America’s Climate Choices

RECENT POSTS

May 18, 2011 | 2:41 PM | By

NOAA praises America’s Climate Choices

NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco has issued a statement praising the National Research Council’s America’s Climate Choices series. An excerpt, with my emphasis:

This final report, from the nation’s most esteemed scientific body, is another independent, peer reviewed scientific report that adds to the growing body of scientific information telling us that climate change is occurring and poses significant risks to America’s economy, communities and natural resources.

This report not only re-affirms the broad international scientific consensus about the causes and consequences of climate change, but makes clear that comprehensive, sustained efforts must begin today to deal with those consequences. As the report states, the question is no longer if the climate is changing, but rather what are the options for dealing with it. Specifically, what are the tools and information that communities need to 1) understand the risks, 2) prepare for and deal with impact already occurring and 3) understand what actions they can take to limit future emissions and the magnitude of future impacts.

A key message from this report is that the sooner we act, the more economically and socially resilient our communities will be and the more flexibility they will have to address and adapt to climate change impacts. The actions needed to reduce emissions and adapt a changing climate also present significant opportunities for technological innovation and job creation. The report advocates a new, iterative decision-making framework in which actions can be revised as new knowledge about climate change emerges.

FILED UNDER: Straight talk, America's Climate Choices
May 17, 2011 | 2:54 PM | By

Is a media sea change in the works?

flickr/denisdore

Media coverage of America’s Climate Choices – the climate science review released last week by the National Research Council – got off to a slow start. But the report seems to have struck a chord with editorial boards at some big media outlets. On Sunday, the Washington Post editorial board lambasted those who deny human-caused climate change as “willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three.” Now USA Today’s editorial board has gotten in on the action with it’s own anti-denier statement:

One way to deal with a problem is to pretend it doesn’t exist. This approach has the virtue of relieving you from having to come up with a solution, spend money or make tough choices. The downside, of course, is that leaky faucets and other problems rarely solve themselves and, in fact, usually get worse if ignored.

USA Today’s editors cited two events that triggered their statement: the National Research Council’s report, and the news that the so-called “Wegman Report” – a federally funded study that raised questions about the science of global warming – had been retracted because of allegations of plagiarism and reliance on unscientific sources.

Taken together, these developments ought to leave the deniers in the same position as the “birthers,” who continue to challenge President Obama’s American citizenship — a vocal minority that refuses to accept overwhelming evidence.

For years, strict adherence to the journalistic principle of presenting ‘both sides’ of a story has frequently led to an inaccurate picture of climate science. Contrary to what many Americans believe (because it’s what they’ve been told), there is very little debate about climate change among scientists. Indeed, there is overwhelming consensus that climate change is happening, is largely caused by humans, and needs to be addressed. With two major print/online media outlets declaring editorial solidarity with the scientific consensus on climate change, it’s tempting to wonder whether this might be the leading edge of a wave of change.

FILED UNDER: Straight talk, America's Climate Choices, science and media
May 17, 2011 | 12:15 PM | By

Three reports, one message: climate change is real

flickr/josemanuelerre


Climate change is happening. It’s largely caused by human activities. We are already beginning to see and feel the consequences. To avoid the most severe impacts, urgent action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and launch adaptation efforts.

Anybody else here feel like I’ve turned into a broken record?

I’ve typed essentially those same sentences over and over in recent days. That’s because those are the overarching conclusions of three major climate science reports:

Three different reports, each released two years apart, and prepared by three different groups of experts. Yes, I checked. The National Research Council’s newly released America’s Climate Choices series and NOAA’s 2009 National Climate Assessment report were both prepared by teams of dozens of people. There were only three people involved in both. And while those reports drew entirely on American expertise, the IPCC relies on hundreds of experts from around the world – a larger and more diverse group, altogether.

Still, the conclusions are the same: human-caused climate change is happening, it poses a serious risk, and it needs to be addressed … soon.

I’m not the only one to notice these similarities. A grad school friend who makes a living as a climate science writer and educator recently told me: “I used to read them religiously, but they are all so similar (and all so similarly bleak), that I stopped.”

Texas Representative Joe Barton, senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, complained to the New York Times last week about the lack of novelty in the National Research Council’s new report:

“I see nothing substantive in this report that adds to the knowledge base necessary to make an informed decision about what steps — if any — should be taken to address climate change.”

True enough, in its own way. But to portray the lack of major differences as a weakness misses the point. These reports all say the same thing because the vast majority of climate science and scientists say the same thing. It’s a reflection of the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change.

And yet, there is no such consensus among the general public. Only a third of Massachusetts’ residents are convinced that human-cased climate change is a serious problem. One in six don’t think it’s happening at all. The national numbers are similar. Some are confused by the complexities of climate science, or put off by uncertainties that are an inevitable part of science. Some are under the mistaken impression that there’s a roiling debate among scientists, or just plain convinced that the whole thing is an enormous hoax.

Climate science faces a tough crowd here in the U.S. The fact that three major climate reports all say the same thing may just be their greatest asset. Call it strength in numbers.

FILED UNDER: Straight talk, America's Climate Choices, IPCC
May 16, 2011 | 10:30 AM | By

Washington Post decries climate change deniers

Prompted by the National Academies’ report released last week, the Washington Post editorial board has taken a stance on climate change:

“CLIMATE CHANGE is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

So says — in response to a request from Congress — the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s preeminent institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers.

The editorial goes on to summarize the main points of the America’s Climate Choices reports – including urgent recommendations to cut carbon dioxide emissions and launch adaptive measures – noting that:

None of this should come as a surprise. None of this is news. But it is newsworthy, sadly, because the Republican Party, and therefore the U.S. government, have moved so far from reality and responsibility in their approach to climate change.

The entire editorial is strongly worded, particularly when it comes to those who do not agree with the scientific consensus on climate change:

Climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three. And their recalcitrance is dangerous, the report makes clear, because the longer the nation waits to respond to climate change, the more catastrophic the planetary damage is likely to be — and the more drastic the needed response.

The Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang blog frequently features climate-related posts by Climate Central’s online editor and policy analyst, Andy Freedman, but coverage of the topic elsewhere in the paper has sometimes been criticized as too soft on climate science critics. It will be interesting to see if that changes.

FILED UNDER: Straight talk, America's Climate Choices
May 13, 2011 | 4:29 PM | By

U.S. review reaffirms embattled U.N. climate report

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a multinational scientific organization charged with evaluating the state of climate science – has taken heavy fire from critics who say that the group is error-prone and blinded by dogma. Conservative Republicans have attempted to eliminate U.S. financial contributions to the IPCC, and those skeptical of the IPCC’s conclusions about climate change have called for an independent review of the science.

But if the IPCC’s critics were hoping that an independent American review of climate science would vindicate their skepticism, they’re in for an unpleasant surprise. In 2008, Congress tasked the National Research Council (NRC) – a branch of the prestigious National Academies of Science – with reviewing the state of climate science and our options for responding to climate change. The final volume of that review – America’s Climate Choices – was released yesterday.

So how does the National Research Council’s review stack up against the IPCC’s most recent assessment – Climate Change 2007?

In terms of overall conclusions, the two reports are nearly identical:

Climate Change 2007
 		America’s Climate Choices
Is it happening? “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” “Earth is warming.”
Is it caused by humans? “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely” due to greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Human activities, especially greenhouse gas emissions, are the “most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last 50 years or so.”

And when it comes to the risks associated with climate change, the National Research Council’s reviewers are more plainspoken than the IPCC:

Climate change poses significant risks for a wide range of human and natural systems.

The IPCC tells largely the same tale, but using a lot more words.  Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Straight talk, America's Climate Choices, IPCC
May 12, 2011 | 4:08 PM | By

America’s Climate Choices: the not-so-grand finale

America’s Climate Choices, the fifth and final volume of the National Research Council’s review of climate science and the nation’s options for responding to climate change, has been released to some fanfare. For example:

NY Times – Leslie Kaufman: Report Stresses Urgency of Action on Climate

Bloomberg – Jim Efstathiou Jr.: Public Doubts on Climate Change Delay Urgently Needed Action, Report Says

The common threads are obvious … report, climate, urgent, action. For a report that – to quote as Leslie Kaufman – “issues a stark warning,” there’s been little ink spilled. Perhaps that’s a sign of media burnout on climate change, or editors assuming public burnout, or maybe it has nothing to do with burnout at all. I can’t say I’m surprised. I spoke to Dr. Raymond Schmitt, an oceanographer from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who was a member of one of the review panels, a month ago – on the date that this report was originally scheduled to be released (it was delayed due to the threat of a government shutdown). He said that, for reasons we can only speculate about, neither the media nor the government has seemed to pay a wit of attention to the Academies’ reviews.

Perhaps more surprisingly, the blogosphere – even the most vitriolic and vehement of the climate bloggers – has also been pretty mum on the subject. But on The Green Grok, Dr. Bill Chameides – Dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and vice-chair of the main oversight committee for the America’s Climate Choices project – provides some great history and insight into the “two year journey” of producing the report.

I’ve worked on a number of academy reports, but this one has proved to be especially complicated and memorable. First, it’s unusual for a study to have largely independent teams who must be coordinated to report on and then write a series of reports, which must then be integrated into an overarching report. Second, the study’s mandate was unusual: we weren’t asked to report on just what we know about climate change (something scientists are accustomed to), but also on what we should do about the problem.

But perhaps the most interesting thing about the report is the political environments in which it was conceived and then delivered.

At the start, it seemed a certainty that Congress would pass comprehensive climate legislation within months and there was consternation among some members that, if we didn’t hurry our report, it’d be irrelevant. My own opinion at the time was that wasn’t really an issue — our nation’s task would be decades-long and our report should try taking the longer viewpoint.

Of course all that quickly changed. First came “climategate” and then the Tea Party storm that shifted Congress sharply to the right. The idea that Congress would be passing climate legislation moved somewhere to right of nil.

In response, our committee had to make some adjustments — for example, in the wake of the climategate brouhaha, we decided to revisit the original literature on our own to assess the state of the climate science, even though that wasn’t part of our original mandate.

Despite growing public skepticism about climate change, the National Academies’ panels confirmed that the science of climate change is strong.

After two years of rigorous study, with input from more than 100 experts, the committee confirmed that climate change:

  • is occurring,
  • is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and
  • poses significant risks to human society and the natural environment.

Of course, there is still uncertainty about just how severe the impacts of climate change will be, and about the exact when and where the impacts will be felt. But the report says that’s no excuse for inaction:

The committee also concluded that these risks indicate a pressing need for substantial action to:

  • limit the magnitude of climate change and
  • prepare for adapting to its impacts.

The longer we wait, the greater the risks we’ll face and the more difficult and expensive our response will be.

The final report is largely a recap of the previous four volumes, so I won’t go into gory details. If you’re in for the full kit-and-kaboodle, by all means, knock yourself out. You can download the a brief synopsis or the full report (yep, that’s right … for the fifth and final volume, the PDF is a free download). And, of course, you can read summaries of the first four volumes here:

Volume 1: What can be done to limit the magnitude of future climate change?
Volume 2: What can be done to adapt to the impacts of climate change?
Volume 3: What can be done to better understand climate change and its impacts?
Volume 4: What can be done to inform effective decisions and actions related to climate change?

FILED UNDER: Straight talk, America's Climate Choices
May 11, 2011 | 11:26 AM | By

Effective communication for effective climate action

Almost there, really. This is the last of the four volumes of America’s Climate Choices already released. Tomorrow we get the fifth and final volume (a.k.a. new stuff). But first …

Volume 4: What can be done to inform effective decisions and actions related to climate change?

The Big Picture: Citizens, businesses, and governments are already beginning to respond to the dual challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the inevitable impacts of climate change. Making future climate action as effective as possible will require that everyone has easy access to trustworthy, locally relevant information about climate change and possible actions. And that calls for a federally coordinated effort to improve communication to and among all possible action-takers.

The Recommendations:

  1. Information should be tailored to users’ needs – locally relevant, on an appropriate timescale, communicated clearly, and accompanied by tools for exploring potential actions.
  2. A coordinated system of climate services to meet the need for state-of-the-art information on climate change, its impacts, and response options. Such a system would include (among other things) a comprehensive, federally supported system for greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting; federal review of standards and labels for energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions; and a central website for accessing and sharing information.
  3. A task force to set national goals for climate education and communication, composed of representatives from the education, business, government, and science communities

Want more? Download a brief summary or read the full report online.

And, just in case you missed it:
Volume 1: What can be done to limit the magnitude of future climate change?
Volume 2: What can be done to adapt to the impacts of climate change?
Volume 3: What can be done to better understand climate change and its impacts?

FILED UNDER: Straight talk, America's Climate Choices
May 10, 2011 | 1:12 PM | By

Climate research to meet the needs of decision-makers

We continue our exploration of the National Academies’ America’s Climate Choices series with …

Volume 3: What can be done to better understand climate change and its impacts?

The Big Picture: There is ample scientific evidence that climate change is happening, that it is largely caused by human activities, and that it poses serious risks for humans and natural systems. But there are many areas of uncertainty that impede effective responses to climate change. Scientific research can, of course, fill gaps in our understanding of how and why climate change is happening. In addition, the scientific community can play an important role in evaluating options and developing technologies for responding to climate change. What science cannot do is tell policy-makers the best or right thing to do, as that decision involves value judgements beyond the technical merits of a given action.

The Recommendations:

  1. In order for climate science research in the U.S. to reach its full potential, the panel recommends that “a single federal entity or program be given the authority and resources to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort.” They note that the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which has coordinated research at thirteen federal departments or agencies since 1990, could fill the bill with some improvements and modifications.
  2. There are also crucial infrastructure needs – a comprehensive climate observing system (satellite, buoys, and other high-tech gadgetry), better computer models to channel the vast quantities of information into meaningful predictions, and well-trained individuals to do the research and – importantly – bridge the gap between scientists and policy-makers.

Of course, this all requires resources, and money for climate science has been in short supply in Washington, D.C. lately.

Want more? Download a brief summary or read the full report online.

And, just in case you missed it:
Volume 1: What can be done to limit the magnitude of future climate change?
Volume 2: What can be done to adapt to the impacts of climate change?

FILED UNDER: Adaptation, Mitigation, America's Climate Choices
May 9, 2011 | 11:12 AM | By

How do we adapt to climate change?

On Thursday, the National Academies of Science will release the fifth and final volume in its series on climate change, America’s Climate Choices. Each volume in the series addresses a specific question and provides several recommendations for policy makers. The first volume addressed policy options for reducing future climate change. The second focuses on living with the current and future impacts of climate change.

Volume 2:What can be done to adapt to the impacts of climate change?

The Big Picture:

The impacts of climate change are already visible in some places, and many more impacts are inevitable, even if immediate and aggressive action is taken to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. While there is a lot of uncertainty about when and where we’ll see changes, and how severe they’ll be, waiting for certainty could be disastrous. To date, adaptation efforts have been piecemeal, enacted at the local, state, or regional level with little or no coordination between them. Additionally, planners face a serious lack of information about which strategies work best and are most cost-effective.

The Recommendation:

Because climate change impacts vary from place to place (sea level rise is only an issue on the coast, while heat waves may be more problematic inland), specific adaptation strategies need to be tailored locally or regionally. But the panel recommends developing a national adaptation strategy that encourages, supports, and coordinates local and regional efforts to adapt to climate change by:

  • providing information, technical resources, and incentives for adaptation planning and action;
  • helping to avoid unintended consequences and inconsistent or inefficient investments and outcomes;
  • continually evaluating needs for additional risk management at a national level;
  • and serving as a role model by considering adaptation in federal programs.

Want more? Download a brief summary of the report or read the full report online.

Tomorrow, Volume 3: Advancing the Science of Climate Change.

FILED UNDER: Adaptation, America's Climate Choices
May 6, 2011 | 3:09 PM | By

How do we limit future climate change?

Next Thursday, the National Research Council (a branch of the National Academies of Science) will release the fifth and final volume in its series America’s Climate Choices. Leading up to that, I thought it would be worth getting caught up on the first four volumes. Each addresses a specific question, providing specific recommendations for policy makers. So, without further ado …

Volume I: What can be done to limit the magnitude of future climate change?

The big picture: The only way to limit future climate change is to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are currently around 390 parts per million (ppm). The National Academies’ panel set a goal of capping global greenhouse gases at a level somewhere between 450 and 550 parts per million, but didn’t set a specific goal or budget for U.S. emissions. They did make several recommendations for reducing the nation’s carbon footprint.

The recommendations:

  1. Put a universal price tag on carbon using a cap-and-trade system, taxes, or some combination of the two. Charging for emissions creates economic incentives to reduce fossil fuel usage and develop low-emission technologies, but works best if applied across the board rather than sector by sector – as has been the practice to date.
  2. Complement the carbon pricing system with policies that encourage energy efficiency and the development of new technologies to reduce and/or capture carbon dioxide emissions. Continue reading →
FILED UNDER: Mitigation, America's Climate Choices