Coronavirus Augurs Hope for Climate Action

The coronavirus will augur change and while it is far too early to say with any certainty, it may very well drive the kind of radical transformation that we need to address the climate crisis. People are coming together to face this modern day plague. We are seeing a return to multilateralism and perhaps even a reversal of the trend towards increasing polarization. In the first few weeks of the pandemic we also began to see a reduction in climate change causing emissions.

To be clear we have little reason to celebrate at present. Health care systems are being overwhelmed and people are sick and dying. To make matters worse this pandemic is unfolding against the backdrop of the Trump administration's tragic mishandling of the crisis and a global economic meltdown. The stock markets are experiencing unprecedented volatility and U.S. job losses have spiked to a record 3.3 million making recession a virtual certainty.

However, amidst the pain and suffering we are seeing glimmers of hope. The pandemic has encouraged people to once again appreciate the value of expertise and the importance of science. We can expect renewed interest in fact-based decision making and this may arrest anti-science politics in the U.S.

The global pandemic gives us an opportunity to reconsider the myopia of our propensity to avoid long term thinking and planning. It is not unreasonable to assume that global efforts to combat the coronavirus will contribute to renewed interest in climate action. We have been repeatedly warned that we must act to avert this crisis. It stands to reason that we may see an increase in support for efforts to avert the most serious global threat humanity has ever faced.

In recent weeks we have stood together to fight this pandemic, there is no reason why we cannot do the same to engage the climate crisis. COVID-19 could be the shock we need to finally get serious about combating climate change.

We are on the cusp of a climate catastrophe and we must act quickly if we are to avoid surpassing upper threshold temperature limits from which we may not be able to recover. Climate change is the cause of a wide range of diseases and other health concerns. Acting on climate change is about staving off a catastrophe that represents an existential threat to life on earth.

Managing the economic consequences of this pandemic will require a rethink of some basic economic values. Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. We need a coordinated global response that will take us into the next century and it should be obvious that business as usual won't do. If we reconsider the de-regulatory mayhem that resulted in the financial meltdown of 2008 and the insanity of deregulation under the Trump administration, we may be able to change our perilous course.

As we are forced to deal with recession we will have to carefully consider the kind of economic stimulus we will apply. It is reasonable to assume that governments will heed the economic case for climate action. The economic benefits of climate action combined with the disincentive of economic collapse if we fail to act, make a compelling case that will be hard to ignore.

Any serious climate action starts with a reappraisal of our energy landscape. Even before the pandemic hit the oil and gas industry was on life support. We need to acknowledge that the dirty energy industry is being abandoned by investors, banks and insurance companies. Rather than trying to prop-up a dying industry governments need to prepare for the way for the kinds of energy that can safely power our future. Clean energy is vital to our future as it will both grow the economy and provide millions of good jobs. The auto industry will be hit hard by the economic downturn, however, with the appropriate government support this could be an opportunity to transition away from the combustion engine. We need to come to terms with the reality that the benefits of climate action far outweigh the costs.

Resistance to the economic reality comes from politicians that are beholden to the old energy industry. However, this pandemic may signal the end of the fossil fuel powered politics of both Trump and the Republican party. After decades of deceiving the American public, the American electorate could bring the GOP's corruption to an end.

Our times challenge some longstanding principles that are at the core of western civilization and the virus may cause more people to question our market driven economy. We need government support to keep the economy from completely collapsing and government stimulus packages should include efforts to retool the economy to prepare for the world of tomorrow. This should include massive investments in clean energy like wind and solar energy. It must also include carbon removal technologies like direct air capture (DAC) and carbon capture and sequestration or (CCS). These so called negative emissions technologies may be our last hope of reigning in climate change.

We need to see an end to business as usual and this pandemic might very well be the catalyst for the kind of change we need to see. This may include structural changes to our economy. .We are already seeing behavioral changes as less people travel and more people are working from home. If nothing else the reaction to COVID-19 shows us that rapid global change is possible.

Climate activist Greta Thunberg denounced governments for taking urgent action against the coronavirus outbreak but failing to treat global warming as an emergency. "It is shameful that for so long the climate and environmental emergency has been ignored. We are still in a crisis that has never once been treated like a crisis," Thunberg said.

Her logic is sound and if reason prevails COVID-19 could bring about an unprecedented paradigm shift. However, there are some dark days ahead. This pandemic is far from over, and many more will suffer from the disease and the economic aftershocks. As Naomi Klein points out such shocks augur change, sometimes they are for the better and sometimes for the worse. We need to anticipate the very real possibility that if we let it, COVID-19 and its aftershocks could drain money and political will from climate action. We must not allow restrictive capital markets to prevent the flow of financing for clean technologies. We must also be ever mindful of authoritarian efforts to use the crisis to undermine democracy. Let us hope that this dark period will be a womb and not a tomb.

Related
Coronavirus Stock Losses in 2 days Equal to the Cost of Climate Adaptation for the Next 10 Years
Emissions Reduction from the Coronavirus is Being Undermined by Government Subsidies Trump's Handling of the Coronavirus is a lot like his Climate Strategy
Coronavirus Related Stock Losses in 2 days Equal to the Cost of Climate Adaptation
Coronavirus Reduces China's Emissions by 25 Percent

Read More»

Hilary Clinton is our Last Best Hope of Tackling Climate Change

Anyone interested in climate action needs to appreciate that Hilary Clinton is our last best hope. Clinton has emerged as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and she is a far better choice than the Republican candidate Donald Trump. To get a handle on what is at stake, voters need to understand that without US involvement, efforts to reign-in climate change are doomed to fail. Clinton has recently received endorsements from the greenest candidate in this election cycle Tom O'Malley and Potus himself, President Barack Obama.

Clinton is now in a position to be the first women ever to be president of the United States. This is even more significant following on the heels of the successful presidency of Barack Obama. The first African American president and the greenest president in US history. Regardless of who becomes president Clinton is the first female presidential nominee of the two major US parties.

Arguably even more import than this historic achievement, Clinton is now the only one who can stop the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Make no mistake about it, a Trump presidency at this juncture would kill any hope we have of reigning in climate change. We are rapidly running out of time before we trigger unstoppable tipping points from which we could not recover. So in this sense, Clinton is the best hope we have to tackle climate change.

As revealed by Clinton's recent evisceration of Trump, she has the toughness that it takes to do what the field of Republican presidential contenders could not. 

Clinton has made her views on climate change known in the first Democratic primary debate and through her published policy positions. Here is a brief summary of her climate and energy policies:

Paris Climate Agreement

Clinton accepts the veracity of climate change and the 1.5 - 2.0 degree Celsius upper threshold temperature limits included in the Paris Climate Agreement. She will increase US emissions reductions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. This is a slight improvement on the Obama administration's goals of cutting emissions 26 to 28 percent. She will also work to preserve Obama's climate actions including the Clean Power Plan, which faces stiff opposition from Republicans. Clinton will also continue Obama's national fuel efficiency standards and the new methane rules.

Social and Environmental Justice

She has also indicated that she will try to make the transition to cleaner sources of energy more palatable to the majority of Americans. To illustrate she has indicated that she will work on economic development in coal mining communities that are out of work. Clinton recently released a comprehensive plan on environmental injustice that includes efforts to address lead.

Renewables and Efficiency

On her website she pledges that all American homes will be powered by renewables within a decade and she will oversee the installation of half a billion solar panels by the end of her first term. She will also work to make America more energy efficient saving $8 billion a year in energy and health care costs.

Clinton has also proposed a National Infrastructure Bank that would support grid investments for distributed energy, and investments in clean energy R&D. She would also ease permitting on new electricity transmission, increase the amount of renewable energy used in federal buildings and on public land. raise the bar on efficiency standards for all federal procurement and federally funded infrastructure.

Through a program called the Clean Energy Challenge, she has promised $60 billion in grants provided to states who show climate leadership.

Fossil Fuels

One of her biggest climate fails may be her support for natural gas as a bridge fuel. However, Clinton wants natural gas to be cleaner. She has proposed a National Infrastructure Bank that would reduce the number of leaks in natural gas pipelines, Through clean energy and efficiency measures she has also promised to reduce US oil consumption by a third. She does not support oil and gas production in the Arctic and the Atlantic coast, and she supports Obama's moratorium on new coal leasing. She does not support a blanket ban on new oil and gas leases on public land.

Nuclear

Clinton wants to keep existing nuclear plants operational. While Bernie Sanders has indicated that he would like to phase them out over time. Nuclear power provides 20 percent of all electricity generation in the US and 60 percent of all zero-carbon energy. Clinton also wants to increase investment in new forms of nuclear power.

Comparison

There are a number of differences that have emerged between Clinton and Sanders. A side by side comparison reveals that Clinton is not be as green as Sanders and certainly not as green as O'Malley, but she is the last person standing capable of taking on Trump.

Anyone but Trump

Trump's policy positions, if you can call them that, are largely unintelligible. His populism appears to be cobbled together on the spot so it is hard to weave a coherent narrative out of his rants. Although he may not have a proper platform, many of his stated actions would cause great harm. This is not only about climate change and the environment. A Trump presidency would hobble the economy and derail America's energy agenda. When compared to the horror-show that a Trump Presidency would augur, Clinton is the best choice by a country mile. Those who support climate action may not have an ideal candidate, but unless they want to abet disaster by abstaining to vote, they must support Clinton.

Related
Climate Focus at the April 14th Democratic Debate
Climate Related Excerpts from the March 9th Democratic Presidential Debate
Hilary Maintains her Climate Silence as O'Malley Pushes his Green Agenda (Iowa Democratic Town Hall)
Climate Change May Give Democrats the Edge in the 2016 Federal Election

Read More»

Climate Scientist Susan Solomon's heartening Look at Environmental Successes

Susan Solomon, is the Ellen Swallow Richards Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Science at MIT and she is also author of the book “The Coldest March.” She is a scientist who remains hopeful despite the array of environmental threats we are facing.  While it is easy to believe that we are powerless to combat climate change she points out that there have been a number of environmental successes that give us reason to hope that we can make a difference before it is too late.

In recent decades have seen major environmental progress: In the 1970s, the United States banned indoor leaded paint following evidence that it was poisoning children. In the 1990s, the United States put in place regulations to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide — a move that significantly reduced acid rain. Beginning in the 1970s, countries around the world began to phase out leaded gasoline; blood lead levels in children dropped dramatically in response.

“I find it tremendously uplifting to look back at how our world has changed,” says Solomon who is teaching a course on Environmental Science and Society, exploring how society has tackled a range of past environmental challenges through science, engineering, policy, public engagement and politics.

In 1985, scientists discovered that the Earth’s protective ozone layer was thinning over Antarctica. In response, Solomon led an expedition whose atmospheric measurements helped show that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — chemicals then used in aerosols and as coolants in refrigerators and air conditioners — were to blame for ozone depletion. Her discovery ultimately contributed to the basis for the United Nations’ Montreal Protocol, an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals.

“I think young people today are growing up at a time when they don’t know that we actually have made tremendous progress on a whole series of past environmental challenges,” Solomon says. “Climate change has been called the mother of all environmental issues … and I think our approach to this problem can only be better informed if we understand better what we’ve done in the past.”

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Environmental Success Stories: Mercury, SLCPs and Many More \
Crafting a Positive Environmental Narrative
Pessimism is Impeding Environmental Advocacy
A Thanksgiving Infused with Environmental Gratitude
The Symbolism of Easter in an Ecological Context
A New Environmental Movement Breeds Hope for the Future
Video - Are Individuals to Blame for Carbon Pollution?
Video - Making People Care About Climate Change: The Psychology of Risk Perception
Building Support for Action on Climate Change Before We Reach Tipping Points
Earth Conscious People in History

Read More»

Happy New Year: Lets Make 2013 a More Sustainable Year

As 2013 commences we are called to to reflect on the year that has been. Most importantly we need to consider what we will do in the year to come. Last year we saw a number of studies and dire warnings about the state of our environment.There is reason to believe that both the business community and ordinary people are coming to terms with the facts.

The costs and risks associated with climate change make a powerful business case and extreme weather is making it increasingly difficult for the average person to ignore global warming.

In 2012 governments dithered but businesses around the world engaged climate change in record numbers. There was even evidence suggesting that average Americans are embracing climate science in ever increasing numbers.

This year we must come together to act. Businesses, consumers and even elected officials must get serious about engaging the environmental threats we face.

Let us dare to hope that despite the prodigious obstacles arrayed against us that 2013 will be the year that climate change gets the attention that it deserves. At the very least let us all commit to doing what we can to make human activities less egregious to the Earth.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Read More»

COP 18: Bridging the Gulf Between Science and Reality

In theory the slew of recent climate studies should inspire the delegates that have assembled for the 18th Conference of the Parties (COP 18). In practice the 194 nations that are meeting in Doha, Qatar, are getting bogged down by the same old arguments.

The consensus once again this year appears to be that nothing will be accomplished. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) convened these negotiations almost two decades ago and in all that time, we have seen very little meaningful action on the primary issue of curtailing greenhouse gases (GHGs). Since 2000, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased almost 20 percent and there is an ever widening gap between what governments are doing to curb emissions and what needs to be done.

Recent reports on GHGs and global warming

The climate data from numerous sources conclusively makes the point that we are heading towards calamity. More than a dozen studies made this point just ahead of the climate talks in Doha.

A number of scientist have warned that time is running out to avert a climate catastrophe. While they acknowledge that it is still possible to stave off the worst effects of climate change, they note that the window of opportunity is rapidly getting smaller.

In November, the World Meteorological Association’s (WMO) annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin indicated that global atmospheric carbon levels are at 391 parts per million, the highest they have ever been in human history. Scientists warn that 350 parts per million is the upper limit for a stable planet. Levels of CO2 have been steadily rising at about 2 parts per million every year for the past decade. Current measurements of atmospheric carbon are 40 percent higher than at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Since the dawn of industrialization in 1750 humans have emitted 375 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The WMO Bulletin indicates that future emissions will make the situation far worse.

The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) contributed to the WMO report by providing data published in their Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI). Their report stated: “Increases in the abundance of atmospheric GHGs since the industrial revolution are largely the result of human activity and are largely responsible for the observed increases in global temperature.”

On November 12, the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) warned that ongoing reliance on fossil fuels will make it impossible to curtail climate change. They further state that renewable energy is being neglected in favor of coal, oil, and natural gas.

In a November 13 press release, Renewable Energy Industry (IWR) indicated that last year’s GHGs reached a record high. In total, there were 34 billion tons of GHG emissions in 2011, which is 800 million more tons than in 2010.

On November 18, the World Bank issued a report suggesting that the climate could warm a full 4 degrees by the end of the century. The study further suggests that we will not be able to avert this temperature increase even in the unlikely event that countries fulfill their current emissions-reduction pledges.

On November 21, UNEP issued a warning saying that we are on the brink of a climate catastrophe. The UN Environment Program’s Emissions Gap Report 2012 indicates that there is a massive gulf between what governments have pledged in terms of GHG emissions and what they are actually doing. To stave off a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), nations have pledged to reduce their emissions a total of 44 gigatonnes (Gt) by 2020. However, the UNEP report indicates that if we stay on our current trajectory of increasing emissions, we are likely to see temperature increases of 3-5 °C. According to UNEP, the gap between GHG emission reduction pledges and what is actually being done is 8 Gt of CO2 by 2020, which is 2 Gt higher than last year’s assessment.

Also in November, Price Waterhouse Coopers offered its own climate change warning in a report titled Too Late for Two Degrees? According to this study, it may already be too late to keep global temperatures within the scientifically agreed upon upper threshold of 2°C.

In November, the World Resources Institute (WRI) put forth its own warning in a report titled Global Coal Risk Assessment. As reviewed in this study, proposed coal projects around the world will quadruple the current capacity of all coal-fired plants in the US. The report found that there are 1,199 new coal power plants in the works, totaling more than 1.4 million megawatts of capacity worldwide.

On December 2, researchers affiliated with the Global Carbon Project released a report titled, The Challenge to Keep Global Warming Below 2 degrees C. The study concludes that it is becoming increasingly unlikely that we will be able to keep temperatures within acceptable upper limits. Emissions continue to grow so quickly that without immediate action, we will not be able to stay within the upper temperature limit established by scientists.

Reports on sea level rise

According to a November 27th study, the ocean is rising much faster than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A number of scientists are warning that we must act now to address rising sea levels. They indicate that rising sea levels will be disastrous, but they also say that it is still within our power to not only defend against rising tides, but also to reduce the rate at which they rise.

Rising sea levels not only imperil people, the cost to property and infrastructure amounts to trillions of dollars a year. However, if governments act now, they can significantly reduce these costs. Failure to act soon will cause the costs to increase exponentially.

The threat from rising ocean levels will impact millions of Americans, including people in Florida, Louisiana, California, New York and New Jersey. In total, more than half of the US population in more than 285 cities may be at risk.

A 2011 study by the International Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) indicates that driven by warming in the Arctic and the resulting melt of snow and ice, sea levels could rise up to 5 feet by the end of this century. This is more than two and a half times higher than the 2007 projection by the IPCC.

Agenda for COP 18

As these studies reveal, the need for science driven governmental policy has never been more urgent. Despite the alarming state of affairs, the agenda for COP 18 is modest at best, with no new emissions targets and little progress expected on a new binding climate deal.

The meeting in Doha is scheduled to address a second round of commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, wrap up the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) negotiating track and deal with the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP).

Kyoto Protocol and a Second Commitment Period

The Kyoto Protocol (KP) is a historic agreement that legally binds developed (or Annex I) countries to emission reduction targets.  Out of the 195 signatories to the UNFCCC, 192 have ratified the Kyoto Protocol; the U.S. is a notable exception.

One of the advantages to KP is that it includes carbon pricing in the form of cap-and-trade based policy frameworks. The KP is currently the only legally binding mechanism we have to limit international greenhouse gas emissions, but it comes to an end on December 31, 2012.

There are efforts underway to secure a second commitment period (KP2), which will start on January 1, 2013.  While KP2 has some support including counties in the EU and Australia, there is strenuous resistance from the U.S., Canada, Russia, Japan and New Zealand.

Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA)

The discussion on LCA includes a broad range of issues including the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA), the New Market Mechanism (NMM) and more recently, the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA).

We may see some progress here.

Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP)

The ultimate goal of the ADP track is a new global climate deal by 2015 which will take effect in 2020. To develop a comprehensive agreement, the ADP needs to define specific targets, goals and actions. One of the primary goals is the establishment of a carbon market infrastructure. It should also address a funding mechanism for developing economies that leverages private sector finance as well as technology transfer and best practices for implementation.

Few believe that Doha will succeed in setting the course for the ADP. However, we may see some modest progress on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD).

Reducing carbon emissions from deforestation

The REDD+ framework is one of the subjects being discussed at COP 18. Clearing forests to make way for agriculture and other uses is responsible for about 20 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite some initial optimism, the WWF reports that developing and developed countries were at odds after Saturday’s meeting about how to verify carbon emissions from forests.

This may prove to be less problematic once the financing issue is addressed as many of the verification issues can be solved with appropriate funding.

The “Equity” problem

Throughout the course of their industrial development, wealthy countries have emitted vast quantities of GHGs, as a consequence, they have a historical responsibility for climate change. Countries that have undergone fossil fuel dependent development are also in a better economic position to contribute to climate solutions.

Current positions from many wealthy countries including the U.S. make little or no allowance for their historical responsibilities.

The question yet to be answered in Doha is: What responsibilities do different countries hold, and how can we implement climate solutions fairly?

How do we measure success?

We need to move beyond the obstacles and do more than make vague statements. We need to get serious about tangible commitments and concrete deadlines. With this is mind, success at COP 18 should be measured by what countries accomplish in the following three areas:

1. A robust second commitment period KP2
2. Successful closure of negotiations on LCA involving mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity-building.
3. A way forward for the 2015 agreement involving all countries.

Conclusion

Success at COP 18 seems very unlikely, but we are sometimes surprised. In 2011, we saw the EU, the Alliance of Small Island States and the Least Developed Countries come together to get things done. Perhaps similar alliances could help us to move forward this year.

As demonstrated by the most recent studies, we cannot afford to be patient. We must strive to achieve the explicit goal of the UNFCCC which is to reduce GHG emissions so that we can limit global temperature increases.

The current inhabitants of the Earth, along with all the generations to come are counting on us to find a way to realize these lofty aspirations. While it may seem impossible from where we are today, the facts compel us to try, or die trying.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Read More»