Hansen to Obama Pt II – Carbon tax with 100% dividend

In Part II, Hansen looks at policy options required to drag us out of the Sustainability Emergency. It is self-explanatory, but I thought it worth adding some notes on a cap-and-trade versus a carbon tax. Which is better?

Cap-and-Trade. Pros: (i) Cap reductions ensure falling emissions – in theory; (ii) Reduces inefficiencies or overpricing; (iii) Creates both incentives and disincentives for abatement; (iv) Chance to profit from ‘doing the right thing’. Cons: (i) Enrich middle men / brokers; (ii) Requires army of bureaucrats / new system; (iii) Encourages rent seeking – pleading by special interest groups; (iv) Limited price certainty – requires projected ‘gateways’; (5) Easy to manipulate / distort to get perverse outcomes.

Carbon Tax. Pros: (i) Clear forward price projection = investment certainty, removes incentives for hedge funds, derivatives etc., and better allows for long-term business planning; (ii) Can use current tax system; (iii) Better handles emissions intensive trade exposed industries via carbon tariffs at the trade gate; (iv) Greater societal familiarity, understanding and acceptance. Cons: (i) Politicians or bureaucrats must set costs – can introduce inefficiencies, disincentives and pressure to adjust tax rate during tough economic times; (ii) No guarantee that emissions will fall; (iii) People may still be willing to pay more for old tech because it is familiar or because they have a large historical investment in capital infrastructure or related assests.

I need to do a post about the above and expand on these points (some time!), but at least the above is a taster to see where Hansen is coming from with his carbon tax + 100% dividend idea. Many economists favour a tax over cap-and-trade (Garnaut does not) – see, for instance, the recent comments of Jeffrey Sachs when speaking at ANU.

For a critique of Hansen’s proposal by Climate Progress’ Joe Romm, see here. Romm is of course somewhat right and at the same time totally wrong. He’s right that an honest appraisal of the current situation makes it apparent that it will be extraordinarily difficult to get back to 350 ppm CO2 for centuries or millennia. We need a truly transformational, system wide change across global society to achieve that, and plenty of new tech. But he’s also downright wrong, because the corollary argument he uses is that it is therefore better to advocate for the compromise goal of 450 ppm since is more resonable and feasible. Yet even if Romm’s solution were fully achieved, it would still end in failure, because successfuly meeting the 450 ppm goal would result in utterly unacceptable climate impacts and a transformed planet. This is a common theme – flaw – among environmental advocates – failing to recognise that the laws of physics and biology don’t compromise, and have no pity.

———————————————————–

Tell Barack Obama the Truth – The Whole Truth (Part II of IV)

Dr James E. Hansen

Outline of policy options. The imperative of near-term termination of coal emissions (but not necessarily coal use) requires fundamental advances in energy technologies. Such advances would be needed anyhow, as fossil fuel reserves dwindle, but the climate crisis demands that they be achieved rapidly. Fortunately, actions that solve the climate problem can be designed so as to also improve energy security and restore economic well-being. A workshop held in Washington, DC on 3 November 2008 outlined options (presentations are at http://www.mediafire.com/nov3workshop — we are writing a paper, which will be available soon). The workshop focused on electrical energy, because that is the principal use of coal. Also electricity is more and more the energy carrier of choice, because it is clean, much desired in developing countries, and a likely replacement or partial replacement for oil in transportation.

The workshop topics, in order of priority, were: (1) energy efficiency, (2) renewable energies, (3) electric grid improvements, (4) nuclear power, (5) carbon capture and sequestration. Presentations are available and a summary paper is in preparation. Energy efficiency improvements have the potential to obviate the need for additional electric power in all parts of the country during the next few decades and allow retirement of some existing coal plants. Achievement of the potential of efficiency requires a combination of regulations and a carbon tax. National building codes are needed, and higher standards for appliances, especially electronics, where standby power has become a large unnecessary drain of energy. Economic incentives for utilities must be changed so that profits increase with increased energy conservation, not in proportion to amount of energy sold.

Renewable energies are gaining in economic competition with fossil fuels, but in the absence of wise policies there is the danger that declining prices for fossil fuels, and continuation of fossil fuel subsidies, could cause a major setback. The most effective and efficient way to support renewable energy is via a carbon tax (see below). The national electric grid can be made more reliable and “smarter” in a number of ways. Priority will be needed for constructing a low-loss grid from regions with plentiful renewable energy to other parts of the nation, if renewable energies are to be a replacement for coal.

Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and an improved grid deserve priority and there is a hope that they could provide all of our electric power requirements. However, the greatest threat to the planet may be the potential gap between that presumption (100% “soft” energy) and reality, with the gap filled by continued use of coal-fired power. Therefore it is important to undertake urgent focused R&D programs in both next generation nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration. These programs could be carried out most rapidly and effectively in full cooperation with China and/or India, and other countries.

Given appropriate priority and resources, the option of secure, low-waste 4th generation nuclear power (ED: More on this in the next post, with discussion) could be available within a decade. If, by then, wind, solar, other renewables, and an improved grid prove that they are capable of handling all of our electrical energy needs, then there may be no need to construct nuclear plants in the United States. Many energy experts consider an all-renewable scenario to be implausible in the time-frame when coal emissions must be phased out, but it is not necessary to debate that matter.

However, it would be exceedingly dangerous to make the presumption today that we will soon have all-renewable electric power. Also it would be inappropriate to impose a similar presumption on China and India. Both countries project large increases in their energy needs, both countries have highly polluted atmospheres primarily due to excessive coal use, and both countries stand to suffer inordinately if global climate change continues. The entire world stands to gain if China and India have options to reduce their CO2 emissions and air pollution. Mercury emissions from their coal plants, for example, are polluting the global atmosphere and ocean and affecting the safety of foods, especially fish, on a near-global scale. And there is little hope of stabilizing climate unless China and India have low- and no-CO2 energy options.

We should also urgently pursue R&D for carbon capture and sequestration. Here too this may be done most expeditiously and effectively via cooperation with China and India. Note that, even if it is decided that coal can be left in the ground, carbon capture and sequestration with other fuels still may be needed to draw down the amount of CO2 in the air. An effective way to achieve drawdown would be to burn biofuels in power plants and capture the CO2, with the biofuels derived from agricultural or urban wastes or grown on degraded lands using little or no fossil fuel inputs.

Opponents of nuclear power and carbon capture cannot be allowed to slow these projects. No commitment for large-scale deployment of either 4th generation nuclear power or carbon capture is needed at this time. If energy efficiency and renewable energies prove sufficient for energy needs, some countries may choose to use neither nuclear power nor coal. However, we must be certain that proven options for complete phase-out of coal emissions are available within a decade.

Tax and 100% dividend. A “carbon tax with 100 percent dividend” is required for reversing the growth of atmospheric CO2. The tax, applied to oil, gas and coal at the mine or port of entry, is the fairest and most effective way to reduce emissions and transition to the post fossil fuel era. It would assure that unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar shale and tar sands, stay in the ground, unless an economic method of capturing the CO2 is developed.

The entire tax should be returned to the public, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No bureaucracy is needed.

A tax should be called a tax. The public can understand this and will accept a tax if it is clearly explained and if 100 percent of the money is returned to the public. Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners. No lobbyists need be employed. The public will take steps to reduce their emissions because they will continually be reminded of the matter by the monthly dividend and by rising fossil fuel costs. It must be clearly explained to the public that the tax rate will continue to increase in the future. When fuel prices decline, the tax should increase, to retain the incentive for transitioning to the post-fossil-fuel-era. The effect of reduced fossil fuel demand will be lower fossil fuel prices, making the tax a larger and larger portion of energy costs (for fossil fuels only). Thus the country will stop hemorrhaging its wealth to oil-producing states.

Tax and dividend is progressive. A person with several large cars and a large house will have a tax greatly exceeding the dividend. A family reducing its carbon footprint to less than average will make money. Everyone will have an incentive to reduce their carbon footprint. The dividend will stimulate the economy, spur innovation, and provide money that allows people to purchase low carbon products.

A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world. Beware of alternative approaches, such as ‘percent emission reduction goals’ and ‘cap and trade’. These are subterfuges designed to allow business-as-usual to continue, under a pretense of action, a greenwashing. Hordes of lobbyists will argue for these approaches, which assure their continued employment. The ineffectiveness of ‘goals’ and ‘caps’ is made blatantly obvious by the fact that the countries promoting them are planning to build more coal-fired power plants.

If the United States accedes to the ineffectual ‘goals’ and ‘caps’ approach, in effect continuation of the Kyoto Protocol approach, it will practically guarantee disastrous climate change. Instead it should persuasively argue that other countries also adopt tax and dividend. The countries agreeing to this approach will also agree that imports from a country that does not apply a comparable carbon tax will be taxed at the port of entry. That tax, which should be added to the public’s dividend, will be a strong incentive for all countries to participate.

A carbon tax is necessary but not sufficient. By itself a carbon tax cannot solve the energy problem and allow rapid coal phase-out. There also must be better efficiency standards in building codes, for vehicles, and in appliances and electronics. Profit incentives for utilities must be changed, so as to encourage efficiency as opposed to selling as much energy as possible. These are only examples of the many things to be done. But all of these things will be done easier and more effectively in the presence of a carbon tax. Indeed, a carbon tax is essential. It is the tool that will impact people’s decisions and lifestyle choices for the short-term, middle-term and long-term, allowing the world to move as gracefully as possible to the post-fossil-fuel-era. In this way we will leave in the ground the hardest to extract fossil fuels as we move rapidly to clean energy sources of the future.

———————————————————–

Part III will talk about Nuclear Power – a very important topic and worth a bit of background comments by myself. So I haven’t dwelt on it in my preamble to this post.

Hansen to Obama Pt 1 – the Now or Never plan

It would be an understatement of epic proportions to say that President-elect Barack Obama has a big job ahead of him come January 2009. Plenty of people will be giving him ‘advice’ – some good, most not (if the history of vested interests twisting the political process over the last few decades is any guide).

Scientists have something particularly important to communicate to Obama on climate change and energy. It’s based on hard-won, peer-reviewed evidence – not spin and denial – and it’s a super urgent message. In broad terms, it’s the policy implications of the Sustainability Emergency.

One of the most respected climate change scientists, Dr James Hansen of NASA, has drafted a statement which Obama should definitely read. I think BraveNewClimate readers should study it too. It is perhaps the single best succinct summary of the problems and solutions of global warming and related issues that I’ve read.

As such, I’ve decided to republish it in full over the next week, and invite feedback from readers. As Jim says, “This is a first draft. Criticisms would be much appreciated.” I’ll make sure he gets to see them. To access the original PDF, click here. Or wait and follow it here. I’ve enhanced the original slightly by adding some judicious hyperlinks, which will allow readers to explore these ideas further.

First up, it’s an overview of the core problem – the threats of inaction (or weak progress), the urgency of the problem and the fallacy of part-solutions, and the principle implication – coal emissions must stop ASAP.

———————————————————–

Tell Barack Obama the Truth – The Whole Truth (Part I of IV)

Dr James E. Hansen

Embers of election night elation will glow longer than any prior election. Glowing even in other nations, and for good reason. We are all tied together, more than ever, like it or not. Barack Obama’s measured words on election night, including eloquent recognition of historic progress, from the viewpoint of a 106-year-old lady, still stoke the embers. But he was already focusing on tasks ahead, without celebratory excess. Well he should.

The challenge he faces is unprecedented. I refer not to the inherited economic morass, as threatening as it is. The human toll due to past failures and excesses may prove to be great, yet economic recessions, even depressions, come and go. Now our planet itself is in peril. Not simply the Earth, but the fate of all its species, including humanity. The situation calls not for hand-wringing, but rather informed action.

Optimism is fueled by expectation that decisions will be guided by reason and evidence, not ideology. The danger is that special interests will dilute and torque government policies, causing the climate to pass tipping points, with grave consequences for all life on the planet. The President-elect himself needs to be well-informed about the climate problem and its relation to energy needs and economic policies. He cannot rely on political systems to bring him solutions – the political systems provide too many opportunities for special interests.

Here is a message I think should be delivered to Barack Obama. This is a first draft. Criticisms would be much appreciated.

Climate threat. The world’s temperature has increased about 1°F over the past few decades, about 2°F over land areas. Further warming is “in the pipeline” due to gases already in the air (because of climate system inertia) and inevitable additional fossil fuel emissions (because of energy system inertia). Although global warming to date is smaller than day-to-day weather fluctuations, it has brought global temperature back to approximately the highest level of the Holocene, the past 10,000 years, the period during which civilization developed. Effects already evident include:

1. Mountain glaciers are receding worldwide and will be gone within 50 years if CO2 emissions continue to increase. This threatens the fresh water supply for billions of people, as rivers arising in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains will begin to run dry in the summer and fall.

2. Coral reefs, home to a quarter of biological species in the ocean, could be destroyed by rising temperature and ocean acidification due to increasing CO2.

3. Dry subtropics are expanding poleward with warming, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, and Australia, with increasing drought and fires.

4. Arctic sea ice will disappear entirely in the summer, if CO2 continues to increase, with devastating effects on wildlife and indigenous people.

5. Intensity of hydrologic extremes, heavy rains, storms and floods on the one hand, and droughts and fires on the other, are increasing.

Some people say we must learn to live with these effects, because it is an almost godgiven fact that we must burn all fossil fuels. But now we understand, from the history of the Earth, that there would be two monstrous consequences of releasing the CO2 from all of the oil, gas and coal, consequences of an enormity that cannot be accepted. One effect would be extermination of a large fraction of the species on the planet. The other is initiation of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise, out of humanity’s control, eventually eliminating coastal cities and historical sites, creating havoc, hundreds of millions of refugees, and impoverishing nations.

Species extermination and ice sheet disintegration are both ‘non-linear’ problems with ‘tipping points’. If the process proceeds too far, amplifying feedbacks push the system dynamics to proceed without further human forcing. For example, species are interdependent – if a sufficient number are eliminated, ecosystems collapse. In the physical climate system, amplifying feedbacks include increased absorption of sunlight as sea and land ice areas are reduced and release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, as permafrost melts.

The Earth’s history reveals examples of such non-linear collapses. Eventually, over tens and hundreds of thousands of years, new species develop, and ice sheets return. But we will leave a devastated impoverished planet for all generations of humanity that we can imagine, if we are so foolish as to allow the climate tipping points to be passed.

Urgency. Recent evidence reveals a situation more urgent than had been expected, even by those who were most attuned. The evidence is based on improving knowledge of Earth’s history – how the climate responded to past changes of atmospheric composition – and on observations of how the Earth is responding now to human-made atmospheric changes. The conclusion – at first startling, but in retrospect obvious – is that the human-made increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), from the pre-industrial 280 parts per million (ppm) to today’s 385 ppm, has already raised the CO2 amount into the dangerous range. It will be necessary to take actions that return CO2 to a level of at most 350 ppm, but probably less, if we are to avert disastrous pressures on fellow species and large sea level rise.

The good news is that such a result is still possible, if actions are prompt. Prompt action will do more than prevent irreversible extinctions and ice sheet disintegration: it can avert or reverse consequences that had begun to seem inevitable, including loss of Arctic ice, ocean acidification, expansion of the subtropics, increased intensity of droughts, floods, and storms.

Principal implication. CO2 is not the only human-made gas that contributes to global warming, but it is the dominant gas and it has the longest lifetime. Much of the CO2 increase caused by burning fossil fuels remains in the air more than 1000 years. So CO2 must be the focus of efforts to stop human-caused climate change.

It would be easy to jump to the conclusion that solution of global warming is to phase down total fossil fuel emissions by some specified percentage. That approach will not work as a strategy. The reason for that conclusion and an outline of a better strategic approach follow immediately from geophysical boundary constraints.

are provided in the published paper.”]

Figure 1. (a) Fossil fuel and net land-use CO2 emissions (purple), and potential fossil fuel emissions (light blue). Fossil fuel reserve estimates of EIA, IPCC and WEC differ as shown. (b) Atmospheric CO2 if coal emissions are phased out linearly between 2010 and 2030, calculated using a version of the Bern carbon cycle model. References [EIA (Energy Information Administration), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and WEC (World Energy Council)

Figure 1a shows oil, gas and coal reserves, with the purple portion being the amount that has already been burned and emitted into the atmosphere. Despite uncertainty in the magnitude of undiscovered reserves, their amounts are certainly enough to yield atmospheric CO2 greater than 500 ppm. That amount would be disastrous, assuring unstable ice sheets, rising sea level out of humanity’s control, extermination of a large fraction of the species on Earth, and severe exacerbation of climate impacts discussed above.

Oil is used primarily in vehicles, where it is impractical to capture CO2 emerging from tailpipes. The large pools of oil remaining in the ground are spread among many countries. The United States, which once had some of the large pools, has already exploited its largest recoverable reserves. Given this fact, it is unrealistic to think that Russia and Middle East countries will decide to leave their oil in the ground. A carbon cap that slows emissions of CO2 does not help, because of the long lifetime of atmospheric CO2. In fact, the cap exacerbates the problem if it allows coal emissions to continue. The only solution is to target a (large) portion of the fossil fuel reserves to be left in the ground or used in a way such that the CO2 can be captured and safely sequestered.

Coal is the obvious target. Figure 1b shows that if there were a prompt moratorium on construction of new coal plants, and if existing ones were phased out linearly over the period 2010-2030, then atmospheric CO2 would peak during the next few decades at an amount somewhere between 400 and 425 ppm. The peak value depends upon whose estimate of undiscovered reserves is more accurate. It also depends upon whether oil in the most extreme environments is exploited or left in the ground, and thus it depends on the carbon tax (see next post).

This coal-phase-out scenario yields the possibility of stabilizing climate. Overshoot of the safe CO2 level is sufficiently small that improved agricultural and forestry practices, including reforestation of marginal lands, could bring CO2 back below 350 ppm, perhaps by the middle of the century. But if construction of new coal plants continues for even another decade it is difficult to conceive a practical, natural way to return CO2 below 350 ppm.

———————————————————–

Part II of IV will focus on policy options…

Interview with Prof Stephen Schneider

As part of a recent textbook I wrote with Prof Navjot Sodhi and Assoc Prof Corey Bradshaw (Tropical Conservation Biology, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007), we interviewed some well known scientists for a ‘Spotlight’ series. Other interviews have been published on BNC’s sister blog, ConservationBytes.

For the chapter entitled “Climate Change: Turning up the tropical heat“, we put some questions to Prof Stephen Schneider. Steve is a good friend of mine who I first met at an extinction conference in Okazaki, Japan, in 2004 – the same conference, incidentally, that motivated Tim Flannery to write The Weather Makers). Steve was later a Thinker in Residence in Adelaide and produced an important public policy document for South Australia on government actions to combat climate change. We’ve also done a tag-team interview on carbon trading.

Anyway, here is the interview, the format for which includes a small biography, a list of major scientific publications and a Q & A on the person’s particular area of expertise.

Biography

I am the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor of Biological Sciences, and Professor by Courtesy of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University. I am Co-Director of the Center for Environmental Science and Policy in the Freeman-Spogli Institute and a Senior Fellow in the Woods Institute for the Environment. I received my PhD in Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics from Columbia University, USA, in 1971. When considering research areas then, I became aware that anthropogenic dust can cool the climate and greenhouse gases can warm it, and thus decided to switch to studying climate science. Today, my global change interests include the ecological and economic implications of climatic change; integrated assessment of global change; climatic modeling of paleoclimates and human impacts on climate (e.g., carbon dioxide “greenhouse effect”); dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system; food/climate and other environmental science/public policy issues; and environmental consequences of nuclear war. I am also dedicated to advancing environmental literacy in all levels of education.

I co-founded the Climate Project at NCAR in 1972 and founded the interdisciplinary journal, Climatic Change, in 1975, which I continue to edit today. I was honoured in 1992 with a MacArthur Fellowship for my ability to integrate and interpret the results of global climate research through public lectures, seminars, classroom teaching, environmental assessment committees, media appearances, Congressional testimonies, and research collaboration with colleagues. I was elected to membership in the US National Academy of Sciences in 2002, and received both the National Conservation Achievement Award from the National Wildlife Federation and the Edward T. Law Roe Award from the Society of Conservation Biology in 2003, and the Banksia Foundation’s International Environmental Award in Australia in 2006. I have served as a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to the present. My recent work has centered on the identification and classification of ‘key vulnerabilities’ in the climate system and the role of risk management in climate policy decision-making. I continue to serve as an advisor to decision-makers and stakeholders in industry, government, and the nonprofit sectors. I am also engaged in improving public understanding of science and the environment through extensive media communication and public outreach.

5 most-relevant publications:

Schneider, S.H. and M.D. Mastrandrea, 2005:  “Probabilistic assessment of ‘dangerous’ climate change and emissions pathways,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 15728-15735.

Root, Terry L., Dena MacMynowski, Michael D. Mastrandrea, and Stephen H. Schneider, 2005: “Human-modified temperatures induce species changes: Joint attribution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 7465-7469.

Mastrandrea, M.D. and S.H. Schneider, 2004: “Probabilistic Integrated Assessment of: ‘Dangerous’ Climate Change,” Science 304, 571–575.

Schneider, S.H., and K. Kuntz-Duriseti, 2002: “Uncertainty and Climate Change Policy,” Chapter 2, in Schneider, S.H., A. Rosencranz, and J.-O. Niles, (eds.) Climate Change Policy: A Survey, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 53–88.

Schneider, S.H., 1990: Global Warming, Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century? Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 343 pp. (Japanese edition: Diamond, Tokyo; U.K. edition: Lutterworth, Cambridge; Italian edition: Armenia Editore, Milano; Paperback version (1990): New York: Vintage Books, New York, 343 pp.

Questions & Answers:

1. Climate has varied throughout earth’s history. Why is contemporary climate change particularly dangerous to biodiversity?

The current, much-faster-than-natural rate of temperature change, coupled with multiple stressors, makes contemporary climate change particularly threatening to biodiversity. The forecasted global average rate of temperature increase over this century (approximately 1–5oC/century) greatly exceeds by a rough order of magnitude rates typically sustained during the last 20,000 years. The balance of evidence from meta-analyses of species from many different taxa examined at disparate locations around the globe suggests that a significant impact from recent climatic warming is discernible in the form of long-term, large-scale alteration of animal and plant populations. This evidence takes the form of poleward or upward range shifts and changes in phenology such as dates of migration, breeding and flowering (making spring events for some species 10–15 days earlier over the past few decades). The IPCC has extended climate impact analyses to include such ‘environmental systems’ as sea- and lake-ice cover and mountain glaciers. Clearly, if such climatic and ecological signals are now being detected above the background of climatic and ecological noise for a twentieth-century warming of ‘only’ 0.6oC, it is likely that the combination of highly disturbed landscapes and temperature increases up to an order of magnitude larger by 2100 will have a dramatic impact on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.

2. Will climate change have less impact in the tropics than at higher latitudes?

There are already signs of severe stress in high-latitude and alpine habitats and in coral reefs, showing that these ecosystems are experiencing significant impacts at present levels of climate change. Human-mediated climate change is or is projected to be affecting tropical biotas via range shifts (latitudinal and elevational), changes in phenology, increasing prevalence, distribution and severity of diseases and parasites, coral bleaching, drying of freshwater systems and sea level rise. The magnitude of temperature changes will be less in the tropics, but changes in the hydrological cycle may still be large. Some models suggest that above a few degrees more warming, tropical forests will switch from a sink to a source of CO2 emissions—a dramatic change if it were to occur as projected. The potential for forest fires under such conditions could become a major threat to forests both in Amazonia and in Southeast Asia because the forests in these regions are not adapted to fire. Species living at higher altitudes in the tropics are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to the disruption or loss of specific microclimates and the higher likelihood of invasive species influx from lower elevations.

3. How might climate change interact with other threats to tropical biodiversity, such as invasive species, fire, and land clearance for agriculture?

Adverse impacts on biodiversity caused by a synergistic suite of threats are already occurring and will continue to intensify climate impacts. It is expected that further warming could substantially rearrange the ranges and interactions of many species. However, because of human land uses such as agriculture, urban settlement and roads, most species no longer have a free range in responding (e.g. by freely migrating) to climatic shifts. The synergism or combined complex interactions of effects among climate changes, land use disturbances, the introduction of exotic species and artificial chemicals will most likely collectively impact on wildlife and terrestrial systems much more significantly than if each of these disturbances were simply considered separately.

4. Are there any benefits of a warmer world rich in atmospheric carbon for tropical ecosystems?

Undoubtedly some species—particularly those that are adaptable, such as crows or weeds—can flourish in disturbed conditions better than specialists such as warblers or orchids. Thus, although the populations of some well-adapted generalists may well expand, the slow rate of speciation and the major threat of endangerment to more vulnerable species have resulted in estimates of 10–50% of species becoming extinct in the next two centuries if warming of more than a few degrees occurs.

5. Based on current trends, how long will it be before the earth’s climate crosses an irreversible and potentially catastrophic tipping point?

It is very difficult to define precise tipping points given remaining uncertainties. Nevertheless, there are potential thresholds for events like ice sheet disintegration or coral reef bleaching, although most such estimates appear as ranges—for example, 1–3oC warming for major reef damages and 1.5–4oC warming for major ice sheet disintegrations.   The bottom line is that the harder and faster the system is disturbed, the more likely such catastrophic changes become.

(with thanks to Navjot Sodhi, Corey Bradshaw, Ward Cooper, Wiley-Blackwell and Stephen Schneider for permission to reproduce the text – buy your copy of Tropical Conservation Biology here)

Response to a wine industry climate change skeptic

In a recent issue of the Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, a well known West Australian wine maker, Mr Erl Happ, published an opinion piece on climate change – expressing doubt that it is caused by industrial greenhouse gas emissions. To cite Erl’s conclusion:

Greenhouse theory does not stack up. ‘Tropo’ in ‘troposphere’ is Greek for ‘turning’. If the surface of the Earth heats up the troposphere turns faster and eliminates heat more efficiently. At an average depth of 10km, the troposphere is very thin. Moving air will not hold heat. Even in the warmest places, the nights can be cool. It is the ocean that is the real store of warmth and it is the coastal places that stay warmer overnight and in winter. Carbon dioxide is less than one-twenty-fifth of 1% of the air that we inhale. It is a much larger fraction of the air that we exhale. Are we to breathe less deeply and exercise less vigorously to reduce our carbon footprint? Carbon dioxide is what the plants need to make them grow and that is why it is scarce. While we have plants it will always be scarce. More carbon dioxide enables plants to grow faster and use less water. This will help to green the deserts. Let us not confuse environmental religion with observational science. Reliable science explains what we observe. One can not understand the climate system without an appreciation of the influence of geography, spatial relations, ocean currents and the physics that drive cloud cover over the tropics. We have managed to banish religion from politics. Now we need to do the same for science.

You can read the full opinion piece as a PDF here.

I was asked by the editor to write a short response, which was published in the latest issue. I hope if gives you a useful idea of how to respond, formally, to such pieces (the version that appeared in the journal was trimmed and edited a little compared to the submitted version I reproduce below).

——————————————————–

A general critique of Erl Happ’s ‘El Niño warming’ opinion piece

In the July/August issue of the Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Erl Happ published an opinion piece on climate change and its relationship to ocean dynamics and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). It is not reasonable to attempt a direct, blow-by-blow critique of Mr Happ’s personal theories on climate change, because they constitute little more than a haphazard mishmash of fact, distortion, poorly contextualised data and ‘gut instinct’. I will instead use a few points to illustrate a more general interpretation of scepticism of mainstream climate science.

Mr Happ complains that climate warming is not global because it is confined to the Northern Hemisphere. This is patently not true. For instance, comparing the decade a century ago (1898-1907) to the most recent decade (1998-2007), we find that global temperatures are an average of 0.87°C hotter (based on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data cited by Mr Happ). In the Northern Hemisphere, which is more readily warmed due to a large continental land mass, the difference is 1.13°C. In the Southern Hemisphere, predominated by ocean which takes longer to change temperature (because water has a higher thermal inertia, it takes longer for energy gain to be manifested as a temperature rise), the warming over 100 years is 0.61°C. Yet , starkly, there has been no trend in ENSO intensity or its frequency of return, nor in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, nor in sunspot activity, to account for this systematic change in the global climate system.

Mr Happ also naively conflates warming in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) with cooling in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). Both are expected under climate forcing due to additional greenhouse gases. A cooling stratosphere and a rise in the boundary layer (tropopause) is indeed a ‘fingerprint’ of an enhanced greenhouse, because (hold your breath) increasing CO2 enhances the stratosphere’s ability to radiate long-wave radiation (infra red), but doesn’t substantially increase its ability to gain heat. In fact, less heat is reaching the stratosphere from the surface, whereas most of its heat gain comes from short-wave radiation (visible light and x-rays) coming in from space.

The examples in above two paragraphs illustrate well enough the inherent problem with Mr Happ’s theorising. It is not science, and it neglects or ignores the huge intellectual gains in understanding that have been made, collectively and over many decades and involving millions of man hours, in the disciplines of atmospheric, chemical and physical sciences, Earth systems analysis, biological sciences, mathematics, statistics and computational modelling. All of these fields of intellectual endeavour contribute to science’s general and specific understanding of the structure, functioning and response to perturbation of the global climate system. And I’ve not listed many sub-disciplines, nor considered the humanities and social sciences, economics, or engineering – all of which contribute greatly to our understanding of the broader issues – especially with respect to the impacts of climate change and our ability (or not) to manage and mitigate it.

But this is sufficient to underscore an important point. Our current scientific understanding of global warming and climate change impacts is not the domain of one, quirky field. Indeed the leading peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change is explicitly multidisciplinary in its mandate – after all, that is the nature of the problem. Yet Mr Happ, and others who promote themselves as ‘sceptical’ of mainstream science, due to a whole host of underlying motivations, choose to dismiss as irrelevant all of these contributions and advances aside in favour of his/their narrow, personal speculation.

As a rule of thumb, those working for an organisation which conducts primary research on climate science (e.g. CSIRO or Universities), and publishes this work in peer-reviewed scientific journals (the industry gold standard), should have their theories taken seriously. This is because they are following the scientific process – the same process that underpins the massive literature reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports, and indeed the same process that has taken man to the moon, decoded the genome, and given you digital watches, laptop computers and automobiles. In any research field there will, of course, be diverse opinions about causes and effects – the positing, testing and overturning of theory and hypotheses are at the very core of science. Provided such arguments are bound by empirical or experimental evidence, and have survived rigorous pre-publication scrutiny and review, then they should be considered a valid viewpoint.

Mr Happ’s have not, and it would be foolhardy indeed to dismiss mitigation of greenhouse gases and adaptation to climate change as irrelevant to the wine industry on this basis.

——————————————————–

I should note that Erl later emailed me, saying he was glad to have elicited a response, was happy to continue the ‘debate’, but was (unsurprsingly) unconvinced by my rebuttal. I have not yet had time to reply to him, but I should say that he was most genial (unlike many who write to me!), and I don’t wish to disparage him by the above critique. I’m simply pointing out that in this matter he is wrong. Quite wrong. I hope you’ll read his article in full and appreciate for yourself why.

What do we really have to change to address Climate Change?

The short answer is – our vision of the future. Read on…

I work in the sphere of behavioural change, leadership and cultural change within organisations. I bring a different view to Climate Change – a non-technical view. No jargon …. just some thoughts about how we might actually get people to do what we have known we “should do” since The Club of Rome’s 1972 report The Limits to Growth;. In fact, philosophically you could go all the way back to Malthus (1750s from memory) for a prediction of what is occurring now…. but we wont:)

Two weeks ago I attended and also spoke at The Great EnergyDebate in Adelaide. There were many really talented and committed people working devotedly on new technologies and entrepreneurial ideas that will assist us if the economic climate is right to nurture and encourage their growth. So one answer to "what do we really need to do" is definitely for our governments – our elected leaders and representatives – to create the legislation that will supply that incubator for the new.  Of course this is resisted by the “old energy” interests ….. the horse trading continues … But you could express your desires to your representative. Let them know you do care and you are watching.

This is a significant area for change and I fear that our politicians and governments (with the exception of our local governments) will be the last to change. They are currently displaying a management rather than leadership style. Having said this, how did SA come to be the state that now generates 58% of Australia’s renewable energy? There seems to be a quiet revolution happening here -and I would like to hear a lot more about it.

All in all however, our polticians are not delivering what we need our leaders to deliver in a time of radical change  – and that is a vision. A picture of what a sustainable future may be like. What hear about is debate of whether there is an urgent probelm, whether the adminstration can gear up for a 2010 start to the Emissions Trading Scheme, and continued fear mongering about what will happen to us economically if we respond to climate change too rapidly.

What we need is a pitcure of what it could be like if we changed. Who has a picture of what it could be like? The one’s we hear are promulgated by those who fear change. And this all seems to be based upon the assertion or presumption that what we have got now is so great!

Well it may be materially great but for how long? (Now bare with me and keep reading – I am NOT suggesting you need to give up everything!)  We are running our of resources to continue to supply our addiction to buying stuff and consuming stuff. And this attachment to all things material seems to be driving us to work longer and harder. The people work with in organisations are invariably stressed and being pushed by unrealistic targets to deliver far more than is realistically possible Within families…both parents in those few families that still have 2 parents are having to work – not a choice to work – having to in order to meet their expectations of life as we currently expect it. If we look at mental health, 1 in 4 or 5 people in Australia will experience some form of mental health problem.  This is just a brief scan that I could write a book on and support with relevant references. I don’t think many people would read it – it would be way too depressing!

So, I challenge the assumption that what we have now is so great! I reckon if we are honest with ourselves we will admit, that a few changes would be good. And now is the golden opportunity….

A canny politician then would help us start to create a picture of a world where some of these issues were addressed -and because everything is interconnected – you could see that in the paragraphs above couldn’t you? Our economic system drives companies to aim for continuous growth – so they use more resources and market more stuff (emitting more green house gasses etc).  We are consumers, so we buy more stuff, the marketing tells us we will feel happy if buy and consume – so we do…. but buying stuff is just a temporary happiness fix – so we need to earn more so we can afford the next fix…… see the interconnectedness?

So a canny politician would help us create a picture of a new future – maybe one where….. we wake up in the morning feeling relaxed and calm. You look around and see your loved ones rising for a new day too. You put just enough water into your kettle to make coffee (that delivers a fair return to those who grew it and is not full of insecticides that will harm you). The water comes from your tanks. You turn on your kettle that is using renewable energy from a community owned wind farm down the road…or maybe your solar panels outside. Its just the right temperature inside…. the sun is low and warming and coming in through the northern facing windows.  You go to the window and look outisde. What do you see? Who do you share your neighbourhood with? What is the relaitonship between people? Can you hear birds singing? How safe do you and others feel here?

Its time to think about work…. how do you feel about that? Where is it? How do you want to travel there if you need to? How will you feel as you arrive – rushed and harried or relaxed and calm? How did your choice in transport contribute to that? What is it like as you walk into work?

I could go on helping you create a picture of a world you would really like to live in…. and the way you would like your children to live and love in the future.

I can hear the realists yelling at me that this picture is unrelaistic! Why is it unrealistic? I may not know exactly how to create this picture, but just having it helps me stay motivated to move towards it, it helps me make the right decisions when I need to, it inspires me and others to create somthing that is better than what we have now.

When JFK asked the USA to put a man on the moon within ten years – no one knew how it would be done. But using this simple vision – they did it!

So if our politicians are unable to help us generate this kind of picture or reality… who needs to do it? What is your vision – lets start sharing pictures of a better future. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts.

Stay tune for the next exciting episode!!!!

Josie

Obamamania: How might it affect climate change?

I am not a political commentator – just an “average jo”! And if you would like to view a very funny YouTube clip form another Average Jo concerned about climate change go to http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=iWW8u5p-DVE

I have watched the media go crazy over Obama’s election – and I am deeply moved by USA’s vote for a man of coloured origin. Also a man about whom we really know so little, but one who seems to be smart and so right for our times. What will he really be able to deliver?

Obama has, throughout his campaign, talked about an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, a carbon cap and trade system, R&D for renewable energy, tax incentives for renewable energy, Green Jobs training …. all the things I want to hear for Australians too.

So into the global system of influence and politics now is a USA President (Elect) who sounds like he cares and “gets” it. If everything truly is connected – as we know it is (Just look at the finanical crisis if you need more evidence) – then this man’s very presence should make a shift.

The horse trading will go on – that is politics, but I continue to dare to hope that real change is near – and work for it too (nothing comes through hope alone!)

Josie

Prof Barry – Is the science included in this clip “right”?

A friend recently pointed me in the direction of this film clip on you tube. Is the science accruate?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5T_3WJPYY9g

I’d appreciate your thoughts.

Josie