A New Vision - Is Anyone Listening?

Today, I participated in a conference call where the EPA announced the issuance of proposed carbon pollution regulations for new power plants in the United States. These regulations will limit carbon dioxide emissions from new coal power plants to 1,100 pounds per megawatt hour, which is approximately 40 percent lower than the cleanest coal fired plants in the country now. The proposed regulations, which also limit carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas power plants, will not by themselves translate to dramatic reductions in the levels of carbon pollution emitted by the United States, but they are an important first step that sets the table for future regulations and technologies that can. More importantly, these regulations represent the beginning of concrete actions supporting the President’s Climate Action Plan released in June of this year.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-climate-action-plan

The other two actions are to prepare the country for the impacts of climate change, and to lead international efforts to address global climate change. In this plan the President provides a vision of real action that will require specific commitments, such as increase renewable energy projects on public land, update flood-risk reduction standards; and strong leadership in the United Nations climate change negotiations. Today’s announcement represents one such commitment. Of course today’s action, along with the overarching plan issued by the President will come under heavy scrutiny and opposition. As if to prove my point, two days ago the Energy and Commerce Committee (Energy and Power Subcommittee) of the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing titled “The Obama Administration’s Climate Change Policies and Activities”. And to begin the “sincere effort to understand the ramifications, the impact of climate change” Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) asked four poignant questions about the President’s Climate Action Plan:

• Is it going to contribute to higher energy costs? 
• Is it going to raise unemployment rates? 
• Is it going to create obstacles to economic growth?
• Is it going to have an impact on our ability to compete in the global marketplace? 

These questions, while perhaps valid, appear to be just a bit skewed to a specific point of view. I suppose asking questions that might inquire as to both the benefits and costs of a plan are only valid if you want to understand the entirety of a plan and not just support an already strongly held belief. But as I listened to the questions and comments from many of the Members of the subcommittee, it was clear that the opposition of climate change action appears mainly based on social or cultural reasoning and not scientific reasoning. Dialogue and questions to understand took a backseat to espousing statements of “fact”. This isn't unique to Members of Congress, these are challenges that I have encountered in various other venues, across a wide spectrum of people. And ultimately this presents one of the most important challenge for advocates of climate change action - How to change the deeply held social beliefs around climate change to create meaningful dialogue and action?

Maybe If We Ignore It?

A few days ago President Obama gave the first State of the Union speech for his second term.  Historically this speech is an opportunity for a President no longer worried about running for re-election to spell out an ambitious agenda for his last term.  And in this sense the President didn’t disappoint, his agenda was as broad as it was ambitious.  There are many elements of the President’s speech I liked, and some I didn’t.  But I was gratified to hear him give climate change a prominent place in his speech, a place I think it deserves (clearly not a surprise to anybody who has ever read my blogs).  And then there was the Republican response by Senator Marco Rubio (R) of Florida.  I generally consider the Senator an accomplished and intelligent person, so I was disappointed to hear him use the word “weather” to describe climate change.  Specifically, what the Senator said was “When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can’t control the weather – he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air.”

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/12/171841996/transcript-gop-response-to-state-of-the-union-address

Control the weather???

I am surprised that somebody who comes from probably the most climate vulnerable state in our country would have such a flippant attitude towards a very real threat to the people of Florida.  I suppose that’s the beauty of foresight, you can just keep denying until hindsight requires you to change.  

At this point I could talk a lot about why addressing climate change is so important and what the costs of inaction will be (e.g., agriculture, increased storms, fishing and tourism).  But there is a plethora of reports that can do a much better job than I can (I just like saying the word “plethora”, it roles off the tongue funny).  I will only point to one study, the recently released “Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment” prepared by NOAA’s Climate Program Office. 

http://cpo.noaa.gov/Home/AllNews/TabId/315/ArtMID/668/ArticleID/80/Global-Sea-Level-Rise-Scenarios-for-the-United-States-National-Climate-Assessment.aspx

Although this report was prepared by NOAA, it was prepared in collaboration with NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Columbia University, the University of Maryland, the University of Florida, and the South Florida Water Management District.  Therefore, a lot of smart U.S. based science went into this report.  And one of the key findings of the report – sea level rise will rise up to 6+ feet in the U.S. by 2100.  I wonder if Florida, with its 2,276 miles of tidal coastline (2nd only to Alaska) should be concerned? 

I really don’t think it’s a bad thing for the Senator to question how the government spends money, such as whether a specific climate policy is really in the best interest of the country.  But I wish he would base his arguments on real issues (e.g., the benefits and detriments of the policy) and not just repeat the tired old “climate change isn’t real” rhetoric that he and many of his party have embraced.  I think he does a disservice to the people of Florida who are and will continue to struggle with the effects of climate change, even if some of us choose to ignore that fact.

A Real Maize Maze

Coban, Guatemala

In Guatemala, to call corn a staple is a really big understatement (corn is almost as ubiquitous in Guatemala as Law and Order is on every American television set).  I can barely remember any meal where there weren’t fresh corn tortillas on the table (btw, corn tortillas are the only true tortillas, flour tortillas are just weird).  And though tortillas are probably the single most abundant food item made of corn in Guatemala, many others have a heavy corn influence, such as tamales, tostadas, and my most favorite “atole de elote” (a hot corn drink that is seriously amazing).  So it was with particular interest that I read the article in the New York Times recently about how corn is becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain for local communities in Guatemala who rely on corn as their primary food source. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/science/earth/in-fields-and-markets-guatemalans-feel-squeeze-of-biofuel-demand.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

The basic gist of the article is that corn, besides being a staple food crop, is also an important biofuel source.  With increasing demand to move away from fossil fuels, biofuels are becoming more and more sought after, which also means that the sources of biofuels are becoming more expensive.  Therefore, in the case of Guatemala, you have many plantations growing corn not for local food consumption but for exportation as a fuel source.  And you have local communities finding themselves in competition with larger forces with deeper pockets for their once reliable source of sustenance.

This is not a unique problem to Guatemala, nor is it a new problem.  Historically, using agricultural resources to grow food versus some more lucrative use of those resources is a problem that the world has know for a long time.  But what makes this issue more complex is that the cause for the shift isn’t simple economics, it’s driven in large part by actions meant to help, actions to address climate change.  Put simply, increasing the use of renewable energy, such as biofuels, helps lower the world’s greenhouse gas emission levels.  However, using more land and food crops for biofuel production means less available food for local communities, especially in poorer countries.

To be fair, the issue of biofuel versus food is one that the climate community has been struggling with for some time.  Over the last few years biofuels has become an increasingly prominent topic of discussion, and debate, within the international climate change negotiations.  In countries like Brazil, one of the leading biofuel exporters in the world (No. 2 last time I checked), I’ve seen first hand the ongoing efforts of governments and the private sector to create land use programs that balance the demands of food and fuel.  And although this issue of finding the proper balance is still evolving, I think that overall there has been a lot of progress, in both the science and the policies.  New sources of biofuels (e.g., 3^rd and 4^th generation biofuels), and changes in the policies around biofuel usage (e.g., decrease in biofuel mandates) have the potential to significantly decrease the pressure on food crops. 

However, the greatest potential for long-term success in maintaining the balance of biofuel production and adequate food supplies, stronger engagement with the local communities is something that has not been developing nearly as fast.  In many cases local communities are engaged in some of the planning or decision making processes surrounding biofuel production, but often have limited, or no connection to the biofuel market mechanisms (e.g., small land holder participation).  This lack of market engagement not only creates a host of broader social and equity dilemmas, but in this case it disconnects the land use decisions from those who are better able to gauge and adapt to local food demands.  

Chasing More Than Ice

Chasing More Than Ice

A few days ago I saw a movie called Chasing Ice (http://www.chasingice.com).  The movie documents the efforts of a former climate skeptic to photograph the rapid melting of world’s glaciers (yes, James Balog was a genuine skeptic, now he is an advocate.  I suppose watching glaciers disappear before your very eyes has a way of changing your mind).  Overall, the movie has the general theme of most advocacy movies - it brings to life the very real consequences of not taking action.  But in many ways it is a very different type of advocacy movie.  This movie has very little messaging and simply let’s the viewers see the evidence for themselves, in this case thousands of photographs of glaciers melting away collected over several years.  

I’ve been thinking a lot about this movie lately, not so much about the powerful images (and they are powerful) but more so on the idea of climate change messaging.  Crafting effective messaging is something that all advocacy work struggles with, but it seems that developing strong climate change messaging has been especially tricky.  This became even more evident as I’ve been talking to friends who are attending the renewed climate change negotiations going on now in Doha, Qatar.  Although these negotiations are attempting to address difficult science, legal and social issues associated with crafting a global climate change agreement one issue that always comes up is:  How to change strongly held viewpoints on climate change back at home?   Negotiators are instruments of their country, and will echo their homegrown public and political viewpoints at the negotiation table.

So clearly there is a need to improve climate change messaging, but how?  I found an article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review that provides some interesting insight into exactly this question.  The article is titled “Climate Science as Culture War”: (http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/climate_science_as_culture_war)

The article is written by a social scientist, who makes the case that in order to successfully move climate change action forward we need to move beyond a scientific consensus and work on achieving a social consensus.  However, creating this social consensus is a daunting task, mainly because it requires fundamental shifts not only in how we think of climate change, but also in how we view the world and our place (and impact) within it.  Specifically, the three facets that make up this challenge are:

• Much of the public does not view greenhouse gas, unlike other pollutants, as inherently harmful.  In fact, the creation of greenhouse gasses is directly linked to success and prosperity.
• We do not fully appreciate our impact on the global ecosystem.
• Assuming we accept the creation of greenhouse gas as a bad thing that has serious detrimental effects globally, what are our ethical responsibilities?

These three facets represent what the article refers to as an “existential challenge” that illustrates the “magnitude of the cultural debate that climate change provokes”.  And it’s this existential challenge that climate change advocates must address to create a social consensus.  The article proposes various methods that can be followed to create a consensus based discussion to move towards a social consensus, which I am not listing here but I encourage those interested to read in more detail.  However, the essence of the article is that to move the debate forward we can’s just focus on the science, we need to understand and address the cultural underpinnings of the various viewpoints on the science.  As an engineer I’m partial to the pure science (any excuse to use my scientific calculator), but having worked on climate change policy for a while (and even having an interesting climate science debate with a Member of Congress) the suggestions in this article are very well taken.

Ps.  Good luck to all my friends in Doha right now.  Do good and I hope you took plenty of granola bars!

EEEPA!

Congratulations to the U.S. EPA for releasing the long awaited carbon pollution standards for new power plants.  As a former EPAer and having personally worked on the development of some of these carbon rules I was happy to see their release of this proposed rule in particular.  I am sure many a tweet, blog and press release have been flying around touting the benefits or detriments of this proposed rule.  Instead of simply adding a voice to the chorus I simply want to congratulate the EPA on this important first step.  Though I firmly believe that this is exactly that; a first step. 

The rule mandates requirements only for new power plants.  It does not affect existing power plants or our current energy supply.  If one believes, as I do, that it’s in our best interest as a country to diversify and modernize our power sector to be more reliable and cleaner, then the way you start is by regulating new sources to the sector.  Some may argue that this is too little or too much, but I think it provides a good practical first step to start the process of cleaning up our energy sector. 

Currently about 45% of our country’s electricity needs are met by burning coal, this is not going to change quickly.  Power plants take a long time to construct, and like many large construction projects new power plants are subject to multiple economic, regulatory and technological considerations that take time to plan and finance.  However, by setting a mandate on the expectations for the level of emissions from new power plants the EPA has provided a level of certainty – the bar that all new power plants must pass under.  I think this is the most important element of the rule, the certainty it offers.  One thing that utilities hate above all is uncertainty, especially in long term projects – now they can plan.  For the environmentalists there is now certainty that no matter the floor has been set, and if conditions change (which they always do) they can be comfortable knowing at least there is a solid clean energy line we can’t cross and we don’t go back to the days of dirty coal. 

As a quick aside, as I was writing this blog I pictured London as Charles Dickens described it and it reminded me of the reason that the EPA is here in the first place “Smoke lowering down from chimney-pots, making a soft black drizzle, with flakes of soot in it as big as full-grown snow-flakes”.  A vivid reminder.

Congratulations again EPA!!

Sometimes the Greatest Impact is Somewhere Else

During my career I’ve spent a lot of time helping company’s identify their carbon footprint, that is to say what are their carbon emissions.  Like most things, the difficulty of this task is heavily dependant on how broadly you want to look.  Staying in a tight circle makes the analysis much easier, for example, how much electricity does each building owned by the company use?  Not to say this doesn’t involve a lot of work and company introspection, but just that the tighter the circle the more direct the analysis.  But do the direct actions of a company truly reflect their carbon footprint?

Based on the efforts by the leading global companies on the carbon emissions from their supply chains (e.g., transportation sources, raw material providers, etc.) the answer is a resounding NO!

There are countless of images on supply chains, many of them very complex diagrams of all the possible sources of a company’s carbon emission sources, I couldn’t resist the simpler lego-like version.  Thanks to the University of Maryland Baltimore Campus (UMBC), Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, March 10, 2011 for their great image.

Based on the nature of global markets and the influence that successful company’s now have over so many other businesses and sectors, a look at their complete carbon footprint must include the carbon emissions from sources all over the world that are not owned by the company outright.  For example, what impact does Apple have on global carbon emissions?  How do the carbon emissions from processes that Apple directly controls versus the carbon emissions of independent manufacturing and transportation sources that supports Apple, as well as those from the usage of their products, compare?  Apple’s direct emissions pale in comparison.  This is not a unique situation, if you look across all business sectors, from electronics, pharmaceuticals, store chains and even car manufacturers, a significant portion, if not the majority, of their carbon footprint comes from sources outside of their direct control.  But how do you accurately measure the carbon emissions from these wide-spread sources?  This is a question that many of us have struggled with for a while, and for which we’ve relied on the pioneering efforts of others to help guide us. 

Recently the World Resources Institute (WRI) released the final volume of their guidance documents to allow global corporations measure and report their carbon footprint (the preceding volumes dealt with the more direct sources of emissions).  This document titled “GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) and Product Life Cycle Standards” is meant to serve as the defining source for the identifying and accounting for the carbon emissions from sources outside of a company’s direct control, but very still very much within their sphere of influence.  Having previously worked with WRI on this issue and just having read the document I’m excited about its release.  The document represents a coming together not only of a lot of intellectual energy but also real world experiences by some of the leading practitioners in the business.  Two thumbs up and a must read for anybody in this business, though I warn you based on my experience it will take you at least 2 cups of coffee to get through it in one sitting.

On The Move

I attended a very interesting discussion a few days ago at the Brookings Institution on climate change adaptation and migration.  Though I have followed adaptation issues for a while and understand the broad strokes of migration with respect to climate change, I found the discussion really interesting because it brought up complexities to this issue that I had not considered previously. 

For those interested in the discussion in its entirety I am including an audio link of the session: https://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/0106_climate_change_adaptation.aspx

For those interested in something less detailed stay right here.

Overall, the discussion, and the Brookings Institution itself seem to be interested in creating significantly greater awareness to the seriousness of migration and population mobility issues due to climate change.  Specifically, the case is made that migration is one of the more important issues associated with climate change adaptation yet very little is understood about the linkages.  For example, the idea that populations will choose to migrate due to the effects of climate change is fairly intuitive (e.g., the rise of sea levels will cause people to move more inland).  However, how much of population movement can be directly associated with climate change and not due to other drivers such as economics?  Also, what about migration, whether voluntary or forced, as a climate change adaptation solution – is it a more cost effective climate change adaptation solution to move a population instead of building a sea wall for example?

Migration due to natural disasters or changing environments has been around for approximately forever (hence the dustbowl picture).  Climate change is a clear multiplier of natural disasters and changing environments, and therefore has a clear link to migration.  But is there a way to attribute specific migration data to climate change?  An interesting example of this very issue that was brought up during the discussion at the Brookings Institution, which revolved around population declines in certain agricultural areas in the Middle East due to lower crop yields.  Investigating the lower crop yields indicated a change in pest activity driven by a change in weather patterns as a key driver.  Therefore, is there a way to clearly delineate the migration patterns due to climate change from those due to other drivers such as economics?  Can the case be made that pest management expenses or financial help to relocate farmers is a climate change adaptation activity?  Also, how will the larger growth in urban areas from this migration affect the climate change adaptation strategies of the urban area?  What about possible solutions to prevent the migration or cope with the influx of people? 

Just this one example creates a lot of questions.  One further question is why does it matter that migration patterns or activities be linked to climate change?

One very big reason that the distinction matters is money.  To put this question into context, most assumptions for climate change funding are based on the promises made in Copenhagen by developed countries to mobilize approximately $100 billion dollars per year by 2020 in assistance to developing countries for climate change.  Although no one knows how much of this money will go to adaptation activities, the current estimates of less than 5% of all climate change finance going to adaptation activities doesn’t bode well.  When you add to this the idea that the private sector will play a significant role in climate finance and how much you can engage the private sector in adaptation activities, a lot of concerns begin to arise on how and where the limited resources made available to address climate change adaptation should be spent.  Therefore, if migration can be directly attributed to climate change then some of the available climate adaptation funding can be used to investigate this issue.  Unfortunately, this also means that any money spent around migration might directly compete against other climate change adaptation activities.  This is the classic battle between soft solutions (e.g., research or institutional assistance) versus hard solutions (e.g., sea wall construction projects). 

As I mentioned in a previous blog, the recently concluded climate negotiations in Durban South Africa did make some important strides in the area of climate change adaptation.  One of them was the official launching of the adaptation committee, which is the body in charge of providing broad recommendations on all issues around climate change adaptation, such as finance, technology transfer, best practices to name just a few.  Although migration is considered within the official text of climate change adaptation, it is unclear how prominent a topic it will be given the large number of issues this committee needs to address.  Given that migration due to climate change is already happening, will continue to grow, and will have a dramatic impact on national adaptation strategies, it seems clear that the adaptation committee must make understanding the linkages of migration and climate change a priority.