Astounding. South Dakota, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, California, Idaho, Utah, Arizona. The map on the left is the dewpoint across the US. It is high across much of the east, where we're enduring a stretch of humid weather (high of 36 C in Princeton today). But quite low out west, reflecting the dry conditions.
Has the epidemic of wildfires reached the point that we need to talk about the summer fire season the way we talk about the hurricane season? Should we be as concerned, or maybe even more concerned, about the migration to the edge of the national forests as the migration of people to the coasts in the southeast?
Monday, July 09, 2007
Fires rage across the western US
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Friday, July 06, 2007
The Poverty/Conservation Equation
I’m writing this on a flight back from South Africa, where I participated in a symposium (#18) on integrating poverty alleviation into conservation goals at the Society for Conservation Biology annual meeting. You read that right. Yours truly, who works at one of the world’s wealthiest universities, and lives in one of the wealthiest communities in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, flew many thousands of miles to Africa to lecture about poverty.
I tossed and turned about going. I was convinced by two things. First, that the meeting was held in Africa for the first time was a major triumph and presented a great opportunity for a lot of African scientists and conversation practitioners who would not otherwise attend an SCB meeting. Second, the line-up of participants from around the conservation world that were attending the symposium (hey, hypocrisy’s hip, everyone’s doing it!) was a sign that conservation was finally willing to address the, er, elephant in the room.
Conservation is based on a funny mix of actual ecology and unabashed romanticism of nature. The initial goals - save endangered species, etc. - while well-intended, often put the endangered wild horse before the cart. There’s no sense ‘saving’ the remaining orangutans if the forests in which they normally live are entirely replaced with oil palm plantation. The field matured. Species conservation gave way to habitat conservation. Hard science is now being used to set conservation goals, locally and globally, and to optimize the design of protected areas.
Now it’s time to take the next step. It is no secret that most of the world’s biodiversity hotspots targeted for conservation by international organizations lie in developing countries in the tropics. Not only is it unconscionable to protect the environment in developing nations without addressing the lives of the people, essentially modern-day colonialism, experience has shown it doesn’t work very well. In much of the tropics, conservation and poverty alleviation must go hand-in-hand
The symposium included presentations on things like uniting poverty measures and biodiversity measures to set global conservation goals, the development of a “water” poverty index, an analysis of the effectiveness of several African projects to meet environment and development goals, and various combined environment and development programs in countries like China (surprised me, too). My talk was a spin on the short paper “The inequity of the global threat to coral reefs”, I co-authored with David Potere here in the Office of Population Research. It was intended to provide some perspective from the marine realm.
For reefs, one of the problems is perception. To people outside the tropics, coral reefs are colourful, exciting, charismatic, part of our Disney-fied image of tropical paradise. In reality, there are hundreds of millions of people in some of the world’s poorest and most isolated countries that depend on coral reefs every day. My feeling is that this raises two issues, one of equity, one of efficacy.
First, though many of the threats to coral reefs originate in the developed world, it is poor people in the developing world that will pay the price. In the paper, we use climate change as an example. Like greenhouse gas emissions, both overfishing (for food or the aquarium trade) and tourism-oriented coastal development are paced by the developed world. When indigenous reef-dependent communities shift from subsistence living to the cash economy (i.e. start selling fish or relying on tourist dollars), whatever traditional systems of ecosystem management existed tend to get overwhelmed.
Second, nowhere is conservation more dependent on addressing poverty than in those same reef-dependent communities. Even if, as a conservationist, you didn’t care at all about the local population, protecting the coral reef from human pressure will require things like educating people, creating alternative livelihoods and reforming waste management, the very same things necessary to improve the health and wellbeing of the people.
Here’s hoping this is the start of a real change in the way we think about and practice conservation.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Where does all that carbon go? Part II
Last week, Tamino at Open Mind, Eli at Rabbet Run and I began an experiment in mob-blogging’ about the carbon cycle. Following on our initial posts, profilic Eli has posted a couple interesting CO2 concentrations maps that highlight forest fires and fossil fuel emissions.
For a refresher on where all the carbon goes, the graph at right shows the IPCC's breakdown of the resting place, for now, of fossil fuel emissions over the past 25 years. The atmospheric build-up is measured (see Tamino's post) and the ocean uptake in well-constrained by measurement: that allows us to back-out the land uptake.
The drawback to this logic is that the land is both a prominent anthropogenic carbon dioxide source (e.g., deforestation, biomass burning) and a prominent carbon dioxide sink (e.g., net regrowth of vegetation). The positive uptake by land means that the sink is greater than the source. That, however, could change in the future, which would mean a larger fraction of carbon emissions would remain in the atmosphere. To answer that, it helps to study where the net carbon uptake occurring on land, and why?
One culprit is carbon’s chemical sibling nitrogen, that’s #7 on your periodic table if you’re scoring at home. Like many siblings, carbon and nitrogen are quite co-dependent, and, one might argue, a bit resentful about the whole thing. Carbon fixation - photosynthesis, plant growth – is limited by the availability of nitrogen. Though only up to a point. If there’s too much nitrogen, things get saturated, and the carbon-based plants pout and refuse to grow more.
You might find it strange that nitrogen is limited, given that N2 or di-nitrogen gas makes up the majority of the atmosphere. However, N2 is unreactive. It only becomes available to plants when converted to reactive form by microbes. In the process of making fertilizer and burning fossil fuels, we not only have increased the rate at which this conversion happens, leaving more nitrogen in our soils and waterways, we've emitted nitrogen in other reactive, gaseous forms, like nitrogen oxides or NOx. (eli, thanks for the suggestion - ed)
The IPCC map to the right shows nitrogen oxide (NOx) concentrations in the lower atmosphere. Notice the high levels above and downstream of North American, Europe and China. Deposition of this nitrogen could be increasing carbon fixation in forests.
A recent paper in Nature found just that: nitrogen fertilization, not forest regrowth after logging, may explain the majority of the net carbon sink in northern forests. The authors used chronosequences – yes, that’s a real word, not some star trek science word referring to data taken from a forest with trees of varying age that can be used to represent different stages of tree growth – to estimate mean carbon uptake at sites across the northern hemisphere.
By integrating uptake over entire rotations (from planting to forest replacement), the authors were able to get a more complete representation of carbon uptake by forests. Using that data, they found a strong relationship between nitrogen deposition and carbon sequestration, implying nitrogen fertilization may be driving the land carbon sink.
Nitrogen oxide emissions and nitrogen deposition are expected to increase in the future without tougher air pollution policies here and especially in Asia (see this paper). That could increase the carbon sequestration in northern forests, presuming those forests do not become N-saturated. Of course, hopefully the world will reduce NOx emissions and improve air quality. Unfortunately, that could also reduce carbon uptake and thus allow a larger fraction of carbon emissions to stay in the atmosphere.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Return to carbon-land
Thanks to new, serious long-term climate change policies in the province of Saskatchewan and the state of Minnesota, I've had to update the carbon-land map. The original was a play on the Jesusland cartoon circulated after the '04 US election.
Expect more states to leave carbonland in the coming months. My current home state of New Jersey, already a member of the States United for Climate due to participation in RGGI, also just set one of the most aggressive emissions reductions policies in all of North America.
If you're wondering why there is still some carbon-land in (western) Canada, it is because this does not count. Admission to the States United for Climate requires real willingness, and at least some semblance of a plan, to meet the emissions target.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Where does all the carbon go?
This is the first in a series of group posts by a few of us bloggers interested in the science of climate change. For our first “mob” post, Tamino at Open Mind, Eli at Rabbet Run and yours truly here at Maribo are all writing about the carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Much of the discussion on Maribo centers around the science politics of setting a short- and long-term GHG or carbon emissions target in order to stabilize atmospheric concentrations and avoid ‘dangerous’ climate change.
The emissions targets depend on how much - and for how long - the carbon dioxide we emit actually remains in the atmosphere. We need to understand the ability of the planet to take carbon out of the atmosphere, and how that itself is sensitive to climate change. The figure (IPCC WG1, Fig. 7.4) shows the annual fraction of fossil fuel emissions that remained in the atmosphere (black line is a five year mean). I'll come back to this.
The atmosphere is often compared to a bathtub. The emissions of carbon dioxide – the flow into the bathtub – are currently greater than the uptake of carbon – the flow out the drain. So carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmospheric tub.
Personally, I like to say emissions are currently faster than the planetary uptake. Over geological time, millions of years, carbon is removed from atmosphere by weathering of rock and by burial in marine sediments. Burning fossil fuels releases this ‘fossil’ carbon to the atmosphere; deforestation and biomass burning quickly releases carbon that was stored over decades or centuries in trees. We’ve effectively sped up the flow of carbon into the atmosphere.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Mauna Loa record began in the 1950s is only about half (~55%) of fossil fuel emissions. The rest has been absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems.
The ocean ‘sink’ is best understood and easiest to measure. It can be almost entirely explained by the dissolution of CO2 in sea water, the reason the pH of the oceans is declining. Since solubility of CO2 decreases with temperature, much of this uptake has occurred in cold waters of the Southern Ocean. Other potential, but currently negligible on a global scale, ocean sinks include increases in photosynthesis by plankton [and deep-water burial of the ‘fixed carbon’] and changes in ocean circulation.
So we know with good confidence that about 30% of fossil fuel emissions have been absorbed by the oceans and the remainder by terrestrial ecosystems. The remainder must be taken up by terrestrial ecosystems.
The land sink is more challenging to quantify. We know there has been a net uptake of carbon on land. The knowledge of anthropogenic emissions and good estimate of the ocean sink allow us to infer this total land uptake or land sink. So that means carbon uptake by photosynthesis by terrestrial ecosystems is greater than carbon emissions by those ecosystems, from respiration, but also from disturbances like fires and deforestation.
Notice that I did not include deforestation as a CO2 sources above – just fossil fuel emissions. Deforestation is responsible for about 20% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions; fossil fuels and the like for the other 80%. But since I’m talking about the net exchange of carbon between land and the atmosphere, carbon emissions from deforestation is folded into the equation.
Anyhow, field observations, including forest inventories, satellite observations of terrestrial productivity, data from ‘flux’ towers at specific locations, and modeling point to a few key players:
- Re-growth of forests on abandoned farmland in the Northern Hemisphere has led to a net uptake of carbon (at least until the trees reach maturity)
- Higher concentration of atmospheric CO2 can increase rates of photosynthesis and hence carbon uptake (“CO2 fertilization”).
- Deposition of nitrogen, emitted by burning of fossil fuels and application of fertilizer, may also be unintentionally ‘fertilizing’ forests
Knowledge of the sinks lets us calculate how anthropogenic CO2 emissions translate into increases in atmospheric concentration. Eli’s post provides a model for doing some simple experiments.
Why does this matter? Our understanding of the modern-day carbon cycle underpins to all that stuff about climate policy that you read, see, hear and smell in the news. Right now, we emit about 8 Gt of C per year, and that translates to, as Tamino points out, an increase of about 2 ppm of CO2/year in atmosphere. But what if climate change alters that way the oceans and the land take up carbon? Then the model has to change.
This is one of the great challenges in climate change science AND climate change policy. To work out what percent reduction is necessary to hit a stabilization level, we need to understand carbon cycle feedbacks: how will climate change alter the fraction of emissions that remain in the atmosphere? Here are three (of many) possible feedback effects:
i) Atmospheric CO2 affect on photosynthesis: Will there be carbon fertilization – higher photosynthesis - or will water stress and nutrient limitation reduce the fertilization affect?
ii) Drying in the tropics: Reduced rainfall in the Amazon would reduce carbon uptake and increase carbon release through fires
iii) Ocean circulation: A slowing of ocean circulation could limiting productivity in the surface ocean and sinking of carbon (via increasing stratification – topic for another day)
One way to get at these questions is to examine the year-to-year variability in CO2 growth in the atmosphere. What you see in that IPCC figure at the top of the post is that the rate of uptake by the planet varies widely year to year, from less than 20% of emissions, to over 70% of emissions.
There are a few interesting features. The year-to-year variability mostly originates from tropical forest. For example, you can see high airborne fractions or high growth rates during El Nino events (e.g., 1997-1998, 1972-3, 1982-3) due to related droughts (less C uptake) and fires (more C release). That’s not too surprising. It does serve as a warning: future drying in the tropics, due to climate and/or deforestation, could reduce the carbon sink.
In the past, most of the general circulation or climate models used in the IPCC assessments did not included a complete carbon cycle. The atmospheric CO2 concentrations were imposed based on externally generated scenarios. With a complete representation of the carbon cycle, we could instead impose emission, and allow the model to simulate the change in concentrations and uptake by land and oceans.
The latest IPCC assessment includes a comparison of some ‘coupled’ climate-carbon cycle models. All the models predict a decrease in the sink or an increase in the fraction of emissions that remain in the atmosphere. But more on that next time.
ii) Drying in the tropics: Reduced rainfall in the Amazon would reduce carbon uptake and increase carbon release through fires
iii) Ocean circulation: A slowing of ocean circulation could limiting productivity in the surface ocean and sinking of carbon (via increasing stratification – topic for another day)
One way to get at these questions is to examine the year-to-year variability in CO2 growth in the atmosphere. What you see in that IPCC figure at the top of the post is that the rate of uptake by the planet varies widely year to year, from less than 20% of emissions, to over 70% of emissions.
There are a few interesting features. The year-to-year variability mostly originates from tropical forest. For example, you can see high airborne fractions or high growth rates during El Nino events (e.g., 1997-1998, 1972-3, 1982-3) due to related droughts (less C uptake) and fires (more C release). That’s not too surprising. It does serve as a warning: future drying in the tropics, due to climate and/or deforestation, could reduce the carbon sink.
In the past, most of the general circulation or climate models used in the IPCC assessments did not included a complete carbon cycle. The atmospheric CO2 concentrations were imposed based on externally generated scenarios. With a complete representation of the carbon cycle, we could instead impose emission, and allow the model to simulate the change in concentrations and uptake by land and oceans.
The latest IPCC assessment includes a comparison of some ‘coupled’ climate-carbon cycle models. All the models predict a decrease in the sink or an increase in the fraction of emissions that remain in the atmosphere. But more on that next time.
Monday, June 11, 2007
The aftermath of Gonu
Maybe comprehensive coverage of a human tool of a storm in the Middle East is too much to expect of a N. American news media obsessed with things like, as a commenter on Chris Mooney's blog wrote, Paris Hilton going to prison?
In searching for updates on post-Gonu flooding in Iran, I found few articles that focused on anything other than oil prices. Those few that did had the "we interrupt this tale of human suffering for breaking news on oil prices" dynamic going. Is it really too much to ask that the news on oil prices and the news on the dead from Cyclone Gonu at least be divided into separate, maybe adjoining, articles?
Try this schizophrenic headline from an Environment News Service story this morning: "Cyclone Gonu kills 70, leaves oil ports unscathed". Sure, headlines today are rarely poetry. At best, they are a way to convey the most information in that least words. And maybe that is all the editors consciously aiming to accomplish by adding the comma and second sentence fragment. Sub-consciously? Might as well just add replace the comma with "but, don't worry, it".
For a short bit of news on the aftermath in Iran, try Reuters and this Iranian news service. The blog sadaboutgonu, mentioned in comments below, has a fascinating set of photos and video from Oman.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
The G8 statement on climate change
The G8's climate change declaration has been called "a major step forward" (Tony Blair), an "important step" (Stephen Harper), a "big success" (Angela Merkel), a "very substantial coming together" (Tony Blair, he's good with the quotes) and "a bold, audacious plan that will unite the world against the problem of climate change" (George Bush).
Ok, I made that last one up. It is rather sad that the US agreeing to seriously consider greenhouse gas reduction targets is a big success. That shows how low the bar has been set for international climate negotiations with the Bush Administration. Ever been told you will be seriously consider-ed for a job? Did you get the job?
You can read the text of the agreement yourself. The very first item on climate change (#40) contains this statement: "Tackling climate change is a shared responsibility of all". True. There are more like this (#53):
We therefore reiterate the need to engage major emitting economies on how best to address the challenge of climate change. We embrace efforts to work with these countries on long term strategies.
True again. But in policy-speak, these statements mean the US refuses to accept a hard emissions target unless China and India accept a similar target (something both countries have already rejected, and that would be unfair). The stalemate will continue unless the US Congress overwhelmingly passes legislation in the fall, and there's so much political pressure that President Bush does not use his veto power. The real battle for international climate policy could happen not (at the UN negotiations) in Indonesia this fall, but on the floor of the US House.
In the end, I suppose the G8 declaration is a step forward, in that at least the Bush Administration is not rejecting the science, and is recognizing that someone out there might want to do something about greenhouse gas emissions. If I were the leaders of the other G8 nations, I would not be too proud, however. It sure looks like they just got bullied one more time by the Bush Administration.
More on Gonu
The remnants of Cyclone / Hurricane Gonu have caused severe flooding in southern Iran. The overall death toll on Oman and Iran has passed 70, including 12 killed in Iran from flash floods. These are places not accustomed to severe rainfalls. Based on the little decent news coverage (not to defend the source) I was able to find, it appears the Iranian villages were unprepared for a deluge of this size.
This image (scroll down) shows the cyclone tracks in the northwest Indian Ocean since 1985. Notice no storms passed into the Gulf of Oman (upper left). The global image on Wikipedia shows just how rare it is for cyclone to even approach the Arabian peninsula or Iran.
The anamously warm sea surface temperatures off Oman played a role in steering the cyclone on that unusual track. NOAA's Coral Reef Watch has a "bleaching watch" for the coast of Oman. That means sea surface temperatures are nearing a level at which some coral bleaching may occur. Since both can be driven by warm ocean temepratures, the concurrence of intense hurricanes and coral bleaching is not so unusual; the largest coral bleaching event in the Caribbean took place in 2005, also the strongest hurricane season.
Given that this blog is devoted in large part to climate change science and policy, I'm normally wary of writing about a specific storm or weather event as it can give the false impression that one could reasonably argue that that storm or event is a clear result of climate change.
In this case, I'm writing about the storm because it is a rare event, because of the human impact, and because, frankly, the North American news coverage has been just abominable. CNN.com interrupts its coverage of the human toll to discuss oil prices. This is a direct quote:
At least 35 people were dead, most of them in Oman, and 30 were missing.
The storm spared the region's oil installations, and oil futures fell Friday on a wave of profit-taking that followed a surge in prices a day earlier. News that Cyclone Gonu had spared major oil installations in the Gulf of Oman also alleviated supply concerns. Light, sweet crude for July delivery fell 62 cents to $66.31 U.S. a barrel in morning trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange after dropping as low as $65.55 early in the session.
At least 32 Gonu-related deaths were reported in Oman, including members of police rescue squads, and 30 others were reported missing, police said. Rescue teams were searching for victims using helicopters and boats, he said.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Hurricane Gonu strikes Oman and Iran
This is an amazing, rare and possibly devastating event. Thanks in part to the warm surface temperatures (NOAA Coral Reef Watch anomaly data) in the northwestern Indian Ocean, Cyclone / Tropical Storm Gonu veered north into Oman and is moving into Iran.
As Jeff Masters' wunderblog explains, it may be entirely without precedent in the observed record. And, sadly, that means the region is underprepared. The only predictable part of this: the news coverage seems to be more concerned about the impact on oil infrastructure and oil prices than the impact on the people living there.
Hopefully, not too many commentators will be tempted to scream "aha - it must be global warming" and, if anything, stick to some reasonably informed winking.
China, the G8 and emissions intensity
Earlier, this week China announced a vague climate change policy that includes no GHG emissions targets. While hardly a surprise, the refusal to consider any emissions targets, or even any aspirational emissions goals pretty much destroyed whatever little chance there was that UK, Germany, Japan and the G8 countries would oppose the US effort to block the use of hard emissions targets.
China may be one place where the intensity-based metrics make some sense. With low per capita emissions and a smaller historical contribution to emissions, forcing China to drastically restrict economic development would hardly be a globally equitable solution to climate change.
As I discussed a couple weeks ago, China’s GHG emissions intensity rose in the past decade. China is at the stage of development where “carbon” generation is outpacing economic development. In terms of carbon efficiency, you can imagine China being around where the West was back in 1920s, before the global peak in emissions intensity (see the global intensity graph)
So at least new Chinese policy calls for a 20% decrease in energy intensity, the energy consumption per $ of GDP. Whether that policy has any teeth, or whether the emissions data is trustworthy, who knows? But it is a start.
The Canadian government proposal that G8 countries adopt intensity-based targets is ridiculous for Western nations. Europe, Japan, Australia and North America passed their peaks in emissions intensity, or lows in carbon efficiency, decades ago. For those countries, targets have to be based on the actual emissions.
For China and other rapidly developing nations, however, setting initial targets based initially on the “carbon” efficiency or intensity of the economy may be the only sensible solution to the global policy stalemate. Perhaps the only global plan that is equitable is one in which: i) the U.S., Europe, Canada and other Annex 1 nations accept hard caps on their own emissions, and ii) China and other developing nations use intensity-based targets until the per-capita emissions reach some threshold, beyond which hard emissions caps should be applied.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Exporting a bad idea to the world
First, the US proposes setting a global GHG emissions "goal" - an object to which effort or ambition is directed, rather than a "target" - an amount set as a (minimum) objective. Then, the effort to undermine the push for a global emissions agreement at the G8 Summit was savaged, by foreign governments, by Democrats and by commentators, like a tofurkey at a Greenpeace rally.
Now, quel horreur, the Canadian PM says his government wants to play peacemaker (CBC).
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a German business audience Monday Canada won't meet its Kyoto targets to lower greenhouse gas emissions, but can be a world leader in battling climate change.
And here it comes:
Harper did say he believes his government's plan for intensity-based targets to limit greenhouse gas emissions will be more effective than setting overall reduction targets.
I was so dumbfounded by this, I double-checked on the CBC's French language service:
Selon la solution canadienne, il n'y aurait pas une réduction draconienne des gaz à effets de serre, mais l'encouragement de mesures moins polluantes dans chaque unité de production industrielle.
That's right. Canada is championing the emissions intensity policy as the solution to it all. Could it work? Only if the intensity-based targets, not aspirational goals, are set such that total emissions actually decline. However, that is not the case in the Canadian policy.
The joke is, er, the tragedy is, not only has the Canadian policy been ridiculed by experts across the spectrum, it is not even original. It was lifted, almost digit for digit, from the equally toothless American policy.
Let's hope the rest of the world looks at this graph. And that someone out there has a calculator that can do compound interest.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Ok, this biofuels thing has gone too far
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican farmers are setting ablaze fields of blue agave, the cactus-like plant used to make the fiery spirit tequila, and resowing the land with corn as soaring U.S. ethanol demand pushes up prices.
The switch to corn will contribute to an expected scarcity of agave in coming years, with officials predicting that farmers will plant between 25 percent and 35 percent less agave this year to turn the land over to corn.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Moving forward on climate change, backwards on evolution
President Bush announced that the US will push for global greenhouse gas emissions targets (correction: the word is "goals") in a post-Kyoto framework by the end of the year. It may be cynical attempt to undermine the G8 summit and the other post-Kyoto plans. Even if so, the fact that the Bush Administration feels it necessary to be so openly disruptive is a sign they are concerned that the other G8 members could actually be successful in advancing a post-Kyoto strategy. A moral victory, either way.
While I'm hesitant to veer off my main topic into the head-scratching debate in this country about evolution, the op-ed piece by Republican Presidential candidate Sam Brownback in today's NY Times requires a response, other than the spit-take I performed while reading it.
In a recent post, I wrote:
... the ten Republican candidates for President were asked if “anyone here does NOT believe in evolution”. Three of the candidates raised their hands.
Brownback was door #3. The column, presumably intended as self-defense, tries, and fails miserably, to show how faith and reason can peacefully co-exist:
The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths.
Hmmm. You see, Brownback believes in evolution, just not the "exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence". The column about bridging science and faith devolves to this:
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
Don't worry America, I'll defend you from the immoral scientific hordes.
That doesn't sound like science, or even like religion, which is analyzed and questioned by theologians every day. It sounds like irrational fundamentalism.
In essence, his thesis is: religion, or his religion, is the truth, and cannot be questioned. Aspects of that theory should be firmly rejected as theology posing as science.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The danger of a one year drop in US emissions
The Washington Post reports that US carbon dioxide emissions dropped by 1.3% in 2006.
A good sign? Perhaps. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is attributing the change to "effectively confronting the important challenge of global climate change through regulations, public-private partnerships, incentives, and strong economic investment."
Oy. Just as we can't look at one warm year and declare global warming has happened, we can't look at a one year drop and claim an emissions policy is working. CO2 emissions vary year-to-year because of the weather (reduced heating required during the warm winter), changes in the economy (higher gas prices, less fuel use), etc. There's no evidence any Bush administration initiatives, it's not even clear what policies or investments that statement could possibly be referring to, are having any measurable effect on emissions.
The danger, here, is that the one-year drop may convince some people the US is on the right track. Cover your ears as that 1.3% is tossed about by opponents to federal emissions controls during the impending debate over climate legislation in the US Congress.
Monday, May 21, 2007
A climate policy lesson, courtesy of Monty Python
Every once in a while, a story or news item reminds me of the classic Monty Python skit “Four Yorkshiremen” in which Eric Idle et al one-upped each other with increasingly absurd tales of their tough upbringings.
“House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all huddled together in one corner for fear of falling. “
Eh, you were lucky to have a room! We used to have to live in the corridor!
Oh, we used to dream of livin' in a corridor! Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us!“
Usually, it takes an exaggerated tales of climatic hardship, the old I-remember-when, to conjure up memories of John Cleese intoning “Well, when I say it was a house it was only a hole in the ground covered by a tarpaulin, but it was a house to us”.
You know those conversations. Ah, kids today have it easy. When I was young, we battled – 30 C temperatures and mountains of snow every day on the walk to school (granted, my parents grew up in Winnipeg, Manitoba, it is entirely possibly some of those stories are true).
Last week, however, it was Presidential Candidate Bill Richardson’s climate and energy plan that reminded me of Cleese and the gang. Richardson’s plan is easily the most aggressive of all the candidates, thus far. Following a cue from Al Gore, he calls for a 90% reduction in GHG emissions by the year 2050 (and 80% by 2040).
Not 50% below 1990 levels, as may be proposed, er, and rejected by guess who, at the G8 summit. Not 60%, like the British plan. Not even 80%, a la those nutty West Coasters California and British Columbia.
Ninety percent.
I applaud the effort. I applaud the recognition that we must aggressively reduce GHG emissions to avoid the dangerous long-term implications of climate change. What follows is not a criticism of Richardson, persay, but of the current, er, climate of climate policy in the US. As I wrote last year, I fear that in an effort to attract the green, and I mean the environment AND the almighty dollar, vote, politics is descending into Python-dom. What’s next? “As a show of dedication to the cause, I pledge not to exhale CO2 during this campaign”?
First off, the specific 90% pledge, well-intentioned or not, is I suspect a bit of showmanship. The baseline for most emissions projections, for international policy, is usually 1990. The older 50-60% reduction targets, and often the 80% targets, are based on the 1990 baseline. The 90%? The baseline, presumably, is today. In that case, the total emissions reduction (for the US) is similar to an 80% reduction from 1990 levels.
Regardless, the candidates engaged in a bout of climatic chest-bumping would be wise to learn a lesson from Canada. Yes, we need national targets. But as Canada’s haphazard Kyoto promise has clearly demonstrated, a target is not enough, nor is an implementation plan full of lofty goals. Former PM Chretien pledged to a 6% reduction target under Kyoto, rather than the 0-3% agreed to with the provinces, purely to match the US (and, yes, to use a British-ism, Canada was snookered). Not only was no serious plan for meeting that, or the lesser target, the one-up-man-ship alienated the provinces and seeded the ongoing discord.
A pledge to aggressively reduce greenhouse gases should not be made lightly, in the heat of a campaign. And a pledge to aggressively reduce greenhouse gases cannot be one of a hundred campaign promises. It goes to the root of energy, of transportation, of agriculture, of industry. If it is to work, if it is to happen, it must be a central organizing theme of the government, it must underlie all policies and programs.
The actual target is important -- I’ve been hammering the Canadian government on this point for three years. We Canucks like to gripe about how Canada is ignored by the US. This is one time that Americans could really learn from Canada - Canada's mistake. If one hopes to actually reach, or even approach, an aggressive target, be it a 60% reduction, or a 90% reduction, that target can’t be a part of the policy package, it can't start only as a way to win votes. The target has to lead off off every speech, every policy declaration, every conversation the candidates have.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Speaking with students about climate change
A couple weeks ago, I had the chance to talk about climate change to an auditorium full of high school students in northern New Jersey. The students showed a surprising amount of interest in my presentation; in high school, I could barely stay awake during class. But these students were alert, they asked questions, and many stayed afterwards to thank me for explaining the basics of the science.
The next week, I spoke again about climate change to a group of high school science supervisors from around the state. Inspired by the experience with the packed auditorium, I settled on a core message, which went more or less like this:
"Like it or not, the life of your students will be defined in large part by climate change. They will experience the impacts of climate change. And their generation, along with mine, will be responsible for coping with and/or solving the problem.
Whatever their chosen path in life, whether they become mechanics, scientists, architects, farmers, government workers, you name it, climate change and the effort to mitigate and adapt to climate change, will in many ways define their lives.
If students do not learn the science and the evidence in a formal, organized way, as can happen only in school, we are not only doing the world a disservice, we are doing them a disservice."
Naturally, this led to a discussion about the oft-proposed solution of showing An Inconvenient Truth in schools. Many of the teachers and supervisors spoke openly about their concerns with the film. I think it is an ideal film for a current events or social studies class. It can be a springboard for discussions on crucial topics like the ethics of climate change, the balance between adaptation and mitigation, how science should be used by society, etc.
My feeling is that it should not, however, be shown in science class. Not because Al Gore botches the science: the basic explanation of climate change in the first half of the film is quite good and not terribly different from what I often present myself (although the discussion of impacts in the second half is too loose and vague about timing of things like sea level rise). But because we don’t teach use popular films to teach students the guts of Newtonian physics or Mendelian genetics*.
We shouldn’t here either. Students can, and should, learn about the climate and climate change the way all science is taught. Classroom lectures, problem sets, tests, essays, etc. Unlike people in the working world, the students of today have the great opportunity to learn about climate change in an organized fashion, in school, rather than in the public sphere, where the science is warped by media bias, by overly "framing" science, or by political rhetoric.
* A blog footnote: My first instinct in writing that sentence was to use evolution as an example of a pillar of science education. Sadly, that is not true in much of this country. In a recent debate, the ten Republican candidates for President were asked if “anyone here does NOT believe in evolution”. Three of the candidates raised their hands. I admit I did too, though only to smack myself on the forehead.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The IPCC on emissions intensity
The IPCC Working Group III report – the one on mitigation and adaptation – contains some more interesting data on emissions intensity. Once again, emissions intensity is a handy concept for comparing economic efficiency, but a pointless metric for climate and emissions policy.
The report summary explains that world GHG emissions increased by 70% from 1970 to 2004, a statement widely referenced by the press. The next line of the report, not as widely referenced, explains that despite this GHG emissions increase, there was a 33% decrease in energy intensity (energy supply per $GDP) and 40% decrease in emissions intensity (emissions per $ GDP) over the same time period. As I’ve been arguing for weeks, both here and over at Worldchanging, it is important to read the IPCC summary reports yourself.
So I’ll say it again. Emissions intensity naturally decreases over time, even as total emissions increase. Setting an intensity-based target is a foolish way to reduce total emissions. And, yes, I intend to keep hammering away at this point until emissions intensity is removed from North American policy.
The above figure from the IPCC report shows that the more economically developed countries tend to have lower emissions intensity (on the y-axis). In other words, as the economy develops, it tends to become more greenhouse gas efficient. The graph also shows that emissions intensity is much higher in the US and Canada than in Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the EU. You could argue that reducing emissions should be “easier” for the US and Canada because we are less greenhouse gas efficient than other countries at a similar stage of economic development. While there is some truth to that argument, it ignores the large differences in sources of emissions in North America (e.g., large energy production) than in Europe.
What about China? Bucking the global trend, the emissions intensity in China has increased in the past decade. As the IPCC reports, the economic boom has been fueled by dramatic increases in coal and other carbon-based fuels. This is not surprising – it is just what happened in the west during the Industrial Revolution (see here). Emissions and emissions intensity rose until the early 1900s. Economic growth and emissions then began to decouple – emissions continued to soar, but the economy grew even faster.
If anything, the fact that China is bucking the global trend demonstrates the tremendous lack of leadership from western nations on this issue. Rather than learn from our experience, China is reliving it.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Let the wrangling begin
US President Bush has announced that he will push lawmakers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, as was more or less required by a recent Supreme Court decision.
This should be a momentous day. Unfortunately, with the track record of the Bush Administration on this issue, it is hard to know what this announcement will actually mean.
In the coming days and weeks, there will be much debate about the merit of market-based strategies vs. actual standards and regulations. There will also be, at least there should be, much consternation about the long-term consequences of 'mitigation-light' (ie. weak emission reductions legislation that falsely convinces that public and lawmakers that climate change is being 'solved').
It is too soon to predict. Hopefully, with all that has come to pass in North America over the past several years, and with the public pasting that the Canadian government has taken on climate policy, the Bush Administration and Congress will at least have the sense not to use intensity-based emissions targets this time.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Climate change and the limits of reef restoration
Last week's NY Times had a feature article on coral reef restoration, namely growing corals in tanks and transplanting them to degraded reefs. This was my response, printed in today's Science Times:
Re “Coral Is Dying. Can It Be Reborn?” (May 1): The coral farming and transplantation efforts described in Cornelia Dean’s article may prove useful in restoring individual patches of reef in popular tourist sites. However, such labor-intensive and costly coral reef restoration work is no match for the threat that global climate change poses to coral reefs worldwide.
Hundreds of millions of people in the developing world who depend on coral reefs for food, income and shelter from ocean waves will suffer. Perhaps we should focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, rather than protecting our favorite dive spots.
We should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can regenerate the world's coral reefs by transplantation. The article alludes to that point (and includes some good quotes from Nancy Knowlton) but the grand headline and large photos give another impression.
What the article misses entirely is the inequity of restoration efforts. This is an example of where the developing world is not only experiencing greater impacts of climate change, it is receiving less of the adaptation money.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Emissions intensity: Declining for decades
In case you are still not convinced that the emissions intensity concept is a sham, take a look at this graph.
In fact, don’t just look at it. E-mail a copy to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Or fax it to the Environment Minister. Or walk around Ottawa with it stapled to your forehead (er, ok, you can use tape instead).
I’ve calculated the change in global emissions intensity since 1750, using data on manmade CO2 emissions by (Oak Ridges National Lab) and a recreation of world GDP expressed in 1990 dollars.
The data is not perfect. Obviously the 1800 GDP is an estimate. But it demonstrates the point. Emissions intensity increased during the industrial revolution, as the world learned how to burn coal, drilling for, etc. Afterwards, we became more efficient in the way we produce and use energy.
Emissions increased throughout the 20th century, but not as fast as the economy. The global emissions intensity has been naturally decreasing - at an average rate of around 1.5%/year – since the early 1900s! The pace actually accelerated over the last few decades. Global emissions intensity dropped 27% during the 1990s alone.
The moral of the story: Emissions intensity is naturally decreasing as the economy becomes more efficient. This has been happening for a century. The idea – promoted in the Canadian government’s new climate plan and the Bush Administration’s 2002 policy – that reducing emissions intensity by a couple percent a year is the way to tackle greenhouse gas emissions is a complete farce.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Further adventures in carbon-land
While my Carbonland vs. States United for Climate map is intended to be whimsical, it does nonetheless reflect the reality of climate and emissions reductions policy-making in North America. The latest example is this week's debate between the Canadian premiers. B.C. and Ontario want an emissions trading system between the provinces, or between provinces and US states. Quebec prefers regional trading, with the eastern provinces and northeastern states. Canada's carbonland (largely Alberta) is against every proposal.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Adventures in Carbon-land
This map, a Maribo original, honours the states and provinces showing leadership on climate change. It is a play on the popular "Jesusland" cartoon that did the rounds in the aftermath of the '04 US election. The red includes states and provinces have enacted meaningful climate change legislation and/or joined regional initatives (e.g., British Columbia joined the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative last week).
Feel free to download a copy.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Emissions intensity: read the fine print
The coverage of the new Canadian GHG emissions regulations (technically, it's not a policy) generally opens with a sentence like this:
The plan, entitled Turning the Corner, calls on Canada to reduce its current amount of greenhouse gas emissions by 150 million tonnes by 2020 and will require most industries in Canada to reduce greenhouse gases by 18 per cent by 2010. (CBC-News)
It is wrong.
The plan - read it here - calls for an 18% reduction in emissions intensity by 2010. That, once again (and again, apologies to regular readers, I harp on this point only because it is important), is not the total emissions but the emissions per unit of GDP, or in this case, production by the company.
The plan is, right down to the numbers, eerily similar to the American policy I lampooned, as a warning to Canadians, in the Toronto Star almost a year ago. I'd like to claim some brilliance in debunking the US and, at the time potential, Canadian plans. The truth is, as I wrote then "A couple minutes with a calculator, or a morning of Economics 101, will reveal a hole in the intensity plan so big you can drive a Hummer through it".
A target of 18% reduction in emissions intensity by 2010? Reads like the "ambitious national goal" set by the Bush Administration in 2002. Canadian companies are being given less time, but that's merely catch-up for the lack of policy until now.
After 2010, the new plan calls for a 2% per year improvement in emissions intensity. If your production, measured in terms of dollars, tracks with the economy (at roughly 3% per year), guess what? The actual emissions could increase by roughly 1% per year.
Yes, the emissions would be lower in comparison to a business-as-usual growth scenario, but they would still be rising over all. That's one reason the environmental organizations and the opposition parties are attacking this policy with a fervour. Or why they should be. If industries are not required to reduce their actual emissions, the odds of reaching any long-term reduction goal, even the inadequate goal announced yesterday (20% below 2006 levels by 2020), are extremely low.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Banning the bulb
I considered writing what might have been a rather deflating post, about either the news that China is set to bypass the US as the world’s largest source of greenhouse gases next year (not 2025, not 2010, next year, in time for Olympics); the unfortunate twisting of an interesting new paper on wind shear, hurricanes and climate change by Gabe Vecchi at nearby GFDL; or the leaked and already battered new Canadian emissions policy.
But there is some very good news: following on recent pronouncements by Australia, California and the province of Ontario, the Government of Canada has decided to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs by the year 2012.
I’ll dig into the rest of the new Canadian emissions policy later; frankly, I’m sick of analyzing the Canadian federal policies since they never seem to last more than a month or two. The bulb ban, however, is one thing that will stick, regardless of policy and government. The Ontario decision had already created a buzz; the federal ban will only increase the chatter and excitement (examples here, here).
Hopefully, it will also serve as an example. The country, every country, needs an overarching climate and emissions policy, complete with hard GHG emissions targets, plans for a carbon market or tax, etc. It also needs some actual direct actions that will guarantee GHG emissions reductions. Sure, the bulb ban is a drop in the bucket, accounting for at most 2% of the Canada's emissions. But at least the bucket is not entirely empty.
I’m no politician – too much compromise, too much tie-wearing for me – but my experience says this type of policy is a real political winner. It is simple, direct, something that impacts life at home. If the Conservative government is smart, they would follow this announcement with “win-win” interventions that will reduce emissions, things like banning the sale of inefficient appliances, setting building codes, etc. If not, you can be sure the Liberals and other opposition parties will.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Breaking news: B sample confirms warming
A Maribo exclusive, in honour of this.
PARIS (Unassociated Press) - The climate’s second doping sample contained elevated levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, scientists at a French doping lab confirmed on Friday.
Pierre Martin, who chairs the French anti-doping board, said that the lab discovered the carbon dioxide in the climate’s B sample had to have come from an outside source. The doping tests were ordered after the climate produced one of the warmest years in recorded history.
The result comes after years of speculation by scientists, environmentalists and the French media that the climate was participating in an elaborate, clandestine doping program. The test appears to confirm that ingestion of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by the climate is the primary cause of global warming.
Lawyers for the oil and coal industry continue to claim that warming is due to natural variability, and questioned the motives of the scientists at the testing lab.
“The climate has never knowingly ingested any illegal substances to enhance performance,” said spokesman Michael Henson. “This is the same old witch hunt, led by a group of maverick scientists jealous of the size of American cars and homes.”
The head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, Richard Pound, dismissed the claims of the global warming ‘skeptics’.
“Barry Bonds, Floyd Landis, the Ozone Layer, the strategy never changes. Deny, deny, deny,” argued Pound. “This time, the evidence is incontrovertible.”
The testing lab reports that carbon dioxide appears to have been the main element in an elaborate greenhouse gas program. Scientists confirm unnatural levels of methane, human growth hormone, nitrous oxide and a several other lesser greenhouse gases.
“The extent of the doping program is unprecedented,” added WADA head Pound. “The atmosphere has even been using a mysterious substance that our scientists have labeled ‘black carbon’”.
Pound added that his agency will move to strike the climate’s many recent temperature marks from the record books.
The climate’s A sample, taken in the 1990s, found that the planet appeared to be warming. Carbon dioxide – commonly referred to by the code “CO2” – was thought to be the primary culprit. While carbon dioxide does exist naturally in the atmosphere, it can also be introduced through activities like the burning of fossil fuels like oil.
The natural level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is thought to be around 280 parts per million (ppm). The B sample, collected after the warmest year in recorded history, showed a level of close 380 ppm, far in excess of the WADA limit.
Most damning for the climate is a new carbon isotope ratio test used by French testing lab. The test confirmed that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere was not naturally generated, and must be derived from an outside source like oil or coal burning.
Computer models developed by scientists at NASA also show that the additional CO2 is the only way to explain the climate’s performance over the past thirty year.
“You simply cannot generate this pattern of warming from natural causes alone,” commented NASA scientist James Hansen.
In anticipation of a positive test results, the climate has engaged in a broad media campaign. In a book to be released this June, the climate floats a number of theories for the elevated CO2 level, including a rash of recent forest fires, medication being taken to rectify the ozone hole, dehydration from the Indian monsoon and a bratwurst festival in Milwaukee on the day of the test.
The climate has few supporters left in the Earth community. In a brief statement, the Greenland Ice Sheet, the small island nation of Tuvalu, the Great Barrier Reef and thirteen other prominent geographical features called for action:
“The latest positive test signals that it is time to end the fruitless debate about the science. We must move on to solutions to the doping problem.”
The positive test could lead to strict regulations on carbon emissions. The atmosphere has one earlier doping offense, a positive test for CFCs that caused the ozone hole over Antarctica. Under World Anti-Doping Agency rules, a second infraction brings a lifetime ban on industrial emissions.
Although it is unclear whether a restriction on emissions can be enforced, many in the Earth community argue it is necessary to level the playing field.
“We all knew something wasn’t right with the climate,” said the Arctic sea ice. “I’ve lost 40% of my summer cover in the past 30 years. You’re telling me that is natural?”
Friday, April 20, 2007
The truth on greenhouse gases and meat consumption
Last week, Washington Post George Will wrote a sadly uniformed column attacking the public campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It drew the usual array of responses and partisan blustering (left, right, ridiculous).
At heart was Time Magazine’s “Global Warming Survival Guide” which featured advice like 51 Tips on Saving the Environment, never mind that global warming is not merely an environmental problem, and that many of the tips have nothing to do with the environment, rather with improving human health.
Tip #22 -- Skip the Steak – claims that livestock is responsible for around 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not a mistake. The number comes from a prominent UN report released last year.
What Time, what George Will and what the vast majority of commentators on this subject get wrong is why livestock is responsible for such a large proportion of the world’s GHG emissions.
Columnists and pundits love to joke about cow farts and manure – producing methane and nitrous oxide, respectively – like they’re in bad Adam Sandler movie. That is an important source of GHG. But, in reality, the majority of the emissions attributable to livestock are not coming out the back end, but coming from all the energy used to grow the grain that is fed to livestock.
The United States alone grows almost half of the world’s corn and soybeans. And more than two-thirds of that production is used to manufacture animal feed. It requires an enormous volume of oil, to produce fertilizer and run farm machinery, and an enormous area of land. In turn, it is responsible in part for a number of ecological problems, like the “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.
Will seems to mistakenly stumble upon this point, in the midst of some sarcasm, but :
Ben & Jerry's ice cream might be even more sinister [than a steak]: A gallon of it requires electricity-guzzling refrigeration and four gallons of milk produced by cows that simultaneously produce eight gallons of manure and flatulence with eight gallons of methane. The cows do this while consuming lots of grain and hay, which are cultivated by using tractor fuel, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, and transported by fuel-consuming trains and trucks.
The concept is right, the comparison is flat wrong. Producing a gram of dairy protein requires only a fraction of the energy of producing a gram of meat protein, especially beef (for the simple reason you don’t kill the cow every time you milk it).Of the feed produced in the United States, only 12% is devoted to dairy cattle (see here). The rest goes to beef cattle, poultry and pork production. That’s why you often hear claims that we should all eat less meat, but not less dairy.
In essence, this problem is not about meat consumption. It is about devoting a significant proportion of our energy and our land to produce meat. One of the biggest obstacles to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the future will be diet. We may or may not be exporting democracy to the world, but we certainly are exporting our meat-rich diets. As meat consumption rises in China and other parts of the developing world, the challenge of reducing oil consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emissions will grow. More on that later.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Climate change, the IPCC and the framing of science
In last week’s issue of Science, Matthew Nisbet and journalist Chris Mooney argued that scientists communicating issues like climate change to the public must “learn to actively frame information to make it relevant to different audiences”.
The paper has already generated a lot of debate. Should scientists be cowing to the demands of the marketplace in order to communicate their message? Or should we stick to our own means of discourse and risk losing the audience to well-crafted messages of non-scientists? Nisbet’s blog has a selection of the responses.
I thought about it a lot last week, when I was almost thrust into a short televised debate about climate change on Bloomberg News with Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, author of the utterly laughable book A Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. In case you somehow can't tell from the title of his book, Horner’s not particularly interested in science, and he’s what you might call a skeptic of climate change.
In the end, there were technical problems with the studio on campus, and our department had to cancel. Before I continue… as I got online to post this blog – about Horner, communicating climate change and Nisbet and Mooney’s article – I found this post by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt on the blog Realclimate, telling the tale of appearing on Bloomberg News with Horner. Don’t forget a second think Schmidt was a second-choice to me, or anyone. Let’s just say I happened to be by the phone when Bloomberg started making calls.
The invitation was a reminder that the “debate” is not over for many people. Sadly, some of North America has not graduated past the infantile pro-con, left-right, brown-green and environment-economy debates on climate change. Horner and Schmidt (or I or whomever) were (to be) given equal air time to discuss the findings in the (at the time, upcoming) IPCC report, even though as the token climate scientist, Schmidt was representing the conclusions of the 99+% of the scientific community that accepts the role of human activity in climate change.
Mr. Horner has recently become a regular on the pundit circuit. He relies on pithy, and frankly quite ridiculous, one-liners about climate science designed – “framed” – to:
a) tap into people’s pre-existing doubts that mere little people could affect something as grand as the atmosphere
b) reduce climate change to a partisan political issue.
The approach is well-suited to cable news channels, where statements are short, the viewer is distracted by stock quotes, baseball scores, terror alerts and flashing slogans, and everything is partisan. It is no surprise that Horner been featured on everything from the Daily Show to the Fox News’ childish bipartisan slugfest Hannity and Colmes.
As a scientist, what would I have done in response? Shrug off the one-liners and soberly summarize the facts and the strong consensus among the reputable research community? Engage in the debate, spending my precious air time spewing my own pithy counter-attack, featuring test-marketed phrases like “energy independence” or “the planet has a fever”? Or provide viewers with the rational, sober discussion of climate change that, in my mind at least, they deserve?
To best fit the medium and the audience, I would have towed the line between the approaches described above. Short, well-crafted statements about science peppered with more user-friendly language and key “it” words or phrases. What else can you do with 15-30 second snippets of air time to communicate information?
In others words, I would have “framed” the information to make it relevant to the audience. Now, I write this, at least the word frame, reluctantly. While logical and convenient, “frame” smells suspiciously of the marketing speak that is consuming everyday life, like the ubiquitous word brand, which not so long ago, was only used as a verb when discussing ruminants. We don’t want to just sell you our product or service or concept, we want to burn it deep into your flesh with a scalding hot metal rod. Alas, I digress...
The truth is, framing is not new to us scientists. Think of the research granting process. In most grant applications, the investigators must fit the proposed work to the constraints of the call for proposals and the funding agency. Research is essentially pitched in a particular vein to best fit the interested of the audience. Today, this often means framing your previous published research and your proposed research as crucial steps in understanding and solving great ecological and societal dilemmas like climate change, land cover change or declining biodiversity.
It goes on. Admission to graduate school? A post-doctoral job? A faculty job? The holy grail – tenure? At each rung on the ladder, one must present their area and method of research in a way that appeals to faculty or the university as a whole. Scientists, if they want to be successful, must know how to tailor information to the audience.
There is, nonetheless, some danger in the type of framing suggested by Nisbet and Mooney. By altering our method of communications to fit the medium, we risk lowering scientific research and expertise to the level of other partisan, subjective work produced by lobby organizations, political think tanks and the like. That’s why I so dislike the slandering of the IPCC process. Obsess over the politics too much, and the IPCC reports may start to appear, in the minds of the average public, as no better than all the other reports on climate change, or silly books like Mr. Horner’s, despite the fact that the IPCC represents the most thorough reading of scientific literature and expert knowledge on climate change.
Scientists are no different than anyone else. They’re not objective. What usually, though not always, sets scientific work apart is the method. State your hypothesis, state the way it was tested and state the way the results are analyzed, such that others, if so inspired, can replicate the results. The final results are then reviewed by others in the field before being officially released. The scientific method recognizes the subjectivity inherent in all work and attempts to remove, or at least reduce, it.
If we get too crafty in our presentation, stray too far from the core tenets of the profession, the true (and sometimes imagined) value of scientific work may be compromised.
In addition, I worry that, too often, the framing or presentation of science to the public is rooted, whether consciously or not, in the demeaning assumption that the public is not smart enough to understand the details. Personally, I feel this assumption has more to do with our arrogance, as scientists, than any true observation on the general public, though I admit I do not have any data to back this assertion (and could thus be convinced otherwise). And even if the assumption is correct, that the public isn’t able to or interested in understanding the details, then the root problem is not scientific communication. It is scientific literacy and basic education.
Framing may very well help win a few battles, say with folks like Christopher Horner, but only reforming science education and increasing scientific literacy will win the war.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Reactions to the IPCC
By my reading, the initial public response to the IPCC WG II report has been a mix of genuine concern (who is or will be affected), accusations (who edited what) and politics (who is to blame).
While I still want everyone to read the report, not the rhetoric, I have to say I was taken aback by this quote at the end of a Globe and Mail article:
"Climate change is now," says Avrim Lazar, president of the Forest Products Association of Canada. "It's dramatic and it's trashing Canada's forests as the first act of its appearance."
Just in case there was any doubt about how much people in Canada are freaking out about the mountain pine beetle and forest fires.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Climate change and coral reefs
I'll be talking about climate change and coral bleaching on CBC Radio's Quirks and Quarks, today (Saturday) sometime between noon and 1 pm. You can listen online or download the show the day after it airs.
Don't forget to read the new IPCC report.
The IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SFP) is a compromise document based on the scientific results in the full report, out this fall, and negotiations between representatives from different countries. As is being widely reported, the language in the just-released SFP - not the full report being released this fall - was softened at the urging of certain nations.
A shame, of course. One could, maybe one should (?), write an entire PhD thesis in a department like ours on that subject alone. In the end, even with the compromises, the overall message of the SFP, that impact of climate change are widespread and will accelerate without mitigation, is the same.
Friday, April 06, 2007
New IPCC report released today
The Summary for Policymakers of the second section of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report is being released today in Brussels. The full report will be published in the fall.
This section - Working Group Two - of the IPCC report covers the ecological and human impacts of climate change, and the extent to which people and ecosystems can adapt to climate change.
The release of this science-based report is all over the news. By next week, the findings will have been spun back and forth by columnists, pundits, bloggers and the like. I encourgage you to ignore all the press coverage, left or right, green or brown, conservative or liberal, apple or pc, and read the report yourself.
For more on the IPCC process, check out my Worldchanging post.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
The mountain pine beetle and the greenhouse gas budget
This is what you might call a kind of climate feedback. The Toronto Star reports that the Canadian government will not include carbon exchange in forests in the calculations of the country's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Heavily forested countries like Canada could theoretically benefit by including the potential forest carbon sink (in part due to re-forestation practices) in their official GHG budget. More carbon sinks, fewer emissions reductions required. The inclusion of (net) carbon uptake in forests has been a huge issue at international organizations.
Why the about-face? The mountain pine beetle. Infestations of the beetle have devastated lodgepole pine forests across the west in recent years. The Canadian Forest Service blames warm weather - hot, dry summer and mild winters - and a large number of mature trees for an epidemic in central British Columbia. If that was not enough, all the leftover, dry, dead wood has increased the fire risk. The Canadian government now recognizes that forests may no longer provide the same carbon sink, and may actually "hurt" the overall GHG budget.
This is a very, very, very big change in policy. Canada has been arguing internationally for the right to include forests in GHG budgets since the inception of Kyoto. Now, the effect of warmer weather on those forests may change that basic position.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Court says U.S. EPA should regulate greenhouse gases
In case you hadn't heard yet...
WASHINGTON, April 2 — In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal. (NY Times)
The ruling has as much to do with US law as science. It essentially means that federal action on greenhouse gas emissions must not depend on the US Congress agreeing to legislation. The EPA has the power and the authority to do so under the Clean Air Act. The President could simply tell the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.
Today's news is that the current holder of that title, despite the court decision and despite pressure from Congress and the Senate, still won't regulate greenhouse gases.
So it is possible that the real impact of the momentous Supreme Court decision may not be felt until January 20, 2009.
Friday, March 30, 2007
What the record corn crop actually means
U.S. farmers are expected to plant 37 million hectares of corn this spring, the largest area of corn since “the Allies invaded Normandy”. It is a 15% increase from last year, all thanks to the demand for ethanol. At the same time, the planted area of soybeans is expected to be 11% lower than last year.
That’s 90.5 million acres of corn, in American English (sick of getting sent data in pounds, cubic feet per second and acres, I'm a on one-person quest to convert to USDA and the USGS to metric).
The media has been all over this today. The coverage I've seen is largely missing the point.
Corn and soybeans are the two prominent crops in the central U.S. For the past 10-15 years, the “Corn Belt” has really been the “Corn and Soybean Belt”. In 2006, the planted area of corn was 31.9 million ha; of soybeans, 30.6 million hectares. The crops are often grown in rotation – corn on a field one year, soy the next – since the nitrogen-fixing soy helps reduce fertilizer needs on corn (and residual nitrogen from corn helps the soy the next year). Both crops are largely used to generate animal feed, a sizeable chunk of which is exported to Europe and Asia.
We’re not about to discover more fertile farmland in the US. The additional corn to produce ethanol is largely coming two ways:
1. Replacing other crops. Since soybeans and corn are usually grown together, the surge in corn means less soy being grown. That means fewer soy available as feed, both here and overseas.
2. Reducing other uses of corn. The major uses of corn are animal feed, exports (mostly feed), food and now fuel. The domestic animal feed isn’t changing substantially lest we change our diets; the domestic food is a small fraction; the surplus here is coming from exports.
Those headlines about the impending choice between food and fuel? That’s not happening here, at least not yet. Ethanol is being generated in the US via planting more corn (at the expense of soy) and exporting less corn. The result is not less food in the store. It is less grain being sold for feed overseas.
That has market implications and environmental implications overseas(more on the environmental side later). As has been widely reported – the “tortilla effect” in Mexico – the price of corn has been high because the supply is being diverted (from exports for feed) to ethanol. It is important to remember that plenty of other factors affect food and crop prices. People seem to be getting carried away blaming ethanol for everything, like the price of wheat, which is rarely used for feed or to generate ethanol.
As for the US, with a 15% increase in planting of heavily fertilized corn, at the expensive of largely unfertilized soybeans, there may also be a record amount of nitrogen in central US soils this summer. A wet spring means a large hypoxic zone is likely to appear in the northern Gulf of Mexico next summer.
The new, new, new Clean Air and Climate Change Act
Canada’s proposed Clean Air Act emerged yesterday from a special Parliamentary Committee barely recognizable. The opposition parties did not so much retool the bill, as is widely reported, they rewrote it. Even the name changed. Originally, the Made in Canada plan, then the Clean Air Act, it is now the Clean Air and Climate Change Act. The new edition looks a lot like Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan: a commitment to reaching the Kyoto targets by 2012, emissions caps and fines for large emitters, no vague use of the word emissions and no use of the much-reviled, at least in these parts, term “intensity-based”.
Under normal circumstances, the bill would go to a vote, and with the support of all three opposition parties in the minority Parliament, pass. These circumstances are anything but normal. The sitting Conservative could use a vote on the new Act to trigger an election or could agree to pass the act with some further revisions.
The decision, by all parties, is bound to have more to do with politics than anything else.
For those keeping score at home, Canada is now averaging one new greenhouse gas emissions policy proposal every two months. Perhaps if this proposal forces an election, the rate will increase to one every three weeks or so, surely some sort of record.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
More on purchasing carbon offsets
The people at Clean Air - Cool Planet have put compiled a nice guide (pdf) to the many companies selling carbon offsets.
If you are thinking about donating money to go carbon neutral - which was named 2006 word of the year by the New Oxford American Dictionary, quite an accomplishment given the tough competition (surge anyone?) and the small matter of being, er, two words - spend five or ten minutes reading through the guide first.
There's a lot of money in carbon guilt these days. Companies have rushed into the game with bold promises to gobble up your carbon emissions but without any oversight.
The Retail Offsets Guide has kind words for three North American based companies -- Climate Trust, NativeEnergy and Sustainable Travel (a subsidiary of the Swiss company Myclimate).
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Al Gore's testimony
Al Gore delivered impassioned addresses about climate change before a US Congress subcommittee and a US Senate subcommittee today. I recommend watching some video before his testimony is spun out of control by the pundits.
While I could have done without the bit about America being the natural leader of the world (is that the result of evolution or intelligent design?), and the exaggerated language of crisis is always hard on a scientist's ears, there is no denying that Gore's testimony was powerful.
Friday, March 16, 2007
A long overdue clean-up in the Pacific
The LA Times ran this nice story about WWII veteran Leon Cooper who has been lobbying the US government to clean up the polluted beaches of the Tarawa, the site of bloody battle in 1943, and now the capital of Kiribati.
I spoke with the Times reporter about the causes of pollution on the crowded atoll and offered some graphic descriptions of beaches ("civilization after the apocalypse", the most extreme statement always makes it in the story, c'est la vie).
The beaches in the southern half of Tarawa, where the battle was fought, and where nearly half of all the i-Kiribati live, are not a pretty sight. For a detailed description an photos of Tarawa, check the dispatches on my home page.
Now, before condemning the i-Kiribati for polluting their backyard, and the site of a bloody WWII battle, it's worth asking how the problem evolved.
The i-Kiribati's traditional waste management system, like that of all indigenous groups in the Pacific, was simple but effective. All the waste, human and otherwise, was organic. It was swept under the coconut trees, where it regenerated the soil, or it was, ahem, deposited on the beach below the high tide line. Go there today , and you will still see people sweeping the ground in front of their huts like in the old days.
But two things changed. First, the influx of packaged goods meant that not all the garbage would biodegrade (in our lifetime). Second, the shift from subsistence living to a cash economy caused migration of people from the outer islands to Tarawa, the capital, and the only place with paying jobs. And more people means more human waste, all concentrated on a narrow atoll. The nutrient pollution from all the waste has degraded the already small supply of groundwater. This then caused a serious human health crisis.
This story is not unique to Tarawa. It is happening all over the Pacific, all over the tropics, all over the world, really, as communities switch from their indigenous lifestyle to a part, albeit a small one in this case, of the global economy.
The good news here is that the new recycling program has dramatically cut plastic and glass waste. And just maybe, the US government will respond to Mr. Cooper's earnest pleas to clean up Red Beach 1 and 2?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Going carbon neutral
It’s hip, it’s trendy… and it’s wildly unregulated.
Everyone is going "carbon neutral". The latest to join the craze is US Presidential candidate John Edwards. He has pledged to run a carbon-neutral campaign by “conserving” energy and purchasing carbon offsets. The other candidates are bound to ante up.
Is this even possible? Offsetting the emissions from the campaigns of every US Presidential candidate may require reforesting the entire country. A truly efficient solution would be shortening the campaign by, say, a year or so.
It raises an important question. Which carbon offset-ers can you trust? The proliferation of companies offering to sell carbon offsets is a more than a bit suspicious. Many cannot, and are not required to, confirm that your money will result in a reduction in GHG emissions. The same problem is happening at the macro-scale, with EU countries investing in many questionable offset schemes in China through the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism.
I can recommend a few relatively trustworthy operations (check here, bottom of page). In many cases, the exact reductions cannot be confirmed, but an effort is at least being made.
If you know of more, let me know. And maybe John Edwards, Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and whomever else declares in the next few months.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The NY Times attack on An Inconvenient Truth
Yesterday's NY Times had an inevitable article about the scientific community's discomfort with the alarmism of Al Gore's Oscar-winning power point presentation (a new category?), An Inconvenient Truth.
There are some legitimate problems with An Inconvenient Truth. It overplays the evidence for a link between climate change and hurricane intensity and for a link between climate change and infectious disease like malaria and West Nile Virus; it muffed a bunch of smaller details that I covered last year.
These issues are important. The whole question of Gore's alarmism, the politics of fear, is worth serious discussion. But the Times article? It is just plain bad.
Rather than speak to mainstream climate scientists with legitimate beefs about these details, the article opens with quotes from noted skeptics of the entire notion of human-induced climate change, and then falls into the same old ridiculous "he said, she said" arguments that poisoned public discourse on climate change in the past. The article is like a sad blast from the past. For a very thorough "debunking" of the article, read this by David Roberts at Gristmill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
