An ‘Increase’ in Big Storms May Just Be Better Detection

Since the mid-1990s, hurricanes and tropical storms have struck the Atlantic Ocean with unusual frequency — or have they? Two new studies suggest that the situation may not be so clear.

One, by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, suggests that the high number of storms reported these days may reflect improved observation and analysis techniques, not a meteorological change for the worse. The second, by researchers at Pennsylvania State University and elsewhere, suggests that there were as many storms a thousand years ago, when Atlantic Ocean waters were unusually warm, as today.

The work does not suggest that people should stop worrying about whether global warming increases the threat of bad weather on the Atlantic Coast. But it offers new evidence that predicting what lies ahead may be difficult.

In findings reported this week in The Journal of Climate, the NOAA researchers, led by Christopher W. Landsea, say that several disturbances logged in 2007 and 2008 as tropical storms would never have been identified without satellite observations and new analysis techniques.

The researchers studied storms that played themselves out at sea, either in a day or two or over a longer period, from 1878 to 2008. By the late 19th century, they estimated, meteorologists missed perhaps two of the larger storms each year, and by the 1950s they were picking up on average all but one each year.

Yet the researchers estimate that a century ago, as many as 80 percent of short-lived storms came and went without ever being officially noticed.

Over all, they conclude, storm counts have not changed in the last century.

The other study, described in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature, used a mathematical model of hurricane activity and measurements of sediment deposits to estimate how often major storms struck the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts of the United States in the last 1,500 years. Led by Michael E. Mann of Penn State, the researchers worked with sediment samples from Puerto Rico, the Gulf Coast and the Atlantic Coast from Florida to New England.

Although current numbers are relatively high, they say, both analytical methods suggest that a period of high storm frequency, possibly even higher than today’s, began in the year 900 and lasted until 1200 or so.

The NOAA researchers said their study did not address whether storms would be more powerful in a warmer world. Many researchers believe that such a shift is likely, given that hurricanes and tropical storms draw their energy from the heat of the oceans.

And if today’s ocean warming creates the conditions that prevailed a thousand years ago, Dr. Mann said in a statement, “it may not be just that the storms are stronger, but that there may be more of them as well.”

Sugar Prices Near 30-Year Highs

The price of sugar is trading at 22 cents per pound, the highest in nearly 30 years. The reason is a shortage of supplies: Bad weather has affected the crop in India, and in another major sugar-producing country, Brazil, much of the sugar crop goes toward ethanol.

White Pages Look To Go Green

Each year, an estimated 5 million trees are cut down just to publish the White Pages phone book. It's hard to cut down on the environmental harm because many states require phone companies to publish and deliver white pages phone books to every landline subscriber. On Wednesday, Whitepages.com, an online directory, released a survey of 1,000 adults showing the great majority of people want laws to allow people to "opt-in" if they want a hard copy of the white pages.

Why Don’t We Act on Climate Change?

You know you are worried about climate change, but you do nothing. If that describes how you feel you are not alone.
A new report highlights the perverse dichotomy that although about 80 percent of us believe climate change is really important, we rank it last in a list of 20 issues of concern such as the economy or terrorism.
The study by the American Psychological Association has found that despite warnings from scientists, politicians and environmental groups about climate change, people still don’t feel a sense of urgency about climate change.
This means getting people to “go green” requires policymakers, scientists and marketers to look at psychological barriers to change and what leads people to action or inaction, the report argues.
“What is unique about current global climate change is the role of human behavior,” said task force chair Janet Swim, PhD, of Pennsylvania State University. “We must look at the reasons people are not acting in order to understand how to get people to act.”
The task force identified numerous psychological barriers which they say are to blame, including:
Uncertainty – Research has shown that uncertainty over climate change reduces the frequency of “green” behavior.
Mistrust – Evidence shows that most people don’t believe the risk messages of scientists or government officials.
Denial – A substantial minority of people believe climate change is not occurring or that human activity has little or nothing to do with it, according to various polls (yes, its the flat earth sceptics again!!)
Undervaluing Risks – A study of more than 3,000 people in 18 countries showed that many people believe environmental conditions will worsen in 25 years. While this may be true, this thinking could lead people to believe that changes can be made later.
Lack of Control – People believe their actions would be too small to make a difference and choose to do nothing.
Habit – Ingrained behaviors are extremely resistant to permanent change while others change slowly. Habit is the most important obstacle to pro-environment behavior, according to the report.
The task force did show positive feedback mechanism at work though. For example, people are more likely to use energy-efficient appliances if they are provided with immediate energy-use feedback. Devices that show people how much energy and money they’re conserving can yield energy savings of 5 percent to 12 percent, according to research.
The task force identified other areas where psychology can help limit the effects of climate change, such as developing environmental regulations, economic incentives, better energy-efficient technology and communication methods.
“Many of the shortcomings of policies based on only a single intervention type, such as technology, economic incentives or regulation, may be overcome if policy implementers make better use of psychological knowledge,” the task force wrote.
Campaign group WWF has been looking at exactly this for a number of years. The group’s climate change strategist Dr Tom Crompton argues it is all very well asking people to change their light-bulbs, but how do you move people to bigger behavioural changes? He says that ‘The environmental movement has for too long focused on the policy response, without considering the social and psychological barriers”.
Other research has shown that people feel overwhelmed by the scale of climate change. Others do not like being lectured too. Bottom up grass-roots initiatives are more likely to succeed than top down approaches.
If people are in the UK looking for empowering action on climate change – later this week there is the empowering march against Chevron in Richmond, California. If you are in the UK, there is the Camp for Climate Action happening from 26th August to 2nd September in London.
And in the run up to Copengahen there will be any number of events in any number of countries. So why not get involved and empower yourself …. You might even enjoy it…

India makes forestry key plank in climate change plan

The Indian government unveiled a major plan to protect its forests on Tuesday, saying the initiative was a key element in its strategy to combat climate change.
"Countries like India must get adequate credit for increasing its forest cover that absorbs greenhouse gases," said Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, who is under pressure ahead of global climate change talks in December.
"We are amongst the few countries in the world who are not just stopping deforestation but are actually increasing forestation," he told reporters here.
India has set up a fund to manage its forests with an initial budget of 2.5 billion dollars and annual funding of one billion dollars, a report by the Ministry of Environment and Forests showed Tuesday.
Forests cover 65 million hectares of Indian territory or just over 20 percent of the country, according to the ministry.
While per capita emissions are low in India -- the average Indian produces one tonne of carbon dioxide per year to the average American's 20 tonnes -- its huge population puts it among the world's leading emitters.
India and fellow emerging market heavyweight China have consistently opposed binding emission cuts in a new climate treaty until developed nations, particularly the United States, present sufficiently stringent targets of their own.
Ramesh's statement came ahead of the December conference in Copenhagen, which is meant to seal a new international accord on fighting climate change after the Kyoto Protocol's requirements expire in 2012.
Ramesh also reiterated his belief that the Indian scientific community found "no robust scientific evidence" that climate change was causing Himalayan glaciers to melt.
"There could be other factors," he said.
The United Nations has warned that rising surface temperatures have led to rapid melting of regional ice caps, which are the headwaters for Asias nine largest rivers.

'Complicated, Controversial and Pressing' Climate Issues Loom for Justice's Enviro Division

The Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division will play a pivotal role in implementing a governmentwide effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to former DOJ officials and experts familiar with the division."The division's attorneys have extensive knowledge of federal environmental statutes, have worked with regulatory programs and enforcement approaches, and have been involved with U.S. attorneys and state governments in every state," according to a transition report for the Obama administration written by Georgetown University law professor Richard Lazarus and Lois Schiffer, former assistant attorney general for ENRD.
At present, none of the division's roughly 420 attorneys are assigned exclusively to climate-related litigation, DOJ spokesman Andrew Ames said. "As cases are referred to the department and ENRD, they are assigned to attorneys following the normal procedures used by the division."
While Ames declined to get into specifics, Roger Martella, an attorney at ENRD for more than seven years before moving to U.S. EPA in the George W. Bush administration, said most climate issues will be handled by the division's Environmental Defense Section, which defends EPA decisions in district court and on petitions for review; the Appellate Section, which defends decisions on appeal and advises the solicitor general's office on Supreme Court issues; and ENRD's policy section, which focuses on overreaching and cutting-edge environmental issues.
"Once climate change regulations take effect, I would anticipate that the environmental enforcement section and perhaps the environmental crimes section would be more actively engaged on climate change issues," said Martella, now a partner at Sidley Austin LLP. "For example, the greenhouse gas reporting rule could create obligations as early as Jan. 1, 2010, meaning that enforcement lawyers could be bringing the first federal climate-change enforcement cases in 2011 for failure to comply with the rule."
Some, including Lazarus and Schiffer, believe the division would benefit from creating a separate section or informal working group to focus exclusively on this sprawling issue.
"The legal issues that arise will be complicated, controversial and pressing, and a division-wide Climate Change Initiative would be an effective tool in this key area," Lazarus and Schiffer wrote. "To assure a comprehensive approach, the division should work closely with other components of the department and with its client agencies."
They also suggest that ENRD work in concert with the departments of Energy and Agriculture, in addition to EPA and other agencies, on climate change-related programs.
"If corn-based ethanol, or other sources of ethanol, are subsidized by USDA to encourage their development, litigation that arises from such programs will have a direct effect on the environment and could benefit from [ENRD's] expertise," they wrote.
Schiffer pointed to a large-scale initiative undertaken by the Clinton administration to address management of federal lands in the Pacific Northwest.
"When President Clinton developed the Northwest Forest Plan, it really affected a wide number of agencies, and there was a cross-agency informal working group called together by the Council on Environmental Quality," Schiffer said. "That was probably the last far-reaching issue before climate change."
Similarly to the Northwest working group, ENRD could set up regular meetings with point people at relevant agencies, Schiffer said.
"You could also have one person from each of the nine sections in the division form a intersection group, or the policy section could take the lead," Schiffer said. "It is up to the new head of the division to decide how to proceed."
Role reversal?
Rather than enforcing rules and regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions, ENRD spent much of the last eight years defending federal agencies' inaction in lawsuits brought by various state and environmental groups. This could change under the Obama administration, according to Martella


"It is likely that ENRD's role will transition over time, and perhaps in the near future, from defending suits by some states and nongovernmental organizations, claiming EPA and the administration is not doing enough, to defending suits by other states and industry groups, claiming EPA is acting outside the bounds of existing Clean Air Act authority," Martella said



"We've already seen a transition occur on the California waiver decision after the Obama administration granted California its request to regulate greenhouse gases from cars, reversing the position of the Bush administration," Martella said. "DOJ also will assume more of a prosecutorial role once EPA regulations and climate change legislation go into effect, enforcing against GHG emitters who are not in compliance with the rules."
At the same time, claims that the government is not acting quickly enough on climate change are unlikely to go away, Martella said.
"For example, NGOs are continuing to challenge the Department of Interior's 4(d) rule for the polar bear, which affirmed that greenhouse gas emissions do not trigger adverse impacts to the polar bear, and industry has intervened to help ENRD defend those cases," he said.
Even if major climate legislation fizzles this year, environmental groups still have several avenues to pursue legal solutions to climate problems.
"Even if there isn't a new law, there are still going to be cases," Schiffer said. "They range from everything to people who are suing under the Endangered Species Act to the National Environmental Policy Act. The litigation cuts across a lot of work in the sections even now."
And if the House-passed climate and energy bill does become law, there are still likely to be climate cases brought based on ESA and NEPA, she said.
There will also be new legal challenges, and ENRD should be preparing for immediate litigation.
"The Justice Department not only has to work hand in hand with other agencies like EPA, but it has to be geared up and ready to hit the ground running when new rules and legislation become finalized," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch.
In a July speech marking ENRD's 100th anniversary, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson touched on the role the division could play in combating climate change:
"Congress is working through a landmark clean energy and climate bill as we speak -- one that stands to create millions of jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the emissions that cause climate change," she said. "If that bill passes, then, inevitably, with a new set of laws comes a new set of lawsuits. I'm sure we'll all be busy working through whatever role EPA eventually plays in that process."
Confirmation hearing for ENRD nominee
The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to hold confirmation hearings on President Obama's pick to head ENRD next month, according to a DOJ official who spoke on background.
The nomination of Ignacia Moreno continues to generate controversy among those who object to her role as counsel of corporate environmental programs at General Electric Co.
"She has a very slim resume when it comes to working for the public," O'Donnell said. "Our fundamental criticism of her hasn't changed since she was first nominated. She's someone who's a lot better versed at working for the bad guys as we would depict them."
"And she's worked for some pretty serious bad guys -- if you look at GE and General Motors Corp.," he said, adding: "GE is king of the bad guys when it comes to Superfunds, and a large part of Justice's job is looking at Superfund cases."
Prior to joining GE in 2006, Moreno worked at the Washington law firm Spriggs & Hollingsworth, where she specialized in environmental and mass tort litigation. She also worked for DOJ during the Clinton administration, serving as special assistant and principal counsel to the assistant attorney general for ENRD. She began her career at Hogan & Hartson LLP, where she practiced with the firm's environmental and litigation groups.
Despite her private-sector work, she won the endorsement of Schiffer, who hired Moreno in 1994.
"She will be a strong and effective leader," Schiffer said. "She has a strong legal and litigation background, which is imperative to doing this job well."
Moreno received another vote of confidence from Gerald Torres, who served as deputy assistant attorney general for ENRD and as counsel to then-Attorney General Janet Reno.
"She was a relatively new attorney when we hired her, but I remember her being committed to environmental law and being very sharp," Torres said. "One of the things that impressed me was her capacity to look at a wide range of issues and get up to speed very quickly."
If confirmed, Moreno would lead a staff of more than 600 who carry an active file of about 6,000 cases. John Cruden has served as the acting assistant attorney general since January.

Dueling Polls on Support for Climate Change Legislation

In an landmark vote on June 26, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would tackle climate change by imposing mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Now, just about every industry is trying to either get a better deal, or kill the bill entirely. Coal-heavy utilities like Duke Energy, for instance, want to weaken down the targets and timetables in the House bill. Biofuels and bioplastics companies want to get credit for the carbon reductions they create when they make bio-based products.
But what does the American public think? Or more precisely, what do polls say that the American public thinks?
In late June, Rasmussen Reports surveyed 1000 adults. The poll showed that only 12% of respondents were strongly in favor, while 25% were strongly opposed. And 42% said that the measure would hurt the economy, while only 19% said it would help.
Now comes a competing poll from Zogby, which presents a far different picture. In this poll, a stunning 45% of the 1005 respondents were strongly in favor of the climate bill. Only 19% strongly opposed it.
Why the difference? Often with polling, it’s possible to get very different answers depending how the questions are asked. “How you word the question would be very important,” explains Scott Rasmussen, founder and president of Rasmussen Reports. If you ask people if they favor a measure that will help save the environment, for instance, they will probably say yes. If you ask if they favor a measure that may destroy jobs, they will say no.
What makes the wording even more important is that other polls show that the public really doesn’t know much about the climate legislation. If you ask them about cap and trade (the basic idea in the climate bill), only a minority knows this is about an environmental issue, rather than, say, a financial issue.
So how did these polls differ?
In the Zogby poll, which was done for the National Wildlife Federation, respondents were first read the following paragraph:
“The House of Representatives recently passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would require electric power companies to generate 20 percent of their power from clean, renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, by the year 2020. Also included is a global warming plan which would reduce greenhouse gases from sources like power plants and factories by 17 percent, and an energy efficiency plan which includes new appliance standards and building codes to conserve energy.”
In contrast, the Rasmussen pollsters merely asked respondents if they’d been following the news reports about the climate change bill, before asking if they support it or not. “We used as neutral language as we could,” says Rasmussen.
You can see why the Zogby poll got a more favorable result. After all, people tend to be in favor of clean renewable power, reducing greenhouse gases, and using energy more efficiently. If the paragraph had said, as opponents charge, that the bill will make they pay more for energy and threaten their jobs, the results would have been very different.
But even the more neutral Rasmussen poll isn’t truly representative of what the public thinks either. That’s because the public really doesn’t yet know what to think. Rasmussen conducted his first poll right after the House vote or order to get baseline data, rather than trying to come to any firm conclusions about public opinion. We won’t know what the public thinks until the issue has been out there longer, he suggests. “Until it’s debated more in the public, we will stay away from it,” he says.
As usual, it seems, many polls are themselves part of the campaign to win hearts and minds.
Reader Comments
CHRIS AGRELLA
August 11, 2009 08:43 PM
Polls need to be done with reflection on how many people are in the group. In the case of the American public, that figure would be around 300 million people. To make a federal policy based on 1000-5000 people is both ridiculous and misleading. It's time to get serious about polls, or ignore them completely! And bias presentation has to be eliminated! The time has come to have a pollster group that is both fair and objective in it's delivery, and focus on a true number of responses to represent the issue at hand. Until this procedure is followed, most polls are merely a hint, not a true value of the poll being attempted.
Dubl D
August 12, 2009 12:25 PM
The Green Lobby owes John Carey a thank you. While he does his best to maintain impartiality when speaking to the differences in this poll he leaves out one obvious and clear point.
Without offering some prepared statement about how much good the climate bill would do, a meager 12% of Americans were gung ho about climate change legislation in the Rasmussen poll. In the Zogby poll, which is pre-empted by a hippie utopia pipe-dream scenario with no downside, STILL LESS THAN 50% OF RESPONDENTS WERE IN FAVOR. So the author does well to keep the focus on the polls themselves, but clearly the message that cannot be ignored is that NO MATTER HOW YOU SPIN IT AMERICANS DON'T WANT CAP AND TRADE.
Regardless of the finer points of polling, if I'm an elected official, the composite picture that these two poll paint for me is that if I vote for this bill, I'm probably going to anger 55-85% of my constituents. More than enough to cost me my job.
John Carey throws the greens a bone by not resolving the issue with a nod to this clear and obvious point. I won't. Cap and Trade will be a tragedy. No matter how you spin it, the majority of Americans aren't buying it. The revolution is over and once again the hippies lose. Try again in another 30 years...