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.