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.
There was an important development at yesterday’s Climate Summit in Copenhagen that should have gotten more attention in the media. There was also a data update that provides additional context for the importance of that development.
The island nation of Tuvalu wanted legally binding language to be written establishing limits in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 350 parts per million and global temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. For clarity, our current global CO2 concentrations, according to observations, is 387ppm. So we’re already above the limit that scientists have identified as being a threshold we should not be above if we don’t want global temperatures much higher than they are today. Tuvalu was asking, therefore, for nations to agree to reduce emissions drastically so that the atmospheric concentrations begin decreasing. Why would they want legally binding language for such an audacious goal? Because Tuvalu is a set of four reef islands and five atolls whose maximum elevation is 15ft. They are extremely susceptible to any future potential sea level rise. Larger, richer countries (like Saudi Arabia and China) would hear none of it. They want to keep burning dirty fossil fuels and expand their economies like other developed nations did for the past 150 years. Tuvalu and a group consisting of other island countries and poorer nations can’t afford to wait until China decides they’re ready to switch to 100% renewable energy at some point in the future. They’re at risk today from climate change that is already occurring. The issue was suspended for the time being. Expect it to arise again before the end of next week (not that a solution will be found in that time frame, unfortunately).
Which brings me to the bad news of the day. I’ve written for months now that the 2007 IPCC AR4 report was good for its time, but it left significant questions unanswered (I haven’t been the only one). It was good, but didn’t go far enough. Major drawbacks resulting from a far too conservative approach, an approach that didn’t examine extremes as likely enough to spend much time on. Since the collection of papers for the 2007 AR4 release, scientists across the world have worked very hard to try to begin finding answers for the toughest questions remaining. How sensitive is the climate to GHG emissions? How responsive are temperatures to those emissions? When will glaciers and ice sheets melt? What kind of sea level rise can be expected? Another paper was put together to try to answer that last question. As with other facets of the research effort, conditions could very well be much worse than what the 2007 Report may have led people to think:
Sea level rise could occur 3 times faster than previously estimated. Everybody should be able to click on the link and look at the pdf if they want. Here’s the high-level message: based on our current emissions profile, which is as high as the worst-case scenario the IPCC examined, sea levels could rise by 6 feet (~2m) by 2100. The rate at which sea levels have been rising has increased in the past 20 and 10 years. Scientists’ predictions of sea level rise have been too low, contrary to the denialists’ hopes otherwise. Natural causes alone have not and cannot explain the rise observed. Like I wrote above, Tuvalu and many other countries are under immediate threat. They have no more time to wait while rich countries throw tantrums like spoiled children. This situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.
Lots of activity in Copenhagen happened during the past two days. As expected, results in the form of agreements or pacts haven’t come yet – that will happen next week. So here are some more climate-related news items to digest while negotiators do their job. I’ll add them throughout the day as they come out.
The 2000′s will be the hottest decade on record. Read that again: the 2000′s will be the hottest decade on record. Both the World Meteorological Organization and NOAA have come out with separate but agreeing analyses on this topic. Expect NASA to say the same thing when they release their update in the next week. We’ll have to wait until a little while into 2010 to get additional confirmation, but climate change is occurring today, period, end of story. What’s left to debate and decide? How fast and how much we act in the next 5 years. After that, it becomes how do we react, because a great deal of change will have been locked into the climate system.
The Senate version of the 2009 energy and climate bill, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, has made some small progress this week. The draft version of their version of the legislation, largely constructed thanks to Sen. Boxer and Sen. Kerry, is reported to include a 20% reduction of 2005 GHG emissions by 2020, which is slightly better than the 17% goal in the House ACES bill. This version should have been released after a 11:30A EDT press event in D.C. today. Like the House bill, a cap-and-trade system is established. Also, pollution allowances will be generated, but no distribution plan has been laid out yet.
It is well worth noting that GHG emissions are estimated to have been reduced by 6% below 2005 levels thanks to the Republican’s Great Recession. So the 20% reduction is really an additional 14% reduction, according to the Senate version, and an additional 11% reduction according to the House version. Which means it is very, very doable. Energy efficiency measures alone would likely help us achieve those reductions in time for the 2020 goal. Between now and then, as climate change effects continue to take hold, and political willpower to do something about climate change hopefully grows, technologies will be developed and marketed and it will become normal to reduce our greenhouse forcing.
Many scientists and activists have stated, with good reason, that the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment Report (4AR) didn’t look deeply enough into the potential costs of doing nothing to change the globe’s GHG emissions. The good news is that in addition to developing a more robust research methodology to dig into the unknowns of the science surrounding climate change, work has also taken place to assign realistic figures of the costs of adapting to climate change. The figures available for the past few years were viewed as having major shortcomings: unrealistic assumptions, not accounting for enough of the effects (which have interdependencies and feedbacks of their own), etc.
A new study was issued earlier this month by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) that worked to address some of those concerns. For reference, I’m going to discuss the Section 8 material. It is not without its own set of caveats and disadvantages: it looks at the IPCC A2 scenario, for instance, even though our actual emissions have already outpaced this mid-range emissions scenario. There’s another equally out-dated caveat that I’ll talk about more below. So, take the results with a grain of salt – realize that these costs continue to be an underestimate of what we’re likely to face!
With that in mind, what are some of the results of this study? Without adaptation, the mean net present value of climate change impacts under the A2 scenario is $1240 Trillion.
I wanted to collect some information I’ve seen about climate change action costs. Some of it is right-wing propaganda, some of it is reality-based facts from large-scale studies that have been done. The short answer is what I’ve been writing for a while: it is far cheaper to act than not to act.
Beginning with the right-wing, extremist, denier propaganda:
On the subject of a still-in-the-works cap-and-trade plan, Con-servatives are running around screaming about a $3,128 tax that would befall the American people. As usual, they’re trying to work up their base over … nothing. As usual, they’re misquoting a scientific study by MIT that examined what a potential cap-and-trade plan would do to the “average American”. As usual, they’re promoting a three-word catch-phrase designed to fool people into buying into their b.s. They’re calling the cap-and-trade plan a light-switch tax. What is the true number from the MIT study? $79 per family (based on 2.56 people, just as the Con-servatives did) in 2015. The long-term cost to a household? $215.05. That’s 6.9% of what the Cons are talking about. They’ve boosted the number over 14 times its true cost – purposefully lying to generate fear and anger. As usual, that’s disgusting behavior from the “family-values” crowd.
The year is about halfway over. Just over four months from now, we’ll know who the next President of the U.S. will be. We’ll also know how large the Democratic majority of the House and Senate will be. Of course, we’ll also have to see how bad the economy is performing and how much of an effect climate change continues to exhibit, among other issues.
In almost every Supreme Court decision decided this term, state regulation lost out against business claims of federal preemption of state powers.
This puts to bed another commonly stated conservative ideological pillar: states’ rights are important. Not according to the conservatives on the Supreme Court which were put there by a conservative President and a conservative Congress, elected by voters who for whatever reason thought they should put conservatives in office. Too many voters for too many elections have been misled by Republican candidates’ sweet sounding talking points. When the reality hits home that their ballot choices don’t mesh with their policy desires, the Republican party will be even further weakened.
An earlier decision is revisited:
If the Court was eager to override state laws for the benefit of corporate interests, it bent over backwards in deference to state law when the issue was Indiana’s photo ID law gutting the rights of our nation’s poorest voters [...].
Pro-corporatocracy and anti-person. Two views that unfortunately go hand in hand with these revisionists.
A mixed term on criminal justice issues is also present. I encourage taking a look at this dispatch. It’s written in an easy to read summary format with plenty of links to additional resources if you’re looking for them.
*****
U.S.auto makers are suffering from a confluence of issues: the ridiculous price of gas, betting the farm on gas guzzlers, and an American public that is used to switching its buying habits on a dime. Instead of SUVs and trucks, consumers are anything but by not purchasing crappy car alternatives. I guess the decades and millions of dollars spent on lobbying Congress to maintain low CAFE standards isn’t working out quite how the executives thought they would. Meanwhile, workers have suffered by losing jobs by the thousands as executives ran laughing to the bank with the money they saved on wages.
*****
About a month ago, I wrote about the costs of doing something meaningful about climate change in “Climate Change Costs Discussion“. The point to that was showing that if 1.1% of GDP were invested to address the changing climate, economies wouldn’t even come close to collapsing. In fact, that money would likely be returned many times over in new jobs and expanding economies.
So that’s one side of the coin. Now, there’s also numbers to talk about for the other side of the coin: the potential costs of inaction. The U.K.’s Stern Review found that:
…if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least five percent of global [gross domestic product (GDP)] each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to twenty percent of GDP or more.
This is part of the crisis that deniers and delayers are saddling the globes’ current and future occupants with: out of control costs that will devastate economies. Actually, the American consumer has faced slightly similar cost increases in the past 10 years with rising health care, energy and food costs. Combine those with stagnant wages during the same time frame and Americans are in a tight place. Can you imagine if 5-20% of your income were required to be spent elsewhere? What choices would you have to make?
What choices will we all have to make if we don’t act now? Acting now is possible. The key is helping our elected policy makers recognize that fact. The inaction costs link above demonstrates that California understand the scope of the problem. When will the rest of the country?
*****
If you didn’t pay taxes on your property for four years, and received notices about that fact during those four years, do you think you would still be in your house? Absolutely not! Well, regular guy John McCain and his heiress wife face just that situation – and they still own the property. Despite having a $100 million fortune and owning seven properties, they haven’t paid taxes on their La Jolla, CA property ($8,486.42!!!) and that property hasn’t been sold by the County. And McCain has the audacity to call Obama an elitist?!
