“The Climate Crisis and the Adaptation Myth”— a must read for Obama’s climate change advisors

Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2008

A new “working paper” issued by Yale University— ”The Climate Crisis and the Adaptation Myth” (.pdf)-- claims the US is in a poor state of preparedness for climate change impacts.  “Private and public sector organizations face significant obstacles to adaptation” says author Robert Repetto, a Sr. Fellow of the United Nations Foundation and former Yale professor.  In addition to inherent scientific uncertainties slowing response, a variety of human and institutional barriers stand in the way of adaptation measures:  long lead-times for rule changes; ideological resistance; a preoccupation with the near-term; false perceptions that climate impacts either won’t be too painful or are off in the distant future; business-as-usual assumptions; and lack of national leadership.  Repetto warns:  “To say that the United States can adapt to climate change does not imply that the United States will adapt.

Post by Anne Polansky

In stark terms, there are only three response choices in the face of global climatic disruption says Dr. John Holdren as often as he can say it:  mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. 

Strong mitigation policies at the national level are currently held hostage by slow and cumbersome post-Kyoto international negotiation processes, the public policy mess left behind by Bush and Cheney, and the complex political labyrinth standing between the need to slash emissions and the legislation needed to make it happen, whether that be cap-and-trade or some other policy tool. 

Suffering is being felt as climate change increasingly acts as a threat multiplier for hurricanes, droughts, extreme weather, floods, and other hardships. 

The third and only other choice is adaptation:  somehow, we are going to have to learn to live with a climate future that is markedly different, and more hostile to human life, than anything we have ever seen in the past.  Yet, Robert Repetto is joining a growing group of thinkers who are concerned that we are doing a poor job of preparing for climate disruption. 

We would put this insightful and well-articulated 24-page paper on the must-reading list for President-elect Obama himself, and the team he brings on to tackle the climate change problem head-on. 

The conclusions are worth posting verbatim: 

Despite a half century of climate change that has significantly affected temperature and precipitation patterns and has already had widespread ecological and hydrological impacts, and despite a near certainty that the United States will experience at least as much climate change in the coming decades, just as a result of the current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, those organizations in the public and private sectors that are most at risk, that are making long-term investments and commitments, and that have the planning, forecasting and institutional capacity to adapt, have not yet done so.

With few exceptions, even at this time, such organizations are at early stages of developing strategies by which to adapt to climate change risks. There have been very few changes in forecasts, plans, design criteria, investment decisions, budgets or staffing patterns in response to climate risks.

Private and public sector organizations face significant obstacles to adaptation: uncertainty regarding future climate change at regional and local scales; uncertainty regarding the future frequency of extreme weather events; and uncertainty regarding the ecological, economic and other impacts of climate change. Organizations lack relevant data for planning and forecasting, and such data as are available are typically outdated and unrepresentative of future conditions.

Organizations also face institutional and human barriers to adaptation: the need to overcome or revise codes, rules, and regulations that impede change; the lack of clear directions and mandates to take action; political or ideological resistance to the need for responsiveness to climate change; the preoccupation with near-term challenges and priorities and the lingering perception that climate change is a concern only for sometime in the future; and the inertia created by a business-asusual assumption that future conditions will be more or less like those of the past.  Without national leadership and concerted efforts to remove these barriers and obstacles, adaptation to climate change is likely to continue to lag. It will be largely reactive rather than anticipatory and preventive, responding to damaging impacts once they have occurred.

To say that the United States can adapt to climate change does not imply that the United States will adapt.

We thought that last line was worth repeating. 

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

Note to Obama economic team: New infrastructure must withstand climate disruption

Posted on Monday, December 01, 2008

President-elect Obama has tasked his new economic team with designing an ambitious job-creation initiative focused primarily on infrastructure improvements.  From now on, the design and siting of bridges, roads, and public buildings will need to take into account climate change impacts, lest we worsen our vulnerability to sea level rise, fiercer storms, droughts, floods, and the like.  The savvy team recruited for this project is likely aware of this, but may quickly discover how poorly we are set up to apply climate science to practical problem-solving.  It’s time for that to change, too.

Post by Anne Polansky

Obama’s plan to jump-start the economy is an elegant solution to two problems:  Our aging infrastructure is in need of repair and modernization, and the massive job-creation needed to fix that is a strong antidote to troubling unemployment levels.  Incorporating ways to ramp up renewable energy use within this context is also essential for moving to a more sustainable economy and for mitigating climate change.  Going forward, we must “plan for the best”—pursuing mitigation strategies vigorously—as we “prepare for the worst”—building climate resiliency and adaptation measures into nearly every decision, so we can withstand the climate shocks already in the pipeline as a result of past and continuing CO2 emissions. 

Our transportation sector is particularly vulnerable to climate change.  A report (7.4 MB) issued by the National Research Council earlier this year warns that:

Climate change will affect transportation primarily through increases in several types of weather and climate extremes. Climate warming over the next 50 to 100 years will be manifested by increases in very hot days and heat waves, increases in Arctic temperatures, rising sea levels coupled with storm surges and land subsidence, more frequent intense precipitation events, and increases in the intensity of strong hurricanes. The impacts will vary by mode of transportation and region of the country, but they will be widespread and costly in both human and economic terms and will require significant changes in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation systems.

The NRC press release outlines what the federal government can do:

The report calls for the federal government to have a strong role in implementing many of its recommendations that require broad-based action or regulation, such as the creation of a clearinghouse for information on transportation and climate change; the establishment of a research program to re-evaluate existing design standards and develop new standards for addressing climate change; creation of an interagency working group on adaptation; changes in federal regulations regarding long-range planning guidelines and infrastructure rehabilitation requirements; and re-evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program and updating flood insurance rate maps with climate change in mind.

All of these are good suggestions and should be acted upon in concert with transition planning, not just at the Department of Transportation, but across all of government.

Another report could help guide major infrastructure decisions in the Gulf Coast region: Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure—Gulf Coast Study was issued by the Climate Change Science Program in March of this year.  Lead authors Michael Savonis at the Department of Transportation and Virginia Burkett at the US Geological Survey are good points of contact for this work. 

In August, New York City Mayor Bloomberg launched a Climate Change Task Force, funded by a $350,000 grant from the Rockefeller Foundation (see their press release) to develop adaptation strategies to secure the NYC’s infrastructure from the effects of climate change.  A diverse group of experts is “creating a coordinated plan to adapt [to climate change] our roads, bridges, and tunnels; mass-transit network; water and sewer systems; electric, gas, and steam production and distribution systems; telecommunication networks; and other critical infrastructure.” This process should serve as a model for other cities and towns across America facing the same issues—though, with federal money to support it. 

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

What will the Obama transition do about Centers for Disease Control director Julie Gerberding?

A Washington Post report on November 27 suggested that it’s unlikely the Obama administration will keep CDC Director Julie Gerberding in place.  We showed in October 2007 how her Senate testimony on climate change and public health had been censored by the White House.  At that time she was a good Bush-Cheney team player in trying to sweep the problem under the rug – like too many senior officials during the past 8 years.

Post by Rick Piltz

The Washington Post’s “In the Loop” column reported on November 27 that, as the Obama administration starts taking shape:

It’s unlikely physician Julie Gerberding will stay on as head of the government’s premier public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (The Obama-ites are not enamored of her work on climate change or abstinence, to name two issues.)

I don’t know how much significance to attach to this item, amidst all the news and rumors about Obama appointments.  I’ll just note that, when the White House in October 2007 censored Dr. Gerberding’s testimony before the Senate Environment Committee on the impacts of climate change on public health, by deleting all the pages that said anything substantive on the subject, Dr. Gerberding’s immediate reaction was to dismiss the significance of the censorship. She said something to the effect, who pays attention to written testimony anyway? 

I thought her response was pretty cavalier – one might even say Orwellian, since this was a matter of the U.S. Senate asking the nation’s leading public health official to submit written testimony for the public record.  Of course, Dr. Gerberding was being a good soldier for the White House in trying to sweep the censorship problem under the rug.  Subsequent statements by a former EPA official suggest that the testimony was censored at the behest of Vice-President Cheney’s office. 

Others will have to speak about the rest of Dr. Gerberding’s record on management of the agency, on climate change, and on abstinence and other relevant issues.  But I will say that there has been too much complicity among senior officials and failure to push back on political interference with science in general and with climate change communication in particular during the past 8 years.  There are a number of such officials that the “Obama-ites” might be justified in being “not enamored” with.

See our earlier posts: 

October 28, 2007:  Censored Testimony from Centers for Disease Control: Update
October 30, 2007:  CSW director ABC News Now interview on CDC climate testimony censorship
July 8, 2008:  Jason Burnett confirms that Cheney’s office and CEQ censored CDC director Gerberding’s testimony

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

Happy Buy Nothing Day!

Posted on Friday, November 28, 2008

For those of us in the US who are fortunate enough, the day after Thanksgiving usually means three things:  turkey sandwiches, football on TV, and shopping.  As many of us kick off the winter holiday season this “Black Friday” by heading to the malls and discount outlets, a creative campaign by Adbusters is selling us on doing just the opposite.  “Buy Nothing Day” is being celebrated in North American towns and cities today, and tomorrow (Saturday Nov. 29) internationally.  What does this have to do with climate change?  We’re glad you asked.

Post by Anne Polansky

When we are being honest with ourselves, we concede that over-consumption (especially that involves the burning of fossil fuels) is high on the list of things we can blame for climate disruption.  Now, a global movement has organized around the idea that individuals can and should exercise their power to make our economies more ecologically sensitive and environmentally sustainable by changing their buying habits.

Anyone not convinced of the link between consumption and sustainability can bone up in a way that is fun and entertaining by listening to Annie Leonard guide us through a 20-minute tutorial in ”The Story of Stuff.”

The official BND press release begins:  “Now in its 17th year, Buy Nothing Day is celebrated every November by environmentalists, social activists and concerned citizens in over 65 countries around the world…”

BND advocates think of themselves as “inspiring the world’s citizens to live more simply and buy a whole lot less” by - for example - socializing with family, friends, and neighbors; having street parties; or holding peaceful political protests; anything but spending. 

This year the event is being tied to the current economic crisis; BND co-founder of Adbusters Media Foundation, Kalle Lasn, comments:

“If you dig a little past the surface you’ll see that this financial meltdown is not about liquidity, toxic derivatives or unregulated markets, it’s really about culture.....it’s our culture of excess and meaningless consumption — the glorified spending and borrowing of the past decade that’s at the root of the crisis we now find ourselves in.”

One of the more lively BND celebrations is being organized by social activist and performance artist Reverend Billy of the Church of Stop Shopping, in Union Square, New York City.  Bill Talen created the Revered Billy character and built his gig to a 35-person choir with its own band to pursue a social cause:  to educate the public about the consequences of unsustainable consumption.  By urging “shopaholics” to say no to the devil of ultra-commercialism and holiday shopping frenzies, with a hearty “Change-a-lujah, Amen, brothers and sisters!” thrown in every now and then for good measure, Rev. Billy believes his message is one answer to global warming. 

The website claims that consuming less “is the single most effective and immediate response an individual can take.... to halt the climate crisis.” The message has reached millions of people (he also has a major motion picture out), which has “contributed to the public’s increasing awareness of the relationship between shopping and climate change.”

We wonder, having no real reason to doubt him, is that really true?  Is cutting down on personal consumption the single most effective and immediate response an individual can have?  Do we fully understand how consuming less and more sustainably can help solve the climate change problem?  While it is inherently obvious that buying food that was grown or produced close to home cuts down on transportation miles to market and thus emissions from trucking, do we know just how much we could both mitigate and adapt to climate change by relying more on local family farms, urban gardens, and farmer’s markets?  If we all biked, walked, and used public transit more, what kinds of emissions reductions could we achieve?  If everyone decided to own fewer things by shopping less and giving away more, how would GHG emissions be affected?  Are people motivated to make these changes?  Do most Americans even make links between a society fixated on material possessions and melting arctic ice threatening polar bear extinction and the total inundation of the Maldives?  Do we care?  If so, how much?  Enough to change our buying habits?  While just about everyone now knows what a “carbon footprint” is and can punch a few buttons on any one of dozens of websites with carbon footprint calculators, we would venture to say that most of us have no clear sense of what sort of consumption habit changes would help the climate system, by how much, and when?  Taking it even further, why can’t individuals be producers too:  growing food in urban gardens to share or sell, installing photovoltaic systems that feed the grid with badly needed electricity, or forming biodiesel fuel co-ops that uses local sources?  How much would it help, and how many of us are willing and able to do these things?  What sorts of incentives would we need to stimulate more of the kind?  Some of us are already doing these things, but not on a scale that makes a large enough difference, we suspect, but, who is measuring, monitoring, and assessing the possibilities these cultural changes hold for all of human society? 

While we have done a fair job of investing in the physical climate sciences (though much more needs to be done there, and shrinking budgets need restoring), our use of the social sciences to get a handle on the “human dimensions” of climate change has been weak, to the point of being nonexistent.  How, as a society, will we respond to the urgent need to both cut GHG emissions and adapt to the many climate changes already happening now and promising to get worse?  What sort of guidance and resources can we expect to see from our new administration?  These are questions still being answered… but from what we see so far, movements like Buy Nothing Day and “buying green” are taking hold and could be the next wave of the future. 

Change-a-lujah! 

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

The “Fallen Legion”—Whistleblower thanksgiving

Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving to all.  A “recommended diary” posted November 26 on the DailyKos website thanks a long list of “public servants who were fired or resigned in protest to the Bush/Cheney/Rove administration.”

Post by Rick Piltz

The DailyKos list is an abridgement of a longer set of original lists posted in several installments (here, here, and here) on the TomDispatch site (a project of the Nation Institute).

Climate Science Watch is a program of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) in Washington, DC, the leading US whistleblower advocacy organization.  Here’s the entry posted on TomDispatch for Jesselyn Radack, my colleague who is now the Homeland Security Director at GAP:

Jesselyn Radack: An attorney in the Justice Department’s Professional Responsibility Advisory Office who worked on the case of John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, Radack warned federal prosecutors that interrogating him without his attorney present would be unethical. When the FBI interviewed Lindh anyway, Raddack told TomDispatch, she “then recommended that [the transcript] be sealed and only used for intelligence-gathering purposes, not for criminal prosecution.” Again, her advice was ignored. Later, when Lindh was on trial, Radack learned that the judge in the case had requested copies of all internal correspondence concerning Lindh’s interrogation. Although Radack had written more than a dozen e-mails on the subject, she discovered that only two of them had been turned over and neither reflected her contention that the FBI had committed an ethics violation.

Checking the hard-copy office file, she discovered that the rest of her e-mail messages were missing. With the help of technical support, she “resurrected the e-mails from her computer archives, documented them, provided them to her boss, and took home a copy for safekeeping in case they ‘disappeared’ again.” She would later turn over copies of the e-mails to Newsweek magazine in compliance with the Whistleblower Protection Act. She has paid a heavy price for her stand against the government. As she told TomDispatch:

“I was forced out of my job at the Justice Department, fired from my subsequent private sector job [with the law firm of Hawkins, Delafield & Wood] at the government’s behest, placed under criminal investigations, referred to the state bars in which I’m licensed as an attorney, and put on the “no-fly” list. I have spent $100,000 defending against a criminal investigation that was dropped and a bar charge that was dismissed. The D.C. Bar Complaint is still pending after two years and despite the fact that I was elected to the D.C. Bar’s Legal Ethics Committee.”

Resigned, April 2002.

We’re there too.

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

Nonviolent climate action group was labeled terrorist by Maryland State Police spies

Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2008

Maryland State Police labeled members of the grassroots Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) group as terrorists and extremists after they held a nonviolent protest of then-Gov. Robert Ehrlich’s climate change policy.  This kind of authoritarian wrongdoing has been fostered by the mentality and actions of US government leaders in recent years and must be eradicated. We know CCAN director and book author Mike Tidwell and have talked with him several times on his radio and TV public affairs programs.

Post by Rick Piltz

The Washington Post reported on November 19:

Many Groups Spied Upon In Md. Were Nonviolent

…A review by The Washington Post of those and other files given in recent days to many of the 53 Maryland activists who were wrongly labeled as terrorists in state and federal databases shows an intelligence operation eager to collect information on the protest plans of a broad swath of nonviolent groups from 2005 to at least early 2007…

The individuals are listed under headings for “terrorism” with such labels as “anti-war protestors,” “threats,” “environmental extremists” and “anarchists,” although there is no explanation why any of the groups or individuals would be considered terror threats or extremist groups….

These police state-type activities in Maryland were reprehensible.  We believe they were fostered, at least indirectly, by the tone of authoritarianism and disregard for the rule of law that has too often characterized the highest level of US government in recent years.  This kind of wrongdoing must stop, and state and local officials who fail to get the message should be removed from their positions and subjected to penalties.

Mike Tidwell, executive director of CCAN has a good post on Grist about this episode.

Joe Romm posted on this on his indispensable Climate Progress blog.

Here are a few examples of CCAN’s “terrorist, extremist” actions:

Photos from a climate rally on Capitol Hill November 18 that was addressed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Maryland Activists Jump in Frozen Bay to “Keep Winter Cold!!”—Unusual Action Taken to Highlight MD Gov. Ehrlich’s Extreme Irresponsibility in Addressing Global Warming

ANNAPOLIS, MD – Global warming activists today jumped into the frigid Chesapeake Bay to call attention to MD Governor Bob Ehrlich’s failure to take steps to limit global warming pollution in the state. The first annual “Keep Winter Cold” Bay jump attracted some 15 plungers to the icy waters of the Chesapeake Bay at Sandy Point State Park in Annapolis. The not-quite-as-brave showed their support by waving signs that read “Ehrlich: Global Warming Hurts MD.”

Mike Tidwell, by the way, is also the author of a number of books, including the classic Bayou Farewell: The Rich Life and Tragic Death of Louisiana’s Cajun Coast.

And, most recently, The Ravaging Tide: Strange Weather, Future Katrinas, and the Coming Death of America’s Coastal Cities.

Mike is also a host of the excellent syndicated Coffee House TV program, and interviewed me in July 2005 on Bush administration political interference with federal climate science communication.

And I have talked with Mike a few times on his Earthbeat radio program, based at WPFW-FM (Pacifica) in Washington, DC, and now syndicated on 50 stations around the country. These programs are web-archived.  See our earlier posts:

November 11, 2008—Earthbeat interview:  Looking ahead on climate science integrity

June 4, 2006—NOAA, global warming, and hurricanes: CSW director interview

Critical analysis and public advocacy, yes.  Extremist?  I think not.

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

Henry Waxman, champion of science integrity on climate, to chair House Energy & Commerce Committee

Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2008

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has unseated Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as chair of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. We testified before Rep. Waxman in January 2007 when, as the new chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he devoted the committee’s first hearing of the year to the problem of political interference with federal climate scientists. In addition to his work on climate change and many other issues, under his chairmanship the committee advanced the most significant whistleblower rights legislation in U.S. history. See Details for our earlier posts relating to Mr. Waxman.

A selection of our earlier posts relating to Mr. Waxman and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee:

Bush administration censorship key issue in next Congress (November 18, 2006)

Nearly a year after NASA climatologist James Hansen accused federal officials of censoring his views on global warming, scientific freedom is shaping up as a key issue for the next Congress, Environment & Energy Daily reported in its #1 story on November 17.  We said to E&E Daily:  “Mr. Waxman and Mr. Gordon [incoming chairs of the House Government Reform and Science committees] have both been on the case, even as ranking members in the current Congress. I don’t think they’re going to be stonewalled without some kind of response.” We also expect legislation that would offer federal scientists improved whistleblower protections.

Climate Science Watch testimony at House Oversight Hearing (January 30, 2007)

Testimony of Rick Piltz, Director, Climate Science Watch, Government Accountability Project, Washington, DC, Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing on “Allegations of Political Interference With the Work of Government Climate Change Scientists.”

Major First Amendment groups condemn government censorship of science about global warming (February 12, 2007)

Nine prominent First Amendment organizations issued a statement warning of the consequences of suppression or distortion of information that is essential to sound public policy and government accountability and applauding the January 30 House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on political interference with federal climate scientists.  The statement was organized by the National Coalition Against Censorship.

House Committee set to approve landmark whistleblower rights legislation (February 12, 2007)

The Government Accountability Project (GAP) applauds the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for advancing the most significant whistleblower rights legislation in U.S. history.

House Committee Unanimously Approves Whistleblower Protections (February 16, 2007)

The Government Accountability Project has been working seven years for the reforms to overhaul the law protecting federal government whistleblowers approved by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee February 14.  The bill would extend anti-retaliation rights to those who call attention to the politicization of science by Administration officials.

House approves landmark whistleblower legislation with protection for scientific freedom (March 17, 2007)

The Government Accountability Project (GAP) hailed the March 14 House of Representatives floor vote approving H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, legislation that overhauls federal whistleblower law. Among its numerous provisions, the bill would create specific protection in the law for scientific freedom, making it an abuse of authority to censor, obstruct dissemination, or misrepresent the results of federal research. For the last seven years, GAP has led a campaign working toward this reform’s enactment. The margin of victory is large enough to overcome a veto threatened by the administration.

Cooney, Hansen, and Connaughton testify before House Oversight Committee (March 15, 2007 updated)

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), held a hearing on Monday, March 19, “To Examine Allegations of Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science (Part II).” White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair James Connaughton is scheduled to testify, along with former CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney, who resigned in June 2005.  Cooney, who until now has been entirely reticent about speaking publicly on his own behalf, will be making his first, very likely reluctant, Congressional appearance.  Also appearing will be leading federal climate scientist Jim Hansen, along the former staffer in the NASA public affairs office who foolishly tried to silence him(with spectacular lack of success).

House Oversight deadline for White House to release climate change documents (July 10, 2007)

In a bipartisan June 20 letter to White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairman James Connaughton, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-VA) set a firm deadline of June 27 for the White House to provide climate change documents that were requested eleven months ago. Despite numerous discussions and requests, CEQ has withheld more than 500 documents from the Committee. What do these documents contain? Who is responsible for CEQ’s stonewalling?

GAP to honor whistleblowers and defenders at 30th anniversary gala (September 25, 2007)

On September 26, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) will celebrate its 30th anniversary and recognize the vital importance of whistleblowing in society. At the event, guest-hosted by Erin Brockovich, GAP will honor several whistleblowers and congressional champions of government accountability, public safety, and whistleblower protections.  Among the honorees in attendance will be Rep. Henry Waxman, Chairman, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

House Oversight report on administration political interference with climate change science (December 10, 2007))

On December 10 the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), released a proposed report on the results of a 16-month investigation of allegations of political interference with government climate change science under the Bush Administration. The report draws on more than 27,000 pages of documents obtained by the Committee from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department. The report draws on and validates information we and others brought forward, and includes material that has not previously been published. On the corrupting influence of CEQ, we told Greenwire: “Everybody was complicit. Everybody knew what was going on, although nobody had the full story, because the tentacles of CEQ were out in so many different directions.”

House Oversight approves report on political interference with climate science communication (December 12, 2007)

On December 12 the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved a majority report that concludes that the Bush Administration politically interfered with climate change science communication and misled policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming. The Committee was divided. The Republican minority put forward a “Preliminary Minority Views” report that draws conclusions based on unquestioningly accepting at face value misleading statements by Phil Cooney and other current and former administration officials.

Waxman to EPA: Why is work on required greenhouse gas regulation being blocked? (March 12, 2008)

Since the Environmental Protection Agency informed the White House in December 2007 of its finding that carbon dioxide emissions are a danger to the United States and proposed significant cuts in motor vehicle emissions, the agency’s regulatory efforts have been halted. In a March 12 letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman cites information provided to the Committee by seven senior EPA officials on how a major effort to comply with the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA has beeen blocked.

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

Obama on climate change action: Delay no longer an option, denial no longer an acceptable response

Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2008

"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change,” President-elect Obama told the Bi-Partisan Governors Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles, California on November 18. “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”

Our November 17 post on the climate summit

Governors Global Climate Summit home page

Press release and full text of remarks

Video message to the Bi-Partisan Governors Global Climate Summit

President-elect Obama delivered a surprise message by video to the Bi-Partisan Governors Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles, California this morning.

The hosts of the Summit include Governors Rod Blagojevich (IL), Charlie Crist (FL), Jim Doyle (WI), Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA) and Kathleen Sebelius (KS) as well as representatives of approximately 22 other states; government officials from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Poland, the UK and others.

Excerpt from President-elect Obama’s remarks as delivered: 

Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. Weve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.

Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security….


Let me also say a special word to the delegates from around the world who will gather at Poland next month: your work is vital to the planet….And once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.

Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences, too serious….

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

CA Gov. Schwarzenegger to hold global climate summit:  How will it mesh with Obama’s climate agenda?

Posted on Monday, November 17, 2008

This week California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will be hosting at least four governors and government officials from China, India, Australia, Mexico, Canada and several other countries at a “Global Climate Summit” in Beverly Hills.  Will the outcome of this summit be helpful to President-elect Obama’s new climate change negotiating team (still to be named) moving forward to the December 2009 climate treaty talks in Copenhagen?  Will Obama send a transition team representative to monitor the proceedings?

Post by Anne Polansky

Early on in his administration, the Republican governor elevated climate change to a top priority, shepherded an aggressive climate bill into law, and has been tackling greenhouse gas emissions reductions and adaptation measures head on.  California’s efforts have been met by the Bush administration with passivity at best and obstruction at worst (e.g. the denial of a Clean Air Act waiver for California to impose stricter automobile emission standards).  Schwarzenegger has accused the Bush administration of being “asleep at the wheel” on climate change and is boldly moving forward on climate policy, with or without White House backing.  Before knowing whether McCain or Obama would prevail, he decided to assume a role usually reserved for the US President:  he has invited a host of international officials and all 50 state governors to consider post Kyoto-relevant climate solutions and to sign a declaration. 

The “Global Climate Summit” will take place Tuesday and Wednesday this week (November 18-19) at the Beverly Hills Hilton, a famous icon where the Golden Globe awards are held and US presidents going back to John F. Kennedy have organized major gatherings.  In other words, it is a high profile event. 

Out of the 50 invited, at least four other state governors plan to attend:

Charlie Crist, Florida
Jim Doyle, Wisconsin
Rod Blagojevich, Illinois
Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas

High-level government energy and environmental officials from a dozen or more nations will also attend, from “major emitter” countries such as China and India, as well as Australia, Mexico, Canada, Europe, Indonesia, Brazil, and so on.  For those who can’t attend, a live feed is being provided.

Several notable Clinton administration people will participate:  former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta, former EPA official (now director of CA Air Resources Board) Mary Nichols, and former Agriculture official Jim Lyons.

It is not as if the Governor of Delaware or Rhode Island is presuming to behave like a head of state:  California could easily be a nation all by itself.  It has a GDP of $1.8 trillion and is home to 37 million people; about the same as Poland or Kenya, and in the top fifth percentile in the world.  There are over 4 million people in the city of Los Angeles alone, about the same as in Norway, Costa Rica, or Ireland. 

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s sense of urgency in solving the climate crisis is understandable.  California is feeling the pain of climate disruption right now.  This week, out-of-control wildfires have destroyed over 34 square miles of land, leveled more than 800 homes (including apartments and mobile homes) and are still largely uncontrolled, worsened by unusually dry conditions producing an overabundance of fire fuel and spread quickly by the mighty Santa Ana winds.  The state is experiencing searing drought with no relief in sight; the Governor declared a statewide emergency in June 2008 and has put in place emergency measures to get water to the places it is needed most (see earlier post, here).  A multibillion dollar agriculture industry is at risk.  Moreover, the state has money troubles:  a $32 billion state budget deficit for FY 2009, the largest in the nation. 

It is difficult to tell how much importance or attention this event will receive among our neighbors around the world.  How might the meeting and its outcomes affect the upcoming climate discussions in Poznan, Poland next month, and the post-Kyoto negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009?  Hopefully, Schwarzenegger and the Obama transition team are making a positive connection.  In any case, it is time for the states, half of which now have climate action plans in place, and the new administration to show US solidarity on climate change and show the rest of the world that the US is now stepping up to the plate in good faith—something that is long overdue. 

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

“Bring on the Reality-Based Community”

“The truly poisonous legacy of the past eight years is one that spread to much of society and will therefore be much harder to undo: the utter contempt with which those in power viewed inconvenient facts, empiricism and science in general,” writes Sharon Begley in the November 17 Newsweek. “Look at how Bush justified inaction on greenhouse gases.” We talked about this problem with Newsweek for Begley’s August 2007 cover story, “Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine.”

Bring on the ‘Reality-Based Community’
Sharon Begley
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Nov 17, 2008

It took a while to discern the guiding ideology behind the Bush administration’s poisonous science policies….The truly poisonous legacy of the past eight years is one that spread to much of society and will therefore be much harder to undo: the utter contempt with which those in power viewed inconvenient facts, empiricism and science in general.

Look at how Bush justified inaction on greenhouse gases. Not by arguing that cuts would have cost too much, a stance that would at least have been intellectually honest, albeit debatable. Instead he had political appointees eviscerate scientific reports on climate change, censor climatologists and exaggerate scientific uncertainties, with the result that tens of millions of Americans think that the existence and cause of global warming are matters of opinion….

It turned out that the Bush administration had about as much respect for scientific facts as it did for facts about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As one official explained to author and journalist Ron Suskind in 2002, the administration had nothing but disdain for what it called “the reality-based community,” people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” That would be science. Instead, said the official, “we create our own reality."… The message that expertise and facts do not matter has had a poisonous effect…

In its August 13, 2007, issue Newsweek ran a 4,700-word cover story, ”Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine,” by Sharon Begley, which included this:

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless….

Killing bills in Congress was only one prong of the denial machine’s campaign.  It also had to keep public opinion from demanding action on greenhouse emissions, and that meant careful management of what federal scientists and officials wrote and said. “If they presented the science honestly, it would have brought public pressure for action,” says Rick Piltz, who joined the federal Climate Science Program in 1995.  Following the playbook laid out at the 1998 meeting at the American Petroleum Institute, [administration] officials made sure that every report and speech cast climate science as dodgy, uncertain, controversial—and therefore no basis for making policy.

We had first used the term “global warming denial machine” in an interview with Canadian TV’s the fifth estate, for their investigative documentary program “The Denial Machine,” which aired on CBC on November 15, 2006.) Webcast archived on CBC site.

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

Earthbeat interview:  Looking ahead on climate science integrity

Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2008

In an election day radio interview, CSW director Rick Piltz talked about climate science integrity issues and looked ahead to what’s needed from the next administration.  See Details for text of Q&A.

The Earthbeat program is based in Washington, DC, at WPFW-FM (Pacifica) radio and airs on 50 stations nationwide, from Anchorage to Austin and from Gainesville to Santa Cruz.  It is archived online at http://www.earthbeatradio.org.  Host Mike Tidwell also talked with Celia Wexler of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Climate Chaos author Dr. Cindy Parker of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress.  Our portion of the one-hour program runs for about the first 27 minutes and is archived online here.  A lightly edited excerpt from the Q&A follows.  The interview was conducted in the morning on November 4, election day, so we didn’t know for sure who would win:

Mike Tidwell:  On this issue of scientific clarity and openness in particular, what would the next president need to do – if you were advisors to the next president of the United States – what would you recommend he do to get us back on track to having a free flow of information?

Rick Piltz:  I think there are a number of things that we need from the next President, the next Administration.  For one thing, high-level leadership right from the President, because the President set the tone on this in the last Administration and now the new President needs to change the tone and convey to the federal science community, the agency political heads, and the public that we are now going to have a culture of openness of scientific communication. 

No Administration is beyond needing a watchdog.  Everybody needs a watchdog.  There are a lot of embedded problems in the culture of the federal agencies, in the public affairs offices of the agencies, of scientists who are gunshy and keeping their heads down.  We are going to need to really watchdog the kinds of recommendations that the Union of Concerned Scientists and our group are making to try to head off problems before it becomes necessary for people to think about having to become whistleblowers to have people pay attention to it:

MT:  Playing Devil’s Advocate for a second, how much does it really matter that the federal government is being candid, for example about the climate science?  How much does it really matter that they’re getting those studies out there and releasing press releases that get the media’s attention?  It’s not like there is a shortage of climate information absent the federal government – we’ve got the IPCC with all their reports – they won the Nobel Peace prize.  We’ve got Al Gore out there with his film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” We’ve got the media writing about it more than ever.  Do you think that the federal government’s dragging its feet in terms of the flow of information has been a serious part of America’s slowness to develop serious policies or has this just been – American culture is getting the information anyway and we just for whatever reason can’t get going and we shouldn’t blame the federal government. 

RP:  What we are talking about is a government political leadership that uses the evidence with integrity in dealing with the problem of global climate disruption at a policy level, at a management level.  And, right now, there’s been a disconnect for eight years between the evidence and the action.  Now, there are a lot of good things going on around the country at the state and local level and in communities, and in the development of new technologies and development of scientific understanding.  But I think we don’t have forever to get this problem dealt with and without a strong federal presence and leadership and resources we are not going to get there.  The grassroots actions don’t add up big enough, fast enough.  So we need to get the federal government to stop being AWOL in dealing with this problem and get engaged.

MT:  Let’s talk about a particular case that we might be able to highlight what has been happening and what a new administration might be able to do better on this issue.  California wants to regulate greenhouse emissions from cars, as does Massachusetts.  Massachusetts demands that the US government allow that, Massachusetts vs. US EPA goes to the Supreme Court.  US Supreme Court rules that in fact carbon dioxide is a legitimate pollutant under the Clean Air Act and therefore the EPA must produce a report that shows whether CO2 could be a threat to human and environmental health and if so it has to take appropriate steps.  What happened with that whole process?

RP:  With California asking for a Clean Air Act waiver to have stronger regulations of greenhouse emissions, the EPA refused to grant a waiver, under WH pressure, clearly.  They could reverse that decision pronto.  California and other states that opt to adopt the California model could go ahead with that regulation.  That should happen pretty quickly. 

EPA has been stonewalling in complying with the Supreme Court ruling that it determine whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger – it’s an endangerment finding – endanger public health or welfare – and if so they have to be regulated under the Clean Air Act.  And EPA senior experts put together a report with a finding that in fact greenhouse gases are an endangerment to public health and welfare.  The White House suppressed that report and wouldn’t allow EPA to act on it. And even when the science side of EPA came out with a report on climate change impacts on public health that had all the evidence in it that you would need to make an endangerment finding, they let that report go out and they just completely ignored it.

[Note:  On these items see our November 8 post:  Expected Obama early actions to reverse Bush on EPA greenhouse gas rules a first step]

MT:  I am wondering if it seems like there is a lot of Executive Branch control over the agencies’ ability to tell the truth.  Now you’ve got these federal agencies – they’ve got a lot of scientists – the best scientists in the world – whether it’s safety, the environment, you name it – are there.  But the administration, which is obviously politically motivated, has a certain matter of control.  Is it only Congress that can be the watchdog on that?  For example, if we had not had the Bush administration for eight years but a Democratic Congress, would we maybe have seen a better watchdog on this?  Or is it an inherent problem that the White House controls the agencies.

RP:  I think it is not a perfect situation under any administration – it did get a lot worse under the last administration.  For a number of years there was an almost complete collapse of Congressional oversight and investigation of what was happening – there was a collusion, there was a silence.  Much of what was previously the majority of Congress was aligned almost with the global warming disinformation campaign.  So yes, Congressional oversight

But the media as well.  The media for so long followed this sort of fake balance.  They covered science the way you cover political controversy. You have to have two sides of every discussion.  So they would have someone who represented the whole mainstream of the science community, but they would balance it with some political operative or contarian scientist on the other “side,” without looking into the merits of the thing.  For a long time, this helped suppress appropriate public understanding and awareness. 

Now the media have come a long way very well – what with the IPCC and Hurricane Katrina and people seeing through the administration and whistleblowers and a lot of things.  At this point now you don’t routinely see denialists quoted in every story, any more than you see Lyndon LaRouche quoted in every story on national politics in the Washington Post.  So there’s been some improvement, but there needs to be a watchdog on this process from different angles.

MT:  What is your prediction in terms of the recovery of scientific integrity within the federal government?

RP:  I think the next administration will almost inevitably be an improvement over the current administration on this.  Apart from whatever 10-point plans, cap and trade legislation, and diplomatic negotiations and so forth, you really need to look at:  Is this an administration where high officials will take the climate change problem seriously?  Will they use evidence with integrity?  Do they have a proactive, problem-solving, expansive conception of the role of government, for getting this problem dealt with?  Those are things you really want to look for.

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

NASA’s James Hansen, et al, on what’s needed to avoid a total ice-melt on Earth

Posted on Monday, November 10, 2008

An important scientific paper by James Hansen of NASA and colleagues, released last week, suggests that the world must organize around achieving a maximum atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 350 ppm to avoid crossing over into the climate conditions that existed millions of years ago when the Earth was ice-free (the current level has already risen to about 385 ppm).  An ice-free planet is nearly inconceivable:  sea level would rise nearly 200 feet and many ecological systems as we know them would no longer exist.  The article calls for nothing short of a Herculean effort, similar to the way the US rallied for World War II, with a grave warning that “the greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.”

Post by Anne Polansky

Lead author James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute and Columbia University was joined by nine other scientists from six other US and European research institutions including Yale and Boston University to publish “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” in The Open Atmospheric Science Journal .  The authors identify coal as the most essential fossil fuel to focus on, calling for a rapid phase-out of coal fired power plants unless and until the CO2 can be captured and stored (still a big “if"), along with altered forestry/agricultural practices to sequester CO2. 

It used to be that only white-coated lab scientists used “ppm” as part of their daily conversation— in mainstream America, a ppm (part per million) was as obscure as a Btu (British thermal unit).  Now, an entire sociopolitical movement is organizing around one concentration level:  350 ppm.  Author and activist Bill McKibben was one of the first, just a year or so ago, to break with the thinking that approaching 450 ppm of carbon dioxide from our current level of 385 ppm still left us in a relatively safe zone, but that levels of 500 and higher were too dangerous, could lead to “tipping points” and points of no return in terms of perturbing the global climate system in a way that threatened life on the planet.  Dr. Joe Romm of Climate Progress and others reacted skeptically to Hansen’s and McKibben’s 350 ppm stated goal, questioning whether the draconian 350 ppm target was necessary and/or even remotely achievable.  Meanwhile, grassroots organizations all over the world (such as those who have joined 350.org) are pushing hard for national and international reforms to draw down CO2 to reach the 350 mark, calling for nothing less than a fundamental change in the way the world does business, with our heavy reliance on coal, oil, and gas being the main root of the problem to be solved.  Such a revolutionary transformation would require a massive deployment of low- and zero-carbon energy sources on a timescale that makes even the most entrepreneurial, imaginative head spin. 

Thus, it is essential that we ask and answer:  Where is the scientific evidence backing the 350 target?  This paper represents some of the best thinking and analysis based on hard data, model runs, and the experience and wisdom of top researchers.  We will be watching with interest to see what sort of reception this paper will have among Hansen’s scientific colleagues and the NGO community. 

Unlike many peer-reviewed scientific papers, the abstract is written in plain English and is unmistakable in the gravity of the pending climate crisis and what we must do to avert it. 

Abstract:

Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ∼3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ∼6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO2 fell to 450 ± 100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

Here are some key excerpts with a few interspersed comments: 

>> We use paleoclimate data to show that long-term climate has high sensitivity to climate forcings and that the present global mean CO2, 385 ppm, is already in the dangerous zone.  Despite rapid current CO2 growth, ~2 ppm/year, we show that it is conceivable to reduce CO2 this century to less than the current amount, but only via prompt policy changes.

>>Human-made global climate forcings now prevail over natural forcings… Earth may have entered the Anthropocene era 6-8 ky [ky = kiloyears or 1000s of years] ago, but the net humanmade forcing was small ... prior to the industrial era. GHG forcing overwhelmed natural and negative human-made forcings only in the past quarter century… Human-made climate change is delayed by ocean....and ice sheet response times. Warming ‘in the pipeline,’ mostly attributable to slow feedbacks, is now about 2°C… No additional forcing is required to raise global temperature to at least the level of the Pliocene, 2-3 million years ago, a degree of warming that would surely yield ‘dangerous’ climate impacts.

>> Realization that today’s climate is far out of equilibrium with current climate forcings raises the specter of ‘tipping points’, the concept that climate can reach a point where, without additional forcing, rapid changes proceed practically out of our control....Arctic sea ice and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are examples of potential tipping points. Arctic sea ice loss is magnified by the positive feedback of increased absorption of sunlight as global warming initiates sea ice retreat… West Antarctic ice loss can be accelerated by several feedbacks, once ice loss is substantial… We define: (1) the tipping level, the global climate forcing that, if long maintained, gives rise to a specific consequence, and (2) the point of no return, a climate state beyond which the consequence is inevitable, even if climate forcings are reduced. A point of no return can be avoided, even if the tipping level is temporarily exceeded. Ocean and ice sheet inertia permit overshoot, provided the climate forcing is returned below the tipping level before initiating irreversible dynamic change.

>> Our estimated history of CO2 through the Cenozoic Era provides a sobering perspective for assessing an appropriate target for future CO2 levels. A CO2 amount of order 450 ppm or larger, if long maintained, would push Earth toward the ice-free state. Although ocean and ice sheet inertia limit then rate of climate change, such a CO2 level likely would cause the passing of climate tipping points and initiate dynamic responses that could be out of humanity’s control.  The climate system, because of its inertia, has not yet fully responded to the recent increase of human-made climate forcings… Yet climate impacts are already occurring that allow us to make an initial estimate for a target atmospheric CO2 level. No doubt the target will need to be adjusted as climate data and knowledge improve, but the urgency and difficulty of reducing the human-made forcing will be less, and more likely manageable, if excess forcing is limited soon.

>> Desire to reduce airborne CO2 raises the question of whether CO2 could be drawn from the air artificially. There are no large-scale technologies for CO2 air capture now, but with strong research and development support and industrial scale pilot projects sustained over decades it may be possible to achieve costs ~$200/tC or perhaps less.... At $200/tC, the cost of removing 50 ppm of CO2 is ~$20 trillion. 

CSW Comment:  This statement, while it is not substantiated well enough to be taken at face value, is an important one for policymakers to take in, especially those who are holding out for a wham-bam technological fix at some undefined future moment ~~ Hansen is saying that even if we were to develop an artificial means of sequestration, it would probably be prohibitively expensive, much more so than relying on more natural, inexpensive means sooner. 

>> A rising price on carbon emissions and payment for carbon sequestration is surely needed to make drawdown of airborne CO2 a reality. A 50 ppm drawdown via agricultural and forestry practices seems plausible. But if most of the CO2 in coal is put into the air, no such “natural” drawdown of CO2 to 350 ppm is feasible. Indeed, if the world continues on a business-as-usual path for even another decade without initiating phase-out of unconstrained coal use, prospects for avoiding a dangerously large, extended overshoot of the 350 ppm level will be dim.

CSW comment, echoing a Joe Romm truism: “The time to act is yesterday.”

>> “… [I]t appears still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change.... Present policies, with continued construction of coalfired power plants without CO2 capture, suggest that decision-makers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation.… We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects....  The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is Herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II.  The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.”

What Hansen et al quite clearly present is a moral argument for a much closer examination by world, national, state, and local leaders of the scientific underpinnings behind an unprecedented transformation of all of human society.  What Hansen does not do in this piece is to make the argument for a campaign to prepare ourselves for a set of inevitable impacts:  droughts, floods, sea level rise, more frequent and intense storms and hurricanes, species extinction, and so on.  We would argue that a strong emphasis on preparedness for climatic disruption is the writing between the lines on this paper that should be taken just as seriously as the call to swift and strong action to slash CO2 emissions.  This is the essential point of our Climate Change Preparedness Initiative and upcoming recommendations to the Obama/Biden administration. 

Hansen’s co-authors include: 

Makiko Sato—NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, NY
Pushker Kharecha - NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, NY
David Beerling--Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Berner-- Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University
Valerie Masson-Delmotte - Universite de Versailles
Mark Pagani—Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University
Maureen Raymo—Department of Earth Sciences, Boston University
Dana L. Royer—Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University
James C. Zachos —Earth & Planetary Sciences Dept., University of California, Santa Cruz

Yale’s press release, here.

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

Obama: “I will never sanction any attempt to subvert the work of scientists.”

Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2008

In an October 20 letter to the President of the American Federation of Government Employees, Barack Obama said: “In an Obama Administration, the principle of scientific integrity will be absolute.  I will never sanction any attempt to subvert the work of scientists.” We don’t recall President Bush making such a statement.  The letter discussed the importance of the Environmental Protection Agency in an Obama administration.

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

Expected Obama early actions to reverse Bush on EPA greenhouse gas rules a first step

Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2008

The Washington Post reports on November 9 that the Obama transition is already “positioned to quickly reverse Bush actions” that have blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from reaching an “endangerment” finding that would trigger regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and from granting California the necessary waiver to allow state regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.  A proposed new White House council to coordinate climate policy could be a first step toward a federal preparedness process for climate change mitigation and adaptation, but only if its scope is broader than an exclusive focus on energy.

In “Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions,” the Washington Post says:

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team….

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration’s decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles….

Also:

Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.…an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice….

On the EPA “endangerment” finding called for by the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, see our earlier posts:

July 20: EPA report on climate change health & welfare impacts: Interview comments on Free Speech Radio News

July 17: EPA releases report identifying harmful effects of climate change on human health

May 29:  Government report provides strong evidence U.S. endangered by climate change impacts

March 12: Waxman to EPA: Why is work on required greenhouse gas regulation being blocked?

And:

A book titled “Change for America,” being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend…that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change….The center’s influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort…

See our November 7 post, “President-elect Obama will need top climate and energy advice in the White House.” We said: A “Climate Change Preparedness Council” (our suggested name)—or a “National Energy and Climate Council” in the White House (recently proposed by Clean Air-Cool Planet and others) will be essential (but not sufficient!) for carrying out the strong leadership the nation and the world need.

Creation of a White House entity to coordinate the new administration’s climate change policymaking will be a first step.  Beyond that, we need to develop an institutional capability for a broader national climate change preparedness process to deal with both mitigation and adaptation issues.  In “Beyond the Phony ‘Debate’: Government Science and the Climate Crisis,” a July 11 talk at the Center for Science and the Public Interest’s national conference on Rejuvenating Public Sector Science, CSW director Rick Piltz said:

The next President and Congress, I think, need to undertake a national climate change preparedness process, to put the federal government and the federal climate and global change research program in play in getting the country on a footing to manage our response to climate change—which we will be doing pretty much indefinitely now – as a problem of scientific intelligence gathering, risk assessment, and risk management.

In the future, if we are at a point where society has put in place the structure and processes needed to deal with climate change as a management problem, we will have a government entity – an independent entity, not just a direct political extension of the White House – staffed with the relevant scientific, technical, and professional expertise, that will, for example:

o Commission focused scientific assessments that are needed for policymaking and decisionmaking at all levels of government;
o Put out a steady stream of credible public communication that diagnoses and talks about the problems and how we’re handling them; and
o Put together the relevant scientific and technical expertise, with full federal support, to work with public officials down to the state and local level and in the private sector – those who have the practical responsibility for implementing emissions reductions and adaptation to climate change.

Whatever comes out of the post-Kyoto Protocol negotiating process, and whatever comes out of Congress on cap and trade legislation, there is going to be a host of practical implementation issues that will require a long-term response. And right now, the federal government is just absolutely not positioned to address that problem effectively.

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

“One minute elevator speech” on climate policy to President-elect Obama

Gristmill, the environmental news blog, asked us and several others to imagine we found ourselves in an elevator with the President-elect, giving us one minute of his undivided attention on how he should approach environment, energy, and climate policy.  We said, “Mr. President-elect…

Post by Rick Piltz

“Mr. President-elect, I believe global climatic disruption poses two unprecedented challenges. We must dramatically cut emissions, and we have to prepare for potentially disastrous impacts that are already underway and are projected to intensify in the future. Mobilizing the country to take effective action will require great leadership from your administration and a restoration of integrity in dealing with the findings communicated by the science community. Only when the leadership communicates a clear understanding of the potential dangers will Americans support policies that will adequately reduce emissions and the actions needed to prepare for likely impacts. Couple this with putting in place an ongoing nationwide process to further assess the likely consequences of climate change and opportunities to reduce emissions, and incorporate this knowledge into all relevant spheres of activity. This process should engage citizens all across the country.”

See here for thoughtful comments by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Yale University Dean Gus Speth, author Bill McKibben, and several others. 

E-mail to Someone a Link to this Article

Page 1 of 31 pages for this article  1 2 3 >  Last »