Part three of the American Policy portion of the Climate Change Policy Series: Act America, act now, sooner than later. Climate change inaction stands to cost Americans trillions of dollars due to loss of biodiversity, economic spillovers, national security, and migration. The bottom line: mitigating climate change now and swiftly will save Americans more money than inaction or slow action.

Unfortunately, many of today's American policy makers misuse climate models for short term gain. These models should be taken with a grain of salt; they are educated predictions of the future that leave out major considerations. One consideration, National Security, has the potential to be the largest US climate change cost. In 2008, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) reported climate change effects on national security, using input from all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, it concluded that "Climate change could destabilize fragile political regimes, exacerbate conflicts over scarce resources, increase the threat of terrorism, disrupt trade, and produce millions of refugees, all of which would seriously affect U.S. national security" (US NIC, 2008).

Weakened Allies means a weakened United States: climate change effects of flooding and water scarcity will begin a chain reaction of events leading to conflicts that threaten US Allies. "In especially hard hit nations, deteriorating economic conditions could lead to the fall of governments, creating, at worst, safe havens and, at best, fertile recruitment grounds for terrorist groups" (US NIC, 2008). One example is Bangladesh, an unstable region known for its growing number of terrorist acts and presence of Islamic extremism (Freeman & Guzman, 2009). One fifth of Bangladesh is expected to flood out due to glacial melt, displacing a portion of the expected 242M inhabitants. Economic turmoil and political upheaval would threaten African allies like Nigeria, which imports one-fifth of US oil (Mouawad, 2007). Like all African nations it is dependent on agriculture, which will be devastated by climate change and drought. Sixty percent of Nigerians work in agriculture; their unemployment would trigger migration to urban centers and stress a country with a history of political turmoil. Similar water woes are shared between N. Africa and the adjacent Middle East; the region only has 1.4% of the world's renewable fresh water and 6.3% of its population (Rausser & Small, 2000).

Middle East conflicts represent a calamitous price for national security. The direct cost of the Iraq war was $657M, as of 2008 (Congressional Research Service, 2008). The Iraq and Afghanistan wars will cost the US $3T (Stiglitz & BILMES, 2008), considering indirect costs such as care for injured veterans. If US investments in climate change mitigation would result in avoiding conflicts (like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) once every 25 years, the US would save 1% of annual GDP (Freeman & Guzman, 2009).

The bottom line: mitigating climate change for protecting US National Security alone could save trillions. The sooner, the cheaper; the best defense is a strong offense. Continuing the American Policy portion of the Climate Change Policy Series, the next post will cover Migration (Freeman & Guzman, 2009).

A majority of American policy makers believe waiting 6 - 20 years and gradually mitigating climate change is the best way for America to act. Self proclaimed pragmatists, their argument goes something like this: to sign on with current climate change mitigation plans would require replacing functioning equipment prematurely at an ineffective cost. We should instead wait until equipment needs replacement- because emitting a ton of carbon in the atmosphere now is the same as emitting it 20 years later- we should wait to act. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong.

Reason #1 To Act Sooner: A ton of carbon in the atmosphere now is not the same as a ton of carbon later on. Currently, the atmosphere has 380ppm of CO2e in the atmosphere; we will reach 550ppm by 2050 (IPCC, 2007). An increase of 380ppm to 381ppm isn't alarming. An increase from 550ppm to 551 and you start to play dice with the planet. Many American politicians don't address this "fat tail" problem: events that are low probability, highly catastrophic. Even if we become carbon neutral at 550ppm, there's a 4.2% probability of reaching an 8°C rise in temperature (Stern, 2008); to date, no politician has mentioned such probabilities in the States.

Reason #2: The studies are overly optimistic. Prominent economic studies have consistently used the low-temperature change scenario (2-3°C) as a basis for much of their analyses. American politicians also miss the fine print in climate and economic papers that point out the studies' inherit flaws: models created out of incomplete data sets and considerations too hard to quantify (so they are left out of the analysis). Considerations left out would include spillover effects, loss in biodiversity, and national security, "Although such costs are hard to quantify, the difficulty of quantification is not a reason to count them as zero" (Freeman & Guzman, 2009). Also as common practice, scientists admit to reporting conservative estimates. Understandably so in situations like the IPCC FAR report (2007) which required 2,800 reviewers to agree.

Reason #3: The science changes quicker than the presses. Many of scientists' predictions on the effects of climate change are increasing their rate to materialize. As soon as a paper is published, the game has already changed. For example, arctic ice is retreating much more rapidly and the arctic will be seasonally ice-free 30 years sooner than expected (Freeman & Guzman, 2009). Similarly, the arctic permafrost (arctic frozen dirt) is melting much faster and may release a catastrophic amount of methane. Melting ice and permafrost would add to sea level rise which is now projected to "substantially exceed" 2 feet than previously reported (Sciencedaily, 2008).

American politicians that are not climate change illiterate can be accused of being climate change underachievers. Climate Change is the subject and the majority of politicians who are slow to realize solutions receive a failing grade. In my next post, I continue the Climate Change Policy Series, to show America should act now because it will be cheaper!

It is a growing concern that the world will have to move on without the US in trying to reach a climate change agreement to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol. Many blame US inaction on a regrettable majority of Americans being climate change illiterate. Culpability lies within a range of reasons from big business lobbying against climate change legislation, the current economic fiasco, and a general lack of understanding of climate change for the average American. Even in California conversations regarding climate change are light and uninformed/misinformed when compared to Europe and the rest of the world. Not only is it a problem that there is little understanding and support; there is unfortunately opposition to protect our planet.

If $16M was all that was needed for seven years, imagine what three times that amount would do over 3 months. Recently, the BBC has reported that the oil, gas, and coal industry have spent $44.5M in the first three months of 2009 to attack the Obama administration's climate bill. Over this year, spending on climate change confusion will amount to $1 billion. (Imagine what good $1B could have done if invested in climate change mitigation.)

For a country that elected George W. Bush twice, retribution is around the corner for electing Obama. It is time to back up the dreams with action. It is time to turn hope into reality. In the quagmire of American politics there appears to be a shift away from climate change inaction to gradual mitigation. As I will demonstrate in my next posts for American policy (as part of the Climate Change Policy Series) swift action will be the cheapest solution and most attractive to the bottom line.

A conversation about climate change is a conversation about carbon emissions is a conversation about energy use: production, efficiency, and research. Abysmally, since the 1980s when the first oil crisis resulted in cheap prices, research funding for alternative energy has never been lower, since then funding has been overall reduced by at least half. If Lord Stern's prescription is to be followed, a flow of funding needs to be initiated.

One percent of global GDP is needed if we act now to stabilize at 550ppm of CO2e by 2050 (Stern Review). Some countries contribute more than others to global GDP, but it also means that they produce more carbon emissions. A quick breakdown of global GDP as of 2008: US 23%, China 7%, European Union 30%, Latin America 4%, Japan 8%, India 2%, all other countries 26%. The 2008 global GDP was $61 trillion, a 1% GDP suggests an annual spending of $610 billion. Breaking that down per country equates into the US spending $140 billion, China $43B, European Union $183B, Japan $49B, India $12B, and all other countries $158B, annually. Clearly, the US and the EU are most responsible for climate change, but right now everyone's strapped for cash.

With the current economic downturn it has been put into question where all this money will come from. Recent comments from US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called for more spending by Asian countries stating that: ""Asia appears to be leading the global recovery.... Recent data from the region suggest that a strong rebound is, in fact, under way." Bernanke continues to further the idea that consumption will get us out of the economic hole. But consumption is what got us to our currently mountainous levels of emissions causing climate change.

In a previous post I outlined green consumerism as a viable solution to climate change. Although energy efficient consumption is the first step to a global solution, the bigger picture always has renewable energy in the center. Unfortunately every renewable energy source in the world must be subsidized. It is necessary to have government sponsorship, tax breaks, grants, and incentives because in a free market fossil fuels would win- fossil fuels are simply too cheap. It is imperative that there be a price set per ton of carbon emissions.

If Asia is to lead the economic recovery, consumption might not be the best way to go. A more appropriate response by Asia would be to invest (which would follow cultural norms of saving) and invest into renewable energy technology and emerging companies. While it is a moot point to discuss what could have been had the world invested more into renewable energy thirty years ago, it is clear investments should increase now. A boom in the renewable energy sector would be a boom in the economy. Green energy makes for a greener economy, pun intended.

Energy is synonymous with wealth. The more energy a country uses, the wealthier a country has to be. More energy use means more carbon emissions (leading to global warming), but it also means more economic growth: food, goods, and jobs. Few countries stand to grow in the next few decades as much as India.

Energy is tied to growth. Ten years ago 1 billion Indians lacked access to electricity, now it is closer to 400 million. India's energy consumption is growing. A fight for more energy use is a fight against poverty; energy increases will produce more food, transport more kids to schools, transport more people to work, and transport more food to markets. Yet, as of 2003, India's power usage was 70% from coal- the greatest polluting fuel we have to burn.

Energy in India is inherently tied to coal. Asking India not to delve into their vast coal supply is asking India not to fight poverty. As of January 4, 2009 there remained 267 billion tons of coal within India's borders. That resource could power 78 billion US households in one year. However, India cannot go blindly following the path of developed countries. It has a unique opportunity for sustainable growth that isn't curtailed by an out of date infrastructure- a roadblock to other nations trying convert to renewable energy.

Energy in India has a unique opportunity to grow a sustainable, clean economy. Necessarily, India needs capital that it cannot readily acquire through its own industries. Due to unreliable supplies of energy and power outages many Indian industries generate electricity using their own diesel-powered turbines, thus placing economies of scale out of reach. There is little capital to improve infrastructure of railways needed for transport of coal. Similarly, there is little capital to supply improved clean-coal technologies. Hope comes in the involvement of foreign countries and organizations that see India's need and its vast potential. Outside parties could provide investments and provide patents of green technology to speed up the pace of India's cleaner future.

Clean energy for the world and for India. In a world where countries are deeply interconnected with one another, mutual benefits arise from common goals. India's clean future is the world's clean future. Increased involvement and funding from the World Bank or the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) could provide the capital necessary to improve railway infrastructure. Transportation efficiency would lead to relevant amounts of coal supplied to hungry industries; a jumpstart in infrastructure would ignite struggling economy. In the short and medium-term, coal will have to fuel ailing industries. India will need the help of more developed nations with access to advanced technology and patents to burn cleaner coal. Then and only then, when India can have a foothold on its economy and therefore poverty, can it invest into more expensive, more clean technologies such as wind and solar.

Sixty Percent: Industry produces 14% of the world's carbon emissions, Agriculture emits 14%, Transportation emits 14%, and Land use accounts for 18% (Stern, 2008). The study was a conservative analysis- I've been in lectures where Industry alone was closer to 40%. If Industry and Transportation emissions were to become carbon neutral using the technology we hope to someday have, Agriculture (farming) and Land use (deforestation) would still remain formidable. What do industry, transportation, agriculture, and land use all have in common? Biofuels- a solution for carbon emissions and climate change.

Annually, the United States consumes 137 billion gallons of fossil fuel. Ethanol (the largest share of the biofuel market) is limited to only 10% of that 137 billion because it is simply mixed in with regular fossil fuel. Beyond 10% in mixture car makers begin to get nervous what the increase in ethanol will do to engine components. The increase potential for biofuel use is substantial, but likely to remain untapped without a competitive price on carbon emissions to take away the home court advantage of King Coal and Big Oil. Like all renewables, government policy had to mandate fuel goals in order to create market penetration. The US government has decided that by 2020 there must be 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuel in use, which consequently has stimulated a $3 billion biofuel production industry.

Manufacturers stand to gain some of these funds if they can demonstrate appropriate plans for an environmentally friendly production line. Instead of fossil fuels to churn their turbines they could use one of the five sources of biofuel: perennial plants grown on degraded lands abandoned from agricultural use; crop residues; sustainably harvested wood and forest residues; double crops and mixed cropping systems; municipal and industrial wastes (Tilman et. al, 2008). To prove their environmental efficiency, companies will need a life cycle assessment focused on 8 criteria: global warming potential; ozone depletion; emissions of chemicals leading to acid rain; production of chemical runoff; depletion of nonrenewable mineral resources; use of renewable resources; smog creation; toxicity (International Organization for Standardization). Some could also benefit from a certification that adopts the "cradle to cradle" philosophy, eliminating toxins completely.

It is important to ensure that governments and businesses balance what Tilman calls the Biofuel Trilemma: Environment, Energy, and Food, using their life cycle assessments as a guide. For example, land that can be cleared cheaply to create room for feedstock could produce carbon in the form of the decaying plants left in the soil, thus negating any emissions benefits. It is equally important that there be no food shortages due to farming's diverted focus on energy crops taking away land for food production. If planned correctly, biofuel is by wide margins the most carbon neutral, environmentally positive, and entirely sustainable solution we could ever hope for against climate change.

Studies have proved that the ocean can store more energy and during tropical storms, this energy gets converted into wind power. If the sea surface temperature continues to increase at the same pace, future cyclones will occur with a higher wind speed causing more destruction. Experts believe that even though global warming does not guarantee cyclones every year, its intensity will certainly increase in the long run.

Some climate scientists are of view that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a decade long natural ocean temperature variation is the cause behind the increase of tropical cyclones. But they are not ruling out the role of global warming to the rise in SST (sea surface temperature) because a warmer sea surface will have more humidity, which is fuel for hurricanes.

There is no uniformity in oceans getting warmer across the globe but the Caribbean and Mid Atlantic oceans are worst hit due to global warming. Almost 30 years ago, the vapor levels were not this high in the Atlantic hurricane zone. Today, the vapor level has increased 15 percent on average and this can cause more hurricanes of Category 4 and 5. Global warming emissions stay in the atmosphere for centuries or even decades, making it essential for us to choose clean energy sources for a safe and healthy environment.]]>