Sunday, May 26, 2013

Notes from a Climate Scientist: Bark up THIS Tree!


I spent the first half of this week at The Yellowstone Business Partnership's 10th anniversary conference, with the magnificent backdrop of the Tetons, looking back at our past 10 years of challenges and accomplishments, and planning ahead for our next 10.  Perhaps my favorite session, after the inspiring allegory by author Gary Ferguson about Nature as the Great Equalizer (the sow griz with cubs doesn't care who has the most money, or the bluest blood.  She'll deliver her butt kicking to whoever is the biggest threat!), was Dr. Steve Running's report on the latest climate science.  Dr. Running won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work with Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Our executive director had asked him to give "an inspiring climate talk"...to which he replied: "...?..."

Carbon dioxide has risen by 36% since accurate measurements began in 1958.  Just two weeks ago, a milestone (and not in a good way): Earth's CO2 level passes 400 parts per million, "for the first time in 55 years of measurement, and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history." Major bummer.

Dr. Running outlined the global implications, as well as those that hit closer to home.  He really hit home with this graph and this sobering statement: "Until we shut down coal power, NOTHING else we do will matter."


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize from this graph that coal accounts for 43% of global emissions in 2011.  Living in Montana, coal is a hot button issue.  We have coal aplenty, so much coal that our ex-Governor is the biggest proponent of the benefits of "clean coal"; Dr. Running says the industry is talking about it but they aren't doing it, there is no technological basis for even testing the idea of "cleaner coal".  Here are just a few of the current controversies or "campaigns" surrounding coal in my beautiful home state:
  • In Montana, Ranchers Line Up Against Coal: A ranching family that has been on their land for the past 125 years, now at risk of losing the viability of their 31,000 acres because of groundwater and aquifer contamination and the proposed Tongue River Railroad cutting through 9 miles of their ranch
  • Count on Coal Montana: "All Montanans benefit from affordable electricity, job creation and state tax revenue when Montana produces and sells its abundant coal resources. These benefits are threatened by environmental activists who seek to end or minimize coal production in Montana, drive up our electricity rates and prevent Montanans from taking advantage of our most abundant natural and economic resource."
  • Port Cities Protest: The Leadership Alliance Against Coal, the coalition formed by the Seattle mayor and other city and tribal leaders concerned about the impacts that increased coal train traffic through Washington state will have on traffic, public health and the environment

The Union of Concerned Scientists released a 2012 report titled "Ripe for Retirement: The Case for Closing America's Costliest Coal Plants", which makes the case for great opportunity to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy.  The report reveals that more than 3/4 of America's coal-fired power plants have outlived their 30-year lifespan, with 17 being older than 50 years.  They are inefficient, and cannot meet emissions standards.  "They lack essential modern pollution controls, so they damage public health. The sulfur they emit causes acid rain. The mercury they release poisons waterways and fish and causes neurological damage in children (EPA 2012). The soot they emit creates smog that causes lung disease, premature death, and triggers asthma attacks (EPA 2010a; NRC 2010). Burning coal demands billions of gallons of cooling water from vulnerable rivers and lakes, and leaves behind vast quantities of toxic ash residuals, while coal mining causes extensive and lasting damage both to human health and the natural environment (Gentner 2010; NRC 2010)."  The US is slowing down coal fired power plants, because the old plants can’t meet mercury emisisons standards and aren’t grandfathered in any more.  So the new strategy is to ship it to China.  Why not?  Outta sight, outta mind, right?  

This photo is taken in Missoula, MT, my hometown.  The parking lot on the right is the nursing home where my mom works.  The train cars in the background are transporting Montana coal west to Seattle and then on to China.  She spends the majority of her time, right here with these osprey, breathing in this coal dust and oblivious to the dangers rumbling by on the tracks.  Is she getting mercury poisoning, from walking to her car every day and working for 12 hours in a building with air circulated from outside?  Outta sight, outta mind?  Not so much.


So this scares me, and pisses me off.  Why is this so hard for us to understand?

Monday, May 20, 2013

The question is....

In my last blog post, I delved into the "science" of climate change denial.  

Here are some resources you can use in your conversations with climate deniers; not to debate climate change (there is no debate, only a wildly successful misinformation campaign), but to understand deniers most commonly used arguments and be able to articulately respond.  99 one-liners to rebut climate denier arguments--with links to the full climate science.  For example,

And perhaps my favorite, here is a kick ass infographic to assist you further:


97% of climate scientists agree: global warming is happening and we are the cause. 


The question is, what are we going to do about it? 


Sunday, May 12, 2013

Unicorns Exist! The Science of Climate Change Denial


For the past 2½ terms in team climate, and prior to that in my professional world, I’ve wondered with mild curiosity and increasing frustration how we are still “debating” climate change.  No longer are we calling it global warming (“we had the coldest winter in ages!” is a common rebuttal; global weirding seems a more appropriate term), but semantics aside, there is still an outspoken faction of the American people who don’t believe this is a problem. 

How does this happen?  Why are so many seemingly intelligent, educated people so vehemently denying that a) climate change is happening (or even that the greenhouse effect does in fact exist); or b) that it’s human-caused?  For perspective, I’ve started reading climate denier sites and articles, and especially the comments, to better understand this strong conviction of my fellow Americans. 

Some of the more entertaining comments I’ve come across:
  • Climate change believers are “political radicals who want to destroy western civilization so that they can bring to fruition their dream of a great socialist utopia. It has nothing to do with science.”
  • “GHGs don’t cause warming any more than insulating my house causes it to heat up.”
  • “Applying scientific argument to political BS is like expecting math rules to apply in English class. The name of the joint is your tipoff: InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.”
  •  “For the rest of us the “globalony” issue is just a global IQ test. If you believe mankind can affect the global climate either way, you fail the test. And really, there is no need to get into the weeds on this issue. If you believe man can affect the global climate, you are an easily fooled imbecile.”  

There seem to be constant media battles on climate change.  An article last month on Fox News takes a 10 year leveling temperature reading to “disprove” the data from the past several hundred thousand years: “Climate change skeptics seize on reports showing temperatures leveling”.  "The idea that CO2 is the tail that wags the dog is no longer scientifically tenable," said Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, a website devoted to countering the prevailing acceptance of man-made global warming.  "In the peer-reviewed literature we're finding hundreds of factors influence global temperature, everything from ocean cycles to the tilt of the earth's axis to water vapor, methane, cloud feedback, volcanic dust, all of these factors are coming together. They're now realizing it wasn't the simple story we've been told of your SUV is creating a dangerously warm planet." 

There is still vast confusion among the general public, many of whom believe that scientists are not in agreement about human-caused global warming.  James Lawrence Powell, Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium, who holds a PhD in Geochemistry from MIT and doctor of Science degrees from Oberlin and Berea Colleges, conducted a study to settle this question of whether scientists are in agreement about anthropogenic climate change.

Of the 13,950 peer reviewed climate articles from 1991-2012, 24 “reject” human-caused global warming (see this great pie chart detailing “Why Climate Change Deniers have no scientific credibility).  Stated another way, of 33,700 authors of peer reviewed climate change papers, only 34 reject that it’s caused by humans.  And from an earlier study (Oreskes, Science 2005) cited by Powell (and introduced to me by our lead instructor for the UnCommon Sense Business Response to Climate Change module):

Someone who doesn’t understand science will never understand the importance of science.  But someone who is constantly bombarded by misinformation and by the media will have a hell of a time discerning what is true and what is hogwash.  I work in this field and still get overwhelmed by all the information and data.  I can only imagine how difficult it is for the average person to obtain accurate, simple to understand information to be able to form an educated opinion or have an understanding of the issue. 

I just started reading Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”.  It turns out that there is a war being waged against the scientists who are providing evidence of human-caused climate change.  The Guardian reported in 2007 that scientists and economists were being offered $10K to “undermine a major climate change report” from the IPCC; an Exxon Mobil/Koch/American Petroleum Institute funded scientist is writing papers to flat out dismiss climate change.  Conservative Think Tanks are rolling out studies and providing highly paid lobbyists to cast doubt on the “science of climate change”.  Not only the same tactics that were used in trying to convince the American public that smoking wasn’t bad for us, but the same lobbyists, the very same people

It hurts my head to read much of this, where it feels more like smoke and mirrors diversion tactics than an actual rebuttal to scientific findings.  One could easily get lost in the weeds and never find their way out (though if you’re interested, this library is a good place to start looking for climate denier links and references).

There is a faint glimmer of light with our sitting President, however.  Our EcoSecurities case cited that the leading candidates for the 2008 Presidential election all had endorsed binding emissions reduction targets and a domestic carbon market.  Upon reading this, I groaned, knowing how far those endorsements had gotten us in reality.  Imagine my surprise when on April 25th, President Obama tweeted to encourage the American people to urge Congress to stop ignoring climate science:


They circulated a petition to call out Climate Deniers in Congress.   And I got this email in my inbox, inviting me to sign the petition and hold climate deniers accountable.  The subject line: Unicorns Exist**.  And the icing on the cake: “The sticky thing about the truth is that it’s the truth whether Congress likes it or not.”



Now, I’m game for anything using Unicorns in an argument.  But the Organizing for Action campaign is getting flack for stretching the truth a bit on this effort.  In a video accompanying this media blitz, OfA claims that 240 House members voted that climate change was a “hoax”.  The video is quite entertaining and more than a little scary, given the perspectives within. 

A recent Washington Post (and others) article states that the campaign “misleadingly cites a vote” on a climate change bill.  “We’ve written before about the growing consensus among climate researchers that climate change is the result of human activity; there’s little debate about that among scientists, though surveys show increasing skepticism among the American public. But we were intrigued by the video’s claim that 240 House lawmakers had declared climate change to be a ‘hoax.’”

The 240 House members apparently voted against an amendment to a proposed bill on taking regulatory power for carbon emissions away from the EPA and giving it to Congress.  That amendment said: "Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate changes is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare."  Sheesh.  Might as well be voting that climate change is a hoax. 

As long as we keep going round and round on semantics, we will remain in a life-threatening stale mate until this great Earth gets tired of our shenanigans and neatly stamps out our species.  Just this morning I got an email from 350.org with the news that on May 9th, the carbon counter on Mauna Loa observatory recorded a daily average of above 400 parts per million.  Which, according to a lot of people, is bad.  Really bad.  What the (bleep) will it take, people?!?