Dietz

Tom Dietz, a professor of sociology and environmental science and policy, spoke yesterday with Michigan Radio’s Charity Nebbe about a paper he and colleagues recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The group found that policies encouraging households to adopt simple behavioral changes could help the United States cut its carbon footprint by an amount equal to France’s total emissions in just ten years.

The interview was one of several Dietz and his colleagues gave about the study. To see more press coverage, click here.

Last week, Dr. Edward Parson (University of Michigan), spoke on policies that affect the advancement of climate change technologies. It was the second talk in the MAES and ESPP Bioeconomy and Global Climate Change initiative.

ESPP sat with Parson after the talk for his thoughts on technology’s role in mitigating climate change, how major research universities can help, and why he has skepticism about the upcoming Copenhagen talks.

– Andy Balaskovitz

If an ESPP-sponsored Copenhagen simulation is any indication of the real climate negotiations in December, don’t expect an effective climate treaty to pass.

For three hours, students negotiated a climate agreement under the motivating force of ESPP faculty member Laura Schmitt-Olabisi. The simulation exercise they participated in was developed at MIT and has been used nationally and internationally in preparation for the Copenhagen climate talks December 7-18.

The exercise played out like this. Students formed three blocs, representing developed, developing, and least developed nations. Each received briefing materials on its particular concerns and agendas. Through three rounds of negotiations, they attempted to draft a climate pact that all agreed on.

To emphasize the unequal footing of the nations, developed nations sat at a table with chairs, developing nations had no table, and least developed nationals sat on the floor.

Blocs spent rounds deciding what they are prepared to offer in three areas: emission cuts, mitigation through deforestation, and contributions to a global climate fund for adaptation of poor countries. Blocs also negotiated with each other around desired concessions. The moderator then plugged the numbers into a Web-based model which predicts atmospheric CO2 levels by 2100.

Little progress on capping CO2 emissions was made after the first round. None of the blocs conceded much and everyone was surprised to discover that negotiation positions had resulted in devastatingly high sea levels and a rapidly warming climate.

Things got a bit heated in the second round. The developing bloc accused developed nations of trying to strong-arm a deal that put a higher emissions-cutting burden on developing nations. Negotiations stalled as developed nations refused to lower their emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions were well above the goal of 400 ppm by 2100. Back to the drawing board we went.

By round three, compromises were made, emissions were lowered and you could sense the hope of a successful climate treaty.

Though the group succeeded in steeply lowering worldwide CO2 emissions, it was still a failure in terms of the simulation’s goals. The result was a binding agreement among nations that, by 2100, would still generate atmospheric CO2 levels near 500 parts per million and raise average global temperatures by 3 degrees C. The goal was 400 or less with average temperatures rising less than 2.5 degrees C.

Some were disheartened when the final pact didn’t meet the simulation’s goals. How, some said, is Copenhagen ever going to agree on something in real life, with real stakes, next month when we couldn’t do it in a classroom? Others wished the simulation took into account factors such as technology advances and other greenhouse gases in setting emission goals.

– Andy Balaskovitz

I’m in Madison, Wisconsin, along with my colleague Andy Balaskovitz, for the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.  We knew it would be a great trip when we ran into this serendipitous sign early in the drive:

And so far, it’s been teriffic.  I spent yesterday morning on a Great Lakes research vessel, while Andy went birding in the country’s biggest freshwater cattail marsh. More on that later.

This morning the conference headed back indoors for an optimistic address from Al Gore about the upcoming United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen.  He likened the current political atmosphere to a moment in a football game when one team abruptly changes the game’s momentum, and ”the psychology of the contest changes dramatically.”

Gore cited recent defections from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the chamber’s stance on climate legislation, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency’s new reporting requirement for major emitters of greenhouse gases, as indicators that an agreement is likely at the U.N. meeting in December.

Gore admitted that his optimism was largely a result of a fear of what would happen should the negotiations prove fruitless.

“The consequences of failure in Copenhagen would, in my opinion, be catastrophic,” he said.

-Andy McGlashen

It’s been almost a week since the Summit on America’s Climate Choices wrapped up, so our coverage of it probably ought to wrap up too.

For a clear and insightful recap of the summit’s take-home points, see this post from Bill Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School at Duke University and vice chair of the Committee on America’s Climate Choices.

I also encourage everyone to check out these videos from the summit; I decided not to bother editing and posting the videos I took, because the webcast is a lot better (Don’t get me wrong, my Flip camera has become my sidekick/security blankie, but you can actually see faces on the webcast - my seat was near the back of the auditorium - and you don’t hear the clackety-clack of the laptops that surrounded me).

All of the presentations were chock-full of good information, and different viewers will most enjoy different talks, depending on their interests.  But for a generalist like myself, the must-see presentations came from Jane Lubchenco, Robert Socolow, Stephen Schneider, Eileen Claussen, Carter Roberts and Howard Frumkin.  (And, OK, I hate to play favorites, but if I were giving out an award for Best Use of Humor to Present Frightening Information, Frumkin would take the cake.)

And so, with hopes that the study helps Congress make climate choices soon and soundly, it’s back to reporting the many environmental (and sporting!) goings-on at Michigan State.

-Andy McGlashen

When laying the groundwork for a major study like America’s Climate Choices, it’s helpful to get folks with different perspectives in the same room.  So it was an especially welcome treat to have John Muir, Mahatma Gandhi and Gen. George S. Patton take the stage during day two of the summit.

Rhetorically, anyway.  R. James Woolsey, a man whose credentials are too many to list here but who is perhaps best known for his service as CIA Director from 1993-95, channeled that trio to argue for a less centralized, more resilient electric grid.

Woolsey used Muir as an ideal advocate for environmental protection, chose Patton for his obvious interest in national security, and said Gandhi was a strong believer in the importance of local economies.  Surprisingly, it turns out Patton and Gandhi have a lot in common.  (Muir is generally too busy rhapsodizing about cumulonimbi to care about national security or local economies.  To him, it only matters if a technology or policy is good for the environment.)

Both the Apostle of Peace and Old Blood and Guts detest our current grid - Gandhi because it relies on centralized power sources owned by few that pollute for the many, and Patton because, as Woolsey said, a reasonably intelligent eighth-grade hacker could bring down the whole thing.  Neither likes nuclear power plants or carbon capture and storage facilities, since they too are centralized, and make juicy targets for our enemies. 

All three men like smaller power sources, though.  Gandhi can envision once-poor communities revitalized by their profits from installing solar panels or small wind turbines.  He also likes cogeneration, and is all for energy efficiency.  Patton is fine with anything that keeps us from dumping boatloads of oil money on countries filled with terrorists.  And Muir is pleased to breathe cleaner air as he rambles through the woods. 

Woolsey wrapped up his talk by cautioning against pitting the Pattons against the Muirs or Gandhis when working toward a comprehensive climate policy.  Folks who care about national security may not give a hoot about climate change, but the solutions to those problems overlap, Woolsey said, and cooperative action might help solve both.  “We need a big tent,” he concluded.

One recurring and, I think, encouraging theme of the Summit on America’s Climate Choices was that business leaders are ready to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but not until regulations are in the books.

“We can’t move forward on other capital investments until we know what the rules are,” said ConocoPhillips chairman and CEO James Mulva, who urged President Obama and Congress to work together to quickly establish a bipartisan policy on greenhouse gases.  Mulva later claimed, though, that Congress could not address climate change easily or quickly.  Certainly it won’t be easy, but saying it can’t be done quickly contradicts the above-mentioned plea, and when energy company chiefs use such rhetoric, one wonders if they aren’t trying to plant the seeds of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Charles Holliday, chairman of the board at DuPont and a member of the Committee on America’s Climate Choices, echoed Mulva on the need for regulation.  “Once we all know the rules of the road for business, I think we’ll be amazed by how quickly things can move,” he said.  He also said building public support for climate legislation will require outreach efforts that make clear the scientific consensus regarding the urgency of the problem.  “People won’t act on a shaky idea,” said Holliday.  “We’ve got to put the work into communication that we’re putting into the science.”  Among other things, he said, that could include a series of televised debates between a climate change expert and a denier. 

Holliday said that to achieve significant reductions in atmospheric carbon, we need a “catalyst,” as he called it.  His point here was in line with another wider theme of the summit:  It would be nice to use the perfect policy instrument to cut emissions, but it’s more important to do something as soon as possible.  Once we get the ball rolling, many of the speakers said, we might be surprised at how quickly and cheaply we can make real gains in the climate fight.

U.S. Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) is first to admit he’s got all the reason in the world to resist climate legislation. 

Hailing from the heart of coal country, he knows that energy policy can have serious consequences for mining towns.  Yet Mollohan was a key player in establishing the America’s Climate Choices study.  He is a member of the subcommittee that funds the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association, which sponsored the study.  In 2007, when the most recent assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made clear a link between human activities and global warming, he said, many people thought we simply needed to stop driving SUVs and start driving Priuses.  (“By the way,” he added, “I own one of each.  Straddling like a good politician should.”)  But Mollohan recognized that such a simple strategy would leave crucial questions unanswered.  For instance, he said, what does sea level change mean for restoration of Louisiana wetlands?  How can we keep Californians supplied with fresh drinking water when the Sierra Nevada’s snowpack is dwindling? 

Mollohan cited an old line from Ohio State football coach Woody Hayes who, when asked why his team ran the ball so often, said that when you pass the ball only three things can happen, and two of them are bad.  When science and policy intersect, Mollohan said, five things can happen, and four of them are bad: The science can be ignored, muzzled, co-opted by industry or misused.  To illustrate the misuse of science, he said, “See George Will, February 2009.”

Nevertheless, Mollohan said, Congress needs the committee’s guidance.  Political problems like whether to raise taxes may be difficult to solve, he said, but they are essentially simple: raise taxes, cut spending, or combine the two.  But climate change involves incredibly complex systems, and Congress needs a set of actionable recommendations to help them address the problem.  He also said that citizen involvement is crucial.

Those sentiments were echoed by U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), who also made the intriguing claim that the term “climate change” was insufficient to convey the situation’s urgency to the public.  When pressed, though, Gordon declined to offer an alternative term.  He urged the committee and other scientists to move quickly to take advantage of a president and members of Congress who have shown an openness toward science. 

When asked by Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press whether he could offer a target we should aim for on parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide, Gordon said he didn’t know the right number. 

Then, after a brief pause, he added, “The number that really matters is 218,” referring to the number of House votes needed to pass climate legislation.

At the outset of this group of posts from Washington D.C., I’d like to direct readers to the Web site of the Summit on America’s Climate Choices, from which they can access general information about the summit and the study it aims to outline, as well as the Committee on America’s Climate Choices and its panels.  The site does a fine job of explaining everything, so I won’t try to reinvent that wheel.

I should also mention that I hope to soon post video of presentations by Jane Lubchenco, Susan Solomon, Robert Socolow and Stephen Schneider.  Until then, you can watch the summit via webcast.

Day one of the summit was an interesting mix of good humor and sobering talk - two things that will be needed to meet the 2010 deadline for a final report on the study. 

In his opening remarks, Albert Carnesale, who chairs the Committee on America’s Climate Choices, said decision makers are the study’s primary audience.  “This study is not about what the individual should do.  This is about people who implement policies” he said.  Later, though, Carnesale said that his original sense of the audience had shifted since Congress requested the study.  “What I underestimated was the sheer size and breadth of the audience that cares about this,” he said.  “There’s no question that, ultimately, it will be the voter who will determine what America’s response will be.” 

When asked what made this study different from others, and whether it wouldn’t merely delay action further, Carnesale pointed out that this study was specifically requested by Congress, with the question, “What should we do?”  And the world is watching the committee, according to Diana Liverman of the University of Arizona and Oxford University.  “There is enormous interest and hope” in other countries, where the summit is seen as a small-scale version of the upcoming United Nations meeting in Copenhagen, said Liverman, who serves as vice-chair of the Panel on Informing Effective Decisions and Actions Related to Climate Change.

And that hope may be well-founded, according to Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp, who said that the staff of Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will today release a draft of a comprehensive climate bill that Krupp said will become ”the greatest environmental legislation our country has ever passed.”

“We’re in a race to determine whether we can save ourselves from ourselves,” Krupp said.  “And surely we can.”

An upcoming conference will draw attention to the effects of climate change and invasive species on Michigan’s birds.  The third annual Ornithological Congress will be held April 3-5 at North Central Michigan College in Petoskey.

ESPP affiliate Kim Hall will address the need for conservation efforts that incorporate climate change.  Birds depend on certain plant and insect species for food, she said, but earlier blooms and hatches brought on by a changing climate could cause a mismatch between the birds’ migration and food availability.  Hall is a Nature Conservancy climate change ecologist and an adjunct researcher at the Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability.

MSU zoology professor Catherine Lindell will also speak at the conference, which is sponsored by the Michigan Bird Conservation Initiative, a partnership among state and federal agencies, universities and nonprofits.

To learn more or sign up for the conference, call (517) 373-1263 or visit www.mibci.org.

-Andy McGlashen