climate

Massive flooding in western Washington linked to man-made causes

After digging itself out of "Snowmageddon" over the holidays, western Washington was hit with heavy rainfall this week, causing massive flooding. Roads, including major arteries like I-5 (pictured above), are closed and entire neighborhoods evacuated.

Sure, Seattle's known for its rain, but this is ridiculous! So who's responsible? Well, us, it turns out.

Scientists say a man-made triple whammy of logging, development, and climate change are to blame. And we shouldn't be surprised ...

A year ago (almost to the day), University of Washington geologist David Montgomery issued a warning to state legislators about the flooding that ravaged the region in 2007:

Question of the day

Why does Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon-Mobil, want a carbon tax?

Raise your hand if your answer is: because he sincerely thinks that is a more effective way to achieve the substantial emission reductions required to forestall catastrophic climate change.

The real cost is the cost of doing nothing

That's always the mantra: Serious climate policy is too pricey, especially in this economy.

To that I say: Watch this excellent video from King 5 News. (It's almost 16 minutes long, but well worth it.) The impacts of climate change, such as flooding, carry a very steep cost. And judging by the video, the costs aren't mostly borne by the rich -- they're paid for by those who can least afford it.

I want to be perfectly clear.The floods in Western Washington -- this year and in several recent years -- are completely consistent with what the climate science has been predicting for the Northwest. It doesn't really matter whether these particular floods are the direct result of global warming (that's an untestable hypothesis),what matters is that this is exactly what we should expect in the future. If the scientists are right, get ready for more.

So if you think carbon pricing is too expensive, just wait until you see the bill for failing to put a price on carbon.

'Climate change' is climate change by any other name

In his famous essay, "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell wrote: "The English language ... becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." He warns that "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." The importance of language and rhetoric is a subject near to my heart.

This post is by ClimateProgress guest blogger Bill Becker, executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.

-----

Washington, D.C., is to the English language what Paris is to fashion. Every season, perfectly good words go out of style and new ones are trotted out on the national runway of rhetoric. Some words are considered so worn out, politically incorrect, or laden with baggage that they can no longer be used in public discourse. When that happens, people like me find ourselves scrambling for suitable synonyms.

That was the case a few years ago with "sustainable development." I operated the Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development at the U.S. Department of Energy, helping communities understand and apply the practice. Before long, signals came down from Capitol Hill that the words "sustainable development" had become the kiss of death for any program that used them. The term "smart growth" was invented to take "sustainability's" place.

More recently, Congress has avoided using the word "climate" in legislation that clearly is meant in part to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions -- legislation such as the "Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007." The Bush people call torture "enhanced interrogation" and call kidnapping "rendition." Healthy Forests and Clear Skies became the titles of the Bush Administration's programs to cut trees and pollute the air, respectively.

Our elected leaders aren't alone in manipulating the English language. Lobbyists and extremists, left and right, regularly play the game too, to obscure facts, incite emotions, insult opponents, or get attention from the media, where conflict is red meat.

Coal executives try to persuade us there's such a thing as "clean coal" and oil executives talk about "energy independence" when they really mean more drilling. In 2003, Orwell protégé Frank Luntz counseled in a confidential memo that the Administration and conservatives should stop using the term "global warming" because it was too frightening. Luntz suggested that Republicans refer to themselves as "conservationists" rather than "environmentalists," since the latter term, in Luntz's view, is associated with tree-hugging and extremism.

Enviros praise Obama's stimulus package, but call for transit funding to be added

Environmental leaders gave a big thumbs-up to Barack Obama's economic stimulus proposal on Thursday, though they pledged to continue pushing to make the bill as green as possible, particularly on transportation issues.

"This morning, President-elect Obama reaffirmed his commitment to invest in efficiency and clean energy technologies as part of his economic recovery package," said League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski in a statement. "Ready to hit the ground running, he offered specific details that offer great hope for America's future success."

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope was also effusive in a statement: "These initiatives are a win-win for a strong economy and a healthier environment. They will create good jobs here in America and reduce our dependence on dirtier energy sources like oil and coal by promoting the shift to wind and solar power and high-energy-performance, low-carbon cars and buildings."

Said Cathy Zoi, CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection, "This increased investment in renewables, efficiency, and our energy infrastructure is a crucial first step in boosting our economy, ending our reliance on dirty coal and foreign oil, and solving the climate crisis."

Senate Environment Committee gets rolling in 111th Congress

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said on Wednesday that she has been consulting with incoming Obama administration officials on a climate plan, though she didn't give a sense of when to expect a new bill this year.

"I will be putting out basic principles shortly," Boxer told reporters. "I wanted to have some consultation [with the incoming administration]." As for when to expect a new bill, Boxer said only that her committee will begin working on one "as soon as it makes sense."

She was also asked about what sort of green stimulus to expect in the upcoming economic package, and said that while she didn't give specifics, she foresees it including green measures. "I'm very optimistic we'll have some green jobs in this proposal, but I can't say how many."

Boxer's committee kicked off the 111th Congress on Wednesday with a briefing on "Investing in Green Technology as a Strategy for Economic Recovery," featuring New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and clean-tech investor John Doerr, a partner at legendary venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. The two guests urged the committee to push for a price on carbon and massive investments in the research and development of new energy technologies.

Lou Dobbs leaves CNN viewers dumber about climate change

"Yes," you say, "I know Lou Dobbs is a knuckle-dragger when it comes to immigration and Latinos. But is he similarly idiotic when it comes to climate change?"

Here's your answer:

Arianna Huffington clarifies editorial policy around climate skepticism

The other day Andrew Dessler and I wrote about a piece of climate skeptic hoo-ha that somehow got published on Huffington Post. There was nothing particularly notable about the piece itself -- just the usual recycled confusions and distortions -- but it was somewhat remarkable that it appeared on a progressive news site whose proprietor has strongly criticized mainstream journalism for its pathological and misleading "balance" even on settled issues of fact.

Now, via email, Arianna Huffington clarifies:

Harold Ambler reached out to me about posting a critical piece on Al Gore and the environment. We are always open to posts that present opinions contrary to HuffPost's editorial view -- and have welcomed many conservative voices, such as David Frum, Tony Blankley, Michael Smerconish, Bob Barr, Joe Scarborough, Jim Talent, etc., to the site. We have featured also countless posts from the leading lights of the Green movement, including Robert Redford, Laurie David, Carl Pope, Van Jones, David Roberts, and many others -- and I myself have written extensively about the global warming crisis, and have been highly critical of those who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence.

When Ambler sent his post, I forwarded it to one of our associate blog editors to evaluate, not having read it. I get literally hundreds of posts a week submitted like this and obviously can't read them all -- which is why we have an editorial process in place. The associate blog editor published the post. It was an error in judgment. I would not have posted it. Although HuffPost welcomes a vigorous debate on many subjects, I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue, and that on some issues the jury is no longer out. The climate crisis is one of these issues.

This, shall we say, casts a new light on a comment that Ambler left on our piece over on HuffPo:

Again, my full response will be a couple of weeks from now. In the meantime, there is a second factual error in your piece regarding how I got posted on HuffPo. My only contact with the site prior to being published was Arianna Huffington herself, who read my piece, accepted it, and directed her staff to post it.

Sure she did, Harold.

Anyway, kudos to Huffington for taking responsibility and clarifying her site's editorial approach.

Now we can all get on with our lives ... until the next skeptic fruitcake resurrects the same zombie lies on some other unsuspecting site. Then we start all over again. It never gets old!

White roofs are the trillion-dollar solution

Part 1 introduced urban heat island mitigation (UHIM). It discussed how lighter colored (or reflective) roofs and pavement, plus urban trees, can save energy, cut CO2 emissions, cool a city, and reduce smog.

But a global "cool roofs" strategy can achieve far bigger benefits -- the equivalent of several trillion dollars worth of CO2 reductions -- since it can increase the albedo (reflectivity) of the planet, thereby directly reducing the absorption of incoming solar radiation and hence planetary warming. The strategy proposed below "is equivalent to taking the world's approximately 600 million cars off the road for 18 years."

(100 m2 (~1000 ft2) of a white roof, replacing a dark roof, offsets the emission of 10 tonnes of CO2.)

This is technically geoengineering, although I'd call it geoengineering-light or geo-reverse-engineering, since we are mostly undoing the albedo decrease caused by all the dark roofs and dark pavement we have covered the planet with.

A forthcoming article in Climatic Change, "Global Cooling: Increasing World-wide Urban Albedos to Offset CO2," [PDF] provides the detailed calculations. A two-page non-technical summary, "White Roofs Cool the World, Directly Offset CO2 and Delay Global Warming," [PDF] has been written by two of the country's leading UHIM experts: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Hashem Akbari and California Energy Commissioner Arthur Rosenfeld (coauthors with me on "Paint the Town White -- and Green"). I have reprinted it below: