Conference: Washington
Summit on
Climate Stabilization
SUMMIT AFTERMATH: Study by NASA and University Scientists Shows World Temperature Reaching a Level Not Seen in Thousands of Years and Raises Grave Concern of Irreparable Harm
Commentary By John C. Topping, Jr., President, Climate Institute
At the recent Washington Summit on Climate Stabilization, scientists and policy makers from US, Canada, Mexico. Australia, UK, and Iceland spoke of how close the world’s climate system could be to tipping into a situation where the warming feeds on itself, driving temperature and sea level higher and higher at a pace that could overwhelm the capacity of humanity and ecosystems to adapt. Polar and climate experts indicated that the warming will reduce the albedo (i.e., reflectivity) of the surface in the polar regions as sea ice melts, causing a greater absorption of energy and warming that could, in turn, cause the release of massive amounts of methane held in the Arctic tundra, further accelerating the warming underway. Australian scientist A. Barrie Pittock presented ten reasons that could cause the warming and sea level rise projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be greater than their mid-range estimates.
In his Barnard Lecture at the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences on September 18 and in his Introductory Address the next morning at the Science Symposium of the Washington Summit, Sir Crispin Tickell highlighted the fragility of the Earth’s atmosphere and underscored the need for decisive international action. Ambassador John Ashton, UK Special Representative for Climate Change, reiterated Her Majesty’s Government’s moves toward climate stabilization and described its cooperation with the State of California in working toward large-scale greenhouse reductions. In his September 19 Luncheon Address and in remarks that evening accepting the Climate Institute’s Global Environmental Leadership Award, Dr. Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, President of Iceland, spoke of the vulnerability of his nation and other very northerly countries to large-scale climate change but also suggested that these nations could play a major role in climate solutions. Citing Icelandic leadership in the preparation of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, President Grimsson also spoke of Iceland’s determination to lead the world toward stabilization of the global concentration of greenhouse gases, recounting specific steps Iceland is taking.
The Science Symposium was replete with sober but riveting presentations of potential large-scale climate changes:
Polar bears, the Great Barrier Reef, Alaskan forests and other ecosystems appear likely to be early casualties of an accelerating warming. The Science Symposium looked particularly closely at potential impacts in two US regions: the Chesapeake Bay and along the Gulf Coast. Large-scale climate change could have dramatic effects on human health in the US as well as developing countries not only raising likely casualties from heat and pollution but also spurring pulses of illegal migration of desperate people and straining public health systems where immigrants flee.
ENCOURAGING SIGNS
Alarming as some of these prospects were, a major part of the Summit on its last three days was devoted to highlighting innovative solutions, e.g. building resilience along the coasts, construction of storm surge barriers to protect Metropolitan New York, developing forward-looking emergency preparedness systems, saving tens of billions annually while slashing US greenhouse emissions by preempting anti-competitive state restrictions on combined heat and power, and eliminating regulatory and permitting barriers to entry of other systems that are low emitters of greenhouse gases. Particularly heartening were indications that two major international financial institutions, Goldman Sachs and Glitnir Bank (based in Iceland), are staking out positions as leaders in clean energy finance, that Toyota is successfully commercializing hybrids, BP is reducing emissions and saving energy costs even in the fossil side of its operations, PG&E is moving aggressively to develop a strong renewable thrust, and retailers such as Wal-Mart and Home Depot are using their market clout to promote greenhouse benign products. Read more on this.
The Summit also highlighted efforts underway in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and just beginning in South Asia to develop proactive climate protection policies under the umbrella of the nascent International Leadership Alliance for Climate Stabilization. A major thrust of the effort in Mexico will be to fill a significant hole in the Global Change Observing System by providing observations from the world’s highest altitude station, not only of CO2 and UV radiation, but also tracking of particles from Africa and the Amazon. US, Canadian, Mexican, European and South Asian universities and NGOs already seem interested in working to put flesh on the bones of this new International Leadership Alliance. Perhaps the most significant breakthrough of the Summit was the interest expressed by leaders and activists from many faiths in encouraging their co-religionists to work with climate protection efforts at home and abroad.
IDENTIFYING A MUCH LESS FORGIVING THRESHOLD
Just four days after the conclusion of the Washington Summit, a group of scientists led by Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA‘s Goddard Institute for Space studies (GISS), issued a report that suggested that there is grave reason for concern that the climate system may be on the verge of irreversible and disastrous changes. The paper’s tone was measured, indicating that the global average surface temperatures would soon match or exceed values at any time during the last 12,000 years (higher temperatures in the past were likely a result of the cyclic changes in the Earth's orbital parameters—changes that are not implicated in the present warming).
Hansen’s comments at a California Climate Research Conference a week and a half before release of the temperature study underscored his conclusion that humanity has only a decade in which to begin decisive steps to limit the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere without significant risk of disastrous changes in which the warming feeds on itself. Hansen calculates that a 1 degree C warming is all that the climate system can tolerate before the warming veers out of control, causing a very rapid temperature increase and spurring melting or collapse of ice sheets that, over the next century or two, would lead to sea level rise that would inundate most of the world’s coastal cities and displace a very large number of people. The 1 degree threshold above present that Hansen sets as an upper limit is even more stringent than the 2 degree C warming above preindustrial conditions that has been used by European Union (EU) policymakers in their discussions.
The EU numbers were grounded in science, but were also tempered by consideration of political feasibility.
Given the observed warming trends, growth in energy use, and steadily rising global greenhouse gas concentrations, staying within the EU's upper limit has seemed somewhat of a stretch. Hansen’s calculations are grounded solely on the physics and chemistry of the climate system and the amplifying effects of what climate scientists have infelicitously chosen to call “positive feedbacks.” These feedbacks lead to what might more appropriately be called metastatic climate change. Like a cancer, the warming tends to feed on itself, threatening human civilization and extinction of species on an unprecedented scale.
Hansen and his colleagues are not alone in their recommendations. Some of the world’s other top climate scientists, including James Lovelock, author of the Gaia theory, Paul Crutzen, Nobel Laureate, and Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research have also begun to more openly and forcefully express their alarm. Crutzen and Wigley are so concerned about emission trends and pessimistic about prospects of energy change that they have called for research into geo-engineering options.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Way beyond Kyoto. What we need in the United States is what Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger committed California to in his Executive Order of June 2005—an 80% reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. This amounts to a per capita emissions cut of more than 90% from present levels and California already has among the lowest per capita greenhouse emissions of the 50 states (Vermont and New York are also quite low). Although Governor Schwarzenegger likely won’t be in office in 2050, there is an excellent chance that the Golden State will realize his goal. Transportation sector emissions can be virtually zeroed out in a number of ways, including using renewably-derived hydrogen for fuel, plug in hybrids, biofuels or a combination. Large-scale renewables, including solar power from solar cells located in desert regions, tidal energy from coastal waters, wind energy from mountainous regions, and geothermal, biofuels and co-generation, could each play a large role. In addition, although I wouldn’t bet a lot of money on it, nuclear power may make a comeback, if it can cut costs and meet public safety and waste disposal concerns. Some imaginative sequestration strategies may also allow continued, but limited, use of fossil fuels, especially if sequestration is successful and cost-effective.
Transcending the ideological divides. For the last decade and a half, much of the America’s political right has tended to view Global Warming as a pet cause of liberal politicians and bureaucrats eager to fence in entrepreneurs. Although Margaret Thatcher, one of the two great conservative leaders of the past half century, favored strong action for climate protection and Tory leader David Cameron is today trying to outdo Tony Blair in reducing greenhouse gases, in the US the issue often still splits out on left/right political lines. Yet one of the most promising greenhouse gas mitigation strategies- one that would save billions for the US economy each year and result in large –scale emissions cuts- can be achieved by striking down state restrictions on combined heat and power. Free market advocates should welcome this; so should those who care about future generations. The US achieved a rapid phase-out of lead from gasoline by use of lead trading and banking. Greenhouse rules are likely to work best if they give industry great flexibility in obtaining emission reductions and incentives to trade emission permits.
Bringing adaptation front and center. The world is already committed to significant changes in climate over coming decades. Coastal areas in most of the US are likely to face accelerated sea level rise even if the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets remain largely intact. To encourage the transition to reduce risks of devastating impacts, the Federal Government should cease being a guarantor of improvident coastal investment. While beach nourishment may be a prudent strategy for recreation-oriented communities, the cost of doing this should increasingly be borne by the community. Once we no longer have Uncle Sam acting like Santa Claus in delivering goodies to pork barreling legislators, ingenious low tech and less expensive solutions, such as the use of vetiver grass to slow beach and road erosion, are likely to emerge. In some cases insurance companies are beginning to insist on tough construction and siting standards. And the American Institute of Architects is calling on its members to participate in reducing the energy use of buildings by 90% over 20 years.
More about this...
Federal, State and Municipal Governments should generally resist the temptation to demagogue on these issues. New Orleans is a good place to start; rebuilding shouldn’t occur in places where it is plausible that devastation could recur within a few decades. Under most climate scenarios and in most regions, water is likely to become more scarce; the best means of addressing this is likely by charging for water at rates that reflect its value, even though such charges may require adjustments by the agriculture community.
Building reciprocal international partnerships. Our coastal cities can learn from and help our Caribbean and Pacific island neighbors. The Endangered Islands Campaign and the International Leadership Alliance for Climate Stabilization envision real sharing of know-how. Not only should these efforts enhance awareness of climate change among Americans, they can also provide municipal planners information and ideas on how to shape their own responses. Through such efforts, those of us in the US and the rest of the developed world can both work to address international equity and to increase our own resilience, not a bad bargain.
