Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong", containing the statement from Jerry Dickens that "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models".
Since the know-nothings agree one hundred per cent with these two last statements, it took no time at all for the press release to get passed along by Marc Morano, posted on Drudge, and declared the final nail in the coffin for 'alarmist' global warming science on WUWT (Andrew Freedman at WaPo has a good discussion of this). The fact that what was really being said was that climate sensitivity is probably larger than produced in standard climate models seemed to pass almost all of these people by (though a few of their more astute commenters did pick up on it). Regardless, the message went out that 'climate models are wrong' with the implicit sub-text that current global warming is nothing to worry about. Almost the exact opposite point that the authors wanted to make (another press release from U. Hawaii was much better in that respect).
What might have been done differently?
First off, headlines and titles that simply confirm someone's prior belief (even if that belief is completely at odds with the substance of the paper) are a really bad idea. Many people do not go beyond the headline – they read it, they agree with it, they move on. Also one should avoid truisms. All 'models' are indeed wrong – they are models, not perfect representations of the real world. The real question is whether they are useful – what do they underestimate? overestimate? and are they sufficiently complete? Thus a much better title for the press release would have been more specific ""Global warming: Our best guess is likely too small" – and much less misinterpretable!
Secondly, a lot of the confusion is related to the use of the word 'model' itself. When people hear 'climate model', they generally think of the big ocean-atmosphere models run by GISS, NCAR or Hadley Centre etc. for the 20th Century climate and for future scenarios. The model used in Zeebe et al was not one of these, instead it was a relatively sophisticated carbon cycle model that tracks the different elements of the carbon cycle, but not the changes in climate. The conclusions of the study related to the sensitivity of the climate used the standard range of sensitivities from IPCC TAR (1.5 to 4.5ºC for a doubling of CO2), which have been constrained – not by climate models – but by observed climate changes. Thus nothing in the paper related to the commonly accepted 'climate models' at all, yet most of the commentary made the incorrect association.
To summarise, there is still a great deal of mystery about the PETM – the trigger, where the carbon came from and what happened to it – and the latest research hasn't tied up all the many loose ends. Whether the solution lies in something 'fundamental' as Dickens surmises (possibly related to our basic inability to explain the latitudinal gradients in any of the very warm climates) , or whether it's a combination of a different forcing function combined with more inclusive ideas about climate sensitivity, is yet to be determined. However, we can all agree that it remains a tantalisingly relevant episode of Earth history
Climate Change & National Security: A Tough Sell
Climate change is rarely featured on the front pages of top U.S. newspapers, such as the Washington Post and New York Times. As a gradually unfolding and large-scale event, often called a 'creeping' story, climate change typically lacks a tangible 'news hook.' Rather than the standard news items such as 'U.S. hostages are freed from North Korea' or 'missing South Carolina governor admits affair,' climate stories tend to be less pressing, more complicated, and have a longer time horizon, which makes them harder to justify as page one fare.
This makes a New York Times story on page A1 of the widely read Sunday edition on August 9 stand out. The story, by Times reporter John M. Broder, examined the potential national security implications of climate change, which is a facet of the climate issue that has been getting more attention at high levels of government.
While the story didn't offer much new information, it did highlight that some lawmakers on Capitol Hill as well as the Obama administration may be turning to national security concerns to bolster their pitch for controversial climate change legislation. The House passed a bill in late June to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, but the Senate has not yet unveiled its version of the legislation, which faces an uphill slog in that chamber. It remains to be seen whether framing climate change as a national security threat will win votes. I am skeptical.
Keep reading for more on the risk of climate change on national security and its impact on policymakers...
The Times story, with the headline "Climate Change Seen as a Threat to U.S. National Security," reported on the Obama administration's growing alarm that by flooding coastlines, causing mass migrations, degrading the ability of lands to sustain large populations, and causing more intense storms, climate change could serve as a destabilizing force, one which the U.S. military may increasingly have to reckon with.
"Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response," the article stated.
This sort of portrayal is not new. Numerous reports have been written on climate change and security issues, including one [PDF] by 11 retired admirals and generals that was published in 2007 by CNA Corp. A book, "Climatic Cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Climate Change," was published on the subject last year.
And in Washington, several Congressional committees have held hearings on climate change and national security, and legislation has spurred the executive branch to include climate change in long-term defense and intelligence planning.
Lawmakers, led by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) and joined by former Republican Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, himself a former Navy secretary, have been making the rounds on Capitol Hill to lobby for support for so-called "cap and trade" climate legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. According to the Times, Kerry has met with more than two-dozen wavering colleagues about the need to support such legislation due in part to national security concerns.
"This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House," the article stated.
While the potential is certainly there for national security issues to loom large in Senate debate on climate change legislation, I think there is more evidence to argue for the other side -- that national security concerns will remain at the periphery of this debate for some time to come, and perhaps rightly so.
Despite its considerable merits, the national security argument is unlikely to change many minds in large part because it shares many of the characteristics that make climate change a typical page A14 story rather than A1: it too plays out in a manner that is diffuse, long term, and lacks a sense of immediacy. The links between climate and conflict are rarely, if ever, straightforward. This does not mean that climate change cannot be a key factor, but rather that the interplay of factors that lead to a conflict or humanitarian crisis tend to be quite complex.
There are already many societal and environmental pressures, such as population growth, that are working to exacerbate security concerns in some regions. In addition, there is the matter of the decades-long time lag that exists between emissions reductions and the climate system's response. These issues raise the question of how justified it would be to rest the argument for a climate bill on national security grounds.
As Times reporter and blogger Andrew Revkin wrote yesterday, "Even if the legislation took effect and emissions were curtailed, the world would still see disruptive pressures building in places already facing severe drought and flood risks with or without the added kick from greenhouse warming." Revkin raised the question of whether the prospect of additional climate-related instability relates more to Pentagon and State Department planning than it does to domestic climate legislation.
Furthermore, just as reporters face skepticism from their editors when they try to cover climate stories, Kerry and other elected officials are likely to encounter stiff resistance from their colleagues who are far more concerned with the economic plight of the people they represent than they are about whether the U.S. military will have to conduct more humanitarian interventions in 2050 due in part to climate change-related impacts.
This is not necessarily the lawmakers' fault.
As I've previously reported, social science research has shown that the human mind is hard-wired to prioritize immediate dangers and risks over long-term threats. We also tend to prefer immediate benefits, rather than the prospect of future rewards. Thus, many lawmakers and the constituents who elected them are hesitant to support taking action on climate change now since it could result in economic costs in the short term, despite the evidence that shows that addressing climate change now would reduce future risks.
For others, concerns about environmental and national security calamities may outweigh fears of economic disruption in the near term, and they may also agree with many economists who have said that tackling climate change sooner rather than later could prove to be an economic boon rather than a boondoggle. But they seem to be in the minority, at least in Washington.
The many psychological barriers to action on climate change are spelled out in a new report [PDF] from the American Psychological Association. I suggest that lawmakers read it before they decide that playing the national security card is the best approach to attracting more votes for a plan to address climate change.
This makes a New York Times story on page A1 of the widely read Sunday edition on August 9 stand out. The story, by Times reporter John M. Broder, examined the potential national security implications of climate change, which is a facet of the climate issue that has been getting more attention at high levels of government.
While the story didn't offer much new information, it did highlight that some lawmakers on Capitol Hill as well as the Obama administration may be turning to national security concerns to bolster their pitch for controversial climate change legislation. The House passed a bill in late June to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, but the Senate has not yet unveiled its version of the legislation, which faces an uphill slog in that chamber. It remains to be seen whether framing climate change as a national security threat will win votes. I am skeptical.
Keep reading for more on the risk of climate change on national security and its impact on policymakers...
The Times story, with the headline "Climate Change Seen as a Threat to U.S. National Security," reported on the Obama administration's growing alarm that by flooding coastlines, causing mass migrations, degrading the ability of lands to sustain large populations, and causing more intense storms, climate change could serve as a destabilizing force, one which the U.S. military may increasingly have to reckon with.
"Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response," the article stated.
This sort of portrayal is not new. Numerous reports have been written on climate change and security issues, including one [PDF] by 11 retired admirals and generals that was published in 2007 by CNA Corp. A book, "Climatic Cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Climate Change," was published on the subject last year.
And in Washington, several Congressional committees have held hearings on climate change and national security, and legislation has spurred the executive branch to include climate change in long-term defense and intelligence planning.
Lawmakers, led by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) and joined by former Republican Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, himself a former Navy secretary, have been making the rounds on Capitol Hill to lobby for support for so-called "cap and trade" climate legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. According to the Times, Kerry has met with more than two-dozen wavering colleagues about the need to support such legislation due in part to national security concerns.
"This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House," the article stated.
While the potential is certainly there for national security issues to loom large in Senate debate on climate change legislation, I think there is more evidence to argue for the other side -- that national security concerns will remain at the periphery of this debate for some time to come, and perhaps rightly so.
Despite its considerable merits, the national security argument is unlikely to change many minds in large part because it shares many of the characteristics that make climate change a typical page A14 story rather than A1: it too plays out in a manner that is diffuse, long term, and lacks a sense of immediacy. The links between climate and conflict are rarely, if ever, straightforward. This does not mean that climate change cannot be a key factor, but rather that the interplay of factors that lead to a conflict or humanitarian crisis tend to be quite complex.
There are already many societal and environmental pressures, such as population growth, that are working to exacerbate security concerns in some regions. In addition, there is the matter of the decades-long time lag that exists between emissions reductions and the climate system's response. These issues raise the question of how justified it would be to rest the argument for a climate bill on national security grounds.
As Times reporter and blogger Andrew Revkin wrote yesterday, "Even if the legislation took effect and emissions were curtailed, the world would still see disruptive pressures building in places already facing severe drought and flood risks with or without the added kick from greenhouse warming." Revkin raised the question of whether the prospect of additional climate-related instability relates more to Pentagon and State Department planning than it does to domestic climate legislation.
Furthermore, just as reporters face skepticism from their editors when they try to cover climate stories, Kerry and other elected officials are likely to encounter stiff resistance from their colleagues who are far more concerned with the economic plight of the people they represent than they are about whether the U.S. military will have to conduct more humanitarian interventions in 2050 due in part to climate change-related impacts.
This is not necessarily the lawmakers' fault.
As I've previously reported, social science research has shown that the human mind is hard-wired to prioritize immediate dangers and risks over long-term threats. We also tend to prefer immediate benefits, rather than the prospect of future rewards. Thus, many lawmakers and the constituents who elected them are hesitant to support taking action on climate change now since it could result in economic costs in the short term, despite the evidence that shows that addressing climate change now would reduce future risks.
For others, concerns about environmental and national security calamities may outweigh fears of economic disruption in the near term, and they may also agree with many economists who have said that tackling climate change sooner rather than later could prove to be an economic boon rather than a boondoggle. But they seem to be in the minority, at least in Washington.
The many psychological barriers to action on climate change are spelled out in a new report [PDF] from the American Psychological Association. I suggest that lawmakers read it before they decide that playing the national security card is the best approach to attracting more votes for a plan to address climate change.
Climate change skeptics uniting in Springfield, Mo.
Ron Boyer believes climate change skeptics have gotten a raw deal — in some academic circles, in Congress and certainly in the press.That's why Boyer, a member of the Missouri Air Conservation Commission, is sponsoring a meeting Thursday in Springfield that he says "will highlight the fallacy of anthropogenic global warming proponents' apocalyptic dogma.""The more I looked into this, I found more empirical evidence that the Earth is actually cooling," said Boyer, who runs an environmental and agricultural consulting firm in Fair Grove, Mo.The conference, sponsored by Boyer's group, Scientists for Truth, has lured a veritable who's who of climate change skeptics and contrarians as guest speakers. Among them: Dennis T. Avery, co-author of "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years"; Joseph D'Aleo, former director of meteorology for the Weather Channel; and Marc Morano, the former spokesman for U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Boyer said the conference is a result of his decision to push back against those he considers "global warming alarmists" and give skeptics a much-needed public platform."I think the case for this side is so much stronger, but you don't see much about it in the paper and television," Boyer said.
Most scientists believe that Earth is warming due to the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Consequently, many have predicted the world will experience more flooding, droughts and other cataclysmic events unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Two years ago, members of the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with near certainty that Earth's most recent warming cycle was the result of human activities.While there is disagreement among scientists about the extent and pace of climate change and what to do about it, many have backed the IPCC's conclusions."There's not much debate within the majority of the scientific community," said Don Wuebbles, an atmospheric scientist with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who served on the IPCC and wrote some of its early assessments. "Sure, an interesting point will come up and we'll poke at it, but that's our life."Some skeptics, however, continue to challenge the basic science, often pointing to solar activity or swings in ocean cycles as the likely culprits behind current climate shifts.They are vehemently opposed to the climate change legislation that's expected to go to the Senate for a vote this fall that would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions.Dan Lashoff, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center, said political ideology — not science — seems to be the common thread among the Springfield conference speakers, some of whom are slated to talk about climate change legislation."I think most opponents of this legislation have moved past the debate over science," Lashoff said. "Most of the organized opposition is focusing on the economics. But some of these guys, I guess, just won't give up."One of the key voices in the skeptic community who doesn't seem remotely ready to give up is Morano, who runs ClimateDepot.com, a skeptic website and news service.He is perhaps best known for compiling a Senate committee report that contains the names of more than 700 international scientists he describes as climate change dissenters. Environmental advocates have questioned the credentials of some of the people on that list.During his speech in Springfield, Morano says, he'll challenge the notion that there's a consensus among scientists about climate change. Instead, the number of skeptics — among scientists and the general public — "is skyrocketing," he said."This is a grass-roots rebellion, and the Springfield conference is a great example," Morano said. Boyer said last week that about 120 people have signed up for the conference, and he's hoping about double that number show up. He said he has been contacted by several area teachers planning to bring students to the event being held at the Ramada Oasis Hotel.The conference is a test of sorts. If there's a good turnout and the Senate fails to take up the legislation, Boyer said, he might organize additional conferences, with Dallas likely being the next host city.Boyer emphasized that his consulting company is paying for the conference and that his views about climate change shouldn't be construed as a position of the state Air Conservation Commission, which develops Missouri's clean air policies. Three members of the air commission either declined to discuss their personal views about climate change or didn't return phone calls. Another, Jack Baker, said he was undecided about what to do about climate change. "I guess we really need to be careful when it comes to the environment," he said. "We don't want to destroy it, but we don't want to hurt our economy, either."Boyer, a former top official in the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, was appointed to the commission by former Gov. Matt Blunt in March 2008. Last fall, he rankled some environmentalists when he made a presentation at a commission meeting that laid out a case for why the state's odor regulations shouldn't be changed. Boyer argued that animal agriculture was under attack and that "animal rights activists, anti-capitalists, radical environmentalists, activist judges, vegetarians, vegans and locavores had piled on."Nonetheless, Boyer says he invites members of Missouri's environmental groups to attend the conference, which he says welcomes dissenting opinions.Kathleen Logan Smith, director of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, said she was not aware of any coalition members planning to attend the conference."When Missouri is trying to position itself with the science and technology sector, it doesn't help to have anti-science folks in such prominent positions," Smith said of Boyer. "It doesn't do much for our reputation."
Boyer said the conference is a result of his decision to push back against those he considers "global warming alarmists" and give skeptics a much-needed public platform."I think the case for this side is so much stronger, but you don't see much about it in the paper and television," Boyer said.
Most scientists believe that Earth is warming due to the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Consequently, many have predicted the world will experience more flooding, droughts and other cataclysmic events unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Two years ago, members of the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with near certainty that Earth's most recent warming cycle was the result of human activities.While there is disagreement among scientists about the extent and pace of climate change and what to do about it, many have backed the IPCC's conclusions."There's not much debate within the majority of the scientific community," said Don Wuebbles, an atmospheric scientist with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who served on the IPCC and wrote some of its early assessments. "Sure, an interesting point will come up and we'll poke at it, but that's our life."Some skeptics, however, continue to challenge the basic science, often pointing to solar activity or swings in ocean cycles as the likely culprits behind current climate shifts.They are vehemently opposed to the climate change legislation that's expected to go to the Senate for a vote this fall that would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions.Dan Lashoff, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center, said political ideology — not science — seems to be the common thread among the Springfield conference speakers, some of whom are slated to talk about climate change legislation."I think most opponents of this legislation have moved past the debate over science," Lashoff said. "Most of the organized opposition is focusing on the economics. But some of these guys, I guess, just won't give up."One of the key voices in the skeptic community who doesn't seem remotely ready to give up is Morano, who runs ClimateDepot.com, a skeptic website and news service.He is perhaps best known for compiling a Senate committee report that contains the names of more than 700 international scientists he describes as climate change dissenters. Environmental advocates have questioned the credentials of some of the people on that list.During his speech in Springfield, Morano says, he'll challenge the notion that there's a consensus among scientists about climate change. Instead, the number of skeptics — among scientists and the general public — "is skyrocketing," he said."This is a grass-roots rebellion, and the Springfield conference is a great example," Morano said. Boyer said last week that about 120 people have signed up for the conference, and he's hoping about double that number show up. He said he has been contacted by several area teachers planning to bring students to the event being held at the Ramada Oasis Hotel.The conference is a test of sorts. If there's a good turnout and the Senate fails to take up the legislation, Boyer said, he might organize additional conferences, with Dallas likely being the next host city.Boyer emphasized that his consulting company is paying for the conference and that his views about climate change shouldn't be construed as a position of the state Air Conservation Commission, which develops Missouri's clean air policies. Three members of the air commission either declined to discuss their personal views about climate change or didn't return phone calls. Another, Jack Baker, said he was undecided about what to do about climate change. "I guess we really need to be careful when it comes to the environment," he said. "We don't want to destroy it, but we don't want to hurt our economy, either."Boyer, a former top official in the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, was appointed to the commission by former Gov. Matt Blunt in March 2008. Last fall, he rankled some environmentalists when he made a presentation at a commission meeting that laid out a case for why the state's odor regulations shouldn't be changed. Boyer argued that animal agriculture was under attack and that "animal rights activists, anti-capitalists, radical environmentalists, activist judges, vegetarians, vegans and locavores had piled on."Nonetheless, Boyer says he invites members of Missouri's environmental groups to attend the conference, which he says welcomes dissenting opinions.Kathleen Logan Smith, director of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, said she was not aware of any coalition members planning to attend the conference."When Missouri is trying to position itself with the science and technology sector, it doesn't help to have anti-science folks in such prominent positions," Smith said of Boyer. "It doesn't do much for our reputation."
UN chief warns of dire future without climate deal
Failure to act quickly on climate change could eventually lead to violence and mass unrest as global weather patterns drastically change, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday."If we fail to act, climate change will intensify droughts, floods and other natural disasters," Ban said at a forum near Seoul that came weeks ahead of his own conference on climate change in September."Water shortages will affect hundreds of millions of people. Malnutrition will engulf large parts of the developing world. Tensions will worsen. Social unrest -- even violence -- could follow," Ban said according to a prepared text of his remarks to a global environment forum in Incheon, west of Seoul.Greenhouse gas emissions are widely considered to be one of the main causes of global warming. Nations will gather in Copenhagen in December to work out a new agreement on reducing emissions to succeed the current Kyoto Protocol, whose first phase ends in 2012.Ban, calling climate change a fundamental threat to mankind, called on world leaders to act quickly so that a deal can be reached at Copenhagen.In Bonn, delegates from about 180 nations meet for U.N. climate talks this week amid warnings that time was running out for them to reach agreement on a hugely complex pact, due for completion at the end of the year. [ID:nLA285715]About 2,400 delegates at the Aug 10-14 negotiations in Bonn will try to shorten a draft text, outlining options for combating global warming, that has swollen to about 200 pages from 50 just a few months ago.The Bonn meeting, the third in Germany this year, was added because of scant progress with the deadline looming. After Bonn, talks before Copenhagen are in Bangkok from Sept. 28-Oct. 9 and in Barcelona, Spain, from Nov. 2-6.
UN climate change negotiations get under way in Bonn
Global climate change talks, leading up to the Copenhagen conference in December, started in Bonn, Germany, this week, and South Africa was represented at these informal talks by Department of Environmental Affairs negotiators.The aim of the talks was to pave the way to fair agreement, which could be finalised at the Copenhagen conference, and would be the framework for climate change action beyond 2012, which is when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends.Following the current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks in Bonn, there were two more informal negotiating sessions scheduled before December.The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) said that without steps forward during the UNFCCC meetings, it would be much harder to achieve results and make financial commitments during the upcoming series of high-level political meetings at the United Nation’s General Assembly (UNGA), and Group of 20 summit in the US in September.“In order to see real progress, the UNFCCC meetings need to gain speed and help the political process,” said WWF Global Climate Initiative leader Kim Carstensen.There were numerous political dynamics and political conditionalities framing the negotiations. South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs previously explained that the European Union would not make any further commitment beyond its decision to reduce emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, unless the US made similar commitments in line with the science.Scientists have indicated that global temperature change needs to be kept below a 2 ºC increase. A change of 0,7 ºC has already been recorded. Even at a 2 ºC level, it was expected that severe changes in the climate would be experienced, and even though the average increase would be 2 ºC, some regions, like Africa, could experience average temperature increases of up to 5 ºC.Continuing with politics, the US has said it would not make commitments unless China took on emission reductions targets, and in turn, China would not take on such targets unless the rest of the developing world (the Group of 77 (G77) countries) took on targets. Yet, for the G77 nations, political priorities were development and poverty eradication, as well as adaptation to the effects of climate change that were already being experienced – rather than mitigation of emissions.According to the WWF, the Bonn meeting should be used to minimise the level of mistrust between rich and poor. It should also focus on unifying the draft texts and erasing those parts, which do not have the right level of ambition.“If delegates decided where ambitious options have to be placed and consolidate the proposed negotiation texts, it would be progress and a good base,” Carstensen said.At the recent Group of Eight and Major Economies Forum summits in L’Aquila, Italy, politicians accepted the science stating that global warming should be kept below 2 ºC.WWF welcomed this, but emphasised that warming levels would have to be even kept far below 2 ºC to give small island countries and ecosystems a chance to survive.“The self-proclaimed climate leaders from the group of industrialised countries must commit to emission cuts of 40% by 2020 from 1990 levels to back up their 2 ºC vision with real action,” said Carstensen.The WWF, in collaboration with a number of other nongovernmental organisations worldwide, has drawn up a draft first version Copenhagen Climate Treaty, to show what it felt a deal should look like, as well as to show that it was possible. The treaty took some eight months to draw up, and was considered a “work in progress”.
Climate Change as Security Threat Is Nothing New
A front-page story in Sunday's New York Times proclaimed Climate Change Seen as a Threat to U.S. Security, describing how climate change could lead to "profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics." The story noted that "Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change." The Times writers, like so many others, have short memories. This is hardly "the first time" the military has examined this topic. Nearly six years ago, two scenario planners prepared a report for the Department of Defense titled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security." The report (download - PDF), by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall of the Global Business Network, a San Francisco-based think tank, explored how an acceleration of climate change "could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war." It examined climate-induced constraints such as "food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production; decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patterns, causing more frequent floods and droughts; and disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess." Concluded Schwartz and Randall: "As global and local carry capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations, especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor." Why the seemingly "new" interest by the Pentagon on climate? Perhaps because the price of inaction may be seen as hitting closer to home. It's not just the vulnerable regions on other continents -- sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, among others -- that will suffer the consequences of climate change. It's here on domestic soil. "A growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas, and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest," reports the Times, adding: "If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address." It will be interesting to see whether and how the national security issue changes the tone in Washington as climate debates resume in September. If the national security crowd joins in on the side of prudent proactive measures to address America's greenhouse gas emissions, it could accelerate the speed and scale of carbon regulation. And it will be interesting to see whether climate-action proponents -- in business as well as activist, scientific, and political circles -- latch on to the national-security thread as a potent argument for change. If there's one thing that can trump the economy, stupid, it's keeping America safe from the rest of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)