Weathervane: A Climate Policy Blog from Resources for the Future

Jul26

Communicating Climate Science to Better Manage Climatic Changes

Last week the Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted a conference on “Leveraging Climate Data and Services to Manage Climate Change”. Invited speakers included:

Thomas Karl (Director of the National Climatic Data Center at NOAA)
Dr. Jack Kaye (Associate Director for Research and Analysis at NASA Earth Science Division)
Dr. Ana Unruh-Cohen (Deputy Staff Director for the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming in the U.S. House of Representatives)
Dr. Johannes Loschnigg (Senior Policy Analyst for the Energy and Environment Division in the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the President)

Speakers emphasized the importance of the yet-to-be-formed National Climate Service, highlighting the need for an informed society to anticipate and respond to climatic changes and their impacts. The event’s discussions touched on a number of topics, including the potential for the National Climate Service to integrate observations, provide data stewardship, and monitor climatic systems.

One message, however, overrode all others throughout the discussion: we have a new national task at hand—climate science must continue to foster and encourage research, but simultaneously begin to provide guidance in forming a resilient society and environment.

Scientists have been publishing studies showing that the climate is changing due to anthropogenic causes for decades. So it remains a wonder how and why, in 2010, we still do not have more coordinated and comprehensive climate and energy policies in place. The first barrier to developing a climate-resilient society and environment can therefore be said to stem not from a lack of research and development, but rather from a lack of communicating scientific findings from researchers to policymakers and the public at large.

The researchers and experts who spoke at the conference understand this barrier and believe the National Climate Service can break it down. Rather than allow climate research to continue as a fragmented science under a number of departments and projects (NASA operates 13 Earth observation satellites, NOAA monitors hurricane formation, the Executive Office of the President has launched its U.S. Global Change Research Project … just to name a few), leaders in the field feel it is imperative to unify climate research. They say we cannot afford to not integrate the various facets of climate science.

Furthermore, they are stressing the importance of not only improving research and modeling, but also providing comprehensive information and services.

As Dr. Unruh-Cohen remarked in her discussion of the importance of earth observation, “Sometimes science leads … Sometimes the [data] users lead … Congress always follows.” If we truly want to move forward in climate policy and action, we need to unify climate research efforts and comprehensively communicate the implications of the scientific data to American citizens and policymakers. The National Climate Service is essential to not only improve our ability to collect and aggregate accurate climate data, but also to share that data with policy-makers, industry, academia, and the public at large.

Tara O’Shea is an intern working on climate change issues at Resources for the future. She will begin pursuing her MEM at Duke University this August.

Published: Jul-26-10 | 0 Comments

Dec17

The Changing Climate for Development

International, Climate Science, Financing

Climategate notwithstanding, today’s already complex global development challenges are complicated by the reality of climate change. A problem with deeply unfair consequences, climate change threatens all countries, particularly developing nations, which could bear some 80 percent of the costs of climate-related damages.

According to University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment Dean Dr. Rosina Bierbaum, developing countries cannot afford to ignore climate change and developed nations must aid poorer nations in the fight with financing and technology.

At Resources for the Future’s Seventh Annual Hans Landsberg Memorial Lecture Bierbaum offered a guided tour of the World Bank’s latest World Development Report. Bierbaum, a lead author on the report, said responding to the development needs associated with climate change will require three key steps:

Act Now: Bierbaum said moving beyond today’s inertia in—environmental circumstances, in infrastructure and in policy—will be essential to achieving future goals.

Environmental Inertia: Slowing global emissions is unlikely to translate directly and immediately into worldwide temperature reductions, given the lag time between reductions and atmospheric impacts. Acting now will be key to keeping global temperatures within margins deemed scientifically safe.

Infrastructure Inertia: Transitioning low-carbon economies will involve tremendous efforts on the part of government. Regional planning can lock economies into certain patterns and structures for energy generation and use for long periods of time. Developing nations provide great opportunities to design low-carbon infrastructures now, when transitions may be the most affordable.

Policy and Behavior Inertia: Behaviors of individuals and groups contribute in a large way to the nature of economies and their carbon emissions. Overcoming the status quo and designing policies to motivate constituencies to consider environmental impacts will be essential in a transition to a low-carbon economy.

Act Together: As climate change is a global problem, its solution will require a global effort. Acting together will mean designing mitigation plans that achieve the greatest reductions in the most efficient ways. A collective plan will also require attention to risk management with regard to planning for catastrophic weather events and shocks to food and water supplies.

Bierbaum said addressing the development issues associated with climate change will likely require addressing imbalances in energy availability, consumption in use. To put the disparity in perspective, she said, if America switched its SUV fleet—with an average of fuel efficiency of 18 MPG—to cars operating on European Union fuel efficiency standards—45 MPG, 1.6 billion more people in the world could each use five 50-watt light bulbs without adding to annual global emissions (see World Bank graph below).

Source

Act Differently: Thus far, the status quo has only put the world on a dangerous emissions path. Moving forward, plans must incorporate funding for research and development to incentivize breakthroughs in the way the world produces and uses energy.

Bierbaum said she thinks with ambitious, immediate, and global action the world can face down the challenges of climate change. “But all this has to be supported by a fair and equitable global deal,” she said, “and the window is closing to prevent dangerous climate change.”

Tiffany Clements is managing editor of Weathervane.

Published: Dec-17-09 | 0 Comments

Dec08

IPCC Chairman: The Science is Unequivocal

Climate Science, COP-15

COPENHAGEN -- While Climategate has been taking some of the wind out of the already luffing sails of the build up to Copenhagen (at least in the U.S. and Britain), scientists at the conference claim the science remains airtight. In a side event meant to highlight the findings of the Fourth Assessment Report conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the only thing that deserves serious attention in relation to this issue is finding who is responsible for the hacking of files from the University of East Anglia. He also reinforced the robustness of IPCC standards and procedures, mentioning that the IPCC will conduct reviews to ensure this remains the case in light of the controversy.

In response to questions from the press, Pachauri emphasized there is no question about the science in the AR4, noting that governments must sign off on the findings of the IPCC before they are released. As much as members of the American and British press continue to harp on the scandal, Pachauri continues to stand by the work of the IPCC. The issue is certainly an attention-getter, as the room is overflowing with observers. Whether Pachauri’s confidence will do anything to quell the naysayers, my guess would be probably not.

Daniel F. Morris is a Research Associate at Resources for the Future and regular contributor to Common Tragedies.

Published: Dec-08-09 | 0 Comments

Sep08

Geoengineering Gaining Momentum, Still Beset with Problems

Geoengineering, Climate Science, International

Artificial Trees: Image courtesy Institution of Mechanical Engineers I wrote a post last month considering the potential importance of geoengineering in future climate policy debates. Since then, a number of new reports have been released—see those of the Royal Society and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers—along with a number of news articles considering the merits of each of their proposals.

New reports suggest India’s CO₂emissions could quadruple by 2030. This fact, along with other evidence that increasing temperatures have put the brakes on cooling Arctic summers, could bolster the case for geoengineering and help current proposals leap from idea to reality.

While the buzz surrounding geoengineering would suggest a certain level of viability, many of the current proposals lack political and/or economic feasibility. While proposals could become more plausible over time, objective consideration of some of the current geoengineering alternatives reveals a need for continued research and public scrutiny.

A Temporary Fix

Consider one form of a solar radiation management strategy for reducing the effects of greenhouse gas emission accumulation in the atmosphere: painting the world’s rooftops white. Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s said earlier this summer painting the world’s rooftops white would be equivalent to removing every car on Earth from the road for 11 years. And while that suggestion sounds intriguing, the fact of the matter is that this approach and others like “artificial trees” to absorb CO₂ do nothing to remove the actual cause of the problem in the first place.

Failing to address the root cause is perhaps the most pronounced problem of current geoengineering proposals, aside from their economic feasibility. By addressing the symptoms and not the cause, we are simply reducing certain risks while creating others that are not yet well understood. Take the current proposal of using stratospheric aerosols to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas accumulation. While a similar tactic, e.g. cloud seeding, has been used before, the concerns about intentionally influencing the climate system to achieve a particular set of objectives are well founded. The unintended consequences of such actions may not yet be well known and these counteracting effects could be quite dangerous. Moreover, the potential for international externalities that could arise from these unintended consequences likely makes political acceptance for the proposal harder to come by.

Not addressing the root causes also brings up the issue of the long-term viability of any proposal that simply removes CO₂ from the atmosphere. Recently in the Washington Post, senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution, Ken Calderia said he finds geoengineering somewhat worrisome. In his remarks he suggests that without actual mitigation, the long-term viability of any large scale geoengineering proposal is of the upmost importance. Since emissions would continue rising, society would be forced to maintain whichever proposal(s) it had originally adopted indefinitely unless some form of mitigation had already taken place.

Political and Economic Implications

Failure to address root causes aside, it is clear that the economic and political feasibility of any proposal are intricately connected. Consider the case of “artificial trees” discussed in the report released by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. While they discuss the potential for improvements in the production process, the financial cost incurred to undergo this route seems large.

The current cost of one of these “trees” is close to $20,000. Approximately 10 million trees are needed to collect 3.6 Gt/yr of CO₂ emissions (about 12.5% of world annual emissions). This means the cost of producing enough of these trees to capture half of world emissions is close to $800 billion (4*10 million trees*$20,000/tree is 14.4 Gt/yr in emissions captured). The report further says the production cost represents only about 20% of the total cost of this type of a proposal. The rest of the cost comes from removing CO₂ from the filters. Assuming that each of these trees lasts indefinitely (simply not the case but a premise that provides a lower estimate of total costs), one can easily calculate the upfront cost to be around $4 trillion with annual expenses thereafter of nearly $3 trillion (mainly for the removal of CO2) – a sizeable proportion of world GDP. Granted the authors discuss the possibility that production advantages will lead to cheaper trees and more efficient ones at that. Even if this is the case, when this happens and how close it matches the authors’ beliefs in terms of efficiency gains are unclear.

With these facts in mind it is clear that much work still needs to be done before geoengineering becomes a viable option for addressing the issues that climate change presents. The Royal Society is probably right in proposing that money being allocated to consider the merits of some of the current proposals. There is much to say about having a plan B when it comes to climate but we shouldn’t forget some of the obvious drawbacks.

Eric Moore is a research assistant at Resources for the Future.

Published: Sep-08-09 | 1 Comment

Sep04

Friday's Reads

Coal, COP-15, Congress, Climate Science, Morning Reads

AP: According to recently-published research the past ten years have been the warmest the Arctic has seen in 2,000 years. The temperature increase has led to changing sea ice, melting glaciers, and thawing permafrost.

Reuters: Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) says President Obama’s trip to China in November will give the U.S. a great opportunity to sign a bilateral agreement on climate change.

NYT: New study suggests measuring the intensity of electric light from satellite photos could help economists track prosperity. After crunching the numbers they say light use correlates to a nation’s GDP.

NYT: A profile of “skeptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg. He says technology—in the form of geoengineering—is the best solution to the world’s climate problem.

Foreign Affairs: Essay suggests taking a cue from U.N. officials and lowering Copenhagen expectations, looking at the conference as an opportunity to create robust national policies and set targeted cuts around the globe.

And Harvard’s Rob Stavins on the future of U.S. coal.

Did we miss something today? Let us know, leave a comment or e-mail clements@rff.org.

Published: Sep-04-09 | 0 Comments

Aug26

Wednesday's Reads

Cap and Trade, Carbon Market, Climate Science, International, Biofuels

WSJ: The top official for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, considered the global authority on climate science, says he supports changing the scientific goal of an international agreement. Rajenda Pachauri says we should aim to lower the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million, instead of the IPCC’s 2007 goal of 450 parts per million.

NYT: The White House and CBO released updated budget numbers Tuesday; estimates put the nation’s 10 year deficit around $9 trillion. Meanwhile Reuters reports the numbers still count on raising some $627 billion in revenue between 2012 and 2019 through a cap-and-trade auction of emissions permits.

Reuters: The European Commission says some 4,000 airlines must find a way to reduce their carbon emissions or they will be unable to fly in the E.U.

NYT: A new report from The Nature Conservancy suggests that by 2030 energy production—specifically the pursuit of renewable domestically-produced energy—will occupy a land mass the size of Minnesota. Researchers hope to draw attention to habitat destruction and illustrate just how much land is used in the production of biofuels.

COP-15: Is it time to think about putting the global community on a carbon budget?

And, will wireless electricity change the world?

Published: Aug-26-09 | 0 Comments

Aug10

Is Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions the Only Sensible Climate Policy?

Climate Science, COP-15, Geoengineering

Image Courtesy John MacNeill With a mere four months remaining before the international community begins negotiations on a global plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Copenhagen, a small group of researchers are challenging the notion that a reduction in GHG emissions is the only sensible and cost-effective approach to solving the problem of global climate change.

In a new report released last week—An Analysis of Climate Engineering as a Response to Climate Change—Eric Bickel and Lee Lane consider the role that climate engineering (also known as geoengineering) could play in preventing global climate change. Contrasting the prevailing policy belief that the only way to achieve this objective is to reduce global GHG emissions, Bickel and Lane consider two alternatives—Solar Radiation Management and Air Capture—that involve large-scale technological interventions to mitigate the climate-changing effect of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) seeks to lower the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere. As the authors write, “SRM does not attach the underlying cause of the warming, higher GHG concentrations. Rather it seeks to reflect back into space a small part of the Sun’s incoming short-wave radiation. In this way, temperatures are lowered even though GHG levels are elevated.” The authors suggest this may work based on analysis of the temperature effects of past volcanic eruptions.

Bickel and Lane also consider Air Capture (AC), a process that theoretically works by capturing carbon dioxide emissions within the atmosphere and storing them in land and/or sea based sinks. While somewhat similar to carbon capture and storage (CCS), AC removes GHG emissions from the atmosphere whereas CCS relies upon capturing CO2 from point sources, such as power plants and the tail pipes of automobiles.

So just how beneficial could these alternatives actually be if implemented? According to the report, they could have substantial benefits relative to the costs of actually implementing such proposals. Stratospheric aerosol injection, one possible tool for implementing SRM, could have a benefit-cost ratio near 25 to 1. Another way of implementing SRM is by marine cloud whitening, which could have a benefit-cost ratio of 5000 to 1. If this sounds too good to be true, it may be. The authors acknowledge caution should be used when reviewing these results, as “any assessment of SRM and AC will be limited by the current state of knowledge, the rudimentary nature of the concepts, and the lack of prior R&D efforts.”

Concerns about the analysis itself aside, just how politically feasible are these technologies? With H.R. 2454 already through the House and the Senate poised to consider the bill this fall (provided health-care doesn’t take up too much legislative effort) it seems like not very.

Even if the United States does not consider SRM or AC, it does not mean that they won’t play an important future role on the international stage. Nonetheless, that seems unlikely as well. With the UN conference in Copenhagen this December, many nations are going to want to take meaningful action to prevent global climate change. As a result, the idea that countries would willingly choose to take an approach that still requires much research (as Bickel and Lane admit) and one that likely seems outlandish to much of the public, and perhaps experts, seems dubious. If an international agreement can be reached in the near future, before uncertainties about benefits/cost and implementation of geoengineering proposals can be resolved, it seems that these possibilities will remain simply that, possibilities. Still, alternative perspectives can’t hurt, and might actually inform the upcoming debate in Copenhagen.

Eric Moore is a research assistant at Resources for the Future.

Published: Aug-10-09 | 0 Comments

Jun17

National Climate Assessment: Climate Change Underway, More Adaptation Research Needed

Adaptation, Climate Science, United States

Climate change is underway in the United States and expected to continue with far-reaching effects if unmitigated—from thawing Alaskan permafrost, to declining air quality in the Northeast, to rising sea levels encroaching on Pacific Island regions—according to a new report from the U.S. Global Climate Research Program. (Key findings here)

“Global Change Impacts in the United States,” explores possible impacts explores global climate change on specific U.S. regions and sectors, including human health, energy, water, and agriculture.

The report’s authors focus largely on scientific observations and projections for the future impacts, but say a successful climate change response strategy will include both mitigation and adaptation efforts. The report calls further adaptation research saying, “In most cases, there is currently insufficient peer-reviewed information to evaluate the practicality, effectiveness, costs, or benefits of these measures, highlighting a need for research in this area.”

To help answers these questions, Resources for the Future has released a series of reports examining key issues U.S. for climate change adaptation policy. The first installment from RFF University Fellow John M. Antle explores the relationship between agriculture (one of the most-adaptable sectors, according to USCGRP), food supply and adaptation.

In “Agriculture and the Food System: Adaptation to Climate Change,” Antle suggests with planning and support, farmers and ranchers can adjust to climate change and continue sustainable operations:

The substantial role that the public sector has played in making the complementary investments that led to the success of U.S. agriculture in the 20th century raises a number of questions about appropriate policies in the context of climate change. The justification for public funding of infrastructure, research, and information systems was based on economies of scale as well as the public good aspect of basic research needed to develop agricultural technologies. Although a substantial public role remains in infrastructure, research, and outreach, it has diminished over time as private institutions have become increasingly capable of providing these services. A key question for policy is whether climate change justifies an expanded role in these areas or whether markets can stimulate adequate responses to the adjustments that will be required as the climate changes. There seems to be a particularly compelling case for the provision of public information about climate change, potential impacts, and adaptation strategies.

Agriculture remains an industry with substantial public subsidies to producers of basic grain and fiber commodities, as well as various subsidies and incentives to encourage sustainable land management and to mitigate environmental impacts. Some policies, such as commodity subsidies, create disincentives for farmers to adapt to changing climate and economic conditions, but these subsidies are likely to be under political pressure, both because they increasingly go to large commercial farms and wealthy landowners and because they are incompatible with international trade agreements.

“Agriculture and the Food System: Adaptation to Climate Change,” is an installment from a six-part series of U.S. climate change adaptation policy reports.

Tiffany Clements is managing editor of Weathervane.

Published: Jun-17-09 | 0 Comments