Brian Kahn's posts on Justmeans

Climate Politics: Canadian Edition

Brian Kahn — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:00:03 GMT

I've recently devoted more than a few words to describing Republicans' dishonesty about climate change. That's only sure to ramp up as the 2012 election approaches.But just to the north of the U.S., there's an election less than a week away. And whether you're a Canadian voting in the election, a U.S. citizen curious about what views are beyond our binary system, or someone that cares about climate change, how it all shakes out matters.A recent poll showed that Canadians on the whole are much more accepting of climate change compared to Americans. But that doesn't mean their political parties place equal emphasis on taking steps to address it. Discover the climate change politics in our neighbor to the north.ConservativesHow would the Conservative Party in Canada stack up against Republicans in the U.S. when it comes to climate change? They'd seem downright liberal! Well, sort of.Canada's Conservative Party actually mentions climate change in their party platform six times. However, their platform is low on specific policies and successes.Why? Because what the Conservative Party doesn't want to remind Canadians of is how the Conservative-dominated Senate killed Canada's climate bill in November 2010. This is a bigger deal than many Americans might think because in Canada the Senate is appointed by the governor general based on advice from the Prime Minister, not elected by the people.Generally it rubber stamps whatever the House of Commons, which is elected, passes. In the case of the climate bill, though, Conservative Senators pulled a very sneaky maneuver to block the bill, already passed by the House, which would've required Canada to reduce emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. So not so liberal after all.LiberalsIs climate change an economic issue? That's how Liberals see it. In their platform, it's all about the loonies, baby.The Liberal platform points to a successful carbon tax in British Columbia as proof the economy won't crater if steps are taken to put a price on carbon. It also highlights four Canadian provinces that have partnered with seven U.S. states to start a regional cap and trade system by 2015.In addition, the platform also includes a number of economic incentives to reduce energy including credits for increasing efficiency, renewables and reducing usage.On the downside, they also talk about promoting clean tar sands. Let's be clear: clean tar sands are as real as the tooth fairy. But tar sands do make up an important piece of the Canadian economy so it makes sense that they have a place in the platform even if it is a pipe dream.National Democratic PartyThe National Democratic Party (NDP) is the most left-leaning of Canada's political parties. It was one of their Members of Parliament (or Congressmen in Americanspeak) who introduced the climate bill in the House of Commons that the Senate subsequently killed. Not surprisingly, the NDP platform advocates for those same emissions reductions.The NDP also promotes better public transit as one avenue to address climate change. It's a thought that doesn't show up much in the U.S. or international negotiations, but one well worth exploring.Bloc QuebecoisIs there a regional party that plays such a large role nationally anywhere else in the world? Not to my knowledge (but please feel free to chime in). Though the Bloc Quebecois never run candidates outside of Quebec, they're such a force in the province that they have a significant number of seats in the House so their position matters.Given their territorial leanings, it's not surprising that they prefer a territorial approach to climate change using a cap and trade system. They also have two other policy ideas to support consumers. One is a credit for people who buy cars that pollute less. The other is even more progressive: they propose carbon labeling for all products. Similar to nutrition labeling, the idea is to help consumers make informed choices.The three non-Conservative parties all offer some innovative policy solutions. However, will any win a majority to try and implement them? As of now, the answer appears to be no. While the NDP is making gains, they are unlikely to gain enough seats to become the majority.What seems most likely is Canada will continue to govern in a minority government. That means no party has a plurality of the seats in the House of Commons. While the party with the most seats holds nominally more control, all will ultimately have to work together to reach compromises.Given the gains of the NDP, though, it seems possible that if they joined forces with the Liberals, they would have enough seats to be a real force. That means even if Conservatives hold that nominal majority, they'll likely have to face the music (and will of the people) and work to make sure Canada is ready to fully address climate change.Special thanks to Cynthia Thomson, my Canadian colleague and French translator extraordinaire.Photo credit:palindrome6996/flickr

New Poll Pits Canadian Against American Perceptions of Climate Change

Brian Kahn — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:02:37 GMT

America versus Canada might conjure up images of hockey. However, the Brookings Institution put out a new study that looks not at hockey but perceptions of climate change. The findings show that there are some key similarities and differences between the two countries' citizens.The report, released earlier this month, summarizes the results of polls taken in both countries. Overall, results shows Canadians are more accepting of the science of climate change than Americans by a long shot.The ResultsEighty percent of Canadians accept that the globe is warming while only 58 percent of Americans do. Conversely, the percent of Americans who don't believe the globe is warming is nearly double that of Canadians.In both countries, political affiliation plays a role in determining views on climate change. Conservatives were much less likely to accept the reality of a warming world. However, the differences are much more dramatic in the U.S. with Republicans significantly less likely to think climate change is occurring.What's interesting, though, is how liberals in each country compare. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats in the U.S. are on board with climate science. But in contrast, around 90 percent of the members of Canada's four more liberal parties* are. U.S. Democrats are actually more on par with Canada's Conservatives, 64 percent of whom accept the reality of climate change.Which of these groups is closest to the people who know the most about climate change i.e. climate scientists? It turns out liberal Canadians. A 2010 report showed that 98 percent of climate scientists accept the evidence that humans are causing climate change.So how do 42 percent of Americans manage to justify such a high level of disagreement with the experts? By believing scientists are overstating the case of climate change of course. Currently, about half of the American public believes scientists are masters of embellishment. In comparison, only about a third of Canadians subscribe to this view.All of this leads to some perhaps unsurprising answers on how much each group of citizens is willing to spend to mitigate climate change. Nearly 60 percent of Canadians were willing to pay up to $50 a month for cap and trade while only 18 percent of Americans were.So What?The survey is the first of its kind to do a cross-country comparison between the US and Canada. It reveals some pretty stark differences when it comes to accepting that climate change is happening. What might the cause for difference?I spoke with a colleague who is a citizen in both countries. Her take? The difference in media between each country is a major factor. In the US, opinion often passes as fact, particularly in the case of Fox News. In contrast, Canada recently decided not to let Fox News set up shop in part because in Canada there are pretty stringent laws about actually telling the truth if you're a news channel. Surprisingly, Fox didn't pass this litmus test.Unfortunately for the U.S., that means Americans are exposed to a lot more opinion about climate change than their Canadian counterparts. The result of this is clear in the poll results.The other big difference between the two countries is the role of special interest money. The influence of the billionaire Koch brothers in proliferating climate denial in the US has been well documented. They've recently set up shop in Canada, too, but they're far behind the curve in comparison to the work they've done in the US.This isn't to say that Canada is a bastion of progressive climate change action. Tar sands are being extracted at ever-increasing rates. Canada also owns the dismal title of biggest emitter per capita.And despite having an informed and willing citizenry, Canada shares an unfortunate similarity with the U.S.: a lack of political effort to address climate change. The Canadian Senate killed a climate bill last year under very contentious circumstances. Perhaps they were following the lead of the U.S. Senate, where a climate bill also died earlier last year.Canada also happens to be holding elections on May 2. Yet the leaders of all the parties have been distinctly quiet about addressing climate change. Ditto for Barack Obama in the U.S., who only mentioned climate change four times in his energy speech a few weeks ago.If there's one silver lining in this scenario, it's that young people in both countries care far more about climate change than older generations. As they become a larger part of the voting public, it will hopefully translate into a political system more proactive about climate change.*For American readers unfamiliar with Canada's political system, there are five major parties. Or four if you were watching the Leader's Debate last night (which is comparable to presidential debates in the US). For readers looking to better understand the Canadian political system, the Wikipedia page on Canadian politics is pretty solid. The Awl also recently published an interesting piece on the current state of Canadian politics and the recent string of minority governments.Photo credit: scazon/flickr

House Republicans and the Never-Ending Stream of Climate Nonsense

Brian Kahn — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:08:43 GMT

Lately, Republicans in the House of Representatives have been derided for their attitudes for climate change here. This is not because of any political ill will but because of their ignorance that is absolutely appalling. It brings me no pleasure to write about people who earn $174,000 a year to be informed decision makers being anything but. But in the interest of shedding light on what goes on on Capitol Hill, here's the latest installment.Today the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology held climate science hearings. The committee brought together a panel to discuss what the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas regulations would mean to the economy and if they were even warranted.One of those scientists was Richard Muller, a physicist from the University of California-Berkeley. Climate deniers have often championed his work because of he's criticized of the temperature records used to show the globe is warming. He recently started reviewing the different temperature datasets, using new methods to pinpoint more exact temperature trends over land.He presented his preliminary findings at the hearing, and they probably weren't what Republican lawmakers were hoping for. They showed the datasets tightly correlated with each other. What's more, each one shows a distinct warming trend. In his testimony he said: "We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups ased on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought." (emphasis added)The datasets Muller tested include one from the Climate Research Unit, which was at the center of the Climategate non-controversy. Could Climategate finally be retired?Of course not. Despite the evidence, Republicans and one of their witnesses, State Climatologist of Alabama John Christy, repeatedly went back to Climategate throughout the hearing. It became so ridiculous that Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) at one point irately pointed out the seven reports that have exonerated the scientists, saying, "we have to get off of this."Unfortunately, Climategate is one of two major Republican talking points so we'll likely be subjected to it for quite awhile.The other big non-issue Republicans consistently brought up is a Time magazine cover from the 1970s with a headline about global cooling. Yes, one of the US's major political parties is using a magazine cover as proof climate scientists don't know what they're talking about. Unfortunately for Republicans, this claim is also patently false.Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the scientists that testified today, called this argument out. In the 1970s, there was no consensus on global cooling at all. Rather, the media built a story around a small set of scientists' work. A 2008 article published by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society shows this in a crystal clear graph showing academic papers from 1965 to 1979 that predict warming, cooling, or neutral temperatures in the near future.But why let facts get in the way? Republicans cited it again and again. Rep. Morris Brooks (R-AL) even pulled up the cover image on his phone during the hearing.At least the voice of reason showed up at a few points in the hearing. Emanuel had the quote of the day. His work primarily focuses on hurricanes and climate change. During the hearing, he railed against politicians lionizing researchers like Christy: "politicians who make mascots out of mavericks are invariably engaging in advocacy."No Republican had a good answer, though Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) got sufficiently flustered about it. And the reason they had no good answers is that that's what the Republican argument against climate change has been reduced to: a few discredited talking points and a mascot who will preach the party line and conspiracy theories.The lasting irony of Emanuel pointing this out is his politics: he's a Republican. Unfortunately, his fellow Republicans in the room today didn't share his views or intellectual curiosity.Photo credit: Travis S./flickr

Earth Hour: Still Not the Right Approach to Climate Change and Development

Brian Kahn — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:35:17 GMT

Last year, I wrote an article coming out against Earth Hour, pegging it as a regressive way of showing your support for climate change action. A year later, have my feelings changed about Earth Hour? Yes and no.First, the progress. Flipping through Twitter, I saw that World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the creator of Earth Hour, was asking people to retweet a message about the event. The message? That 1.3 billion people voluntarily took place in Earth Hour last year.That's an amazing number, if slightly hard to fully quantify. (At this time, my email to WWF about the origins of the number remains unanswered.) The other numbers provided by WWF about Earth Hour are staggering as well: this year, 1551 monuments will be dimmed, and no less than 4616 cities are participating in some way across 128 countries.The other good news is that WWF is thinking beyond Earth Hour this year. Participating individuals and organizations are being encouraged to share their commitments to continue the good work they've started.For example, the Nepalese government has committed to ending logging in the Churia Hills to allow ecosystems and watersheds to recover. In Hawaii, Jen Metz, a conservation worker, has committed to living for a year without generating any trash. In Twitter message, she explained that she wanted to "change [her] personal habits when my island made plans to ship excess trash away."This momentum is good and a welcome change to previous Earth Hours, which provided relatively little guidance after the big event. If people believe their individual actions matter, they'll be more likely to follow through on them when it comes to climate change.Still, Earth Hour feels hollow. Why? Because for all the feel good vibes, it reeks of environmentalism delivered from a top down, developed world perspective.According to the Earth Hour website, one of the highlights of the event is that "people transcend race, religion, culture, society, generation and geography, switching off their lights in a global celebration of their commitment to protect the one thing that unites us all - the planet."Sounds nice in theory. But there's a poignant reality that contrasts quite sharply with the 1.3 billion participants of Earth Hour: the over 1.6 billion people who involuntarily participate in Earth Hour every day because they don't have access to electricity. But even those numbers pale in comparison to the 3 billion people who rely on traditional biomass such as wood for cooking, heating, and light according to the United Nations.If you care about the planet, then you have to care about the people you share it with. And Earth Hour is woefully blind to a huge portion of those people and the issues they live with every day.Let's start with biomass. People using biomass generally have limited choices for energy. But while access might be relatively easy, it comes with a price. In the big picture, burning wood drives climate change by releasing stored carbon dioxide as well as black carbon.Locally, the associated deforestation also degrades stream flow, increases the likelihood of landslides and causes desertification. In addition, it compromises human health with increased rates of asthma and other lung diseases likely in households that rely on biomass for energy.What's more, most of involuntary Earth Hour participants live in Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa - two regions that will have to cope with a disproportionate amount of climate change impacts. They also have less capacity to respond to weather extremes than people in the developed world.To reduce the risk of the worst impacts of climate change, yes, the developed world needs to consume less dirty energy. Carbon dioxide emissions in the developed world dwarf biomass burning in the developing world. But at the same time, citizens in developing countries need energy to get out of poverty. They also need to insulate themselves from current climate fluctuations as much as future climate change.With that in mind, turning off the lights isn't a celebration; it's a very slow start to a problem that needs to be approached from multiple angles. One of the most important is access to electricity in developing countries, but in a smart fashion.With that in mind, I've decided to spend my Earth Hour helping bring light to rural Africa. Yes, my computer will be on and there's even a chance the compact fluorescent lights in my apartment will be glowing as I donate 15 to Solar Aid.They're a great organization that helps install individual and community solar projects in east and southern Africa. Their projects have far-ranging benefits from improving access to education for adults and children to increasing income in poor areas simply by allowing people to charge cell phones.Other organizations like them are growing. A friend recommended Power to the People, which does similar work in Latin America. I'd love to hear your suggestions about organizations working on bringing light to the world or helping insulate communities from climate as well as your plans for Earth Hour.Is Earth Hour evil? Absolutely not. But could the focus be shifted to approaching the issues of climate change and inequality from both sides of the problem so we actually have something to celebrate? Absolutely yes.Photo credit: syphlix/flickr, urbangarden/flickr

Flood Experience Increases Acceptance of and Action on Climate Change

Brian Kahn — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:55:25 GMT

How would Noah of Biblical fame feel about climate change if he were around today? Would he see floods as an act of God or humans? New research from the United Kingdom suggests the latter.Researchers from the University of Nottingham and Cardiff University surveyed 1822 Britons for a study published in Nature Climate Change this week. They asked subjects about their acceptance of climate change and their willingness to act.The difference between the control group and the treatment group was that the latter had direct experience with floods. Of course climate change does not cause all floods. In the paper, the researchers state: "Climate change itself is not directly observable by individuals, it being a reference to average climate conditions over a long period of time rather than that observed on a daily or seasonal basis."But people do relate to extreme weather events. They serve as both markers in time (growing up in Boston, I can still remember reading about the tornado in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1995) and, as the research suggests, a way of shaping our perception of the world. These extreme events are likely to become more frequent as part of the effects of climate change. So are more people likely to accept the reality of climate change?Acts of Human Cause Human ActionsAccording to the findings, in short, yes. People exposed to floods were significantly more likely to accept the science of climate change.What's more, those people were also more likely to think that individual actions to reduce emissions can make a difference. Perhaps most significantly, they were also more likely to take action to reduce their own carbon footprint no matter how certain they were about the science of climate change.The idea that people will act if they believe they can make a difference might not surprise you if you've watched the news recently. In an accompanying essay Elke Weber of the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions notes recent actions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are driven in part by the belief that individual actors can overwhelm a system.This is the first study that links climate change, individuals and significant weather events, though. The most important finding shows that uncertainty isn't a barrier to action. In an accompanying Weber also writes:"Uncertainty about the existence of climate change or at least about whether it is man-made and hence controllable is one of the main arguments made by climate change sceptics against spending money to reduce emissions. Thus it is interesting that, for members of the British public, their motivation to reduce energy use does not seem to be related to their certainty that climate change is happening. Rather, it appears to be strongly influenced by whether they think their behaviour will be effective." (Emphasis added)The major downside of the study's results is that it seems to take extreme events to get people in this state of mind. Of course nobody wants more weather disasters as a means to get people to support emissions reductions.That means the onus falls on climate change communicators and organizations to reframe the issue to show that individual actions do matter and inspire actions before extreme events hit. Organizations like 350.org have already started to do this, using work days and art shows as a way to validate the benefits of individual actions. They do so by placing them in a larger global context. Using that context could have the same power as floods without the destructiveness. Perhaps they could be the next target for researchers.Photo credit: gothicnexus/flickr, amneziak/flickr

GOP Lawmakers are Blind to Science

Brian Kahn — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:59:37 GMT

The "nays" had it yesterday. At a meeting of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, all 31 Republicans voted against amendments stating that climate change is real. The Party of No has spoken, and it doesn't bode well for the US to be a global leader on the environment.Yesterday, three Democrats including Representatives Diana DeGette (D-CO), Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced amendments about climate science. There wasn't a word about policy. Just the science.Rep. DeGette used the language that "the scientific evidence is compelling" for manmade climate change. Rep. Inslee proposed that "human-caused climate change is a threat to public health and welfare." Rep. Waxman's asked the committee to agree that "the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that 'warming of the climate system is unequivocal.'"Softer language such as Rep. DeGette's "compelling" and Rep. Inslee's mention of public health, despite it being a supposedly bipartisan issue didn't sway a single Republican.Instead, all morning Republicans spouted nonsense ranging from citing a now-discredited online poll by Scientific American about US public belief in climate change to tired charges that scientists are corrupt. Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) won the day, though, with this gem justifying his denial of climate change: "A 17% reduction [in carbon dioxide] in a decade does not cure the problem being addressed here." Basically the reductions posed by the EPA wouldn't be enough to avert the effects of climate change. Therefore, the science must be false. Got it?During the session, some of the Republicans also took offense to being called "deniers." At a lecture in Seattle in January, climate scientist Kevin Trenberth talking about the debate between "skeptic" versus "denier" labels said "if the shoe fits, wear it."The reality is when you can't even admit the Earth is warming, regardless of cause, then that makes you a denier. The term fits House Republican just like Cinderella's glass slipper.The US now has the distinction of being home to the only major political on the planet that doesn't accept the science of climate change. That denial has now led the House to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas regulations. How often do things like this happen? Never. This is the first time in US history politicians have overturned a scientific finding.In the end, Republicans at least agreed the climate is warming though none were willing to admit why. Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) got his amendment passed to say just that. It also included a stipulation that Congress needed a policy to address it. If it's natural, how you address melting ice caps and rising temperatures is beyond me, though. But as Matheson said to the Salt Lake Tribune:"My goal was to show there is some basis where this committee can agree on something." For too long supporters of climate change legislation have settled for this kind of compromise. And frankly, enough is enough. Agreeing on hard data that the Earth is warming is not politically important.Action is what's important. And as the largest economy and second largest carbon emitter in the world, the US has an obligation to act. Yet that seems further and further off. At the United Nations climate talks in Bali in 2007 Papua New Guinea's lead negotiator Kevin Conrad told the US negotiating team: "If you're not willing to lead, then get out of the way."After yesterday's hearings, it has become clear that the denial of science by one of the major parties in the US is complete. With it, the hopes of the US leading the world to solve the problem of climate change are dim.Photo credit: left-hand/flickr

Some Thoughts on Climate Change, Nuclear Energy and Risk

Brian Kahn — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:24:05 GMT

The scale of the tragedy in Japan is still unfolding. As search and rescue continues for the victims of the earthquake and tsunami, the potential of another catastrophe looms.Over the last few days, Japan's Fukushima nuclear reactor has become unstable, with the potential of at least a partial meltdown distinctly possible. In the past year, nuclear power has been touted as a climate change solution here in the US. The government has issued new permits for the first time in decades. Now might be an important moment to pause and rethink that, though, or at least weigh the benefits of mitigating climate change versus the risk of a nuclear accident.The issues at Japan's nuclear plants are being widely covered. Some of the best coverage is over at the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) blog, which explains the science of a nuclear meltdown and provides timely updates about what's going on in Japan.One of the more interesting posts over there links to an op-ed by Dave Lochbaum, Director of the Nuclear Safety Project. The piece is called "Disasters Don't Follow Scripts."Think about that for a minute. It holds quite a bit of truth. Look at the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year. It resulted in the failure of a failsafe device. In Haiti, after the earthquake razed most of Port-au-Prince, cholera outbreaks further exacerbated the situation. And in the case of the emergency in Japan, back up systems were wiped out by multiple disasters.In other words, there is no such thing as a failsafe plan, no such thing as a disaster script. In the case of nuclear power, the probability of an event is low while the risk is high.There's another low probability, high-risk emergency that makes this debate even more important. That's catastrophic climate change.One of the solutions to avert catastrophic climate change is nuclear power. But is it worth it to combat one low probability, high-risk issue with another? According to a prescient report put out by UCS in February 2011, the answer is no.For starters, nuclear power is heavily subsidized so the actual costs of production are not realized. The UCS report states that "subsidies to new nuclear reactors could exceed the value of the power produced [by] 70 to 200 percent."More worrisome are the costs after power production ceases. Though nuclear power plays a smaller role in energy production in the US than other countries like Japan and France, it still produces the lion's share of nuclear energy globally and thus, nuclear waste. Storing that waste isn't cheap. The cost to store spent fuel over the life of the Nuclear Fuel Repository at Yucca Mountain is reported to be $100 billion. So far, the nuclear industry has only ponied up $31 billion.Even if the full $100 billion is finally found, studies have shown the likelihood of Yucca Mountain containing nuclear waste for 10,000 years, the projected time for it to become inert, is near zero. In other words, this translates to a high risk, high probability problem.So does nuclear power make sense given the potential and real risks of both nuclear energy and climate change? The classic adage "today's solutions are tomorrow's problems" might apply.While other sources of renewable energy have their detractors such as habitat loss in the case of solar, they don't come with nearly the same risk as nuclear power.It might be time to rewrite the nuclear part of our climate change script.Photo credit: kmichiels/flickr

House Hearing on Climate Change Showcases Republican Ignorance

Brian Kahn — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 10:49:24 GMT

The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee held hearings on climate change yesterday. Ostensibly the hearing was a chance to showcase the state of the science. In reality, it showcased a Republican anti-science ignorance and a complete lack of innovation.The hearing was convened at the request of Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bobby Rush (D-IL). The subcommittee is currently considering a bill that would kill the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to regulate greenhouse gases.To have a "rounded" view of the science, Republicans invited three skeptics while Democrats invited four scientists who accept manmade climate change.Earlier this week Waxman said this was the most anti-science Congress ever. Of course Republicans blasted him. Yet when it came time to talk science, Republicans seemed more interested in focusing on policy and "gotcha" questions. So did their two of their witnesses, who included discredited Alabama climatologist John Christy, professor of public health Donald Robertson, and professor Roger Pielke Sr.Of the three, only Pielke Sr. recused himself from answering policy questions. The other two were more than happy to opine that the IPCC was a scam and that the EPA regulations would hurt the economy. Last I checked that wasn't part of the job description for state climatologist nor the reason this hearing was convened.In contrast, none of the four witnesses Democrats invited talked policy. They repeatedly said they were only there to talk about the science.And on that front, they consistently put forward facts about what the causes and effects of climate change are. More importantly, they used hard data and sound research to back them up.For example, Chris Fields of Stanford's Carnegie Institution gave specific information on how a changing climate will decrease crop yields once a temperature threshold is crossed. He likened climate change to "an anchor" on agricultural production. In contrast, Christy could only muster anecdotal evidence that he knows farmers in Alabama "who are getting over 240 bushels of corn per acre."That was the story all morning. Yet not a single Republican budged. Instead, at the end of the hearing, Whitfield announced they would move forward on a mark up of the bill to kill the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases.Rep. Jay Insley (D-WA) lamented that it's "embarrassing" that the country that put the first man on the moon and mapped the human genome can't agree on climate change. "One of these parties would not accept science [of climate change] until the Arctic ice sheet melts or hell freezes over," he said during the hearing.And it's sad that that's where Republicans stand. Republicans are the quickest to crow about American exceptionalism yet the last to exemplify it. During the questioning, some Republicans claimed that limiting emissions would relegate us to a "second tier nation."Tell that to European Union countries participating in the carbon market. Tell that to the leaders of China who are investing huge amounts of money in bringing clean energy manufacturers to their country. Tell that to Shi Zhengrong, the first person to make a billion dollars in clean energy or the other two solar billionaires in the world. Where did they do it? In China and Germany of course.The reality is that to live up to the American exceptionalism Republicans invoke so often, this country needs to lead the world on climate change. If yesterday's hearing was any sign, though, it's a steep road to climb. Republican ignorance is only making it steeper.Photo credits: jcolman/Flickr, Gage Skidmore/Flickr, Public Citizen/Flickr

News Corp Goes Carbon Neutral: Surprised? (You Shouldn't Be)

Brian Kahn — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:21:00 GMT

And the award for first carbon neutral media company in the world goes to? Drum roll please! News Corp. Yes, you read right. The parent company of Fox News, home to some of the worst climate misinformation in the media, is a leader when it comes toclimate change.News Corp made the announcement yesterday. They achieved carbon neutrality through a combination of increases in efficiency and use of renewable energy as well as carbon offsets.While the discord between the views espoused through Fox News and other News Corp outlets and the company's carbon neutrality might have caught some off guard, there's one group it hasn't. The Carbon Disclosure Project has been getting companies to voluntarily report their carbon emissions annually since 2000.News Corp has consistently ranked high in the Carbon Disclosure Project's annual reports. Last year it was the leader in the consumer discretionary category and second compared to all companies in the S&P 500 who disclosed their emissions.The Carbon Disclosure Project is committed to accelerating solutions to climate change. The idea is that companies provide information about their emissions and investors, corporations, policymakers, and others can make informed decisions on where to put their dollars.And the Carbon Disclosure Project represents people with a lot of dollars. They represent 551 institutional investors who manage over $71 trillion in assets. In other words, they have some clout.If you'd like to hear about their future efforts and how they drive companies like News Corp towards carbon neutrality, you can catch their Executive Chairman Paul Dickinson at theIntegrated Reporting and Measuring Sustainability Conference on March 25th at The Brewery in London.Photo credit: badjonni/Flickr

Climate Change: It's the Physics, Stupid

Brian Kahn — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:59:03 GMT

What are the politics of physics? This is the question I posed to a family member this weekend. We were discussing the reality of climate change. If you've been following me for the past year, you know where I stand. Unfortunately, a couple of my family members along with a good chunk of Americans don't get it.So in honor of my family, I'd like to indulge in a quick physics lesson. Because at its root, climate change is a physics problem. At its root, it's this simple concept: energy in equals energy out.I'm writing this while sitting in the Detroit airport. So in honor of my current location, let's talk cars for a minute. How does a car get you from point A to B? The combustion of gasoline. There's stored energy in gas. Through the process of combustion, you transfer that energy into the gears and belts that turn your motor, sending you on your way to the grocery store.Still with me? Good!Now let's talk about a bigger system: the planet. Energy in equals energy out. The outside energy in this case comes from the sun. You're probably familiar with that energy if you've worn a black shirt on a sunny day.Ultraviolet radiation happens to have a similar relationship to our planet. The Earth absorbs some of that radiation. It then radiates it back into space as infrared radiation.Along the way back to space, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap some of that outgoing radiation. They in turn radiate that energy in all directions, some of it coming back towards the Earth.Without greenhouse gases our planet would be uninhabitable. The surface temperature of the Earth would be around -19 degrees Celsius without any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.With them our planet is habitable. With too many, our climate system starts to change. And we've been emitting quite a few since the Industrial Revolution so that atmospheric concentrations are higher than they've been at any point in the last 800,000 years.So why does this matter? More greenhouse gases means more energy stays in the Earth's system. And that means the surface temperature of the Earth increases.Just like you go faster in your car if you push harder on the gas pedal. Just like you get warmer when you put on a coat. Simple physics.Was this all painfully obvious? I hope so. But for some reason the logic seems to escape almost half of conservative elected officials in the US as well as over a quarter of the general population. Would you be so kind as to share this with them?We can debate the accuracy of models. We can debate the exact effects of climate change. Those are areas where the science is still quite active. And we can certainly debate what the best policy paths forward are. That's politics.But please, can we agree, physics has no politics.Photo creditL thinlysliced/Flickr

Oscar-Nominated Short Documentary Highlights Climate Change Refugees, Part 2

Brian Kahn — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:23:53 GMT

This is the second part in a two part series on climate change refugees and the film Sun Come Up. The film documents the Carteret Islanders search for new land. It serves a powerful reminder that climate change is not statistics. It's living people, some of whom have some very hard decisions ahead of them.Sun Come Up's other great strength is that it brings attention to the science of sea level rise. For too long, sea level rise due to climate change has been wrapped in the language of islands being swallowed by the ocean. The president of the Maldives signed a bill underwater last year to illustrate this. And stories have appeared in The Economist and other publications have painted a similar picture.It's dramatic but is it accurate? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that low-lying atolls could disappear. But it would take a rise in oceans of at least 1-2 meters to cause that. Even the gloomiest projections put that type of rise well over a century into the future.InSun Come Up, when asked if the island will disappear orif people will die of hunger first by a a radio host, one of the Cartereters says hunger will get them first. This is one of the more immediate threats from sea level rise. Climate change is likely to cause higher tides and storm surges, salt water intruding into freshwater aquifers, and destruction of coral reef ecosystems are more at risk from a smaller change in sea level or ocean temperature. Those high tides can in turn kill crops like those kept by the Carteret Islanders.Similar stories can also be found in other island nations. In the atoll of Tuvalu, king tides reached within a meter of the Parliament building this past week. Illustrating these vulnerabilities might make a stronger case for climate change action.Gary Braasch, a Portland-based photographer who explores the human dimensions of climate change, did just that. He documented this year's King Tides in Tuvalu.His experience also points to differing views on how islanders want to deal with climate change. While the people in Sun Come Up see migration as the best path forward, not all islanders see eye-to-eye on the issue.In an email Braasch writes: "There is no indication from the many people I met on Tuvalu this time that they are considering migration or staged relocation. This may become necessary, some acknowledge, but the nation officially and most leaders are focused on the survival of Tuvalu."Instead, leaders on Tuvalu and other low-lying island nations like the Marshall Islands and Maldives are using their situation to leverage government actions to mitigate the causes of climate change rather press for funds to adapt.Ultimately, it may take pressure from both people wanting to preserve those home and others looking to make a new one to get governments and people in developed countries to act. The question is will they listen? The efforts of small island states along with films like Sun Come Up the work of people like Braasch certainly make the case that they should.Photo credit: Elyse Patten

Oscar-Nominated Short Documentary Highlights Climate Change Refugees, Part 1

Brian Kahn — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:23:17 GMT

Climate change refugees have been a hot topic this month in the international development world. Three reports put out document the likelihood of climate refugees in the future. Reports from large agencies rarely capture the finer details of what happens on the ground. Luckily, an Oscar-nominated documentary, Sun Come Up, provides an intimate look at a climate migration that has already happened.The film looks at the efforts of a group of Carteret Islanders to relocate to higher land. Living off Papua New Guinea, they decide to search for land on a larger island after strong King Tides, the colloquial name for the highest tides of the year in the South Pacific, wipe out their crops. Though they have been around as long as the sun and the moon, as the ocean rises, the tides are inundating areas previously protected.The islanders see planned relocation as the best way to insure their survival. The film follows a group of them as they search for land on a larger island. That means also having to find locals who will accept them, which is no easy task in a region that was part of a civil war from 1990-96.The film also highlights the mental struggles of moving a culture built around a specific place. There is a rhythm and a story built around the island people have inhabited for generations. Of course this culture isn't static. Changes over time from the addition of motor boats to propane stoves have altered culture in some ways. But there are rituals, a certain way of being that come with living somewhere.Leaving that place behind can cause a dramatic shift. One of the Carteret Islanders interviewed in the film says at one point: "If we come here [to the larger island], we will not be the Carterets people anymore." Another says of life after the move, "most of our culture will have to live in memory."These statements show the immense weight leaving home imposes. They also bring to mind sentiments heard during the forced migrations of indigenous people in the US, Canada, and Australia in the 19th and 20th centuries and the accounts of slave brought to the New World. In other words, they shed light on the neocolonialism of climate change.Yet the islanders forge ahead. They eventually find land, complete with a hike that leads to a view of the Carteret Islands. It's a distant connection, but one that still holds power to animate memories for some of the islanders.Through the film, governments play a non-existent role in helping the people relocate. That's in part because there's still a debate about what role government should play in planned relocation efforts due to climate change. The three reports released this month on climate refugees all come to different conclusions about how serious the problem will be on the macro level and also about what governments can do.But here it is, in plain view. It might be on a smaller scale, but people are moving because they feel that's their best bet for survival. A small group of islanders living in one of the least developed countries in the world managed to execute their plan to find new land more insulated from future climate shocks. The juxtaposition with the petty actions of Republicans in the US House and the inability of developed world governments to commit to real emissions reductions is appalling.Will the film win an Oscar? We'll see. Win or not, you can still help the islanders relocate. The film's website has section called HouseRaiser, which allows you to organize a viewing party of the film or simply make a donation that will help the Carteret Islanders build homes on their new land. As the site says: "We must not let these communities bear the brunt of this problem alone." Governments should take note, too.This is Part 1 in a two part series. Special thanks to Cynthia Thomson.Photo credit: Explorer Traveler

NASA To Launch New Satellite Even As Republicans Try To Ground Climate Research

Brian Kahn — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:30:58 GMT

The picture of the Earth's climate could become even clearer after tomorrow. NASA is getting a satellite off the ground even as House Republicans try to defund climate monitoring.Understanding the Sun's RoleThe satellite, called Glory, has two primary purposes. One is to monitor solar radiation. Scientists have been aware of solar cycles for some time. These cycles run on an 11-year loop on average and are one of many natural processes that influence the Earth's climate. Peaks in the cycles cause more sunspots and tend to increase the energy entering the Earth's system, which accounts for some warming.Not surprisingly, solar radiation happens to be a favorite way for skeptics to try and explain climate change. "Those fluctuations do not explain the global warming the planet has experience in the last few decades," Judith Lean, a researcher at the Naval Research Laboratory and a member of Glory's science team, told Space Daily. The graph on the right shows solar radiation against the global temperature record and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Even as solar radiation has died down recently, temperatures have gone up.Scientists have also recently begun to consider longer-term fluctuations in the sun's output. For example, Galileo and other's observations indicate that from 1645 to 1715, the sun was relatively quiet. Glory will provide more data on the likelihood of that occurring in addition to 11-year cycles.Focus on AerosolsGlory will also collect data on aerosols. Long a source of uncertainty forclimate change and the climate system, aerosols are tiny particles that come from both natural and artificial sources. These sources range from sea salts to dust to forest fires to tail pipes. Depending on their size and nature they can either scatter or absorb light. They also affect cloud formation.Understanding those properties is very important to researchers. This is especially true for clouds, which have different effects on the Earth's climate depending on their altitude: some cause warming while other cause cooling. This new data will foster in a better understanding of how we're affecting the climate.The new information on aerosols will also help improve long-term climate prediction. Currently, a third of models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) don't even model the effects of aerosols on clouds. The new data should help clear up some of that uncertainty and provide a better picture of what the future will look like.The satellite will gather this information by using a unique sensor that analyzes different wavelengths of light. Since each aerosol reflects light in a different way, scientists will be able to work backwards to determine the source of the aerosol. Space Daily equates this with the work done by forensic detectives working backwards from a drop of blood to determine the culprit of a crime.Glory: Soon to be a Rare Sight?All of this is happening against a backdrop of deep budget cuts to climate science programs by Republicans in the House. The House passed amendments prohibiting the funding of NOAA's proposed Climate Service, the IPCC, and pretty much anything related to the Environmental Protection Agency. Republicans have also proposed reshaping NASA by shifting funding from earth sciences to space exploration.It's sad that even monitoring the climate is now a political issue. Satellites monitor sea surface temperatures, vegetation cover, and countless other useful phenomenon. This data in turn leads to more accurate weather predictions, bettering planning for food aid in developing countries, and ultimately helps people better prepare for disasters.Sending humans to the moon is a worthy goal, but not at the sake of ignoring the planet we live on. House Republicans are either deeply cynical or willfully ignorant about the direct benefits climate monitoring efforts like the Glory satellite provide. Either way, it's inexcusable and troubling on many levels.So catch Glory's send off tomorrow if you can. According to a press release from NASA, Glory is scheduled to launch tomorrow at 5:09 a.m. PST from Vandenberg Air Force Base near Lompoc, CA.If you can't catch a last minute flight to the Los Angeles area, don't worry. You can watch it live on NASA TV. Countdown begins at 12:30 PST so you have almost five hours to get ready for the main event. If House Republicans have their way, you won't get a chance to see something like this again for a while.Photo credit: NASA Goddard and IPCC

New EPA Report: US Emissions Down, Still a Need to Act on Climate Change

Brian Kahn — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:29:29 GMT

Attacks onclimate change regulations, thawing permafrost in National Parks, and attempts to defund climate research.Climate change has had some bad news this month.There's at least one (sort of) bright spot, though: the state of US greenhouse gas emissions. Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its annual draft report on emissions. It shows that they decreased 6 percent in 2009 compared to 2008.The NewsThe majority of greenhouse gas emissions came from electricity generation and transportation. Combined, those two sectors accounted for about 70 percent of all manmade emissions in the US. In the case of transportation, nearly 54 percent of that is from personal vehicle use. So if you think hopping on your bike or living closer to work won't make a difference, think again.The reduction puts 2009 on par with 1995 levels. It's still a far cry from the 8 percent below 1990 levels the European Union is aiming for by 2012. In fact, the US's 2009 emissions are still 7.4 percent above 1990 levels. Clearly there's a long way to go towards making meaningful cuts.There are two main reasons greenhouse gas emissions decreased. No, it wasn't people biking to work (yet). One is the economic downturn. That's what makes this "sort of" good news.On a better note, the other main cause for the decrease in emissions is a decrease in coal use and a concurrent increase in using natural gas to generate electricity. The changing fortunes of coal and natural gas were due to changing prices, with costs of coal rising and natural gas decreasing. If ever there was proof that one way to fight climate change is ending subsidies for coal, this is it.Natural gas isn't a perfect solution. It releases methane when burned, which is a more potent warming agent than carbon dioxide. But even the marked increase in natural gas use and production of methane was dwarfed by the decrease in carbon dioxide from burning less coal.Who Benefits?This particular bit of news could give climate hawks in Congress cause to rejoice. While touting the benefits of an economic downturn might not make the case for climate change legislation, showing that reducing emissions can come through simple intermediate steps could bolster the cause for letting the EPA do its job or introducing climate legislation.The EPA report is also a teachable moment for climate scientists. Despite a reduction in emissions, 2009 still stands as the warmest or second warmest years on record. Comparing these two issues perfectly illustrates that the effects of manmade greenhouse gases are cumulative.In other words, even if all greenhouse emissions stopped tomorrow, there would still be climate change effects in the pipeline. And besides, according to a new paper in Nature, we're already feeling the effects of climate change in North America. That's all the more reason to start reducing emissions now.Finally, conservationists can use the new report to highlight the benefits of letting forests be. Over the past 20 years, the US has seen forested land growing. While this has been coupled with massive deforestation abroad, looking at the effects of reforestation in the US shows natural processes can play a role in reducing the causes of climate change.In 2009 forests in the US sequestered 1015 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That's the equivalent of Canada and England's total emissions combined. It shows that conservation is a key to combating climate change.For next 30 days, you can add your comments on the EPA's findings on greenhouse gases and climate change. The final report will ultimately be submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the same group that organizes the annual climate change conferences. So go add your two cents.Photo credit: Frank Wuestefeld and eutrophication&hypoxia

Bombardier Gets Ahead of the Pack on Climate Change

Brian Kahn — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:00:27 GMT

Some companies are taking action to address climate change in spite of international gridlock. Bombardier is one of those companies, having received accolades in Canada for it's commitment to sustainable business practices to taking innovative engineering approaches to getting employees involved.Bombardier is the world's third largest aerospace company. Headquartered in Canada, the company also has operations across the globe. Spreading out around the globe means it faces unique regulatory hurdles when it comes to climate change.For example, in Canada, the Senate killed the country's attempt to regulate greenhouse gases last year. However, in the European Union, a carbon market has been up and running since 2005. Bombardier has 10 facilities in Europe that participate in the market.However, the company has been thinking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions even before the EU's carbon market started. Starting in 2003, the company has set annual greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Their three mechanisms to attain those targets are offsets, increased energy efficiency and increased dependence on renewable energy to power their facilities.Bombardier also sees employee innovation as a path forward to reducing emissions. According to Bombardier public affairs advisor Michel Gagnon, they recently created a Green Fund "dedicated to capital investments in energy-saving initiatives. Each site will be able to enter proposed projects in a competition with the best ideas receiving funds from this central budget." The fund is new for 2011. Keep an eye on Bombardier's CSR site for updates on winning projects.Emissions from production are only a small part of the story, though. The majority of emissions Bombardier is accountable for come after their airplanes and trains roll off the production line.Carbon dioxide emissions from aviation account for three percent of total global emissions. However, those emissions are likely to triple by 2050 and possibly increase sevenfold by 2100.To combat that increase, Bombardier led the international body governing aviation to adopt a global framework for managing aviation emissions in October 2010. This includes aspiring to increase fuel efficiency two percent each year through 2050, establishing a carbon market specifically for the aviation sector, setting a global carbon dioxide standard for aircraft by 2013, similar to auto standards.Rail travel is a less greenhouse gas-intensive form of travel. Bombardier is focused on pushing their new line trains, which use even less energy than the average passenger trains currently on the market.These efforts are part of why Canada's Globe and Mail ranked Bombardier Canada's best company for environmental practices in 2010. They also show that while some companies might see addressing climate change as a challenge, Bombardier sees it as an opportunity.For more on Bombardier, check out Richard Cooke's piece on their new aerospace and rail technologiesover in the Transportation section.Photo credits: Bombardier

Public Polarization on Climate Change Caused by Boomerang Effect, New Study Finds

Brian Kahn — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:32:29 GMT

A large scientific consensus has built around the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in causing climate change. Yet public acceptance in the US lags behind and is particularly acute with conservatives. A new study presented two weeks ago at the American Meteorological Association's annual meeting puts forth one of the more compelling ideas of why this gap exists.Professor Sol Hart of American University presented his findings on the boomerang effect in climate change communication. A boomerang effect occurs when presenting information has the opposite intended effect. One common example is of drug education programs such as DARE, which studies have shown students exposed are more likely to use drugs and alcohol.The Boomerang Effect and Climate ChangeTo understand how the boomerang effect might be playing out when it comes to climate change, Hart performed a study of 240 participants. In the study, subjects were shown two simulated news story about how climate change would increase the chances of contracting West Nile virus for people working outdoors, such as farmers.The two stories shared a number of similarities. Each story named and quoted 10 farmers. Both were also both based on factual findings reported by the Associated Press. And neither took a partisan stance on climate change.There was one key difference, however. In one piece the farmers were identified as locals, while in the other they were from a different region from the subjects reading the story.Findings showed that Democrats responded to both pieces with significantly increased support for government regulations and taxes on businesses producing large amounts of greenhouse gases. Their reaction was strongest for the story about farmers outside their region. Republicans, however, responded by showing decreased support for climate policy solutions for both pieces. Their reaction was less extreme to the story about local farmers, though.These results stand in opposition to the science communication theory known as the deficit model, which holds that people's opinions will move towards the scientific consensus as information and awareness about a topic increase. Why the contradiction?Markers and BeliefsIn an email, Hart writes the answer might be twofold:"1) individuals choose information sources that reinforce previously held beliefs, and 2) when exposed to information, individuals will tend to interpret the message in ways that reinforce previously held beliefs. In the case of climate change, this is a result of the science being politicized, and skepticism of climate change currently serving as an identity marker for being a conservative."This idea of climate change as an identity marker is fully visible for conservative elected officials. Take for example, John McCain. In 2003, he sponsored the first greenhouse gas reduction bill in the Senate. And in 2007 he said this of climate change: "Unequivocally I believe it's real."Yet by 2010, as denialism became the norm for Republican politicians, McCain's belief in climate change suddenly waned. In a 2010 appearance supporting New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayote, McCain had this to say about climate change:"I think it's an inexact science, and there has been more and more questioning about some of the conclusions that were reached concerning climate change. And I believe that everybody in the world deserves correct answers whether the scientific conclusions were flawed by outside influences. There's great questions about it that need to be resolved."Talk about an about face. Want more proof denialism is a conservative badge of honor? Half of the 263 Republicans elected to Congress this fall openly deny climate change. And only four of the 242 Republicans in the House of Representatives have said they accept the science of climate change.With more choices than ever as to where to get news, people can gravitate towards whatever outlets they want. The echo chamber of conservative news outlets and denialist websites still trying to hawk Climategate as proof scientists are hiding something (they're not) further polarizes the situation. Selectively choosing these views as "facts" further calcifies disbelief in the science. And when the truth about climate change is presented, it is often seen as a threat to that ideology.Climate Science is not an IdeologyThe policy solutions for climate change can be ideological markers. This is because they're based on beliefs about what works best. Is it a carbon tax? Cap and trade? Cap and dividend?The reality of climate change is based on science, though. Acceptance, therefore, is not an ideology but more like the way we accept gravity as a part of our lives. Robust debate about some of the uncertainties in climate science is healthy. But utter denial of it and smearing scientists is not, especially when it's linked to political beliefs.The research by Hart suggests refocusing on the local effects of climate change is the key to putting things back in order. Although local situations may resonate to a lesser extent with Democrats, talking about it decreases the likelihood of further polarizing public opinion. That's the first step to separating the politics out of science.To further improve public support for action, the next step is to focus on specific messages. Further research has shown that some issues can be more unifying than others. For example, energy and jobs are both effective at garnering bipartisan support.Most scientists and writers who communicate climate change findings do so with the intent to inform the public, not inspire divisiveness. The new study by Hart shows that to get science out of the political realm, framing matters more than previously thought. So take note: climate change is local.Photo credit: MundooSpecial thanks to Somayya Ali.

New Poll Finds Americans Like What the EPA Does (Surprise?)

Brian Kahn — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:27:53 GMT

To listen to Republicans, you'd think Americans hate all forms of government regulation. Along that front, Newt Gingrich has been pushing the idea of abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Yet a new poll shows most Americans want the EPA to do more, not less.Gingrich's "Moderate" ProposalThis week, Gingrich, a Republican presidential hopeful, has come out with a radicalplan to abolish the EPA on the grounds that it supposedly kills jobs. He wants to replace it with an agency that would take into account corporate interests as well as the general public's. Can you imagine if Massey Energy had an even bigger say in how we protect the environment?Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Opinion Research Center International conducted a poll asking Americans what they thought about this proposal. They found strong majorities of Americans are against abolishing the EPA. This includes 67% of all Americans, including 61% of Republicans.The poll also asked people how they felt about Congress blocking the EPA's ability to update pollution safeguards. Most respondents again supported the EPA doing its job. This included 77% of respondents and even 61% of Republicans. All-important independents supported letting the EPA do its job by an even wider margin, with 82% in favor. In short, Gingrich's stance does not resonate with the people most likely to swing a presidential election his way.In spite of this, his talk about eliminating the EPA would seem to be in line with a presidential run. The tough anti-government talk is likely to appeal to primary voters, which tend to skew towards the far right of the Republican spectrum.If he wins and his views continue to be unpopular with the general public, he can use a tried and true political tactic: sweep it under the rug. It might surprise you to know that politicians walk back campaign rhetoric all the time. As of last check, Guantanamo is still open and immigration reform is nowhere to be seen. So it's completely feasible Gingrich's modest proposal will fade into the background, should he win the Republican primaries.Hidden MeaningsThe NRDC poll is also interesting for what it doesn't talk about. Here's the question they asked about whether Congress should block the EPA:"Some members of Congress are proposing to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating safeguards to protect our health from dangerous air pollution, saying they will cost businesses too much money.Do you believe Congress should block the EPA from updating pollution safeguards or should Congress let the EPA do its job?"If you've been paying attention to the news, the big story is Republican Fred Upton's proposal to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. And on his blog, Gingrich cites greenhouse gas regulations as "definitive proof that the EPA has gone well beyond its original mandate" and, thus, the main reason for his attack on it.Yet the question makes no mention of climate change or greenhouse gases nor does anything else in the poll. In a request for why they chose not to address greenhouse gases directly, Pete Altman responded through NRDC press secretary Suzanne Strugliski saying: "Some members of Congress are working to block Clean Air Act updates that would limit carbon and other pollutants, including smog, soot, hazardous air pollution and mercury. The question is general for that reason."Yet in his post on the poll, Altman refers to "carbon pollution" rather than the other issues cited in his response. Yet one thing is curiously missing from his post: the words "climate change."Another poll by NRDC last fall that shows support for climate regulations is a little lower, though. The poll specifically asked people if they would support the EPA regulating greenhouse gases. At all ends of the spectrum support declined, particularly the Republican end, with 42% opposing EPA regulation.The framing in the poll coupled with other recent posts on NRDC's blog might provide a little insight into how NRDC is going to move forward on climate change. In short: don't mention it. It might seem backwards, but addressing climate change without talking about it could garner wider support for mitigation actions.Altman's aforementioned post doesn't once mention the words climate change but it sure sounds a lot like that's what he's talking about for most of the post. The focus is more in public health instead. He quotes As Health Care Without Harm's Climate Policy Coordinator Brenda Afzal saying:"Chairman Upton's bill, which is expected to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating the Clean Air Act to limit carbon pollution, puts our nation's health at risk. Leading health organizations and experts consider carbon dioxide pollution to be a wide-ranging threat to public health." (Emphasis added)Carbon dioxide certainly has negative effects as a local pollutant. However, it's real negative effects come from it's role in the atmosphere and it's threat to global public health. The ruling that gave the EPA the authority to regulate it under the Clean Air Act says as much. And it fits with the agency's mission, which is "to protect human health and the environment."So could this signal a shift in how NRDC and other environmental groups are going to frame climate change? People value their health regardless of political background. Focusing on those shared values rather than bringing up something politically divisive like climate change could garner broad support for EPA greenhouse gas regulations.At the time this went to press, those questions remained unanswered by NRDC's spokesperson. However, it seems climate change has become like Voldemort. Avoiding mentioning it all while trying to defeat it might just be the best path forward, though. Or at the very least, keeping agencies like the EPA around and on the job.Photo credits: Thoth, Gage Skidmore, republicanconference

Climate Change Vocabulary: Aerosols

Brian Kahn — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:54:32 GMT

Here's a quick climate change riddle. What can warm and cool the Earth, cause or prevent it from raining, makes for pretty sunsets and comes from sources as disparate as campfires, oceans, and smog? Aerosols of course. In spite of all this knowledge, though, there's still some certainty as to their exact effects on climate change.Aerosols can be explained most simply as particles in the atmosphere. Dig a little deeper, though, and there's a wealth of differences which account for the uncertainty of their effects.Where They Come FromAerosols have many sources, both natural and manmade. On the natural end of the spectrum, the two most common aerosols are salt and dust. Salt aerosols come from the sea. They get transferred from ocean to atmosphere via the foam on whitecap waves and evaporation.Dust generally gets whipped up from deserts. Dust plumes can spread for thousands of miles from their source. The image on the right shows a dust cloud spinning off the western coast of Africa.In the middle of the spectrum we have semi-natural sources of aerosols. Campfires and wildland fires both release smoke. This smoke contains a type of aerosol called black carbon, which is unique in the world of aerosols.On the far end of the spectrum, manmade pollution creates aerosols. Smoke stacks, car tail pipes, and other forms of combustion all create aerosols as a side effect. Of course, these processes also generate carbon dioxide, which isn't an aerosol but a greenhouse gas with a definite warming effect on the climate.What They DoEach type of aerosol has a different effect depending on its source, size, and color. Many aerosols both natural and manmade have an overall cooling effect on the Earth. This is because they tend to reflect incoming solar radiation back into space. The major exception is black carbon, which tends to absorb incoming solar radiation.If it lands on snow when it falls out of the atmosphere, the effect can be like wearing a dark shirt on a sunny day except instead of you just getting hot, it can melt the snow at a faster rate. Black carbon is particularly worrisome for place like the Arctic which are already experiencing accelerated climate change.Aerosols also indirectly affect rainfall. Larger (though still microscopic) aerosols like dust and salt can increase rainfall by making it easier for water droplets to grow in clouds. Most manmade aerosols are smaller help more water droplets form overall. However, these droplets are smaller in size and so are less likely condense into actually rain. Pollution can also cause local precipitation patterns to shift.Manamde aerosols also alter the local environment. On the downside, particulate matter can exacerbate health problems like asthma. If you live in an area prone to red air alert days, you can thank aerosols for that. The elderly and young are particularly at risk. Estimates of the number of people who die from aerosol-aggravated issues are anywhere from 20,000-63,000 annually in the US.An upside to manmade aerosols is that they can create spectacular sunsets. This happens because manmade aerosols are small enough that they scatter the shorter wavelengths of light like violet and blue. As the sun gets close to the horizon, the light has to travel further, giving those particles more of a chance to intercept the short wavelengths. That leaves a lot of red left by the time it makes it to your eye, which leads to sunsets like the photo to the left which I caught in Seattle a few days ago.Lesser understood effects of aerosols also include how the alter cloud lifetime and cloud height, both of which can have significant impacts on the magnitude of climate change. The exact amplitude of how much warming black carbon causes is also a source of uncertainty when it comes to aerosol science.Understanding their effects in full matters, though, if scientists are to get a more accurate picture of what climate change will look like in the future.Photo credits:NASA/courtesy Amato Evan, NASA Goddard, and the author

In 2010, China is GM's Number One Buyer Worldwide: Why Does It Matter?

Brian Kahn — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:26:41 GMT

Where are the most Buicks in the world sold? Not in the US but China. This year, sales of American-based General Motors (GM) cars in China outpaced that same consumption in the US. This development has ramifications for the auto industry and international climate policy.USA Today reports that in 2010, Chinese consumers bought 2.35 million cars from GM. Demand in the US was about 136,000 less over that same time period. The total cars sold for 2010 represent a 29% increase over the year before. In comparison, US sales rose just 6%.One of the most popular car brands in China is Buick, which had anemic sales in the US.Other carmakers also saw gains in the Chinese market. For example, Porsche saw an increase in sales of 63% in 2010. However, their totals are far lower than GM, with about 15,000 units sold.One major automaker didn't experience similar success in China, though. Toyota, the largest auto manufacturer in the world only sold about a third of GM's total in China despite being the most popular car brand in the world.The fact that GM outpaced Toyota by three-to-one is indicative of the allure an American lifestyle in an increasingly affluent China. Banking on this allure, GM plans to export US$900 million worth of cars and parts to China over the next two years.GM also made big gains in other large developing markets. In Russia, sales increased 12.4% while in Brazil they jumped 10.4% in 2010. Overall, though, China remains the largest market for cars in the world.This status brings up some issues about global trade, climate change, and local air quality, though. In the US, improved tailpipe emissions standards will help reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a main factor in causing climate change. Regulations are much more lax in China, however, as well as other foreign markets.In addition, new cars on the road generally replace motorcycles and scooters, which get much higher mileage per gallon. The carbon intensity of driving a car is anywhere from two to seven times greater per mile than these other vehicles.Locally, an increase in the number of cars on the road also negatively affects air quality. In the run up to the Beijing Olympics, there were worries about air quality possibly putting a damper on the event. Since then, Beijing has taken to auctioning off a set number of new license plates each year to reduce both congestion and local air quality problems.It's clear more needs to be done on the international level to reduce automobile emissions. There are a number of approaches from switching to more hybrid and alternative technologies to better urban planning to prevent sprawl to improving public transit. While China is ramping up it's renewable energy production, it should also consider automobile efficiency if it really wants to lay claim to the world's clean energy leader.Photo credit: Eyeline Imagery

Monks' Diaries Shed Light on Climate Change

Brian Kahn — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:22:34 GMT

Monks from the 1600s now have a hand predicting future climate change. No, this isn't aboutNostradamus. Rather, researchers from the University of Edinburgh are using monks' diaries to reconstruct temperature records from the past to improve future predictions.The researchers wanted to confirm climate models' ability to predict temperature in Europe over long periods. That meant using comparing them to past data to see how well they could reconstruct the past.However, there was a slight problem. Professor Gabi Hegerl, the lead researcher from the University of Edinburgh's School of GeoSciences said, "around 1675 it gets quite sparse." To fill in the gaps she said, "we're working from monks' diaries and harvest records and all kinds of indirect evidence about whether they experienced warm or cold summers and winters."Researcher took clues from these indirect indicators and coupled them with more recent observations from weather stations. They then used this temperature data to "test" climate models. They found that simulations of Europe's climate run from 1500 to the present closely matched up with the records from that time period.Up until this new study, research had suggested that external influences on climate in Europe had been negligible. However, the new findings suggest that external factors prior to 1900 accounted for up to 75% of changes in the climate. The main factor before 1900 was volcanic activity, which caused significant summer cooling and winter warming.Though vulcanism still plays a role in shaping climate, other factors have become more dominant since 1900. Since then, changes in Europe's climate are driven by greenhouse gas emissions more than anything else.The emissions today will also contribute to future climate change in a "significant and visible" way. In fact, that visibility might be on the rise as events like the Australian and Brazilian floods play out. Though manmade climate change isn't the only factor that causes events like these, it is likely playing a role that will only increase.Using monks' diaries isn't the first interesting use of the past to predict future climate change. But it is unique in its use of more anecdotal evidence being used to verify climate models. Its use lends more credibility to current citizen science monitoring projects.More importantly, the results of the study further prove that scientists should be able to predict the future. "The climate models seem to be working quite well for the past, so we should expect that - at least when it comes to temperature - they will do well for the future. It indicates that the predictions might be on target," Professor Hegerl said.Photo credit: Wyoming_Jackrabbit