An Update on the Science of Global Warming and its Implications
- Jason Burnett, Former Associate Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics Division
- Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville
10 Boxer The evidence has been overwhelming that global warming poses a serious threat to the American people.
Bond Workers are suffering as jobs go to countries with cheaper energy and weaker environmental laws. I would share the goal that we are going to reduce carbon, we are going to promote energy efficiency. What is the real threat to the people of America? The real threat is higher energy prices and more lost jobs.
Under the W-L bill $6.7 billion would be taken away from workers. Calpers had invested in the high future cost of energy. As long as we keep all the land out of production the price will continue to go up.
Boxer We’ll respond to his misstatement in the record.
10:15 Lautenberg My grandson has asthma.
10:22 Craig yields.
10:22 Cardin We haven’t had an energy policy and we’ve seen the consequences. The L-W bill will allow us to take the necessary steps to deal with global warming. I’ve urged we have a robust provision to have the best science available to achieve the objectives we set out to do. We all know about corn ethanol.
10:26 Klobuchar I met yesterday with a 14-year-old who biked 1500 miles with a petition signed by 1200 kids for greater fuel efficiency. It appears this administration has been living in an evidence-free zone. One of the redacted facts was that climate change would increase wildfires.
10:29 Whitehouse I yield.
10:30 Boxer swears in the witnesses.
10:31 Burnett I recently resigned my position as associate deputy administrator. The scientific information I present is not my opinion. The April 2 Supreme Court decision permanently changed the landscape. Severe heat waves are expected to increase. The science is clear. A Cabinet-level meeting in November reached the agreement greenhouse gases did endanger the public and needed to be regulated. The only way to avoid making a positive endangerment finding was to make any finding at all.
10:37 Trenberth The IPCC is inherently conservative. Climate change is a real problem today. The problem is accelerating. Changes could happen much larger and sooner than the IPCC suggests. The oceans and land ice have a lot of inertia. Long lead times are essential for action to address climate change. Globally the past 7 years are among the eight warmest on record. Sea level rise continues at a rate of a foot a century. In the first six months of 2008, record rains point to the increases of rain that have been observed in association with more water vapor in the atmosphere due to global warming. Longer dry spells are also associated with global warming. The risk of wildfire increases dramatically. In 2007 two Cat 5 hurricanes made landfall for the first time in Central America. Hurricane Bertha has broken records. We should not be misled by short-term climate changes such as La Nina. Our predictions at NCAR are for substantial changes. I believe there is a crisis of inaction in addressing climate change.
10:43 Spencer There’s two issues I’d like to talk about. As a NASA employee during the Clinton-Gore administration, I was told what I could or could not say. It seemed entirely appropriate to me to abide by the limits of my superiors. I’d like to present the latest research. There remains considerable uncertainty just how sensitive the climate is to human influence. We have attained the holy grail of climate research—a true measure of climate uncertainty. They have been contaminated by cloud variability. In my written testimony, I show how cloud variations and La Nina-El Nino might explain 70 percent of the warming we’ve measured. These results are not yet published, but I presented them at a seminar. The IPCC process has been guided by desired policy outcomes. I am predicting today that the theory mankind is mostly responsible for global warming will fade away.
10:51 Boxer Spencer has been named by Rush Limbaugh as his official climatologist. I’m going to ask Mr. Burnett a few questions about the waiver. Did Johnson discuss in December his plan to move forward with at least a partial waiver?
10:52 Burnett If the Clean Air Act was not amended by Congress, we would move forward with the waiver.
Boxer Did Johnson indicate that the compelling and extraordinary conditions had been met?
Burnett All three criteria were met.
Boxer Did you prepare Johnson for a meeting with the White House on the waiver?
Burnett Materials from our general counsel indicating the legal vulnerability of denying the waiver was communicated to the administrator in multiple fora.
Burnett Pres. Bush had made it clear of his policy preference for a single standard.
10:57 Craig Climate change conferences are a thriving cottage industry.
Spencer There’s more like me out there.
Craig You gave passing comment on climate change and wildfires. The skies of Idaho were filled with smoke from California. In 1991 forestry scientists met and determined that there were millions of acres of forest that were dead and dying. Because of the tremendous population and fuel buildup and a slight change of temperature we’re seeing those fires. Very little is said by scientists about natural emissions of carbon. I accept warming. Why aren’t scientists dealing more with the vegetative consequences and advocating reduced fuel loads?
Trenberth The major factor recently is the major drought that allowed the lodgepole pines to be infected by the pinebark beetle. In recent times we haven’t had the cold spells that kill the beetles.
Craig You’re right about the bug itself. If you take out those bug kill areas, we’re being denied that.
11:03 Lautenberg Mr. Spencer, since you ascribe the problems with changing climate to natural causes, that we then throw up our hands and wait?
Spencer I’m of the professional opinion that people have some influence. We already spend billions of dollars on alternative energy research.
Lautenberg You told the House Global Warming Committee that ExxonMobil thought regulations would taint the Bush legacy.
Burnett There were those in the administration who wanted to be the ones who took action and those who didn’t want to do anything.
Lautenberg Are we approaching the point of no return?
Trenberth What used to be a 500-year flood is now a 30-year flood.
11:10 Cardin Were you present at the Cabinet-level meeting?
Burnett I worked with other officials to prepare for the meeting.
Cardin How were you apprised of the findings of the meeting?
Burnett I prepared briefing materials and Johnson and Peacock asked us when they returned for us to draft findings that reflected the decisions of the meeting.
Cardin Do you know who was in the meeting?
Burnett I’m familiar with the agencies involved. We had meetings three times a week at the OMB. Administrator Johnson said he took the extra step of checking with the President’s chief of staff office and Joel Kaplan whether that meeting was sufficient to tell the staff a decision had been made.
Cardin What happened?
Burnett The sequence of events was strange. I had checked with my colleagues at EPA that the document was ready to be sent to OMB. I sent it over, and then received a phone call from deputy chief of staff Joel Kaplan asking us not to send the document over.
11:19 Klobuchar
Burnett The regulation we were developing would have raised fuel economy standards.
Klobuchar You went back and forth with OMB on the definition of carbon dioxide molecules.
Burnett I was at almost all of the meetings hosted by OMB. There was interest in defining CO2 from automobiles as different from CO2 from power plants. Jeff Rosen raised that question multiple times. It was sometimes embarassing for me to return to my colleagues to have them explain again that CO2 is a molecule.
Klobuchar What can we expect in the future?
Trenberth Rainfall is up about 7 percent, mainly east of the Rockies. Heavy rains are up 14%, very heavy rains up 21%. The reason is well understood. The warmer air can hold more water vapor.
11:25 Boxer Washington is under a severe weather alert.
Whitehouse Were you at the EPA long enough to get a sense what the routine meetings and conversations were between the administrator and the White House?
Burnett My focus was on air quality policy.
Whitehouse Would you characterize they were routine?
Burnett This was my first vehicle waiver process.
Whitehouse Were there specific meetings on the California waiver?
Burnett Yes.
Whitehouse Did the White House understand that the responsibility for making a decision on the waiver rest with the administrator?
Burnett In the ozone decision the president’s policy was ultimately followed.
Whitehouse Did the White House respond to the notice that you intended to partially grant the waiver?
Burnett The response was clearly made that the White House wanted a single standard inconsistent with the California waiver.
11:32 Sanders Talk about human health and global warming.
Trenberth We see events like Katrina, that our infrastructure isn’t adequate. These things happen from time to time but don’t all happen all at once. Natural variability plays a role. In Europe in 2003, the magnitude of the heatwaves, over 30,000 people died, you cannot account for it natural variability or global warming alone.
Sanders If you see increased drought, people won’t be able to grow food.
Trenberth There are various diseases that flourish in warmer climates. Everyone will be affected one way or another. In Europe and Asia it’s gotten much warmer. In the US, it’s gotten wetter. I personally think the biggest pressure point on society will be water and water resources.
Hawaii Representative Crafting 'Environmentally Responsible' Plan That Would Endanger His State
From the Wonk Room.
It seems that Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) is crafting a plan that could lead to the inundation of Hawaii’s beaches, the extinction of its species, and the destruction of its water supply. Abercrombie and John Peterson (R-PA) are creating a “working group” to establish a “comprehensive, environmentally responsible energy plan,” whose members will be announced today. The centerpiece of this plan is opening protected coasts to drilling for more oil, as Abercrombie told the Hill:
Simply standing up and saying, you can’t drill your way out of this doesn’t work. The people are standing up and saying, “Yes, we can.”
The unique beaches, coral reefs, and oceanic ecosystems of Hawaii won’t be directly threatened by expanded offshore drilling, as the ocean that surrounds it doesn’t have fossil reserves. An oil spill or two could get tourists to flee the beaches of California, Florida, and the states of the eastern seaboard in favor of the Aloha State.
But in reality, Abercrombie’s advocacy of increasing fossil fuel production as a climate crisis looms will have deeper repercussions for this necklace of islands than perhaps any other state in the nation. Big Oil wants the world to keep burning fossil fuels at a rate that would increase global temperatures by five to seven times more than we’ve already experienced. Even more modest increases would spell catastrophe for islands like the Hawai’ian chain:
Rising Sea Levels Submerging Islands. In 2006, President Bush declared the 1200-mile chain of Northwestern Hawaiian Islands part of the largest marine sanctuary in the United States. But U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers found that “by 2100 up to 65 percent of some islands would be lost if the sea level rose 18.9 inches (48 centimeters), which is the average IPCC projection.” A 34.6 inch rise “could result in up to 75 percent of NWHI wildlife habitat disappearing.” Whale Skate Island, home to seals, turtles, and seabirds, has already disappeared under the waves. [Endangered Species Research, 2006]Coral Reefs Dying. “The combined stress of global warming and ocean acidification” due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases is already causing coral bleaching. “Especially in the state of Hawaii, we depend on the reefs for tourism as well as our economy. Also, recreational and commercial fisheries,” said Coral Reef Ecologist Ku’ulei Rodgers to NBC affiliate KHNL. “The coral reefs are the basis for all of the foundations and key species and if we lose the reefs we also will lose the fish and other organisms that are involved.” [KHNL, 7/2007]
Water, Wildlife, Economy Under Threat. In the 2007 legislation to cut Hawaii’s greenhouse gas emissions, the state legislature found, “The potential adverse effects of global warming include a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of businesses and residences and the inundation of Hawaii’s freshwater aquifers, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, extended drought and loss of soil moisture, an increase in the spread of infectious diseases, and an increase in the severity of storms and extreme weather events.” Further, “Climate change will have detrimental effects on some of Hawaii’s largest industries, including tourism, agriculture, recreational, commercial fishing, and forestry.” [H.B. 226, 2007]
It is difficult to encapsulate the threat of global warming to these jewels of biodiversity. Everything from the unique snow-dependent wekiu bug on Mauna Kea to the Hawaiian monk seals are under threat. The destruction of Hawaii’s unique habitat is not just devastating to its wildlife. As the National Wildlife Federation notes, “At Honolulu, Nawiliwili and Hilo, sea level is already rising 6-14 inches per century, and the EPA estimates it is likely to rise another 17-25 inches by 2100. Sand replenishment to protect the coasts from a 20-inch sea level rise could cost $340 million to $6 billion.”
Abercrombie has criticized the Bush administration for its “obstruct, confuse and delay” strategy on global warming. His “drill, drill, drill” advocacy is no better.
In Draft of Greenhouse Gases Regulations, Bush Administration Attacks Clean Air Act
From the Wonk Room.
After over a year of battles with the White House and other federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency has published its response to the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which mandated that the agency determine whether greenhouse gases pose a threat to our health and welfare and take action in response. With today’s publication of an “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson ignores the threat and attacks the rule of law.
Johnson published his staff’s document – after extensive cuts from the White House – with complaints attached from the White House Office of Management and Budget, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Small Business Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Energy.
In one voice, the other agencies attack the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases as “deeply flawed and unsuitable,” “fundamentally ill-suited,” “extraordinarily intrusive and burdensome,” “unilateral and extraordinarily burdensome,” “drastic,” “dramatic,” “excessive,” “extremely expensive,” and “costly and burdensome.” The clear and present threat of global warming is dismissed as a “complex” issue that hinges on “interpretation of statutory terms.”
Sadly, Johnson decided to join them, attacking the immense work done by his staff to address the catastrophic threat of climate change:I believe the ANPR demonstrates the Clean Air Act, an outdated law originally enacted to control regional pollutants that cause direct health effects, is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases.
In his press conference announcing the release of today’s decision, Johnson reiterated his opinion that the Clean Air Act is the “wrong tool” for the task, “trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.”
This is yet another case where Johnson is following the example of the likes of disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who made similar statements about the Geneva Conventions’ ban on torture as White House Counsel:As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians. In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.Similarly, the White House’s arguments in defense of ignoring the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s ban on warrantless wiretapping:
Reverting to the outdated FISA statute risks our national security. FISA’s outdated provisions created dangerous intelligence gaps, which is why Congress passed the Protect America Act in the first place.
George W. Bush, Stephen Johnson, and the other officers of the executive branch swore an oath to “faithfully execute” their office and defend the Constitution. They have evidently decided to break that vow, time and again. In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the Bush administration, it’s always the “quaint,” “outdated,” “burdensome,” and “ill-suited” laws that are the problem—never their reckless abandonment of principle and duty.
How Solar Energy Can Help Meet America's Growing Energy Needs
The Optical Society (OSA) and the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invite you to a briefing to learn how solar energy can play a far greater role in meeting energy needs here in the United States and abroad. Solar power is produced through two main technologies: photovoltaic (PV) cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity, and concentrating solar power (CSP), a utility-scale technology that can be combined with thermal storage to provide electricity even when the sun is not shining.
The United States has the potential to greatly expand the use of this clean and abundant source of energy, while also creating jobs and strengthening energy security. Demonstrating this potential is Germany, whose policies have allowed it to become the world leader in solar energy production in spite of relatively low solar resources (comparable to Alaska’s).
The following experts will discuss current and future technologies, U.S. investments in solar R&D by industry and government, and specific policies that can spur future development and promote the widespread use of solar energy:
- Doug Hall, Technology Director, Glass for Photovoltaic Program, Corning Inc.
- Chuck Kutscher, Principal Engineer and Manager, Buildings & Thermal Systems Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
- Scott Clavenna, President & CEO, Greentech Media, Inc.
- Fred Sissine, Specialist in Energy Policy, Congressional Research Service
- Rhone Resch, President, Solar Energy Industries Association
- Carol Werner, EESI and Alex Fong, Optronic Laboratories, Inc., Moderators
This briefing is free and open to the public. Please RSVP to Angela Stark at astark@osa.org or 202.416.1443.
OSA is a scientific professional society uniting more than 70,000 professionals from 134 countries, including Nobel Laureates, members of the National Academies of Science and Engineering, and other scientists, engineers, educators, and manufacturers engaged in the science of light, including solar manufacturing and R&D.
Office of Vice President Censored Testimony on Global Warming Endangerment
From the Wonk Room.
Last fall, as the Environmental Protection Agency worked to satisfy its Supreme Court mandate to protect the American public from the threat of greenhouse gases, White House officials took steps to prevent such action. In a letter responding to questions by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, former EPA official Jason K. Burnett implicated the Office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney, as well as the White House Council on Environmental Quality for censoring “any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change” in testimony to Congress.
Although Burnett refused to assist in the efforts, the October testimony of Dr. Julie Geberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was “eviscerated,” with ten pages detailing the specific health threats of global warming – ranging from heat waves to floods – eliminated. After initial denials of White House interference, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino later claimed that the Office of Management and Budget had redacted testimony that contained “broad characterizations about climate change science that didn’t align with the IPCC.”
In fact, Burnett tells Sen. Boxer that the reason for the cuts was to “keep options open” for the EPA to avoid making an endangerment finding for global warming pollution, which would trigger immediate consequences for polluters. He writes:
On December 5th, under the direction of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, Burnett emailed a formal endangerment finding to the White House Office of Management and Budget, but received a “phone call from the White House” that asked Burnett “to send a follow-up note saying that the email had been sent in error.” He declined to retract the email, which remained unread. Two weeks later, on December 19, Johnson put an end to EPA’s work on global warming regulations and rejected California’s petition to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions.
This May, Burnett resigned from the EPA. In June, President Bush asserted executive privilege to block investigation of his involvement. Boxer has called Burnett to testify before her committee on July 22, in a hearing on “the most recent evidence of the serious danger posed by global warming.” In a statement today, Boxer said:
History will judge this Bush Administration harshly for recklessly covering up a real threat to the people they are supposed to protect.
Read Dr. Gerberding’s unredacted testimony here.
Read Sen. Boxer’s letter to Jason Burnett, and his letter in response.
Climate Change and Security Implications of Electricity Networks Resources
Dr. Lawrence Jones, Account Executive for Automation Information System Business Unit, Areva T&D, will discuss smart transmission and distribution technologies for a clean environment and secure electricity infrastructure.
CSIS
4th Floor Conference Room
1800 K Street, NW
Citing Threat Of Global Warming, Georgia Judge Blocks Coal Plant 1
From the Wonk Room.
In a landmark victory in the battle to regulate global warming pollution, a Georgia judge ruled that a proposed coal-fired plant could not be built unless its carbon dioxide emissions are limited, effectively killing the project. The ruling is the first to apply the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts vs. EPA decision to the question of greenhouse gas pollution from power plants. According to GreenLaw, the Georgia environmental organization who filed suit with the Friends of the Chattahoochee and the Sierra Club in June 2007, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thelma Moore’s decision “goes a long way toward protecting the right of Georgians to breathe clean air.”
The decision overturns an administrative court’s ruling that affirmed the state Environmental Protection Division’s (EPD) decision to issue an air pollution permit for Dynegy’s Longleaf plant. In practical terms, Dynegy cannot begin construction of the plant unless it can obtain a valid permit from EPD that complies with the Court’s ruling. The Judge held that EPD must limit the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the plant, a decision that will have far-reaching implications nationwide; this is the first time since the April 2, 2007, Supreme Court decision requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO2 that a court has applied that standard to CO2 from an industrial source rather than from motor vehicles.
The $2 billion, 1200 megawatt plant – the first proposed in Georgia in over 20 years – was to be built by Dynegy Inc., the Houston-based energy company with several other proposed coal-fired power plants across the country. Dynegy and other fossil fuel polluters have been scrambling to get new plants started in anticipation of future limits on greenhouse gases, before investors and ratepayers recognize the risk.
Last October, the Kansas Department of Health denied air quality permits to a proposed coal plant expansion because of the danger greenhouse gas emissions pose to the climate. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) vetoed repeated attempts by the legislature to override the decision.
In contrast, officials recently appointed by Gov. Timothy Kaine (D-VA) to the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board unanimously granted air quality permits to Dominion Resources for a $1.8 billion coal-fired plant last week.
The court decision unequivocally rules that carbon dioxide must be regulated:Faced with the ruling in Massachusetts that CO2 is an “air pollutant” under the Act, Respondents are forced to argue that CO2 is still not a “pollutant subject to regulation under the Act.” Respondents’ position is untenable. Putting aside the argument that any substance that falls within the statutory definition of “air pollutant” may be “subject to” regulation under the Act, there is no question that CO2 is “subject to regulation under the Act.”
Appeals Court Rejects Petition to Order EPA to Make Global Warming Endangerment Finding
The U.S. District Court of Appeals has unanimously rejected a petition requesting it require the Environmental Protection Agency to issue its long-delayed finding as to whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare. The petition had been filed by officials of 18 states exactly a year after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which ordered the EPA to issue an endangerment finding.
Since that time, Congressional and journalistic investigations have discovered that Administrator Stephen Johnson, with assistant deputy administrator Jason K. Burnett, worked to obey the Supreme Court decision and completed its work for submission to the White House on December 5, 2007. But the White House refused to accept the work, literally keeping Burnett’s email unopened and ordering him to retract the message. He refused to do so, and has since resigned.
The White House overrode the EPA decision to make the endangerment finding, to grant California a waiver to issue its own greenhouse tailpipe emissions regulations, and to recommend federal standards. Instead, Johnson denied California’s waiver and is expected to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sometime soon with draft emissions standards (he has missed his self-imposed deadline of the end of spring).
Sir Nicholas Stern Warns Congress To Act; Dingell: "How Many People Will Lose Homes And Farms To Flooding?"
In yesterday’s House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee hearing on the costs of climate change inaction, economist Sir Nicholas Stern, author of the famous Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, warned the United States Congress that the challenge of reining in greenhouse emissions is critical and doable. Stern advised that there is “a 50-50 chance that worldwide temperatures would increase by an average of 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the pre-industrial level era by 2100.”
Energy Committee chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) noted that global warming will bring more floods like those that have devastated Iowa and other Midwestern states:I would prefer to legislate with more certainty from the scientists about the dangers we face in the future, but we do not have that luxury. Scientists are already observing effects now from climate change.
In contrast, Republican lawmakers emphasized energy costs and the problem of China and India, arguing against federal mandates to limit emissions.
Stern also met with a group of senators, and later spoke at the Center for Global Development, saying:I remain impressed by the degree of understanding of many people of responsibility in the United States. At the same time, I was impressed by the extraordinary scientific denial of some of them.
From E&E News:
An appearance by a prominent British economist yesterday once again split the House Energy and Commerce Committee along partisan lines, as lawmakers battled over the potential economic and political consequences of taking action to address global climate change.The Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee heard from Lord Nicholas Stern—a former World Bank chief economist whose recent projections about the costs of addressing climate change has sparked a wave of headlines and debate.
Stern yesterday also met with senators involved with the cap-and-trade legislation from Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), John Warner (R-Va.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “I remain impressed by the degree of understanding of many people of responsibility in the United States,” Stern said at a speech at the Center for Global Development yesterday. “At the same time, I was impressed by the extraordinary scientific denial of some of them.”
At the House hearing, Stern repeated his call for world economies to spend 1 percent to 2 percent of their gross domestic product to stop greenhouse gases from rising to dangerous levels. Though Stern openly admitted that addressing climate change could have a significant economic impact, he repeatedly emphasized that taking no action would eventually lead to much higher costs.
In particular, Stern said that scientific analysis showed that without some kind of action there was a 50-50 chance that worldwide temperatures would increase by an average of 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the pre-industrial level era by 2100 – a change that would lead to massive changes in human living conditions and major economic costs.
“It radically redraws where species, including humans, are able to live,” Stern said of the potential temperature change. “Changes of this kind can mean very big movements in population.”
Stern projected that the associated costs of inaction could lead to somewhere between 5 percent and 20 percent loss in GDP but said the possibility of such a significant temperature change could be cut substantially by stabilizing C02 emissions.
That message was seemingly embraced yesterday by prominent Democrats, who saw such warnings as a signal that the federal government and private sector must act fairly quickly on efforts to stem the effects of climate change.
“I would prefer to legislate with more certainty from the scientists about the dangers we face in the future, but we do not have that luxury,” said Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.). “Scientists are already observing effects now from climate change.”
Dingell also argued that no projection can estimate the price costs of addressing – or not addressing – climate change, but argued that Congress can still take action to substantially reduce the potential associated risks.
“Scientists cannot tell us precisely what will happen at different greenhouse gas levels, such as how many more people will lose homes and farms to flooding,” Dingell said. “Instead, we need to understand that the best they can do is tell us what the risks are – the probabilities that certain physical changes will occur and the costs we will incur to address those changes.”
Several top Republicans, meanwhile, acknowledged that there could be potential economic impacts stemming from global warming but also argued that poorly designed efforts to deal with the issue could have even more severe economic consequences.
“Energy costs have already reached alarming levels – we’re all paying the costs,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), ranking member of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. “We can pursue options that won’t make matters worse.”
Upton again urged lawmakers to act on climate change legislation that would avoid federal mandates but instead invest in a slew of incentives for clean coal, nuclear and renewable energy.
Additionally, Republicans questioned some of the conclusions of the Stern analysis, saying that the analysis underestimated the potential cost of mitigation strategies.
China and India question
One issue that surfaced several times is the oft-debated question of whether U.S. action on climate change would prompt other world powers – particularly China and India – toward taking action.
Stern admitted that there continues to be some hostility in those nations toward the idea they should take actions that could potentially slow economic development, though he added that they are somewhat more open to international cooperation in part because they are starting to recognize the potential consequences to their own nations.
“That resentment is still there – it’s a political reality that we all have to recognize,” Stern said. But he added, “They realize that you can’t take action for a world of 9 billion just through the action of the 1 billion in the rich world.
“They recognize very quickly just how vulnerable they are,” he said.
Lauren Morello contributed to this story.
NOAA: Global Warming Has Damaged Our Weather
Originally posted at the Wonk Room.
The traditional media rarely discusses extreme weather events in the context of global warming. However, as the Wonk Room Global Boiling series has documented, scientists have been warning us for years that climate change will increase catastrophic weather events like the California wildfires, the East Coast heatwave, and the Midwest floods that have been taking lives and causing billions in damage in recent days.
Today, the federal government has released a report that assembles this knowledge in stark and unequivocal terms. “Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate,” by the multi-agency U.S. Climate Change Science Program with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the lead, warns that changes in extreme weather are “among the most serious challenges to society” in dealing with global warming. After reporting that heat waves, severe rainfall, and intense hurricanes have been on the rise – all linked to manmade global warming – the authors deliver this warning about the future:
In the future, with continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity. Hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge levels are likely to increase. The strongest cold season storms are likely to become more frequent, with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.Unfortunately, some of the cautions in this long-delayed report have come too late for the victims of the Midwest Flood:
Some short-term actions taken to lessen the risk from extreme events can lead to increases in vulnerability to even larger extremes. For example, moderate flood control measures on a river can stimulate development in a now “safe” floodplain, only to see those new structures damaged when a very large flood occurs.