Important new research led by NOAA scientists, “Irreversible climate change because of carbon dioxide emissions,” finds:

…the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop…. Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450-600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the ”dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise.

I guess this is what President Obama meant when he warned today of “irreversible catastrophe” from climate change. The NOAA press release is here. An excellent video interview of the lead author is here.

The Proceedings of the National Academies of Science paper gives the lie to the notion that it is a moral choice not to do everything humanly possible to prevent this tragedy, a lie to the notion that we can “adapt” to climate change, unless by “adapt” you mean “force the next 50 generations to endure endless misery because we were too damn greedy to give up 0.1% of our GDP each year” (see, for instance, McKinsey: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero or the 2007 IPCC report).

The most important finding concerns the irreversible precipitation changes we will be forcing on the next 50 generations in the U.S. Southwest, Southeast Asia, Eastern South America, Western Australia, Southern Europe, Southern Africa, and northern Africa (see also US Geological Survey stunner: SW faces “permanent drying” by 2050 and links below)

Here is the key figure (click to enlarge)

Figure: Best estimate of expected irreversible dry-season precipitation changes, as a function of the peak carbon dioxide concentration during the 21st century. The quasi-equilibrium CO2 concentrations shown correspond to 40% remaining in the long term as discussed in the text. The yellow box indicates the range of precipitation change observed during typical major regional droughts such as the ”dust bowl” in North America [except, of course, this Dust Bowl lasts 1000 years, not 10 to 20, which is what some people might call a desert (see Australia faces the "permanent dry" -- as do we)].

On our current emissions path, we are headed toward 1000 ppm by century’s end, as a close reading of the IPCC report makes clear (see my 2008 recent Nature online article). That would put essentially every at risk region into conditions worse than the Dust Bowl for a long, long, long time. Clearly we must peak no higher than 450 ppm.

The authors include an important admonition to economists, who, as we’ve seen, invariably underestimate the cost of inaction (see Voodoo economists, Part 2 and Part 3):

Read more

What a day for climate news! Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced she was appointing Todd Stern Special Envoy for Climate Change (their remarks here and below). Stern will be “the Administration’s chief climate negotiator.”

The fact that this announcement was made so early on in Clinton’s tenure, and the fact that she offered a ringing defense of the science, is yet more proof that, as I argue in my Salon piece, “Real science comes to Washington at last.”

Stern is another climate catastrophist, which means he is another science realist:

Our scientists are telling us, emphatically, that the rate at which we are warming the planet is unsustainable and will cause vast and potentially catastrophic damage to our environment, our economy, and our national security.

He is also a technology optimist/realist:

Containing climate change will require nothing less than transforming the global economy from a high-carbon to a low-carbon energy base. But done right, this can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and become a driver for economic growth in the 21st century.

I worked with Todd Stern during the Clinton administration and again at the Center for American Progress. He is very knowledgeable on all climate issues, has unique experience on matters of international climate policy, and is a very serious guy. Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but this is another great administration appointment.

Here are their full remarks:

Read more

Obama delivered a stirring speech today on his decision to push for California waiver that mandates cut in auto CO2 emissions.

The President has no doubts about the “irreversible catastrophe” we face on our current emissions path — “violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines” — which is no doubt why he chose John Holdren to be his science adviser see “Obama’s strongest message on climate yet“).

For those who misunderstood his inaugural call to action on energy and climate, “Each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet,” his speech today should make clear that he is deadly serious about addressing the most deadly serious threat we face (full text here):

Read more

Obama’s top climate priority — higher even than passing a domestic cap-and-trade bill — is to stop new coal plants, as I discuss in my Salon piece, “Real science comes to Washington

So it is a very reassuring sign that, as Bloomberg reports:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency placed a hold on approval of a coal-fired power plant in South Dakota, a move environmental groups say indicates increased scrutiny under President Barack Obama.

“This is a signal that the Obama administration is taking a much harder look at coal power from the previous administration,” said Darrell Gerber, a program coordinator at Washington-based Clean Water Action, which along with the Sierra Club opposed the plant.

The EPA said in a letter to the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources yesterday that the state didn’t meet requirements under the Clean Air Act in part of its proposed permit for the plant. The state has 90 days to respond to the agency’s objections.

Obama has pledged to fight global warming by cutting the amount of greenhouse gases released in the U.S. and pursuing clean-energy technology. Coal-fired power plants account for almost 30 percent of heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S.

Here is more from the MN Progressive Project, which has been working hard to stop this plant:

Read more

Today, President Obama took a step to reverse Bush-era intransigence on the fight against global warming, directing “federal regulators on Monday to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks.” In 2002, California passed greenhouse gas standards for vehicle emissions, since adopted by 13 other states. However, they have been blocked since then by litigation from the automakers in concert with the Bush administration.

The auto lobby continues to fight this long-needed change. In an interview with National Public Radio, Charles Territo of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers claimed the California standard would bring catastrophe:

At this difficult time, what we need is certainty and consistency, not confusion and chaos. And I think we’re all concerned that this would create chaos, not only for consumers, but also for dealers and for manufacturers.

This is nonsense. The auto industry has long been able to handle California’s higher emissions standards for other pollutants. If two standards — California and federal — are too confusing for today’s automakers, it’s no wonder the companies are in decline. Jerry Brown, California’s attorney general, retorted with the fact that Detroit’s problems have come in large part because of its failure to innovate:

The irony here is the auto companies want a bailout, in many ways because they weren’t building the kind of cars that were compatible with today’s energy market — and at the same time, they want to keep going with their lawsuits, which have already cost millions and millions of dollars.

These auto industry lawsuits against the adoption of AB 1493 include: Read more

Update: The Center for American Progress has post “Timeline: A Fight for State Fuel Efficiency Standards, President Obama Moves on Issue After Years of Roadblocks.”

My new Salon piece is out: “Real science comes to Washington: Myopic conservatives and the media still don’t get global warming. But if anybody can preserve a livable climate, Obama’s amazing energy team can.”

Besides exploring how the media clearly doesn’t get the dire nature of the climate problem [duh] and how Obama’s amazing team of radical pragmatists clearly do, I discuss what Obama needs to do in 2009 to justify not passing a major climate bill this year.

I am trying to make lemon out of lemonade here. I can’t find a single reporter, staffer, or wonk who thinks we’re going to have a climate bill this year. As the NYT reported earlier this month, “advisers and allies have signaled that they may put off … restricting carbon emissions.” Noting that many in Congress “question the pace at which lawmakers will be able to move on a climate legislation,” Climate Wire (subs. req’d) even quoted the uber-progressive Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, Barbara Boxer as “acknowledging this” and saying, “If that doesn’t all come together within a year, I would expect EPA would act.”

Boxer’s comment gets at one of the two key issues, namely, what does team Obama need to do in 2009 to make up for the fact that there won’t be a climate bill? The other issue is, what does team Obama need to do in 2009 to get a better bill next year than they could get this year? I have already blogged on one part of the answer to the second question — they need to get China onboard with a hard emissions cap (see Part I, Does a serious bill need action from China?).

Here is my answer to both questios from the Salon piece:

Read more

Today Obama “will direct federal regulators to move swiftly to grant California and 13 other states the right to set strict automobile emissions and fuel efficiency standards,” the NYT reports.

This is a key move that makes crystal clear, as I write in Salon today, that “Real science comes to Washington.” As the NYT notes:

Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions is one of the most dramatic actions Mr. Obama can take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy. The presidential orders will require automobile manufacturers to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule.

Kudos to Obama for this bold, quick action on greenhouse gas mitigation.

E&E Daily (subs. req’d) has much more on this story — and on Obama’s order that the Department of Transportation start drafting fuel economy standards to comply with the 2007 Energy Bill:

Read more

Who determines the set of ideas the public is exposed to — and how they are framed? The national media.

The media’s choices are especially important in a decade when the Executive Branch — the principal force for setting the national agenda — was run by two oil men who actively devoted major resources to denying the reality of climate science, ignoring the impacts, and muzzling U.S. climate scientists.

Yet the national media remains exceedingly lame on the climate issue, as a searing critique by a leading U.S. journalist details (see “How the press bungles its coverage of climate economics“). The media downplay the threat of global warming (and hence the cost of inaction). And they still hedge on attributing climate impacts to human action.

This criticism extends to our premier reporters, such as the NY Times‘ Andy Revkin. Indeed, I (and dozens of other people) have an email from last week that Andy sent to Mark Morano (denier extraordinaire staffer for Senate denier extraordinaire James Inhofe). Andy asserts:

I’ve been the most prominent communicator out there saying the most established aspects of the issue of human-driven climate change lie between the poles of catastrophe and hoax.

Following that shockingly un-scientific statement, he includes the link to his 2007 piece, “A New Middle Stance Emerges in Debate over Climate,” that touts the views of Roger A. Pielke Jr., of all people! The “middle stance” is apparently just the old denier do-nothing stance with a smile, a token nod to science, and a $5 a ton CO2 tax [which is why I call them denier-eq's] (see “Finally, Roger Pielke admits he supports policies that will take us to 5-7°C warming or more“).

Now if the top NYT reporter is pushing the mushy middle — if he writes things like “Even with the increasing summer retreats of sea ice, which many polar scientists say probably are being driven in part by global warming caused by humans (see “Note to media: Enough with the multiple hedges on climate science!“), if his stories have online headlines like Arctic Ice Hints at Warming, Specialists Say — why on Earth would it be news that the public is itself stuck in the mushy middle?

And yet in both the NYT article and his blog, Revkin makes a huge deal of a poll that, if anything, merely reveals how bad the media’s coverage of the issue is. His blog post, “Obama Urgent on Warming, Public Cool” and his article, “Environmental Issues Slide in Poll of Public’s Concerns,” completely misframe the issue. Let’s start with the blog:

Read more