Here is something about global warming that President Obama doesn't seem to understand: What matters isn't how much clean energy you generate or how much more efficient you make energy use. The only thing that really matters when it comes to global warming is how much greenhouse gas emissions are released into the atmosphere.
Look at it this way. If we quickly reduced all greenhouse gas emissions to zero without generating any more clean energy or increasing efficiency, that would solve the global warming problem just as well as if we also generated more clean energy and increased efficiency. The purpose of the alternative energy is not to stop global warming, but to enable us to keep living the way we want to, which requires lots of energy. But when it comes to how much the world warms, it makes no difference how much clean energy you produce.
Of course if you increase efficiency, that will tend to reduce emissions, and generating clean energy also generally reduces emissions. And of course we need to do these things. But if more fossil fuels are extracted, more will be burned. The more coal there is, the cheaper it will be, and the more the Chinese and everyone will be able to afford to burn. The cheaper natural gas gets, the more new power plants will be built to burn that gas instead of generating energy with no emissions. The dirtier the fuel (e.g. tar sands), the greater the emissions.
So this is the point: If you are allowing the refining of more tar sands oil, pushing for increased fossil fuel extraction, and spurring greater exports of fossil fuels, you are pushing the world in the wrong direction and contributing to the damage that is occurring and will occur. It's not like investing some money in clean energy and enacting new regulations for autos and power plants gives you permission to do this, any more than giving money to the poor gives you permission to commit murder. You might save some lives by helping the poor, but it is still just as wrong to murder, period. It is wrong to have policies that promote more greenhouse gas emissions, period. This is an area where "compromise" makes no sense at all.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
The Prize
It has been a long time since I posted to this blog, but I thought I’d post about an experience I had recently. A couple of weeks ago there was a message on my machine from the Urgency Network, saying they had some good news for me. The Urgency Network (https://www.urgencynetwork.com/) is a new organization that uses contests to raise awareness and money for good causes. I had entered a contest a few days before, and I actually won the prize!
The purpose of this contest was to help GreenPeace in their efforts to save the Arctic. The prize was getting to meet Paul McCartney in person, a signed copy of the re-issue of Wings Over America, a 3 day VIP pass to Outside Lands festival in SF, plus transportation and lodging.
Friends told me I should bring something for Paul to sign. I didn’t have a CD of his or anything else good. On the final day of the contest, I donated $40 to get a GreenPeace T-Shirt, and it happened to arrive the day before I was to meet him. I thought it would be great if he would sign that! But then I thought of something I wanted much more. I have been thinking for a long time that if only I could tell President Obama what I have learned about climate change, he’d make stopping global warming his top priority. So the morning of the day I would meet Paul, I quickly wrote a short letter and put two copies in an envelope.
The meeting with Paul only lasted a couple of minutes, but it was pretty unbelievable. He was very nice and made a remark about how amazing it is that there are still people who say nothing is happening with the climate. After the photos, I handed him the letter. He said he didn’t have time to read it then and handed it to his assistant. I said I hoped he could give one copy to someone influential. My brother in law Kyle, who I invited to share the experience said, “He means Obama.” Paul said he didn’t know if he could manage that, and then we had to go.
I wished I had thought of writing it earlier so I could spend more time on it. There is so much more I could have written. But it is probably good that it is not that long. Here is what I wrote:
Most policy is still being based on letting the levels get as high as 450 ppm. This is based on predictions from models in the 2007 IPCC reports. But that only gives us a 50-50 chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees by 2100. If we want to have an 80% chance, we have to limit atmospheric levels to 378 ppm. On top of that the models are almost certainly underestimating the warming. Why?
1. They were only run to the year 2100 and don’t predict further warming after that year. In fact, when some models were later run past 2100, they predicted the warming would continue at least until the year 3000. So 2 degrees by 2100 doesn’t mean the warming will stop at 2 degrees.
2. The models don’t take into account very strong known positive feedbacks. The one with the largest potential is methane hydrates in shallow ocean waters and methane and CO2 released from thawing permafrost. These are already happening and the methane releases from the ocean floors have accelerated dramatically in the past couple of years.
A better alternative to models is looking at what happened in the past, which automatically includes all of the feedbacks. Although there is uncertainty here too, they paint a much grimmer picture.
Hansen said recently that we have only felt about half of the effects of the greenhouse gases we have already released. But he is being conservative here.
According to “Climate Change, Biological and Human Aspects” (pgs 122-123), in the Pliocene (5.3 – 2.6 million years ago), CO2 levels were around 360 ppm (parts per million) and temperatures were 3 degrees hotter than now. 360 ppm is 28% higher than the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, which means that a 28% rise in CO2 levels translates to approximately 3.8 degrees C rise in temperature in the long run (3 degrees hotter than now is about 3.8 degrees hotter than preindustrial times). We are at around 400 ppm now, which is 43% higher than 280. If temperature rise is proportional to CO2 increase, which is what past evidence shows, that means the emissions we have already released will eventually make temperatures around 5.8 degrees hotter than preindustrial levels (48 * 3.8 / 28). A 5 degree rise is much more than twice the 0.8 degree rise we have felt so far. The same book on pg. 122 says sea levels were 10 – 20 m higher at that time. If things are proportional with sea level rise, we are destined to eventually (probably hundreds of years from now) have sea levels that are 17 to 34 m higher than now.
Other recent studies by researchers at UCLA also concluded that the last time CO2 levels were as high as now, temperatures were several degrees hotter and sea level was several meters higher.
Although there is quite a bit of uncertainty in all these numbers, you have to remember that uncertainty always goes both ways. It is as likely to be worse than these numbers indicate as better.
How serious is this? Just as one example, a few hundred years ago, when temperatures in the US were only about 1 degree hotter, the Southwest was suffering megadroughts lasting decades and the Great Plains was a desert. Probably most of the vegetables, fruit, and grains grown in the US come from these areas. Other parts of the world will also suffer severe food shortages as temperatures rise. Famine is sure to follow, especially since population will almost certainly rise.
The only logical conclusion is that we need to stop burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible. This is why an “all of the above” energy policy makes no sense. We have already probably burned far too much. We should not take any more from the ground or burn any more than absolutely necessary. The fact that around 2 million people die per year from air pollution and the huge environmental damage caused by extracting, transporting, refining, and burning fossil fuels are even more reason to stop it now.
The purpose of this contest was to help GreenPeace in their efforts to save the Arctic. The prize was getting to meet Paul McCartney in person, a signed copy of the re-issue of Wings Over America, a 3 day VIP pass to Outside Lands festival in SF, plus transportation and lodging.
Friends told me I should bring something for Paul to sign. I didn’t have a CD of his or anything else good. On the final day of the contest, I donated $40 to get a GreenPeace T-Shirt, and it happened to arrive the day before I was to meet him. I thought it would be great if he would sign that! But then I thought of something I wanted much more. I have been thinking for a long time that if only I could tell President Obama what I have learned about climate change, he’d make stopping global warming his top priority. So the morning of the day I would meet Paul, I quickly wrote a short letter and put two copies in an envelope.
The meeting with Paul only lasted a couple of minutes, but it was pretty unbelievable. He was very nice and made a remark about how amazing it is that there are still people who say nothing is happening with the climate. After the photos, I handed him the letter. He said he didn’t have time to read it then and handed it to his assistant. I said I hoped he could give one copy to someone influential. My brother in law Kyle, who I invited to share the experience said, “He means Obama.” Paul said he didn’t know if he could manage that, and then we had to go.
I wished I had thought of writing it earlier so I could spend more time on it. There is so much more I could have written. But it is probably good that it is not that long. Here is what I wrote:
Why “All of the Above” is the Wrong Energy Policy
James Hansen is thought by some to be a radical climate scientist. Compared to most scientists, he is “radical” in the sense that he is not afraid to clearly and publicly talk about what the science means to people, to say what he thinks needs to be done, and to even join demonstrations to help prevent the disasters that climate science predicts are likely to happen. But when it comes to the science itself, he is as conservative as most scientists are, only coming to conclusions when he has a high degree of certainty. For example, he said that in order to keep climate change to safe levels, we need to bring CO2 levels to 350 ppm or lower. Everyone ignores the “or lower” part. What that means is that he is fairly certain that more than 350 is too much, but we might have to bring the levels down even further to be safe.Most policy is still being based on letting the levels get as high as 450 ppm. This is based on predictions from models in the 2007 IPCC reports. But that only gives us a 50-50 chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees by 2100. If we want to have an 80% chance, we have to limit atmospheric levels to 378 ppm. On top of that the models are almost certainly underestimating the warming. Why?
1. They were only run to the year 2100 and don’t predict further warming after that year. In fact, when some models were later run past 2100, they predicted the warming would continue at least until the year 3000. So 2 degrees by 2100 doesn’t mean the warming will stop at 2 degrees.
2. The models don’t take into account very strong known positive feedbacks. The one with the largest potential is methane hydrates in shallow ocean waters and methane and CO2 released from thawing permafrost. These are already happening and the methane releases from the ocean floors have accelerated dramatically in the past couple of years.
A better alternative to models is looking at what happened in the past, which automatically includes all of the feedbacks. Although there is uncertainty here too, they paint a much grimmer picture.
Hansen said recently that we have only felt about half of the effects of the greenhouse gases we have already released. But he is being conservative here.
According to “Climate Change, Biological and Human Aspects” (pgs 122-123), in the Pliocene (5.3 – 2.6 million years ago), CO2 levels were around 360 ppm (parts per million) and temperatures were 3 degrees hotter than now. 360 ppm is 28% higher than the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, which means that a 28% rise in CO2 levels translates to approximately 3.8 degrees C rise in temperature in the long run (3 degrees hotter than now is about 3.8 degrees hotter than preindustrial times). We are at around 400 ppm now, which is 43% higher than 280. If temperature rise is proportional to CO2 increase, which is what past evidence shows, that means the emissions we have already released will eventually make temperatures around 5.8 degrees hotter than preindustrial levels (48 * 3.8 / 28). A 5 degree rise is much more than twice the 0.8 degree rise we have felt so far. The same book on pg. 122 says sea levels were 10 – 20 m higher at that time. If things are proportional with sea level rise, we are destined to eventually (probably hundreds of years from now) have sea levels that are 17 to 34 m higher than now.
Other recent studies by researchers at UCLA also concluded that the last time CO2 levels were as high as now, temperatures were several degrees hotter and sea level was several meters higher.
Although there is quite a bit of uncertainty in all these numbers, you have to remember that uncertainty always goes both ways. It is as likely to be worse than these numbers indicate as better.
How serious is this? Just as one example, a few hundred years ago, when temperatures in the US were only about 1 degree hotter, the Southwest was suffering megadroughts lasting decades and the Great Plains was a desert. Probably most of the vegetables, fruit, and grains grown in the US come from these areas. Other parts of the world will also suffer severe food shortages as temperatures rise. Famine is sure to follow, especially since population will almost certainly rise.
The only logical conclusion is that we need to stop burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible. This is why an “all of the above” energy policy makes no sense. We have already probably burned far too much. We should not take any more from the ground or burn any more than absolutely necessary. The fact that around 2 million people die per year from air pollution and the huge environmental damage caused by extracting, transporting, refining, and burning fossil fuels are even more reason to stop it now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)