James Hansen: Coal and the Urgency of Climate Change

In a recent OpEd in the Observer James Hansen had harsh words for unabated coal, and also strong warning about the dangers of runaway climate change.

On the latest climate science (post IPCC 4AR):

Only in the past few years did the science crystallize, revealing the urgency – our planet really is in peril. If we do not change course soon, we will hand our children a situation that is out of their control, as amplifying feedbacks drive the dynamics of the global system.

On coal:

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.

And, agreeing with the climate camp stickers which state 'the future is not what is used to be':

The greatest threats, hanging like the sword of Damocles over our children and
grandchildren, are those that are irreversible on any time scale that humans can imagine. If coastal ice shelves buttressing the West Antarctic ice sheet continue to disintegrate, the ice sheet could disgorge into the ocean, raising sea level by several meters in a century. Such rates of sea level change have occurred many times in Earth’s history in response to global warming rates no higher than that of the past thirty years. Almost half of the world’s great cities, and many historical sites, are located on coast lines.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

James & Anniek Hansen open letter to Michelle and Barack Obama

29 December 2008

Dear Michelle and Barack,

We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born. Barack has spoken of 'a planet in peril' and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.

We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these 'details' could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times.

Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But urgency now dictates a personal appeal. Scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth.

Yet the information that most needs to be communicated to you concerns the failure of policy approaches employed by nations most sincere and concerned about stabilizing climate.

Policies being discussed in national and international circles now, which focus on 'goals' for emission reduction and 'cap and trade', have the same basic approach as the Kyoto Protocol.

This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity.

The enclosure, "Tell Barack Obama the Truth – the Whole Truth" was sent to colleagues for comments as we left for a trip to Europe. Their main suggestion was to add a summary of the specific recommendations, preferably in a cover letter sent to both of you.

There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative reports in response to a Presidential requesti. NAS was set up by President Lincoln for just such advisory purposes.

Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science indicates to be required. Our three recommendations derive from the science, including logical inferences based on empirical information about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of specific past policy approaches.

(1) Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2. This is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem. Coal emissions must be phased out rapidly. Yes, it is a great challenge, but one with enormous side benefits. Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for the long run. Oil, the second greatest contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide, is already substantially depleted, and it is impractical to capture carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles.

But if coal emissions are phased out promptly, a range of actions including improved agricultural and forestry practices could bring the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide back down, out of the dangerous range.

As an example of coal's impact consider this: continued construction of coal-fired power plants will raise atmospheric carbon dioxide to a level at least approaching 500 ppm (parts per million). At that level, a conservative estimate for the number of species that would be exterminated (committed to extinction) is one million. The proportionate contribution of a single power plant operating 50 years and burning ~100 rail cars of coal per day (100 tons of coal per rail car) would be about 400 species! Coal plants are factories of death. It is no wonder that young people (and some not so young) are beginning to block new construction.

(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a "carbon tax and 100% dividend". A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.

A rising carbon price is essential to "decarbonize" the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public's near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.

The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.

The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.
A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.

The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.

"Cap and trade" generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security.

(3) Urgent R&D on 4th generation nuclear power with international cooperation.
Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and a "smart grid" deserve first priority in our effort to reduce carbon emissions. With a rising carbon price, renewable energy can perhaps handle all of our needs. However, most experts believe that making such presumption probably would leave us in 25 years with still a large contingent of coal-fired power plants worldwide. Such a result would be disastrous for the planet, humanity, and nature.

4th generation nuclear power (4th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates to provide large baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable energies cannot do the entire job). Predictable criticism of 4th GNP (and CCS) is: "it cannot be ready before 2030." However, the time needed could be much abbreviated with a Presidential initiative and Congressional support. Moreover, improved (3rd generation) light water reactors are available for near-term needs.

In our opinion, 4th GNP deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive materialiii. Potential proliferation of nuclear material will always demand vigilance, but that will be true in any case, and our safety is best secured if the United States is involved in the technologies and helps define standards.

Existing nuclear reactors use less than 1% of the energy in uranium, leaving more than 99% in long-lived nuclear waste. 4th GNP can "burn" that waste, leaving a small volume of waste with a half-life of decades rather than thousands of years. Thus 4th GNP could help solve the nuclear waste problem, which must be dealt with in any case. Because of this, a portion of the $25B that has been collected from utilities to deal with nuclear waste justifiably could be used to develop 4th generation reactors.

The principal issue with nuclear power, and other energy sources, is cost. Thus an R&D objective must be a modularized reactor design that is cost competitive with coal. Without such capability, it may be difficult to wean China and India from coal. But all developing countries have great incentives for clean energy and stable climate, and they will welcome technical cooperation aimed at rapid development of a reproducible safe nuclear reactor.

Potential for cooperation with developing countries is implied by interest South Korea has expressed in General Electric's design for a small scale 4th GNP reactor. I do not have the expertise to advocate any specific project, and there are alternative approaches for 4th GNP. I am only suggesting that the assertion that 4th GNP technology cannot be ready until 2030 is not necessarily valid. Indeed, with a Presidential directive for the Nuclear Regulator Commission to give priority to the review process, it is possible that a prototype reactor could be constructed rapidly in the United States.

CCS also deserves R&D support. There is no such thing as clean coal at this time, and it is doubtful that we will ever be able to fully eliminate emissions of mercury, other heavy metals, and radioactive material in the mining and burning of coal. However, because of the enormous number of dirty coal-fired power plants in existence, the abundance of the fuel, and the fact that CCS technology could be used at biofuel-fired power plants to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide, the technology deserves strong R&D support.

Summary
An urgent geophysical fact has become clear. Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know, Creation, the planet of stable climate in which civilization developed.
Of course it is unfair that everyone is looking to Barack to solve this problem (and other problems!), but they are. He alone has a fleeting opportunity to instigate fundamental change, and the ability to explain the need for it to the public.

Geophysical limits dictate the outline for what must be donev. Because of the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air, slowing the emissions cannot solve the problem. Instead a large part of the total fossil fuels must be left in the ground. In practice, that means coal.

The physics of the matter, together with empirical data, also define the need for a carbon tax.
Alternatives such as emission reduction targets, cap and trade, cap and dividend, do not work, as proven by honest efforts of the 'greenest' countries to comply with the Kyoto Protocol:

1. Japan: accepted the strongest emission reduction targets, appropriately prides itself on having the most energy-efficient industry, and yet its use of coal has sharply increased, as have its total CO2 emissions. Japan offset its increases with purchases of credits through the clean development mechanism in China, intended to reduce emissions there, but Chinese emissions increased rapidly.
2. Germany: subsidizes renewable energies heavily and accepts strong emission reduction targets, yet plans to build a large number of coal-fired power plants. They assert that they will have cap-and-trade, with a cap that reduces emissions by whatever amount is needed. But the physics tells us that if they continue to burn coal, no cap can solve the problem, because of the long carbon dioxide lifetime.
3. Other cases are described on my Columbia University web site, e.g., Switzerland finances construction of coal plants, Sweden builds them, and Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.

Indeed, 'goals' and 'caps' on carbon emissions are practically worthless, if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the, ground. Caps will not cause that to happen – caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and unconventional fossil fuels).

Coal phase-out and transition to the post-fossil fuel era requires an increasing carbon price. A carbon tax at the wellhead or port of entry reduces all uses of a fuel. In contrast, a less comprehensive cap has the perverse effect of lowering the price of the fuel for other uses, undercutting clean energy sources In contrast to the impracticality of all nations agreeing to caps, and the impossibility of enforcement, a carbon tax can readily be made near-global.

• Given the brilliant scientists Barack has appointed to his team, is there need for a National Academy of Sciences meeting? Yes, his team surely would welcome not only clarification of the urgency of the climate situation, but also interdisciplinary (economics, engineering, physics, biology…) discussion and evaluation of policy options. Barack's first year or two in office is almost surely our last best chance to get the climate and energy strategy right in time to save the future of our children and grandchildren.
• I am not referring to the DOE's "Generation-4" nuclear program, which is a diffuse program that will not yield rapid payoff. Instead, as discussed below, there would need to be a Presidential directive to pursue a path(s) with the potential to contribute to decarbonization of global energy systems as rapidly as practical.
• 4th generation reactors can include automatic shutdown in case of an earthquake or other interruption. It is noteworthy that, even with the presence of poorly designed nuclear power plants in the past, and in some cases demonstrably sloppy operations, the waste from coal-fired power plants has done far more damage, and even spread more radioactive material around the world than all nuclear power plants combined, including Chernobyl.
• Urgency derives from the nearness of climate tipping points, beyond which climate dynamics will cause rapid changes out of humanity's control. Concern about such behavior derives not from theory or speculation, but from improving knowledge of how the Earth responded to past changes of atmospheric composition and from observations of ongoing changes.

Tipping points occur because of amplifying feedbacks. Feedbacks include loss of Arctic sea ice, melting glaciers and ice sheets, release of 'frozen' methane as tundra melts, and growth of vegetation on previously frozen land. The surface changes increase the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth. Added methane reduces heat radiation to space, amplifying the warming effect of carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.

Analysis of Earth's history helps reveal the level of greenhouse gases needed to maintain a climate resembling the Holocene, Creation, the period of reasonably stable climate in which civilization developed.

That carbon dioxide level, unsurprisingly in retrospect, is less than the current 385 ppm (parts per million). The safe amount for the long-term is no more than 350 ppm, probably less. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 ppm. Precise definition of a safe range requires better knowledge of all climate forcing mechanisms. What is clear is that continuing fossil fuel emissions will put Earth on an inexorable course toward an icefree state, a course punctuated by increasingly extreme disasters with hundreds of millions of climate refugees.
A large fraction of species on Earth face certain extinction, if we burn most fossil fuels without capturing and storing the carbon dioxide. New species may come into being over many thousands of years, but all generations of our descendants that we can imagine will live on a far more desolate planet than the one we knew.

• Total carbon in conventional fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal), if released to the air, is enough to initiate a dynamic transition to an ice-free climate state, a transition that would be out of humanity's control. A large fraction of the carbon dioxide emitted in burning fossil fuels stays in the air many centuries. Thus the climate problem cannot be solved by only slowing the rate at which we burn the fossil fuels.

Solution requires that a large part of total fossil fuels is left in the ground, or the carbon dioxide captured and stored. In addition, the unconventional fossil fuels (oil shale, tar sands, methane hydrates) must be left largely untouched or the carbon dioxide captured and stored.

• Now, with oil prices down, is when a hefty carbon tax should be added. In the future, when the price of gasoline again reaches and passes $4/gallon, most of this cost will be tax, staying in the country, spread among consumers, and driving our economy to a clean future. The public can understand this, if Barack explains it, and they will accept it, if there is 100% dividend.
• A carbon tax requires agreement of only several major nations. If any given nation does not apply the tax, an equivalent duty can be applied to their products at ports of entry.
• A Presidential directive for prompt investigation and proto-typing of advanced safe nuclear power is needed to cover the possibility that renewable energies cannot satisfy global energy needs. One of the greatest dangers the world faces is the possibility that a vocal minority of anti-nuclear activists could prevent phase-out of coal emissions.
• The challenges today, including climate change, are great and urgent. Barack's leadership is essential to explain to the world what is needed. The public, young and old, recognize the difficulties and will support the actions needed for a fundamental change of direction.

James and Anniek Hansen

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

MUST READ: Climate Safety (An Update on the Latest Climate Science)

Basing policies and capaigns on outdated information is not likely to lead to positive outcomes. Thats where this report comes in.

The ‘Climate Safety’ report gives a simple summary of the latest science, delivering a clear message that to have any chance of maintaining a safe climate, we must rapidly decarbonise our society, preserve global sinks, and address the problem with an unprecedented degree of seriousness.

Even with a commitment to 80% carbon cuts by 2050, “Climate Safety” warns that our current policy response does not match up to the scale of the challenge.

Get you climate science knowledge bang up to date with this report by well respected UK group PIRC. I think that George Monbiot's puts it better than i could:

“You cannot overstate the importance of this report: it has opened my eyes to levels of climate risk far beyond those of which I was aware. Crisp, clear-headed and profoundly shocking, this report should be read immediately by everyone who cares.”

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Old-Growth Carbon Findings Cause Forest Protection Schism

New ecological science increases calls for forest protection movement to unite in campaign to protect all ancient forests.

September 11, 2008
By Earth's Newsdesk, a project of Ecological Internet (EI)
http://www.ecoearth.info/newsdesk/

A new study in the journal Nature finds old-growth forests are "carbon sinks" and continually absorb carbon dioxide [1]. Australian researchers recently found logging primary forests releases 40 percent of their carbon [2]. These findings discredit decades of thought that primary forests are carbon neutral and only young forests continue to remove carbon.

The Earth's remaining ancient forests need to be fully protected not just because destroying them will release huge stores of greenhouse gases while destroying biodiversity -- but because science now knows what many of us intuited -- they continue in perpetuity to absorb massive amounts of new carbon dioxide. The environmental movement must respond accordingly.

This causes discomfort for groups like Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) that actively support ancient forest logging. They campaign for certified industrial first- time harvest of primary forests, and to establish some protected areas, while acquiescing to ancient forest logging
elsewhere. They work to end coal use, but not ancient forest logging. New ecological science indicates their discredited forest campaigns cause climate change and block ecologically
sufficient policies.

Thirty percent of global forests are unmanaged primary forests or regenerating ld-growth forests. These ancient forests in Canada, Russia and Alaska alone absorb 1.3 gigatonnes of carbon annually, about ten percent of global emissions. Much of their carbon, including in the soil, "will move back to the atmosphere if these forests are disturbed... Carbon accounting
rules for forests should give credit for leaving old-growth forest intact," conclude Oregon State University researchers in Nature.

Greenpeace and RAN -- and virtually every major forest campaign -- continue to focus upon establishing protected areas in some remaining wildernesses, and making first-time
industrial logging less damaging elsewhere. After millennia of terrestrial ecosystem destruction by humans, and over a century of failed logging reform, ecologically driven activists question the dominant failed paradigm that logging primeval forests can ever be justified. This has led to a major schism in the forest protection movement, which is not going to go away easily.

Both RAN and Greenpeace recently celebrated Ontario, Canada's promise to protect Boreal Forests in coming decades in exchange for continued industrial development now. Since the
announcement, plans to log old-growth forests in Ontario's Temagami region have been fast-tracked, and logging giant AbitibiBowater has taken the agreement as a green light to
intensify logging. This occurs with Greenpeace and RAN's blessing, because there may be some protections in 15 years.

Greenpeace activists last week boarded a logging ship in Papua New Guinea (PNG) to prevent Malaysian-owned logging company Rimbunan Hijau from exporting timber to China. "We need to
urgently protect these ancient forests to save our climate... Greenpeace is asking the PNG government to establish a moratorium on any new large-scale logging," said campaigner
Sam Moko. Given PNG's two earlier, largely Greenpeace inspired, temporary moratoriums in past decades, that led to no changes in forest policy, perhaps Greenpeace should work to END ancient forest logging in PNG and globally, before the forests are gone.

Britain's Prince Charles called yesterday for the world to act with a "sense of wartime urgency" to protect the rainforests, warning they were "umbilically connected" to the phenomenon of
climate change. The heir to the British throne says rainforests "are the world's lifebelt", acting as the "world's air conditioning system" and helping store the largest body of flowing water on the planet. Such ambitious, ecologically- based policy is welcome from the nation that unleashed industrialism.

For over a decade, Ecological Internet (EI) -- the world's leading exclusively Internet-based forest and climate campaigners -- has called for an end to all primary and old- growth forest logging as necessary to save the Earth's climate and biodiversity. Active campaigns seek to end ancient forest logging in Tasmania, Australia and British Columbia, Canada. EI has campaigned to have Greenpeace and RAN change their forest policies, and given current science, their hand to
continue doing so has been strengthened.

The response has been nearly total silence, with some ridicule and questioning of motives. Yet, there are important discussions regarding how forests relate to global ecological sustainability that must be held, and EI and allies will persevere. Are there enough ancient forests remaining to
sustain atmospheric processes? Can first time industrial logging of ancient forests ever be done carefully enough to maintain carbon, species and other values? Is wide-scale industrial development of primary forests acceptable if indigenous peoples so desire? Why are Greenpeace and RAN stonewalling such important questions?

According to EI President, Dr. Glen Barry, "Greenpeace and RAN must engage in public dialogue, and review their forest campaigns, to bring them up to date with ecological science and planetary conditions. Emphasis must be upon requirements to maintain the Earth's atmosphere and all life's habitats -- regardless of difficulty -- and this means leaving old-growth standing. Until all forest defenders embrace full protection for ancient forests, ecologically sufficient forest campaigns
cannot succeed. Continued refusal makes Greenpeace and RAN legitimate targets of protest."

References:

[1] Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455, 213-215 (September 11, 2008).

[2] Green Carbon: The role of natural forests in carbon storage. ANU E Press (July 2008).

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

100 Months To Achieve Our Emissions Reductions

At the camp for climate action one idea that was certainly doing the rounds is that we only have 100 months to bring the planets emissions down to a level where they can be absorbed by natural systems. I`ve just traced this idea back to a website called onehunderedmonths.org which basically acts as the home to a new report (PDF) on tackling climate change. Word started to spread about this idea via The Guardian, and is now being helped along by emails and posters--the template for which can be downloaded from the website. Another interesting report (PDF) using the 100 months idea and from the same group of people is by a group calling themselves the Green New Deal Group...a very interesting enterant into the UK climate change arena.

Anyone interested in the science behind these ideas should check out EcoEquity, James Hansen or Malte Meinhausen for starters. I can send pdf's if that would be helpful.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

James Hansen Calls for Trial of Oil Giant CEO's

Twenty years after his first testimony to congress about the dangers of climate change James Hansen is back. According to the New York times he is back with attitude. Or more seriously, he has long since run out of patience with obstructionist politicians and companies that are pushing us all down a destructive path that we need not be on. The timeline of climate change and its public presentation durning the last twenty years is here.

Hansen called for the trial of oil company CEO's who where involved in spreading misinformation about climate change in an attempt to stifle decisive action. An attempt that worked and that we are not paying the price for. Interestingly the NYT ignored this aspect of the story! We have to cross the channel and read the Telegraph or the Guardian to find out about Hansen's statements on the parralles between big oil and big tabacco and how they delt with science.

Hansen tells the Guardian:

When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime.

Against this backdrop it is rather sad to see Gordon Brown begging for more oil. New Labour don't seem to get it--The opportunities of greentech, and the need for action, that is.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Climate Change and Weather Patterns in North America

Given the current flooding in Iowa it's probably not a bad time to publish one of the most comprehensive reports yet on North American weather and the way that it is being effected by climate change. Well, that what the US Climate Science Program has done.


Related:

• 4 Page Summary.
• Climate Science Posts on Climate Change Action.
• Posts relating to the USA on Climate Change Action.
  

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

More last drops of ancient sunlight...

No matter how deep the hole we're in, you can always find willing shovellers. The road lobby is pressuring New Labour for an abandonment of any and all things green. With a perspective that only stretches as far as the next election they may well capitulate. Funny how industries without electoral clout are allowed to go to the wall of "economic conditions" but Middle England can be as unsustainable as it likes as long as it keeps the balance of power.

Meanwhile, now that the ice is clearing, Governments and MultiNationals are free to squabble over who should drill the shit out of the Arctic seabed and push us all that bit closer to the edge.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

New Radio Ecoshock interviews hot off the recording decks.

Alex Smith over at Radio Ecoshock produces a continuous stream of good climate change related discussions and interviews; so head on over and check out the extensive archives.

The latest shows that Alex has just informed me about cover:

1. The state of current climate science as compared to the latest IPCC 4AR. (MP3)
2. The denial tactics used by the fossil fuel industry, a talk by Ross Gelbspan.(MP3)
3. Tim Flannery talking about the sort of problem that climate change represents and some insperation for solutions from the past.(MP3)

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Ken Caldeira:Why we need zero net emmissions of ghg's

Alex over at Radio Ecoshock passed this over to me, a facinating program by Ken Caledira of the Carnegie Institute speaking over at the amazing 3CR community radio out of Melbourne, Australia.

News climate science interview.

"And our simulations only went out about five hundred years, but at the end of five hundred years, you more or less have about as much warming as you had at the maximum warming after the CO2 emissions. And so this idea, that "Oh, this CO2 emission warms the Earth, and then in a century, or two centuries, it's mostly away" is really the wrong picture. More accurate is to say that each emission of CO2 produces a step, you know, increase in temperature that remains pretty much level for many centuries, and then decays away over many thousands of years."

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

The Shadow on American Democracy (By James Hansen)

James Hansen just sent this out on his email list:

I just did an interview with CNN (Miles O’Brien) re “censoring science”. The point I emphasized is that overreaching by the Executive Branch, trying to make government science
submit to political command and control, is a threat to our democracy, and, as a result, a threat to the planet. The scary part about this story is that seeds have been sown, and a playbook has been codified (although not written!), that will make the situation much worse unless the American public recognizes the problem and makes an issue of it. This is a bi-partisan problem – and neither party is trying to fix it. It is remarkable how wimpish Congress has become in accepting subjugation to the Executive Branch, contrary to designs and intents of our Founding Fathers.

Congressional testimony.

Do you know that before a government scientist testifies to Congress his/her testimony is typically reviewed and edited by the White House Office of Management and Budget? When I asked for a justification, I was told that a government scientist’s testimony “needs to be consistent with the President’s budget”. Huh? There have never been any budget numbers in my testimony or in the testimony of most scientists. And OMB’s editing of the scientific content is invariably designed to make the testimony fit better with the position of the political party in power (yes, it is a bi-partisan problem). Where is it stated or implied in the Constitution that the Executive Branch should have such authority? (Actually, does the Constitution not vest control of the purse strings to Congress?) Why does not Congress get incensed about this and fight back?

Offices of Propaganda.

The Public Affairs Offices (PAOs) of science agencies have become mouthpieces for the Administration in power. This, too, is a bi-partisan problem. Top people in the Headquarters Offices of Public Affairs can and often are thrown out in a heart-beat when an
election changes the party in control of the Executive Branch.

The Executive Branch has learned that the PAOs can be effective political instruments
and, with some success, they are attempting to turn them into Offices of Propaganda, masters of double-speak (“clean coal”, “clear skies”, “healthy forests”…) that would make Orwell envious. Again it is a bi-partisan problem, the control of PAOs being exercised by top political appointees who are replaced rapidly with a change of administration. It is these political appointees that are the problem – the career civil servants at the NASA Centers, e.g., are professionals of high integrity, as are most people at Headquarters.

One may wonder: why doesn’t the media object to this situation? I believe that I learned
the reason: it is encapsulated in the phrase “that’s hearsay!”. I heard that phrase over and over
again in 2004 after I stated publicly that NASA press releases were being spirited from NASA
HQ to the White House for either editing or deep-sixing, when they concerned “sensitive” topics
such as global warming. Even NPR did not seem to want to touch that story unless there were
multiple pieces of proof on paper.

The phrase “that’s hearsay” seems to make the media folks quake in their boots,
doubtless because of the threat of a lawsuit. That probably explains why the New York Times
stories about censorship of scientists at NASA that came out in early 2006 became a story about
a low-level 24-year-old, who then “resigned”. Reporters, New York Times included, knew that
the problem went much higher, but instead of focusing on the threat to democracy, it became
too-much an amusing story about a renegade trying to reverse scientific understanding of the
“big bang”, etc.

The actual story is made crystal clear in the new book “Censoring Science” by Mark Bowen (author of “On Thin Ice”, a gripping, albeit long, story about Lonnie Thompson’s quest for ice cores from alpine glaciers). Bowen gets insiders at HQ and elsewhere to provide extensive information, most of it “on the record”, about how PAO works to cover its tracks (“Gretchen, don’t e-mail me on this!” There are some heroines in this story, middle level people who refused to comply with orders from political appointees that they recognized as being inappropriate.) By the way, I gave Bowen some long interviews and documentation (and my
mug is on the book jacket), but I have no financial interest in the book.

The scary part of this story is that PAO political appointees are learning how to cover their tracks. The picture that Bowen presents is one in which PAO political appointees can communicate directly with the White House. One has to wonder, if the Administrator objected to the PAO political appointee activities, how long would it be before he was on the soup line? As the tracks are covered better and better, it is as if we have a shadow government organization controlling information that the public receives.

How to fix it?

There is an article “Freedom of Speech in Government Science” in the current
Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 2008, pages 31-34, by David Resnik. Presumably
Resnik is well-intentioned, but I take vehement exception to one of his bottom lines. The article
sounds fine for the most part, but keep in mind the common technique of telling you ten things
that are true followed by slipping in the whopper, the very questionable point or conclusion
concerning the main point of interest. Here is Resnik’s whopper:

“…when a government scientist communicates with the media, the public (or even
journalists) may mistakenly assume that the scientist is speaking for the government, when he or she is expressing only a personal opinion. If the scientist expresses an opinion that goes against official policy, this can creates (sic) confusion in the public mind. To minimize confusion and to enable an administration to convey consist (sic) policy messages, it is appropriate to allow public relations officers to review a government scientist’s communications with the media.”
Perhaps I am taking his statement out of context, but he seems to mean review the
statement before it is made. This is where we need the Mercedes-driving lawyers
(http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf) to help us. What Resnik is
saying, which PAO would latch onto in a heartbeat, consists of “prior restraint”, as he suggests
review prior to a testimony or statement being made, not correction after the fact by the
government. If prior approval for scientific opinions are required, a scientist does not have a
snowball’s chance in Hades of providing his unadulterated opinion on a “sensitive” subject.

This is true regardless of which party is in power. The most horrific experience that I
ever had with NASA PAO was in 2000 during a Democratic administration when I tried to get a
press release through on “Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario”,
which emphasized the importance of non-CO2 climate forcings. After umpteen iterations, I threw in the towel.

Resnik suggests that the best way to safeguard free speech in government science is for a
scientific organization, such as the American Association for the Advancement for Science
(AAAS), to designate a committee or group to focus on these issues. That may do some good,
but by itself it will do little.

The presumption of democracy is that the public is informed, honestly informed.
Government scientists work for the tax payer and should be allowed to report their research
results without political interference. Elected officials can use scientific information as they see
fit – they must consider all factors in making policies, not just scientific data. But they should
not be allowed to torque the scientific data, or choose what information is allowed to be
presented and what information is deep-sixed. Such filtering, which is a recipe for bad decisions
and poor management, has never been as intense as in the past several years, in my opinion.

The main problems could be fixed as follows:

• Public Affairs Offices should be staffed by career professionals protected by civil service rules, not headed by political appointees,
• the practice of the White House OMB reviewing scientific testimony should be dropped.
  

These changes would be simple to make, they would allow the public to be better
informed, the government would have a more complete picture for making decisions, the tax
payers would get their money’s worth. So why doesn’t it happen? Because, when a new
Administration comes in they say “Hey, now WE can control the Offices of Propaganda (even
though they consider them offices of their enlightened truth) and make OUR administration look good!

What is needed is a bi-partisan agreement that these changes would be in the interest of
the nation. But it is just not going to happen unless the public gets involved. Politicians do not
give up instruments of political power AFTER an election that they have won, unless they made
an unambiguous promise before the election. We should be asking the candidates for President
“will you make these two specific changes, to take the politics out of scientific reporting?” And
then we must check to see that the changes are made when a new administration takes over.

Well, I failed to expound on the relation between the threat to our democracy and the threat to
our planet, but I am running out of gas and need to work on a scientific paper. The relation is
discussed in (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/worldwatch_nov2006.pdf), and better in Bowen’s “Censoring Science” (Dutton, 2008). Would you believe that the current head of NASA PAO had a senior position in the Southern Company, the second largest holding company of coalburning utilities in the United States? Naw, just kidding. Or am I? Read the book.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Climate Change 2007: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)

'IPCC 4AR Summary for Policy Makers' (PDF) finally released.

Sorry for being a few days late with this one. If, however, you haven't read the entire IPCC report in three volumes then this is where the delay stops. Your excuses are at an end, this summary document is what government ministers and heads of state are expected to read. So if you want to know the basis on which decisions are made at the forthcomming Bali climate talks then this is the place to start. It's only 23 pages so get to it!

The document is introduced and discussed in this webcast (via IPCC.ch)

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Wild Fires: Not caused by climate change!

Yesterday, i posted two short pieces about what i thought was the link between climate change and wildfires. One of these pieces featured a video in which the head of the US Fire Service, stated that the number of fires and there magnitude had increased drastically in the last 20 years. The other piece showed a summary of research into fires that appeared to indicate a stronger than expected link between climate change and wild fires.

But my failure to realise that these people are taking us for saps was corrected just half an hour ago thanks to NewsBusters. This organisation that fights to remove the liberal bias from the media has release a couple of statements attacking the climate-fire link. And yes, they are just like GhostBusters but rather than destroying threatening spirits from the afterlife they attempt to destroy threatening news stories than may attack industry vested interests.

The best headline being: "Scientists Disagree With Media Blaming Wildfires on Global Warming".But still the liberal media continue!

"Fires are burning hotter and bigger, becoming more damaging and dangerous to people and to property," U.S. Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell said. "Each year the fire season comes earlier and lasts longer."

What does she know, she is only the Forest Service Chief! There is more of that sort of nonsense on Grist which has a extensive post on the speculative climate-fire link. Climate alarmists at Science Daily are also at it, contending that unless we change our ways and live in a cave (or a solar heated house with decent insulation) we will experience these fires at increasing frequency.

It's time for industry to take back the media, there was a time when catastrophes like this passed by without anyone connecting the dots or making scare statements such as:

"We're showing warming and earlier springs tying in with large forest fire frequencies. Lots of people think climate change and the ecological responses are 50 to 100 years away. But it's not 50 to 100 years away -- it's happening now in forest ecosystems through fire."

It's all scare mongering!

[UPDATE] Some typical liberal scare mongerers!

Bill McKibben on Democracy Now

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Video: Climate Change and Forest Fires in the US

A short video about climate change and fires. It's compelling viewing.



Previous post on this topic, with references and websites on fires.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Wild Fires: Connected to climate change?

Speaking about the vast wild fires occouring in California Ronal Neilson of Oregon State University says:

"This is exactly what we've been projecting to happen, both in short-term fire forecasts for this year and the longer term patterns that can be linked to global climate change,"

According to Neilson (a member of the IPCC) the latest models show less inter-annual variability but more variability within decades.

"The latest models, Neilson said, suggest that parts of the United States may be experiencing longer-term precipitation patterns -- less year-to-year variability, but rather several wet years in a row followed by several that are drier than normal."

In California, many severe impacts from climate change are expected, including more deaths duting prologed heat waves, less snowpack in the siera nevada, and more wild fires.

With regards fires, a number of significant studies have been completed in recent years.

Recent research by climatologists, biologists, geographers, and fire ecologists has revealed that fires in western forests are more strongly linked to climate than was previously thought. But the specific linkages are as yet poorly understood. More practically, from a landmanagement perspective, it is not easy to sort through the scientific findings and pick out the most useful ones for planning and on-the-ground management.

The questions have become urgent with successive record-setting fire seasons in 2005 and 2006. A key study published in Science in August of 2006 used real-time climate records to make a strong link between rising temperatures and increasing wildfire in the northern Rocky Mountains. The researchers, led by A.L. (Tony) Westerling of the University of California at Merced, found that warming temperatures and earlier springs are triggering increased wildfire activity in forests in the northern Rockies.

[UPDATE] Wild fire& Climate Change video.




Related Reading:
Fire Science Digest (A review of recent science on fires and climate change in the US)

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Climate Change and Rice

Rice is the staple diet for 40% of the worlds population. Effects of climate change on rice are therefore of great significance.

As with all outcomes from climate models when we are looking at precipitation, temperature, and other factors, along with non-climatic factors the conclusions are not definitive or precise. However, the heterogeneity of the situation is significant of itself, and indeed is perhaps the most important aspect of the models. With more than 2-3 degrees warming all the trends are negative and the yields of many crops in many areas are declining, before that point there are a lot of areas making gains, and a lot loosing out. This is not a situation that farmers are going to easily adapt to and large scale migrations from one area to another will be significant without the yield necessarily decreasing.

Unfortuntely areas of Africa are amongst the hardest hit in Tyndall Centre projections:

• Between 0.9 and 1.4°C above 1990, poor farmers income declines globally (Hare 2003). This information may not show in model results for countries whose farmers have a range of incomes.
  
• 
  
• Even if there are no overall impacts on the yield of a crop within a country as a whole, this picture can mask a large amount of local variation. For example, in Venezuela where a global temperature rise of 1.4-1.7°C has been predicted to decrease maize yields by 10-15%, 15% decrease maize yield (Gitay . 2001); adaptation could offset 10% of this but it hides huge local variation (Jones &Thornton 2003.
  

The results are more mixed in China.


Relevant Documents:
Introduction to Rice and Climate Change (effects on rice and contribution by rice farming)
Climate Change and Impacts on Grain in China
Feeding Billions, A Grain at a Time (WSJ, Article)
Least Developed Countries and Climate Change.(IIED)
*Understanding the Regional Effects of Climate Change (Tyndall Centre)

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Arctic ice melt shatters records...and my nerves.

Recently i've been focusing less on climate impacts and more on solutions/politics here.

There are a lot of climate impacts, and they tend to be depressing and quite scary...depressed and scared people arent really likely to act to improve the situation: that isn't a motivational combination.

However, one recent story really caught my attention...reports are going around that this years arctic ice melt has been the fastest and largest yet, breaking records set just a couple of years ago. Roughly an extra million sqaure miles of ice have melted as compared to the average minimum.

All of which means that there is ohh...some slight measure of urgency in making a rapid international agreement starting at the special UN summit currently underway.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Audio of the Week: Former British Antarctic Survey Head On Climate Change

Former head of the British Antarctic Survey and new head of the British Science Museum, Prof. Chris Rapley CBE (bio), speaks about climate change and the likelyhood of real consequence being more severe than IPCC predictions. Personally i always took the IPCC as a conservative baseline but this interview is certainly(MP3) worrying stuff and well worth a listen.


Via Radio Ecoshock

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

UK Floods and Weird Weather

Looking for some logic to the strange weather we have had in the UK (warmest May and wettest June on record) I found this from the MetOffice.

Record-breaking June rainfall figures

Provisional statistics from the Met Office have today shown that June has been the wettest since records began in 1914.

The UK-wide average figure of 134.5 mm has beaten the previous highest June total of 121.2 mm in 1980. Records for England and Northern Ireland have also been broken.

The month saw some extremely high daily rainfall totals, with 103.1 mm falling in the 24-hour period ending at 10 p.m. on 25 June in Fylingdales, North Yorkshire. At this stage, it is not possible to say whether intense rainfall events are caused by climate change.

However, there is an expectation of heavier extreme rainfall events in most places as climate warms and the atmosphere becomes moister.

Chief Scientist at the Met Office, John Mitchell said: "In the UK, extreme rainfall is likely to increase in winter, but in summer the predictions are unclear. Improved modelling and understanding in the future will help us to reduce this uncertainty for the UK."

Despite the large amounts of rain across many parts of the country, the average UK temperature has been above the long-term average. June 2007 had a mean temperature of 13.7 °C, while the long-term average is 12.6 °C.

The higher-than-normal mean UK temperature for June follows a trend that has become a regular feature over recent months. The last time mean UK temperatures were below average was in March 2006.

The Met Office works with government, the public and the private sector to forecast and advice on the possible consequences and risks of climate change. With the 'normal' baselines changing, we all need to seek advice to make informed planning decisions and begin to put in place adaptation measures to meet the challenges posed by climate change.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

1kg of beef results in more CO2 emissions than going for a three-hour drive while leaving all the lights on at home

The Guardian via Carbonara.

Producing 1kg of beef results in more CO2 emissions than going for a three-hour drive while leaving all the lights on at home, scientists said today.

A team led by Akifumi Ogino at the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, trawled through data on aspects of beef production including calf raising, animal management and the effects of producing and transporting feed.

They are calling for an overhaul of the beef industry, after their audit revealed producing the meat caused substantial amounts of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

It's worth noting that beef consistently scores badly in terms of it's climate change impact, other meet's often do far better. A general rule that i am starting to use is 'avoid beef, moderate the rest of your dietary meat intake'.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!