Climate 411

Bad news and good news on cutting climate pollution

By Nat Keohane / Published: December 11, 2018

Climate change is an urgent threat and we must overcome significant hurdles to address it — beginning with the reckless polices of the Trump administration.

Some countries are on track to meet their commitments under the Paris agreement, some are falling behind, and many will not start in earnest until compliance rules are agreed to at the UN climate conference in Poland.

The climate action story so far is a mix of positive and negative trends. As has been well-covered in the media, the US is trying to pull out of the Paris Agreement and global emissions rose in 2018. Those hard facts cannot be dismissed. But there are also larger market and technology trends which, combined with the actions of responsible governments, are creating some positive indications, too. Which side wins out will depend on the action of political leaders, investors, engineers, voters, and activists.

The positive examples below are not simply individual bits of good news, but signs of a world economy in the midst of transition: Read More »

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Paris Agreement / Comments are closed

Seis aportes del nuevo informe sobre el clima

By Casey Ivanovich / Published: October 8, 2018

Co-escrito por Ilissa Ocko.

Los efectos tangibles del cambio climático provocado por el hombre son cada vez más visibles. Un estudio reciente, encontró por ejemplo, que la temporada de huracanes 2017 fue más intensa como resultado de nuestro clima cambiante. Limitar los niveles de calentamiento global es esencial para frenar los impactos futuros del cambio climático, pero ¿en qué medida un calentamiento adicional de 0,5 ° C cambia nuestro mundo

El informe especial emitido anoche por el Panel Intergubernamental sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC), considera los impactos del calentamiento global de 1.5 ° C por encima de los niveles preindustriales, en contraste con los 2 ° C, y cómo puede alcanzarse este objetivo de calentamiento inferior. El informe fue escrito por cientos de científicos provenientes de 40 países diferentes y basado en investigaciones de miles de estudios científicos

Aquí hay 6 puntos clave del nuevo informe del IPCC:

  1. Cuando se trata de calentamiento, 1.5 ° C es mucho más seguro que 2 ° C … pero aún más riesgoso que el presente.

Read More »

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

Six takeaways from the new climate report

By Casey Ivanovich / Published: October 8, 2018

Co-authored by Ilissa Ocko. Haz click aquí para leer en español.

The tangible effects of human-induced climate change are increasingly visible. A recent study, for example, found that the 2017 hurricane season was more intense as a result of our changing climate. Limiting global warming levels is essential to curbing the future impacts of climate change, but how much does an additional half a degree Celsius warming change our world?

The special report issued last night by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers the impacts of 1.5 °C global warming above preindustrial levels, in contrast to 2 °C, and how this lower warming target can be achieved.The report was written by hundreds of scientists hailing from 40 different countries and based on research from thousands of scientific studies.

Here are 6 key takeaways from the new IPCC report:

1. When it comes to warming, 1.5 °C is much safer than 2 °C…but still riskier than the present.

Limiting warming to 1.5 °C compared to 2 °C has clear and considerable benefits, such as significantly reducing the risks of water scarcity, ill-health, food insecurity, flood and drought, extreme heat, tropical cyclones, biodiversity loss, and sea level rise. Read More »

Also posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Extreme Weather, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Science / Read 2 Responses

The Trump administration’s Clean Power Plan replacement – for many states, worse than doing nothing

By Rama Zakaria / Published: September 14, 2018

The Trump Administration’s proposed “replacement” for the Clean Power Plan would not only increase dangerous climate pollution and cost American lives – it would actually be worse than doing nothing at all in many states.

The proposal would severely weaken our nation’s only limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. It would increase climate and health-harming pollution from those plants, and would lead to more premature deaths compared to leaving the Clean Power Plan in place.

But that’s not all – EPA’s own numbers show that the proposal would also increase pollution in many states compared to a world without the Clean Power Plan.

In many states, this proposal would leave communities worse off than if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had done nothing at all.

Read More »

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health, News, Policy / Comments are closed

The science is clear: We need a stronger smog standard

By EDF Blogs / Published: September 4, 2018

By Ananya Roy

A mom rubs her sons back as she murmurs softly “It’s going to be OK. You are going to feel better soon.”“Mom, am I going to miss baseball practice again?” Frustration lacing every word, as the young boy looked longingly at the sunshine streaming through the emergency department waiting area window. The sound of his wheezing carried across the room.

In the U.S. more than 26 million people are known to have asthma, of which 6 million are children. These are the Americans who may face situations like this one. The CDC estimates that asthma costs the U.S. economy more than $80 billion annually in medical expenses, missed work and school days and deaths.

We can and must do better.

Ground level ozone (also known as smog) is an air pollutant with well-established adverse effects on health including worsening of asthma. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required by law to set national air quality standards that protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Read More »

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

Hansen was right: Marking an anniversary by misleading the public

By Ilissa Ocko / Published: July 18, 2018

Dr. James Hansen testifying before Congress in 1988

With the thirtieth anniversary of former NASA scientist Jim Hansen’s landmark testimony to Congress on the urgent need to address climate change, numerous articles marked the occasion by demonstrating that his 1988 predictions have proven to be accurate.

Inevitably, some writers seized the opportunity to revive long-debunked arguments in an attempt to cast doubt and confusion on the threat.

Perhaps the most misleading – and certainly the highest profile – was a June 21st op-ed in the Wall Street Journal written by Pat Michaels and Ryan Maue. Michaels is director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, a think tank financially linked to the fossil fuel industry. And Michaels has been found to have previously misled Congress by presenting a doctored graph of Hansen’s projections during public testimony before the House Small Business Committee.

Four decades of climate model projections have fared well

Their latest effort implies that U.S. climate policy is based on Hansen’s forecasts in 1988, and therefore we must “reconsider environmental policy” according to an evaluation of “how well his forecasts have done.”

In reality, climate policy is based on hundreds of years of collective research and an overwhelming amount of observational evidence gathered from all over the world.

Climate model development began as early as the 1950s, and projections from 1973 to 2013 (including Hansen’s 1988 paper) have been compared to observed temperatures by multiple institutions. All showed reasonably accurate surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016, Hansen’s 1988 study included.

Read More »

Also posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Science / Comments are closed