“So they [the Government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent…. Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have entered upon a period of danger….  The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to its close.  In its place we are entering a period of consequences….  We cannot avoid this period, we are in it now….”

– Winston Churchill, November 12, 1936, House of Commons

What kind of climatic mini-catastrophes might move public and policymaker opinion over the next decade?  Please share your thoughts below.

U.S. Navy battleship USS West Virginia burns and sinks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii December 7, 1941. Reuters/USN

Wednesday marks the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor.  Seems like a good time to update my post from 3 years ago, “What are the near-term climate Pearl Harbors?”

The genesis of that piece starts with an October 2008 post, “Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 7: The harsh lessons of the financial bailout.”  It concluded that a key driver of serious government action is “bad things must be happening to regular people right now.”  Shortly after that I wrote a post on the paper “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” by Hansen et al.  I noted the authors conclude:

The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.

A NY Times blogger posed this question, “What kind of wake-up call does Mr. Romm think is conceivable on a time scale relevant to near-term policy?”

My reply was “Multiple Pearl Harbors over the next decade — half or more of these happening” followed by a list of 9 items.

Before repeating that list, let me note that I pointed out that one of the media’s greatest failings is ‘underinforming’ people that “Bad things are happening to real people right now thanks in part to human-caused climate change — droughts, wildfires, flooding, extreme weather, and on and on.” I listed a perfect example: “my article criticizing the NYT on the bark beetle story“.  Things haven’t changed much.

If FDR had said, “Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked. But we’re still working to identify the perpetrators.”  Well, not bloody much would have happened.

Of course, the U.S. military had some warnings, but there was a massive volume of intelligence signals (“noise”) coming in.  Roberta Wohlstetter wrote in 1962: “To discriminate significant sound against this background of noise, one has to be listening for something or for one of several things….   One needs not only an ear but a variety of hypotheses that guide observation.”

The Japanese commander of the attack, Mitsuo Fuchida, was quite surprised he had achieved surprise.  Before the Russo-Japanese war of 1904, the Japanese Navy had used a surprise attack to destroy the Russian Pacific Fleet at anchor in Port Arthur.  Fuchida asked, “Had these Americans never heard of Port Arthur?“

So if you have the right hypothesis or worldview, you can make sense out of “noisy” warnings.  If you don’t, then you will be oblivious even to signs that in retrospect will seem quite obvious.  Certainly future generations will be stunned by our obliviousness.

In the case of the almost non-stop series of “off the charts” extreme climatic events that many opinion leaders seem shocked about over and over again — they aren’t merely “explainable and predictable” after the fact.  They were very often predicted or warned about well in advance by serious people.  The powers that be simply choose to ignore the warnings because they don’t fit their world view.

Unfortunately for the nation and the world, there is no American Churchill on climate.  Quite the reverse:

• One of the two major political parties in this country has chosen to double down on denial
• The other political party has a remarkable number of feckless people on this crucial issue, including its nominal leader
• We have an extraconstitutional, supermajority 60-vote requirement in the U.S. Senate for legislation, that gives the minority a stranglehold on our future

That lack of statesmenship means the country is not going to act on the basis of the increasingly dire warning of scientists (see Lonnie Thompson on why climatologists are speaking out: “Virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization”).

No, things are going to have to get worse.  And it certainly will take more than one climate Pearl Harbor.  I fear it will take most of these happening over the span of a few years:

Read more

GOP candidate Jon Huntsman discarded his earlier defense of climate science today, a move described by political media as a “tweak,” “softening” into “squishy” “skepticism”:

Carrie Dann, NBC News: “Huntsman tweaks climate change tone, says scientists need to clarify facts.”

Kim Geiger, LA Times: “Is Jon Huntsman softening on global warming?”

Juanna Summers and Alex Guillen, Politico: “Jon Huntsman tacks to skepticism on climate.”

Molly Ball, the Atlantic: “Jon Huntsman goes squishy on climate change.”

But Huntsman didn’t just “appear to modify his position,” as CBS’s Rebecca Kaplan wrote. He dumped his original stance — that the Republican Party is in a “loser’s position” when candidates attack the credibility of climate scientists — and now attacks the credibility of climate scientists. In other words, Huntsman has switched teams from Al Gore to Jim Inhofe.

In August, Huntsman attacked Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) for being “on the wrong side of science” when he cited Climategate-based conspiracy theories that scientists are doctoring evidence. Now, Huntsman’s stance on climate change is practically indistinguishable from Perry:

Rick Perry: I do not buy into a group of scientists who have in some cases found to be manipulating this information.

Jon Huntsman: There are questions about the validity of the science — evidence by one university over in Scotland recently.

Rick Perry: America shouldn’t spend billions on an unproven theory.

Jon Huntsman: The scientific community owes us more in terms of a better description of explanation about what might lie beneath all of this. But there’s not information right now to formulate policies in terms of addressing it over all, primarily because it’s a global issue.

New information from climate scientists has come out since August, in fact: scientists have reported that global warming pollution is rising at an unprecedented rate, that it is certain most warming since 1950 is manmade, and that the planet is now on track to catastrophic climate change within decades, far worse than the disasters we are now experiencing.

EU's Chief Climate Diplomat, Artur Runge-Metzger

DURBAN — It looked like the U.S. and Europe were in for a rough ride coming into the Durban climate talks. The EU wanted a commitment to seek a binding climate treaty by 2020 and the U.S was pushing back.

The impasse over a binding treaty continues. But there has been some movement on key issues this week that may help pave the way toward broader international greenhouse gas targets.

In an extensive interview with Climate Progress, Europe’s chief negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, laid out his hopes for movement in the final days of climate talks in Durban. As it turns out, the U.S. and EU aren’t so far apart on some key issues.

While the Europeans have been dismayed by the unwillingness of the Americans to commit to negotiations over binding agreements beyond 2020, Metzger seemed to broadly agree with the U.S. demand that developing countries eventually agree to binding targets — or a final agreement is not worth doing.

“What we really want to see is countries engage in the negotiations process with the view of a legal outcome at the end of that,” he said.

Metzger compared the process to a wedding engagement, saying “you go through it with marriage in the cards. But that will only be decided the day you do the vows. We are asking for engagement.”

So far, the U.S. says developing countries haven’t found the prospect of marriage particularly attractive.

Read more

At an event at the Heritage Foundation, presidential candidate Jon Huntsman reversed his prior defense of climate science. Huntsman spoke to bloggers after a presentation by the fossil-industry front group Institute for Energy Research. Huntsman, who famously mocked his fellow candidates for questioning global warming in August, was asked by Heritage blogger Lachlan Markey if humans contribute to climate change. Huntsman said that the “scientific community owes us more“:

I don’t know, I’m not a scientist, nor am I a physicist, but I would defer to science . . . The scientific community owes us more in terms of a better description of explanation about what might lie beneath all of this. But there’s not information right now to formulate policies in terms of addressing it over all, primarily because it’s a global issue.

When TalkingPointsMemo reporter Evan McMorris-Santoro asked if Huntsman had changed his postion, he replied that there is “debate” in the scientific community, including “questions” raised “by a university in Scotland”:

I’m not a physicist, I’m not a scientist. I tend to defer to those who do it for a living. I’d be prepared to take it out of the political milieu and put it into the scientific milieu. There are questions about the validity of the science — evidence by one university over in Scotland recently.

“If there’s some interruption or disconnect in terms of what other scientists have to say, then let the debate play out within the scientific community,” he said. “I think that’s where we are. There’s probably more debate yet to play out.”

It is not clear what “university over in Scotland” Huntsman meant. The universities and colleges of Scotland have signed the Universities and Colleges Climate Commitment of Scotland, which states:

We recognise the scale and speed of climate change, and the likely effect on Scotland’s people and places, impacting adversely on our economy, society and environment. . . . We acknowledge the Scottish Government objective – to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 – to avert the worst impacts of climate change; and realise we have a role to play in this.

Read more

The votes are in.  The people have spoken.

Snap!

Since online voting is the definitive way to settle key issues, it’s time to move on to climate solutions we can rely on….

More seriously, let’s review the case.  In my opening statement on the role carbon capture and storage will play in solving the climate crisis, I focused on the vast economic challenge.  In my rebuttal, I explored how “Feasibility, Permanence and Safety Issues Remain Unresolved.”

My closing statement looks at the solutions we need to embrace aggressively now so that CCS  even has a chance of being a contribution to avoiding catastrophic global warming:

Time has run out for delay.

Continued Funding Is Necessary for American Security and Stability

A protester rests next to his banner in Durban, on November 29, the second day of the two-week U.N. climate conference. Consistent funding for developing countries to adapt to climate change will be critical over the next decade.  (AP Photo.)

by Andrew Light and Rebecca Lefton

As the United States pushes its views on the various parts of the agenda in Durban, on a vast array of topics involving international cooperation on mitigation and adaptation to climate change, its credibility is defined by two things: first, its track record so far in reducing its own emissions—as partial proof of how seriously it takes its commitment to resolving this global problem—and second, its contribution to assisting poorer countries to reduce their emissions where the biggest growth in emission will occur in the coming decade.

The United States has provided significant funding for climate mitigation in developing countries so far and should continue these commitments even amid debates over the U.S. federal budget. In addition to playing our part in curbing dangerous climate pollution, expanding our commitments on international climate finance will also enhance our national security, create jobs, and secure our relationships with some of our most important allies, as we detail below.

A key piece of this funding going forward will be our contribution to a new Green Climate Fund that will be the key component of an effort to mobilize $100 billion in public and private climate finance annually by 2020. On the road to creating this fund the United States should continue its commitments to international climate finance and cooperate with other parties on expanding this funding in the near term.
Read more

Deliwe Nobekwa in her home. Photo: IUCN

DURBAN – The new solar thermal system perched on the corrugated roof of Deliwe Nobekwa’s small brick home isn’t just a convenience. It’s life changing. For the first time, Nobekwa can take a hot bath with the turn of a faucet.

“I’m living here with three kids. Before I had to boil many kettles of water to have a bath, and it took a lot of electricity,” says Nobekwa, speaking to a small group of visitors huddled in her home.

“It’s been three weeks, and I’ve already saved 90 Rand [$11 USD]. I do not work right now, so this is very important for me,” she says.

Nobekwa lives in Cato Manor, a township just outside the city of Durban, South Africa. She’s also the newest resident of the Cato Manor’s “green street” – a cluster of 30 homes that have received efficiency upgrades, solar water heaters, and rainwater collection systems to help residents of this working-class community reduce energy consumption by up to 50% and prove the value of a small-scale, localized approach to sustainability.

The project, funded by the British High Commission in South Africa and developed by the Green Building Council of South Africa (GBCSA) and the World Green Building Council, was only announced in October. Six weeks later, 30 households have been serviced with solar thermal and efficiency upgrades.

“We didn’t want to do something that would be ready many years from now, or ready in 2050,” says BCSSA Chief Executive Brian Wilkinson, speaking to a crowd of guests gathered for an event in Cato Manor to showcase the project. “ We wanted to do something now.”

Six weeks later, the Green Street is ready to show off to attendees at the COP 17 climate conference in Durban. Proudly greeting the hundred or so guests who’ve come to visit, residents cheer and wave as a delegation of folks from around the world walk into their community to tour the homes.

In celebration of the project, the residents of Cato Manor have named the street “Isimosezulu [climate] COP17 Place.”

But this is not just a one-off gimmick for the climate conference. The partnering organizations have raised additional government funding from the British and Australian governments to support the retrofit of 160,000 new houses in South Africa like the ones in Cato Manor.

Read more

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has spent part of his week in the spotlight defending remarks that he thinks child labor laws are “truly stupid.” Gingrich has suggested students could become assistant janitors and clean bathrooms to instill a “habit of work” among poorer children.

However, it appears even Gingrich has his limits. He conceded this morning on Curtis Silva’s WNYM radio show that while poor kids would benefit from janitorial work or perhaps an apprenticeship for Donald Trump, he does not think we should revert to true pre-child labor law conditions. Gingrich clarified:

Kids shouldn’t work in coal mines; kids shouldn’t work in heavy industry.

Politico writes, “This is the kind of statement that probably falls into the ‘if you have to say it …’ category.” Indeed, his need to explicitly exclude some of the most dangerous industries of work from this new vision for child labor is not a good sign.

Listen here. Details here and below. Guest Host: Steve Roberts.

Filipino activists in flower headwear listen during a climate rally near the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Nov. 24. The protest was staged before the major climate change conference in Durban.  (AP Photo)

While governments from around the world have reached a consensus at the causes of global climate change, they have not agreed on a binding treaty to deal with it. One week into the Durban Climate Talks, we take a look at what’s at stake and what can be achieved.

Guests

Joseph Romm, senior fellow, the Center for American Progess; he runs the blog ClimateProgress.org; former acting assistant secretary of Energy under President Clinton.

Juliet Eilperin, environmental reporter, The Washington Post, and author of ” Demon Fish: Travels Through the Hidden World of Sharks.”

William O’Keefe, Chief Executive Officer of the Marshall Institute, President of Solutions Consulting, Inc.

Günter Hörmandinger, First Counselor on the Environment for the Delegation of the European Union to the U.S.

by Cole Mellino

Proponents of local food production have long argued that you drastically decrease your carbon footprint by eating locally-sourced food.

There have been numerous studies in recent years showing that non-local food, especially imported food, which is making up a larger and larger percentage of Americans’ diets, has a much higher emissions impact than locally produced food. A study from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has the numbers to prove it. Here is some of the data on the staggering impact imported food has in California:

• In 2005, the import of fruits, nuts, and vegetables into California by airplane released more than 70,000 tons of CO2, which is equivalent to more than 12,000 cars on the road. These are all foods that can be grown in California
• Almost 250,000 tons of global warming gases released were attributable to imports of food products—the equivalent amount of pollution produced by more than 40,000 vehicles on the road or nearly two power plants
• More than 6,000 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides were released into the air— the equivalent of almost 1.5 million vehicles or 263 power plants
• 300 tons of sooty particulate matter were released into the air—the equivalent of more than 1.2 million cars or 53 power plants
• Approximately 950 cases of asthma, 16,870 missed schools days, 43 hospital admissions, and 37 premature deaths could be attributed to the worsened air quality from food imports, according to freight transport–related projections by the California Air Resources Board.

These numbers show the major impact that our food choices have on the environment and human health. This heavy reliance on imports is alarming considering that California is the number one state for agricultural production in the U.S. After examining the top six imports to California (table grapes, navel oranges, wine, garlic, rice, and fresh tomatoes — all grown in the state), NRDC discovered a disturbing trend:

Read more

by Adam James

Talk about the promise of a Smart Grid has exploded. While progress has been solid, it is also incremental, with projects spreading across clusters of markets and communities at different levels of sophistication.

While President Obama’s Grid 21 and Better Buildings Initiative prove this issue is being taken seriously, the wildfire spread of the discussion has outpaced a general understanding of what the Smart Grid is and what some of the key debates are. This series will highlight some of the big sticking points and the arguments that underlie them.

A Quick Definition of the Smart Grid

The phrase “Smart Grid’” can be misleading, since that implies we are working to a particular endpoint. What is actually happening is that we are progressively developing a smarter and smarter grid as new technology development and policy mechanisms spark changes within the system. For example, widespread smart meter roll out has been happening nationwide for some time. Incorporating renewable energy into the existing electricity generation structure has been steadily gaining momentum. The development of newer and better batteries has revolutionized storage capacity. That’s not all; the proliferation of Energy Star rated appliances shows efficiency is becoming a higher and higher priority among consumers.

Tying all those elements together in a coordinated way is what makes the Smart Grid truly “smart.”

Issue 1: Secure vs. Accessible Data

The “smart” component to the grid is the communication between its various parts. These communications will yield vast amounts of data about electricity users. Where utilities used to collect 1 data point about each consumer per year, they will soon be collecting over 6,500 per consumer, per year. All this information, paired with unclear ownership rules, creates a quandary for those in the Smart Grid field.

On one hand, this data can be mined to create inferences about your preferences, behaviors, and desires, which many Americans are uncomfortable having shipped out to the highest bidder. What appliances you use and when, what you watch on TV and search for on the Internet, when you are home and how often; all of these variables can be extracted from careful examination of electronic signatures.

On the other hand, this data unlocks massive potential for consumer empowerment. Real time information about energy use will make each user the master of their domain. Adjustable settings for your home can ensure that the AC and heating doesn’t run when you aren’t home, that your refrigerator gets power 24/7 but your TV does only when you use it, that you will allow your thermostat to ‘float’ an extra degree or two, for which you will receive monetary compensation for alleviating peak demand.

Read more