Climate Change – Blog 3
Bill McKibben’s “Eaarth” is a must-read. We no longer live on Earth, he argues, we now live on a different planet, called Eaarth. The differences, large and small, are due to climate change. Like the old earth we still have hurricanes, tornadoes, heavy rain and wind, draughts and wildfires, but now these events are deadly, destructive and costly beyond anything we’ve ever seen. Climate models have predicted this for decades and now it’s here, with a vengeance.
Following Irma, Miami mayor, Tomas Regalado, said many of his Republican colleagues were wary of being “called crazy or liberals” if they talked about climate. But he said voters on the ground had grown sharply aware of the risks they face. “I don’t think my statements are going to change the way the administration thinks or the governor thinks, but let me tell you, people are afraid,” Mr. Regalado said. “People are understanding there is a new normal now.”
In my blog I’ll continue to point out historic, record-breaking events. Most of them are in the Third World and most people in the Us are not aware of such events. In Blog 2 I mentioned historic monsoon downpours and flooding with 1,000s of human deaths and 41 million displaced in Nepal, Bangladesh, India. Those numbers have grown. Niger too is suffering from flooding (at least 44 dead, 10s of 1,000s homeless). Here in the US, Houston and Florida are flooded and the damage will be long-lasting and cost 100s of billions of dollars. Numerous Caribbean islands were wiped out. As I write, hurricanes Jose and Marie are approaching. People’s lives will be disrupted for years just as people affected by Sandy in NY and NJ 5 years ago are still rebuilding their homes, businesses and lives. Most of those affected in the First World can recover and move on. But for most people affected in the Third World, recovery is much more difficult.
Environmental Justice is the term that encompasses this disparity. It is the First World that has grown wealthy and resilient and contributed the lion’s share of carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Now we talk about a Climate Budget, the amount of carbon the atmosphere can safely absorb before run-away global warming occurs. We may be at or dangerously close to that point now, but if we have more time, it’s measured in years. How much of the remaining budget does the First World get to emit? How much for the Third World? During the Paris negotiations India’s leadership claimed they had a moral duty to provide for the betterment of their people. They asked how the First World had the nerve to urge them to forego the same kind of development the First World had enjoyed. They had no intention of curtailing their use of fossil fuels unless a better deal was offered to them. It is only just, they argued, that they be allowed to do what others have done to improve their standard of living.
Our collective climate budget is 2900 gigatons of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent emissions). Current estimates predict that by 2100 we will be three times over budget, emitting 8,100 gt. Scientists warn that to prevent the worst effects of global warming, we have to keep temperatures from increasing by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2.0 degrees Celsius) above the preindustrial level — the upper limit agreed to in the 2015 Paris climate accord. We have already warmed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit, and we’ve used up 73% of our climate budget. The world has emitted 2,100 gigatons of CO2e since 1870, mostly from developed countries that prospered and polluted from the Industrial Revolution to today.
The United States, with 4.4% of the world’s population, has emitted about 20% of global emissions. Countries in the developed world account for 19% of the world’s population but are responsible for more than half of all emissions to date. India and other developing countries have emitted 43% (including China: 13%), other developing countries: 20%, the EU: 17%.
The challenge is to completely move from carbon-based energy to non-carbon based energy within the next thirty years. The first job is to gather public support for such a move. The second task is to chart a way forward. As noted in Blogs 1 and 2, in the US, despite the present federal administration, there is a great deal of counter political leadership in the states and cities and corporate and personal initiatives so that the US may meet its Paris pledges. Market forces are moving us away from coal and toward natural gas but that is not enough. We must go further and so far the move to solar, wind and other non-carbon energy is encouraging, but must go faster. The EU, indeed the rest of the world, as evidenced by the Paris accord, does not suffer from the kind of climate skepticism that is unique to the US.
The biggest challenge will be elsewhere, including Japan, Canada, Australia and Russia. Canada continues to develop its filthy tar sands and the infrastructure to transport it via pipelines. Growing public pressure seeks to stop it. Russia is a world leader in producing fossil fuels and is a major cause for concern. China is investing massively in solar both for its domestic use and is the world’s leading exporter of solar panels. Under new leadership in the US in the future, immense business opportunities exist for the US to compete in this market. But China’s huge population is modernizing and its giant need for energy suggests that it will build over 700 new coal plants. Even equipped with new technology, they will still emit enough C02 that the world’s carbon budget will soon been exceeded. Similarly, India is the world’s 4th largest emitter of C02, and although it too is investing in solar, and has ratified the Paris accord, it faces enormous pressure to modernize and grow. It has recently canceled numerous coal-fired power plants, but it needs to find energy somewhere. The bad news is that the rest of the world’s developing countries will emit more CO2 than developed countries in the foreseeable future unless they are assisted to a new path.
It is imperative that the developed countries assist the developing countries with money and technology to harness their energy from non-carbon sources and skip over the fossil fuel phase that the First World enjoyed. This financial and technological assistance is what the Paris accord requires. As noted, the First World has no moral right to demand anything of the Third World and must instead be generous with aid and technological assistance to help them and the planet survive and prosper. But these Paris promises to provide money and technological assistance have not been fulfilled. Indeed, Trump has openly said the US will not pay its share. America first.
There are limited routes to success. Go back to Blog 1 and click on the link for the IPCC Summary Report where there is a chart demonstrating that in order to stay below 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, even under aggressive carbon reduction strategies, we must not only be completely free of fossil fuels, we must have negative emissions (-107%, or -114%). That means we must learn how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Planting trees removes CO2, but not nearly enough. This is a call for a major technological breakthrough that does not exist on a scale anywhere close to providing even a glimmer of hope at this time.
Given our slow pace moving to non-carbon based fuels, many are saying that we will have no choice but to turn to bioengineering. I will address this in a future blog, but the idea is that we will do something huge, like seed the atmosphere with tiny particles that reflect sunlight and cool the planet the way volcanic emissions do. And seed the ocean with chemicals to counter acidification. As bad as things are, we certainly have the capability to make things much worse.
That does not mean we despair. It means we speed our conversion to 100% non-carbon based energy. Gains have been made in energy efficiency in heating and cooling buildings, and using appliances and motors, so growth may continue. But much more is needed.
If all countries, including the US, meet their Paris pledges by 2030 and then go on to exceed them, our collective emissions is around 3,900 gt by around 2060. That won’t cut it. The only way to stay under our carbon budget (2900 gt) is if all countries eliminate carbon emissions by 2060. In addition, we must plant trees and other carbon absorbing vegetation, stop paving and developing areas currently absorbing carbon and look to capture and sequester carbon. We are fast running out of time. The catastrophic consequences of failure will be addressed in a future blog.
Environmental Justice also applies within countries. The wealthy, whose carbon footprint is so much greater than the poor, enjoy comforts and the resources to recover from storms and other ‘natural’ disasters. The poor, who contributed little in terms of emissions, suffer the worst from storms and often lack the connections and knowledge to work the system to get aid.
Two other terms I’d like to introduce are Adaptation and Mitigation. Countries, states, cities, corporations, and individuals with adequate resources are adapting to climate change. Buildings are being raised, infrastructure fortified, instead of paving land with impermeable cover, permeable cover is being used to allow the land to absorb rainfall. Coastal and wetland protections are slowly being prioritized.
Mitigation measures include reductions of GHG emissions wherever possible. People are installing solar panels, driving electric cars and hybrids, smaller cars too. The dramatic changes involve the growth of solar and wind energy worldwide, new construction with an eye toward reduced energy use, conscientious use of energy in the home or office, turning the thermostat up a few degrees in warmer weather and down in cooler weather. Using a fan instead of AC. Divestiture has proven to be an effective tool driving social change in moving away from activities and industries that emit carbon.
Look again at the IPCC Summary Report at a long list of possible Adaptation and Mitigation actions. We have no choice but to adapt to what is coming, to what is here. But we still must mitigate as much as possible every minute of every day in order to keep the planet from warming more than 2.2 degrees F. and to stay under budget.
NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s administration developed plaNYC. Take a look at some of the fine thinking and planning on adaptation and mitigation:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc/downloads/pdf/publications/full_report_2007.pdf
Both of New Jersey’s legislative environmental committees met recently to talk about fighting climate change and rejoining RGGI (see Blog 2). Like NY, NJ has seen abundant evidence of the dangers of climate change. Committee members discussed ways to reduce its GHG emissions, what measures should be considered to adapt to rising sea levels as nuisance flooding is occurring in towns during regular high tides. The NY/NJ region can expect more frequent and longer heat waves. Heavy rain events will be more intense and occur more often. Rising sea levels are outpacing earlier projections as coastal lands sink at the same time. There was widespread agreement that NJ needs to advance home-grown clean energy like solar and offshore wind.
Discussions addressed hard questions that need to be honestly confronted by all of the world’s coastal communities. Is it worth spending hundreds of millions of dollars on beach nourishment projects along the coast only to see that sand washed away in the next big storm? Would that money be better spent in buying out flood-prone properties along the coast? And even more challenging, should the State do more to encourage the “managed retreat” from communities on the shore unlikely to survive absent recurring State/public bailouts? At some point, retreat from the coasts is inevitable. When that concept becomes clear, the economic (and social and political) implications will be profound.
The Climate Change challenge will be won or lost by grass root efforts. In DC, at EPA, a political appointee, John Konkus, has been tasked to unearth grants containing “the double C-word.” Mr. Konkus aims to eliminate from the agency’s research grant solicitations any proposal regarding CC.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently unveiled a plan to create a “red team” of CC dissenting scientists to challenge the conclusions reached by thousands of scientists over decades of research on climate change. This is a continuation of the strategy of sowing doubt in an area where none exists with regard to anthropocentric influence on CC. Professor Naomi Oreskes has detailed this long-running fraud in her book Merchants of Doubt. Mr. Pruitt and Mr Tillerson at ExxonMobil have long been players in this disgraceful deceit and now will use doubt to further policy-making at the EPA and elsewhere in the Trump administration.
These actions are consistent with earlier actions by Trump. He had instructed Scott Pruitt to kill President Obama’s Clean Power Plan which would have reduced carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, and Trump ordered Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to counter Obama-era rules reducing methane emissions from natural gas wells.
Pruitt is also replacing dozens of members on EPA’s scientific advisory boards. In March, he dismissed at least five scientists from the agency’s 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors, to be replaced with advisers “who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community.” Last month the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration dissolved its 15-member climate science advisory committee, a panel set up to help translate the findings of the National Climate Assessment into concrete guidance for businesses, governments and the public.
The House voted 218-195 to strip funding for an Obama-era EPA effort to limit methane emissions from new oil and gas drilling sites.
On Aug. 18, the Interior Department ordered the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to stop work on the health risks of mountaintop-removal coal mining. The $1 million study had been requested by two West Virginia health agencies after numerous studies had found increased rates of birth defects, cancer and other health problems affecting residents near big surface coal-mining operations in Appalachia. The stop work order was issued hours before the scientists were scheduled to meet with affected residents of Kentucky.
The Trump budget proposes to eliminate $250 million from NOAA’s coastal research programs that prepare communities for rising seas and destructive storms. EPA’s Global Change program faces elimination as well. Budget director, Mick Mulvaney has complained of “crazy things” the Obama administration did to study climate, and stated: “Do a lot of the EPA reductions aim at reducing the focus on climate science? Yes.”
But not all of this rush in the wrong direction is going smoothly. Pruitt recently suffered 3 court losses in 2 months. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with all 11 active judges participating, dealt Pruitt a setback in his attempt to loosen limits on methane pollution for thousands of oil and gas facilities. Before that, Pruitt withdrew an attempt to delay important actions on smog pollution due to legal pressure from states and community groups. And in early July a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit denied Pruitt‘s attempt to suspend the methane pollution limits. The full court affirmed that panel’s decision in the August 10 ruling.
Eight months into the Trump presidency, he has yet to appoint a single member to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), despite the fact that he is required by law to appoint a council to create and recommend policies to improve of the quality of the environment. Simply amazing.
As noted, more responsible action is occurring in the state and city levels. New Jersey set a goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 80 percent of 2006 levels by 2050. The state still needs to reduce its GHG emissions 75 percent to achieve that goal. Its transportation sector accounts for 46 percent of its GHG emissions and the power industry accounts for 21 percent. It’s got a lot of work to be do.
Similarly, NYC’s goal is 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. See: http://www1.nyc.gov/site/sustainability/codes/80x50.page (much more on this in a future blog).
Some in the GOP recognize the reality of climate change and market forces and are acting in their state’s best interests regardless of the nonsense coming from DC. Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, met with Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and vowed to "solidify Nevada's position as a national leader in clean and renewable energy." He also signed a net metering bill for solar (but then vetoed raising the state's clean energy goal.)
In North Carolina, the Republican controlled state legislature agreed to facilitate installation of rooftop solar for residents (but then approved a cap on solar development and dealt a setback to wind power). In California, a handful of Republican lawmakers crossed party lines to extend California's cap-and-trade program for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. And in Congress, 46 House Republicans joined Democrats to protect a climate study in a bill on military programs (but then, many climate caucus members have followed Trump’s lead and voted to roll back one regulation after another).
Business tech giants Google, Apple and Facebook moved their energy-hungry data centers to NC and then addressed their commitments to clean energy by lobbying state officials and Duke Energy for favorable renewable energy policy. By 2015, North Carolina was number 2 in the nation, behind California, in cumulative installed solar capacity for the simple reason that solar energy is now inexpensive. North Carolina's first commercial-scale wind farm opened early this year on the state's northeast coast to power Amazon cloud services. The project's payments to private landowners and taxes will inject $1.1 million into the local economy each year.
North Carolina saw the production of more than 34,000 clean energy jobs in 2016, up more than 30 percent over the previous year. That is more than double the number of coal mining jobs in nearby West Virginia, the number 1 state for coal employment.
Wind power output in Scotland set a new record for the first half of the year. Wind turbines provided around 1,039,001MWh (megawatt hours) of electricity to the National Grid during June. That was enough to supply the electrical needs equivalent of 118% of Scottish households or nearly three million homes. This means wind generated the equivalent of 57% of Scotland’s entire electricity needs. A decade ago sceptics declared that wind energy could only supply 1-2% of a country’s power needs. Happily, that is not the case.
There’s more good news in terms of batteries and storage. in 2016 Minnesota got about 18 percent of its energy from wind, thereby ranking in the top 10 states in that category, but in terms of installed solar capacity it ranks 28th. Starting in 2019, and for the foreseeable future, the overall cost of building grid-scale storage there will be less than that of building natural-gas plants to meet future energy demand. Minnesota currently gets about 21% of its energy from renewables which isn’t bad, but the gap must be filled and current plans are to bring an additional 1,800 megawatts of gas-fired “peaker” plants online by 2028. Natural gas is not the way to go because it is still burning a fossil fuel and because of the large amounts of methane released during fracking (and for many other reasons).
More good news is that the costs of bringing lithium-ion batteries online to stockpile energy for when it’s needed is now less costly than building and operating new natural-gas plants. Indeed, giant batteries are making an impact on the electricity grid that serves all of New England which should enhance solar and wind energy development in the region.
Every four seconds, computers at grid operator ISO New England’s Holyoke, Massachusetts, headquarters direct their batteries to pull in energy from the grid and store it for later, or to discharge it immediately to the grid. It is a highly efficient way to smooth the ongoing tension between the amount of energy generators are sending to the grid and the amount that customers are demanding. A natural gas plant cannot come anywhere close to this kind of efficient operation.
Grid-scale battery technology is new and very exciting and advancing rapidly. EVs are helping drive this steep learning curve and reduce costs along the way. Moving the electric grid and the transportation sector away from fossil fuels and toward renewables is an essential part of the mitigation effort we must all promote.
The world has awoken to the reality, danger and challenge of climate change. Where the greatest challenge lies, so too there lies our greatest opportunities. Market forces are aiding movement in the right direction in terms of mitigation. But we need to move things along. Rapidly.
I just heard reports of winds gusting to 175 mph on Puerto Rico due to hurricane Maria. Such winds could pick up Lebron James and blow him across a street like a rag-doll. How many more people have to be killed, how many more homes have to be destroyed before the US joins the rest of the world and takes this existential threat seriously?
Recall the pyramid from Blog 1 with H. sapiens precariously perched on top. This blog focused mostly on climate instability which threatens our food resources from the oceans and the land (the top two supporting blocs). And, as we are seeing in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere, food scarcity and climate disruption also undermines political stability. If we continue to undermine our four essential supporting blocs, the pyramid will collapse.
Carl R. Howard. Co-chair, Global Climate Change Committee, NYSBA EELS
(The views expressed above are entirely my own.)