Climate Politics

Worse heat waves, floods, droughts, hurricanes, and storms to come

Originally posted at the Wonk Room.

The traditional media rarely discusses extreme weather events in the context of global warming. However, as the Wonk Room Global Boiling series has documented, scientists have been warning us for years that climate change will increase catastrophic weather events like the California wildfires, the East Coast heatwave, and the Midwest floods that have been taking lives and causing billions in damage in recent days.

Yesterday, the federal government released a report that assembles this knowledge in stark and unequivocal terms. "Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate," by the multi-agency U.S. Climate Change Science Program with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the lead, warns that changes in extreme weather are "among the most serious challenges to society" (PDF) in dealing with global warming. After reporting that heat waves, severe rainfall, and intense hurricanes have been on the rise -- all linked to man-made global warming -- the authors deliver this warning about the future:

Groups make joint announcement in Cleveland

The Sierra Club and United Steelworkers made a joint announcement this morning in Cleveland that the groups are throwing their support behind Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama. “We believe Sen. Obama is the change our nation needs — he is the leader who will put America on the path to a clean energy economy that […]

A look back at James Hansen’s seminal testimony on climate, part three

Worldwatch Institute is partnering with Grist to bring you this three-part series commemorating the 20-year anniversary of NASA scientist James Hansen's groundbreaking testimony on global climate change next week. Part three of three follows. Part one is here; part two is here.

-----

In May 1989, a few months after NASA scientist James Hansen declared that global warming had arrived, he would provide another testimony to clarify the risks of future climate change.

But before Hansen could make his presentation to Sen. Al Gore's subcommittee, the White House's Office of Management and Budget intercepted the testimony and rewrote its conclusion. According to the revised copy, the cause of climate change was still unknown. NASA headquarters said Hansen could accept the changes or not testify, he later recalled.

It was not the first OMB revision of a Hansen testimony. This time, he decided, would be different. Hansen notified Gore that his testimony did not reflect his actual opinion, which led Gore to frame the hearing's questions to reveal the OMB edits. It was the lead story on all major television networks that night.

Offshore drilling likely to raise some voter ire in Florida

John McCain’s call this week for an end to the moratorium on offshore drilling isn’t faring well with environmentalists across the country. In one key state, however, it might really come back to bite him come November. Florida — yes, land of dangling chads and nearly-won elections — may well prove to be the place […]

Nature publishes my climate analysis and solution

Here is perhaps my most succinct and citable explanation of why "Both national and global climate policy (PDF) must redirect its focus from setting a price on carbon to promoting the rapid deployment of clean technologies" (online here).

True, I didn't think I would appear in Nature again. But Nature online asked me for my critique of the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Bill bill, and they were open to a big-picture commentary based on the latest climate science. They even ran with a modified version of my proposed wedges solution (see below, longer version here). The central conclusion of the paper is the major theme of my work:

The latest science suggests that national and global climate policy is seriously misdirected. We must aim at achieving average annual carbon dioxide emissions of less than 5 GtC [5 billion metric tons of carbon] this century or risk the catastrophe of reaching atmospheric concentrations of 1,000 p.p.m. A carbon price set by a cap-and-trade system is a useful component of a longer-term climate strategy. Implementing such a system, however, is secondary to adopting a national and global strategy to stop building new traditional coal-fired plants while starting to deploy existing and near-term low-carbon technologies as fast as is humanly possible.

What are the "series of aggressive strategies for technology deployment" we need?

... tax credits, loan guarantees or other incentives for low-carbon technology, demonstration projects of technologies such as carbon capture and storage, a standard for electricity generation involving renewable or low-carbon options, a low-carbon fuel standard, tougher standards for fuel economy and appliances, and utility regulations that create a profit for investments in efficiency. These are all features of the climate plan of the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama (PDF), but are not part of the announced climate strategy of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, whose plan starts by allowing unlimited offsets.

I am especially delighted that they created a figure for me of the wedges (click for larger version):

Conservative arguments to the contrary are intellectually bankrupt

Originally posted at the NDN blog.

Of the various false solutions being proposed to the current oil shock perhaps none is more disingenous than the idea that it can be solved by drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and along the Outer Continental Shelf. This is the idea that the right wing media, recently John McCain, and now President Bush have been pushing as a cure-all for soaring oil prices. Since many Democrats oppose this drilling, the next false logical step is to say Democrats are to blame. This was the thrust of President Bush's energy proposal yesterday, one that only highlights the intellectual dishonesty and partisanship of this failed administration.

Is more drilling the answer? No, for three reasons.

Rasmussen poll biased on offshore drilling

Rasmussen Reports did a poll that they tout as showing "67 percent Support Offshore Drilling."

Given the biased way they did the poll (details here), I'm surprised the number was so low.

The first question they asked: "How concerned are you about rising gas and energy prices?"

Pretty much everybody is concerned. Duh. But in a flawed poll, almost a push poll, the point of the first question is to get people thinking about about the pain of gasoline prices, rather than, say, the coastal environment or global warming.

Second question: "In order to reduce the price of gas, should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states?"

I kid you not. That was the question. And Rasmussen is supposedly a serious polling firm. I'm just surprised that only 67 percent answered that loaded question "yes."

McCain says he’s willing to ‘examine’ his stance against drilling in ANWR

The News-Leader in Springfield, Mo. has more on McCain’s energy policy roundtable yesterday. Seems he also indicated that he’s open to reconsidering his stance on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which he has consistently opposed in the past. “I would be more than happy to examine it again,” McCain told the crowd. Guess […]

Conservative heads increasingly buried in sand

Andrew Sullivan reads this Jim Manzi post (Conservatives are going to win on climate change! By doing nothing!) and says he’s on board. He then proceeds to blow my freaking mind: The key will be private and public innovation of non-carbon energy, and possibly carbon capture technology. Frankly, however painful it is for many, the […]

Major news network exposes McCain’s energy contradictions

Does not compute: Only thing is, they keep saying, “this shows how tricky it is for McCain.” What it also shows, one might think, is that McCain is willing to lie and change his positions willy nilly. They used to call Democrats people “flip-floppers” and “serial exaggerators” for that sort of thing. With McCain, it’s […]