Climate 411

If You Can’t Stand the Heat: Why Washington is Stuck on Climate Change (Part 1)

By Keith Gaby / Published: March 21, 2013

(This blog was first posted today on EDF Voices)

Image by Vinoth Chandar/Flickr

There is no point in being coy about this: The issue of climate change is polarized along partisan and ideological lines.

Democrats and progressives think it is a dangerous threat to the world. Most Republicans and conservatives think the threat is exaggerated, or doesn’t exist at all. The divide among politicians is even more striking – less than a third of Republicans in Congress responding to a 2011 National Journal survey said climate change is causing the Earth to warm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Against this political backdrop, many critics say that groups like EDF, which  seek to start a dialogue with conservatives on the issue, are  naive.  No conciliatory language, no middle-ground proposals, they say, will draw more than a few Republican votes in Congress. Conservative members of Congress will simply vote against us once Rush Limbaugh starts railing against the global warming “hoax”.

It’s a reasonable argument, but I think it misses an essential point: It may be hard to pass climate change legislation by working with conservatives, but it will be nearly impossible to do so without them. In fact, no major environmental law has ever been passed without large bi-partisan majorities.  The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments all passed with lots of votes from both major parties.

No important legislation can become law without sixty votes in the Senate.  And I think you will search in vain for a respected political analyst who thinks there will be sixty progressive, pro-environment senators any time soon.  On an issue that doesn’t allow for the long game – as the atmosphere loads with greenhouse gases and the ice caps melt – we can’t wait decades for that super-majority to appear.

That leaves us two choices: act without Congress, or open a conversation with conservatives and move towards an approach that can get widespread support.  President Obama has already used his executive powers to limit greenhouses gases, including a clean cars rule and proposed standards for new power plants. We hope he will soon add pollution limits for existing power plants and policies to limit methane leakage from natural gas production.

All of that, along with actions by states like California’s AB 32, will be an important down payment on what we need to do. But in the long run it won’t be nearly enough to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.  Nothing short of a comprehensive solution to shift America to cleaner energy, and lead the world that way, will suffice.  And that means Congressional action.

Next: Why do many conservatives reject the consensus of scientists on climate change?

Also posted in Policy / Comments are closed

Sequestration – What It Means For You, What It Means for Planet Earth

By Keith Gaby / Published: March 7, 2013

Now that the automatic spending cuts known as “sequestration” are here, we’re getting a clearer look at what it will mean for our environment. In these economic times, budget cuts are a fact of life. But these non-targeted, across-the-board cuts are likely to have real consequences for our environment:

  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will have to cut the funding it gives states to monitor their air quality.
  • EPA says it will likely have to shut down some critical air monitoring sites that check for dangerous pollutants like ozone and particulate matter.
  • EPA also says it will have to reduce the number of “environmental cops on the beat” – the people who monitor compliance with our environmental laws. They estimate they’ll do 1,000 fewer inspections this year. That means more polluters will get away with putting our health at risk.
  • Funding that was given to communities to repair or replace decaying water and wastewater infrastructure will be cut. That puts your local safe drinking water at risk.
  • The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will have to cut grants for state and local firefighters and other emergency management personnel. That will make it harder to respond to the next hurricane, tornado, or other weather disaster – at a time when those weather disasters are intensifying because of climate change.
  • The Agriculture Department says it will treat as many as 200,000 fewer acres for hazardous fuel because of budget cuts. That means a higher risk of wildfires.
  • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will delay the launch of two new satellites that are designed to track severe weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes.
  • NOAA will also cut back on maintenance and operations of some its other weather systems — including the national radar system that’s used for tornado warnings. The Secretary of Commerce, who oversees NOAA, warned that sequestration will: 

significantly increas[e] forecast error and, the government’s ability to warn Americans across the country about high impact weather events, such as hurricanes and tornadoes, will be compromised.

  • NOAA will also have to reduce the surveying that goes into nautical charts, which would put navigation – and the millions of dollars of commerce that depends on it – at risk.
  • Sequestration may force national parks across the country to close, or to operate with shorter hours. Reports say Yellowstone may open three weeks late to save money on snow plowing.
  • Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says the reopening of the Statue of Liberty after Hurricane Sandy will likely be delayed.
  • Salazar and the head of the Park Service, Jonathan Jarvis, say sequestration will cut into their ability to staff national parks, fight fires, and clean up after winter storms.
  • Sequestration will force reductions in funding for fishery stock assessments, which will jeopardize our ability to open economically vital fisheries from the Gulf Coast to Alaska.
  • Sequestration also means fewer people to enforce laws against overfishing. The Commerce Department says they may have to compensate with smaller quotas or early closure to the fishing season.

All of the above examples are from memos written by agency heads to Congressional leaders about the potential effects of sequestration. There will undoubtedly be other effects – and we don’t know what they’ll be.

Of course, today’s budget issues pale in comparison to the financial disasters that loom ahead of us  – the amount we’ll have to spend to recover from stronger storms, droughts, and other extreme weather as climate change accelerates.

We’re leaving our kids a huge bill to pay.

Also posted in Policy / Read 1 Response

New Reports about Weather Disasters, Cost, and Climate Change

By Steven Hamburg / Published: January 29, 2013

Congress just passed a bill to provide more than $50 billion to victims of Hurricane Sandy.

If you think that seems like a lot of money, consider this – Hurricane Sandy was just one of the eleven weather disasters in the U.S. last year that caused more than $1 billion each in losses.

For a long time now, the world’s top climate researchers have told us about the strong evidence of links between our weird weather and climate change.

(Of course, here at EDF, we’ve been talking about the links between weird weather and climate change too — as regular readers of Climate 411 know.)

Greenhouse gas pollution traps heat in our atmosphere, which interferes with historic weather patterns – and is resulting in more severe and damaging weather events.

Our particularly awful weather last year has put climate change back in the news:

  • In his Inaugural Address, President Obama talked about the threat of climate change — saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”
  • Two Members of Congress just formed a new bicameral task force on climate change.
  • The World Economic Forum just released its Global Risks Report 2013, which says: “Following a year scarred by extreme weather, from Hurricane Sandy to flooding in China, respondents rated rising greenhouse gas emissions as the third most likely global risk overall.”

How bad was it really? Four other reports — all released in the last few weeks – found that evidence showing the impacts of climate change is piling up.

Two new reports from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show that both America and the world are warming – by leaps and bounds.

According to NOAA, “By a wide margin, 2012 was the United States’ warmest year on record.”

NOAA’s State of the Climate National Assessment found that the average temperature for the continental U.S. in 2012 was one full degree Fahrenheit higher than the previous warmest year on record – and 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average.

And NOAA’s State of the Climate Global Analysis found that 2012 was the 36th consecutive year with a global temperature above the 20th century average. That means the last time the global temperature wasn’t above average was in 1976 – when America was celebrating its bicentennial and Jimmy Carter was elected President. Anyone under the age of 35 has never seen a year when the Earth wasn’t hotter than the 20th century average.

NASA also measures global temperatures, and their report also found 2012 to be one of the top 10 hottest years ever for planet Earth.

Why? According to NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt,

The planet is warming. The reason it’s warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Let’s go back to NOAA’s data for more frightening statistics from 2012:

  • Every state in the contiguous United States had an above-20th century-average annual temperature. (You can check NOAA’s web page to see which cities broke any records or had their hottest year).
  • July 2012 was the hottest month ever observed in the continental U.S. since we began keeping records in 1880.
  • Nineteen states had their warmest year on record, and another 26 states had one of their ten warmest years since 1880.
  • Temperatures were above the 20th-century average in every month from June 2011 to September 2012 – an unbroken 16-month stretch that we’ve never seen before since we started keeping records.
  • The winter snow cover for the contiguous United States was the third smallest on record, and snowpack totals across the Central and Southern Rockies as of April 2012 were less than half of the 1971-2000 average.

In 2012, America also had the second largest extent of extreme weather events ever recorded in a single year. (A weather event has a variable at the high or low end of the observed historical range.)

And we saw vastly different types of weather extremes at the same time – which is consistent with weird weather linked to climate change. While most of the continental U.S. withered in drought, some areas got drenched — Florida had its wettest summer on record.

Along with Hurricane Sandy, 2012 weather lowlights include:

  • Hurricane Isaac, which caused flooding along the Gulf Coast and killed 9 people.
  • The Derecho storm that caused severe damage in eleven states from Indiana to Maryland.
  • Flooding in and around Duluth, Minnesota, where rivers reached all-time high flood levels.
  • A massive drought that covered more than 60 percent of the country and led to widespread crop failures. Crop prices are now rising because of last year’s drought. Corn, wheat and soybean prices are all up – which means your grocery bills will soon be up too.
  • Wildfires burned more than nine million acres around the West, about 1.5 times the ten year average from 2001 to 2010. A fire near Colorado Springs destroyed almost 350 homes, and New Mexico recorded its largest wildfire ever. Wildfire risk increases when drought is combined with high heat and low levels of humidity.

Now for the really bad news – it’s likely to get worse.

This month, the U.S. government released a first draft of another new report, the National Climate Assessment. More than 300 scientists contributed to writing the report, which warns that the U.S. could warm up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, unless we take steps now to reduce climate change.

According to the assessment:

Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans … The sum total of this evidence tells an unambiguous story: The planet is warming.

Unfortunately, the new reports are just the tip of the rapidly-melting iceberg. There’s a lot more evidence of climate change and its effects on our weather — evidence that shows that we need to take serious action to reduce carbon pollution and stop climate change.

Also posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Extreme Weather, Science / Comments are closed

Automakers Defend Historic Clean Cars Standards

By Graham McCahan / Published: January 15, 2013

The world’s biggest automakers are standing up in court to defend America’s historic new fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards.

The Obama Administration announced the clean cars standards last August.

The new standards will double fleet-wide fuel economy by 2025, to 54.5 miles per gallon.

They’ll also:

  • Save families more than $8,000 at the gas pump over the lives of their new cars or trucks
  • Dramatically reduce our nation’s dependence on oil
  • Cut greenhouse gases by six billion tons

By 2025, the standards are projected to reduce U.S. oil consumption by more than two million barrels per day.  Combined with earlier standards for large diesel trucks, the daily oil savings in 2025 will be substantially more than the amount of oil imported each day from Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia in 2011.

The six billion tons of greenhouse gas reductions are more than the total of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2010.

(You can read more about the standards, and their benefits on our website)

These historic standards are supported by consumers, the United Auto Workers, national security experts, U.S. automakers, many U.S. states, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and environmental organizations.

Unfortunately, there are some groups that don’t support them.

Industry groups — including the Utility Air Regulatory Group, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, and National Oilseed Processors Association — have filed legal challenges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

EDF will defend these historic standards in court. We and our allies have already moved to intervene in support of them.

Now, both U.S. and foreign automakers have also stepped in to defend the landmark standards.

Yesterday, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed a motion to intervene in support of the standards.

Their motion says that the court challenges:

jeopardize the further development and continuation of an integrated national approach to increasing automobile fuel economy and thus reducing carbon emissions.

Just three days earlier, the Association of Global Automakers also filed a motion to intervene in support of the standards.

Members of the two automaker groups include Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo.

It’s a great reminder that when we work together, America can achieve lasting gains for our environment and our economy.

 

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Greenhouse Gas Emissions / Read 2 Responses

How the President Can Address Climate Change Right Now

By Sharyn Stein / Published: January 4, 2013

When Foreign Policy magazine decided to run a series on “10 problems Obama could solve right now,” they turned to EDF’s Gernot Wagner.

His contribution: a list of ways the President can address climate change — without Congressional approval.

Gernot acknowledges that:

“President Obama isn’t going to halt the rise of the oceans in his second term.”

But he outlines steps the President can take right now.

At the top of his list:

 “The president can start by setting an example in his own house, quite literally. Based on Executive Order 13514, signed in October 2009, Obama established a 28 percent emissions-reduction goal for the federal government by 2020. While working toward this goal, the administration should take the opportunity to implement a tried-and-true market approach: Follow the lead of some big corporations like Microsoft and make each part of the government financially accountable for its greenhouse gas emissions by putting a price on carbon dioxide — at least the roughly $20 per ton established by the federal government’s own interagency working group as the single best value. That would allow the government to meet its overall target the most cost-effective way possible”.

Other key ideas:

  • Use existing legal authority under the tried-and-true Clean Air Act to cut power plant pollution, both from new and existing sources.
  • Build on the success of strengthening greenhouse gas and fuel-economy standards for cars and extend them to heavy and medium-duty vehicles, ranging from 18-wheelers to commercial delivery trucks.
  • Get methane leakage under control. Natural gas can have half the climate impact of coal, with the emphasis on “can.” Methane leakage could actually make it worse, and President Obama has the power to ensure that’s not the case.

Read more in Foreign Policy’s article.

Also posted in Policy / Read 1 Response

EPA Updates Standards to Reduce Levels of Deadly Soot Pollution in Our Air

By Mandy Warner / Published: December 14, 2012

America took a big step toward cleaner, healthier air today.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its long-awaited updated standards for fine particulate matter.

EDF was among the many health and environmental groups applauding the life-saving new standards.

Fine particulate matter is often referred to as soot, although it actually comprises a broader array of fine particles. It gets into the air we breathe — some of it directly emitted from cars and trucks, some of it resulting from factories and power plants hundreds of miles upwind – and then can lodge in our lungs and cause a variety of heart and lung problems, especially in children and seniors.

In fact, soot is one of the deadliest types of air pollution. It can cause heart attacks, asthma attacks, and premature death. Recent studies have found that soot is potentially associated with autism as well.

A letter signed by over 650 health and medical professionals stated:

Fine particulate air pollution is cutting short the lives of tens of thousands of Americans each year. Studies have shown fine particulate air pollution is shortening lives by up to six months …

Numerous, long-term multi-city studies have shown clear evidence of premature death, cardiovascular and respiratory harm as well as reproductive and developmental harm at contemporary concentrations far below the level of the current standard ..

Infants, children and teenagers are especially sensitive, as are the elderly, and people with cardiovascular disease, lung disease, or diabetes. The new EPA standards should be set at levels that will protect these sensitive people with an adequate margin of safety, as required by the Clean Air Act.

States have a variety of tools to meet the updated and strengthened standards. They include:

  • Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – these national standards for power plants are already being implemented, and will help reduce soot as well as mercury
  • Lower Sulfur Gasoline for Cars — EPA could put these standards in place as soon as next year to help clean up soot
  • Air Toxics Rules for Cement Plants and Boilers — EPA is expected to finalize these soon. They will provide further soot emission reductions across the country
  • Diesel Emission Reduction Act — this highly successful, bi-partisan program can, if funded by Congress, reduce emissions from dirty diesel engines across the country while also providing economic benefits
  • Reducing Emissions from Shipping – the U.S. is part of an international program that will play an important role in reducing soot, especially for coastal areas
  • Cross State Air Pollution Rules — a robust cross-state air pollution program would reduce the power plant emissions that drift across state borders. Those emissions contribute to air quality problems, both locally and in downwind states. Over the summer, a deeply divided court struck down EPA’s “good neighbor” program that would have addressed this problem. We need a strong replacement program as soon as possible.

Those are just a few of the tools we can use to reduce the soot pollution in our air. They are all highly cost-effective, and broadly supported.

Many of them are being challenged in the courts and Congress, however — so we still have a lot of work to do. We must ensure that EPA can implement the programs that will reduce dangerous pollution like soot.

Some industrial interest groups are opposing the soot standards, but a lot more groups are cheering today’s announcement. The breadth of the support for this life-saving measure is tremendous.

Leading health groups including the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, American Thoracic Society, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and the March of Dimes have all expressed strong support for stronger soot standards.

They’ve been joined by a wide variety of other groups, representing moms, African Americans, faith communities, doctors and health professionals, teachers, environmental justice advocates, state leaders, communications workers, Hispanics, nurses, conservation and sportsmen groups, and business communities.

It’s rare to see an issue that can bring so many different people together. But it seems all of them recognize the importance of clean air.

I find it inspiring to be part of such a broad coalition, united by the common cause of improving the health and lives of every American.

This holiday season, I am grateful for the promise of cleaner air for all Americans, for the opportunity to work on an issue that unites so many diverse people, and for the reminder that clean air is not just an environmental or health right but an essential human right.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Health, Policy / Comments are closed