Articles by Joseph Romm

They don’t get that climate is a security issue

"The Democrats' Global War on Weather" and "Jack Bauer, Climatologist???" are the headlines conservatives are using to mock efforts by progressives to finance a National Intelligence Estimate to study global warming. But climate is clearly a national security threat, as made clear in a recent CNA report from a distinguished group of former military leaders (PDF).

As but one example, a "ferocious drought and famine" were the driving forces behind the crisis in Darfur, which is "likely to be seen as the first climate change war," as the Guardian put it.

Contrary to the mocking press release, the "war on weather" is being waged by conservatives who block action on mandatory greenhouse gas controls, thereby ensuring more and more extreme weather events for many decades to come.

It is precisely because conservatives have blocked action on climate change that progressives are driven to fund a serious effort by our intelligence agencies to understand the dangerous implications of our do-nothing climate policy.

If only Jack Bauer were a climatologist -- then conservatives might listen to the overwhelming scientific evidence about the climate crisis. Better yet, put Jack in charge of U.S. climate policy -- then we would finally have a leader who believes in taking action.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Summarizin’ summaries, summarily

Here is the second half of my summary of the IPCC summary (PDF):

Energy Efficiency:

It is often more cost-effective to invest in end-use energy efficiency improvement than in increasing energy supply to satisfy demand for energy services. Efficiency improvement has a positive effect on energy security, local and regional air pollution abatement, and employment.

(In buildings):

Energy efficiency options for new and existing buildings could considerably reduce CO2 emissions with net economic benefit. Many barriers exist against tapping this potential, but there are also large co-benefits (high agreement, much evidence).

By 2030, about 30 percent of the projected GHG emissions in the building sector can be avoided with net economic benefit.

Summaries of a summary — the new black?

Finally, below is the first half of my summary of the IPCC summary (PDF):

In 2030 macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation, consistent with emissions trajectories towards stabilization between 445 and 710 ppm CO2-eq, are estimated at between a 3% decrease of global GDP and a small increase, compared to the baseline. However, regional costs may differ significantly from global averages (high agreement, medium evidence).

In 2050 global average macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation towards stabilization between 710 and 445 ppm CO2-eq, are between a 1% gain to a 5.5% decrease of global GDP. For specific countries and sectors, costs vary considerably from the global average (high agreement, medium evidence).

It ain’t pretty

I want to highlight a few points from the IPCC's Mitigation Report (PDF).

First, even the most stringent global greenhouse gas targets can be met at a cost of a mere 0.1% of GDP per year!

While the report is not explicit about when action should be taken, it does say that:

In order to stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter. The lower the stabilization level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur.

The Center for American Progress and I have encouraged stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentration at 450 ppm and/or a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial era. That said, according to one of the report's charts (see page 22), reductions aimed to cut emissions 85% by 2050 must be initiated before 2015.

And maybe sooner. According to the IPCC:

Decision-making about the appropriate level of global mitigation over time involves an iterative risk management process that includes mitigation and adaptation, taking into account actual and avoided climate change damages, co-benefits, sustainability, equity, and attitudes to risk. ... if the damage cost curve increases steeply, or contains non-linearities (e.g. vulnerability thresholds or even small probabilities of catastrophic events), earlier and more stringent mitigation is economically justified.

Tucked into footnote 37 of the report, there's a brief discussion of feedbacks that could certainly, and dangerously, be categorized as a non-linear, vulnerable threshold to which we are blind.

The message of the report is clear. Countries must act, and soon. We can choose to stabilize the climate and still maintain prosperous economies. But we must make a financial commitment that just hasn't materialized. We've been going backwards. The IPCC reports:

Government funding in real absolute terms for most energy research programmes has been flat or declining for nearly two decades (even after the UNFCCC came into force) and is now about half of the 1980 level.

At this point, that is unacceptable. The policies the IPCC has recommended have great potential and low cost. The world needs make the political and economic commitments to curb emissions. The time to act is now.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.