Somehow, the potential collapse of our civilization as well as global ecosystems isn’t a good enough argument for Republican Teabaggers, beholden to their dirty energy corporate masters, to take action in the global warming arena. For a few paltry thousand of dollars per Representative and Senator, but millions upon millions in slick advertising, dirty energy interests have delayed and obstructed meaningful national efforts to clean up our act before it’s too late. All too often, Republican Teabaggers use the “economic destruction” talking point to convince the public that we just. can’t. take. action.
Just how “destructive” would action actually be? Far less expensive than doing nothing, to be honest. Action won’t be free. But inaction will be many times more destructive to our economy. And after spending much, much more money, societies would likely unravel and global ecosystems would likely collapse. That’s how absolutely stupid Republican Teabagger efforts to delay action on global warming is: it will cost us more and we could end up with broken societies and a planet that’s harder to live on. Or, we could take some action now and our societies will stay strong and our planet will remain mostly inhabitable. Beyond being able to live and do so in a civilized society, taking action would actually make economies stronger, something that should easily resonate in today’s world.
The first official draft on a climate deal has been written and issued. The expectation is the details won’t be worked out for another 6 months or so, which was what a lot of people were thinking going into this Summit. Keep in mind that George Bush’s crew did everything they could for 8 years to make sure the climate crisis was worse when they left than when they took power. President Obama’s administration has had only 10 months so far to undo those 8 years of damage. That little fact will be very handy when the Cons start screaming that the Summit and the U.S. President are failures. Gotta love those patriots! Back to the draft:
A key working group under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came up with a six-page text Friday. The draft may form the core of a new global agreement to combat climate change beyond 2012, when the present framework, the Kyoto Protocol, expires. However, most figures in the text are shown in brackets – meaning that there is not yet agreement on these specifics. Most importantly, the draft states that emissions should be halved worldwide by 2050 compared to 1990 levels, but it also suggests 80 percent and 95 percent reductions by that year as possible alternative options.
Those two emphasized statements are at the root of a lot of disagreement between parties, as I cover below.
Human-forced climate change has already many effects that are visible today. An article that appears in today’s Science introduces another candidate: trees in the Western U.S. are living only half as long as they did 50 years ago. In the climate most of us grew up in, western forests acted as carbon sinks. Their growth “scrubbed” carbon from the atmosphere. Climate change has introduced conditions that are drier than normal; severe drought has ensued across the region. As a result, trees are growing less and dying earlier than they used to. That could result in less carbon being removed from the atmosphere, creating yet another positive feedback loop in the climate system.
Researchers focused on what’s called “background” mortality – trees dying from events that do not include infestations of insects like the mountain pine beetle currently afflicting the West, which is identified as “abrupt” mortality. They studied 76 plots where trees were at least 200 years old. They were undisturbed by logging (harder to do every year), bark beetle epidemic or wildfire. Trees being studied in Colorado were largely wiped out by the mountain pine beetle epidemic currently moving across the state’s forests, itself a trend linked to climate change. Temperature data in the research plots (across the entire West) showed an increase in every season of the year. The warming and drought conditions we’ve experienced in Colorado has also made its presence felt across a much larger region.
Our forests are suffering from multiple coincident effects of a warming planet and regionalized drying. Direct human pressures such as increased population in the inter-mountain West and hundreds of years of logging aren’t helping matters. Efforts need to be made today to decrease our forcing on the climate system. Carbon emissions need to be drastically reduced so that concentrations in the atmosphere can be reduced later this century. If forests are unable to play their historic role of a carbon sink, those efforts become all the more critical. Unfortunately, it will likely increase their cost, something environmentalists cited regularly during the past eight years’ of climate inaction.
[Update]: While reading the article again, something important popped out at me. The authors note the following:
From the 1970s to 2006 (the period including the bulk of our data; table S1), the mean annual temperature of the western United States increased at a rate of 0.3° to 0.4°C decade -1, even approaching 0.5°C decade -1 at the higher elevations typically occupied by forests.
So between 1.2°C and 2°C warming has already occurred since the 1970s. That means the forests of the future are in for bad times. If we could somehow magically stop emitting greenhouse gases today, the climate system would still get warmer for the next 100+ years due to the forcing “in the pipeline”, as climatologists refer to it. The climate system hasn’t fully responded to the gases emitted in the last 5, 10, or 50 years.
Of course, no such magic is going to occur. Emissions will have to stop increasing (stabilize) then start decreasing. Which means there is plenty of additional forcing (warming) that will occur. The 2007 IPCC assessment relied on models that didn’t demonstrate the warming that has already occurred very well. Policy decisions based on that report would therefore be poorly suited for the task we face.
[2nd Update]: NPR’s Science Friday discussed this paper with one of the researchers today. The segment can be found here.
Vestas announced earlier this year plans to expand operations at its plant in Colorado. I’m sure those plans helped spur Hexcel’s decision. It’s just two companies that are starting and enlarging their business operations in Colorado; the good news is there are certainly others. Those companies are establishing themselves at the beginning of the coming green energy wave. Jobs have already been created. More will be created.
What would some of the benefits of that developing green economy be if encouraged at the national level? Based on a recent report by the Center for American Progress, Colorado would likely see investment of $1.7 billion. Over 30,000 new jobs would be created within two years.
What should be next? More wind farms. More solar thermal plants. Investment in a smart grid. Electric vehicles that can store the energy from renewable energies. Colorado, under Gov. Bill Ritter’s leadership, has taken the first steps toward a brighter, more productive future. Coloradans know the steps already taken have to lead to additional, more aggressive steps. Ritter will do what he can at the state level. President-elect Obama needs to do what he can at the national level.
Prior to the election, the Center for American Progress released a condensed version of their Presidential Climate Action Plan. In the works for two years, the plan presents to the new President-elect a pathway toward building a 21st century economy that exerts less influence on the climate system. The full plan will be presented to the President-elect soon.
In more dated news, development of the NorthWest FasTracks line (from Denver to Longmont) could hit a snag. With budgets tightening at every level of government, planners don’t know if appropriate federal funds will be available next year to continue efforts toward the line. If the money doesn’t come through, the line could be scaled back or not be built at all. A more firm picture should emerge next spring after a series of public meetings and once availability of funds becomes clearer.
In order to keep future global average temperatures 2C higher than today (instead of the likely 6C), a carbon tax equal to $180/ton might have to be implemented. Current carbon trading in EU systems put the price at $23/ton. The true cost of burning carbon-based fossil fuels will have to be introduced to the marketplace. The sooner that happens, the cheaper our response will be.
