Tag Archives: Climate change

Activists Unite for Climate Solutions in 350.org Global Work Party

Posted on by
2

On October 24, 2009, people around the world united for what CNN called “the most widespread day of political action in our planet’s history.” Thousands of activists rallied under the banner of 350 — that is, 350 parts-per-million, the safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The number has become a symbol of the grassroots climate movement. Now that the top-down approach has failed in both Copenhagen and Washington, concerned citizens of the earth are resorting more than ever to organizing from the bottom up. Today, 10/10/10, is proof.

The folks at 350.org designated October 10 as a “Global Work Party.” While the event is organized similarly to last year’s action day, there are two main differences. First, the Work Party is much bigger. At 7347 events in 188 countries, it easily tops the stunning figures from last October.

The second difference: Today’s Work Party is just that — a work party. Not an action party. Not a tea party. Participants aren’t just waving signs and demanding change; they’re building, repairing, planting, and installing change. At any time, you could find people educating and protesting for every cause imaginable, but not all of them could boast that they actually did something practical. From planting community gardens to installing solar panels, 350.org actions are moving us closer to that number. (In fact, the movement got a boost a few days ago when Barack Obama re-installed White House solar panels that Jimmy Carter had put up and Ronald Reagan had taken down.)

The message to political leaders is, “If we can get to work, so can you.” Of course, whether they will listen is another matter entirely. The climate movement must continue to grow after today and after this year. Eventually all those voices will be impossible to ignore.

In any case, it’s a heck of a lot better than just writing letters.

Carbon in the Ocean: More Dangerous than Oil in the Gulf?

Posted on by
Reply

Cross-posted from the RYSE blog.

It will soon have been five months since the Deepwater Horizon exploded and the ensuing disaster spilled across headlines. Being particularly awful, the Gulf oil spill occupied the spotlight longer than many catastrophes do. But now the leak is under control; the oil is being cleaned up. Heck, 74 percent just disappeared, according to the government.  The media has moved on, and life with it.

Actually, most of the spilled oil was still in the Gulf in early August, when an independent team of oceanographers released their study. But that’s another story. In light of the past summer’s events, you could be forgiven for thinking that oil spills are the worst way fossil fuels impact the ocean. You’d still be wrong, though.

When everything in the oil production process works perfectly, the oil remains safely in the pipelines, on the tankers, in our engines. But when we burn the oil, we create a carbon dioxide “spill” far more widespread than the Deepwater Horizon’s slick. Since you’re reading an environmental blog, you probably know how CO2 affects the climate, so I won’t go into that.

But out of all CO2 released by burning fossil fuels (around six billion tons) only about half increases CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The rest goes into the oceans, where it converts to carbonic acid, raising the water’s acidity. In her book The World is Blue, Sylvia Earle, the world-renowned oceanographer, writes,

A change in acidification can cause trouble for everything from developing fish to jellyfish. Alter the chemistry of the ocean and the entire system shifts.

For example, the structure of coral reefs depends on corals (obviously), as well as red and green algae. These organisms dissolve when acidity reaches a certain level. And if coral reefs collapse, so do the vibrant communities they support.

Ocean acidification could also alter the oxygen and carbon cycles. Photosynthetic marine organisms absorb more carbon and produce more oxygen than do their land-based counterparts. So, by pumping CO2 into the oceans, we are possibly changing the balance of gases in the air we breath.

Returning to Sylvia Earle,

Some natural changes we can predict, but it is impossible to anticipate how fast, or how much will occur as a consequence of tipping the ocean’s chemistry onto a different course.

Examining the past can give us some clues, though. A study published in Nature Geoscience reported that oceans are acidifying ten times faster than they were 55 million years ago, when a mass marine extinction occurred (read Carl Zimmer’s article for details). Of course, CO2 was not the only factor in ancient climates, but one thing continues to be clear:  CO2 levels are rising much faster now than they have throughout most of the earth’s history, and speculation is quickly becoming observation.

We’re experimenting with the environment that allows our civilization to thrive. But unlike typical scientists, we only get one chance.

Image: Flickr user Paul Mannix

Death of a Climate Bill

Posted on by
Reply

The climate bill is officially dead.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that he does not have the sixty votes necessary to pass comprehensive energy reform.  So, no chance of a carbon cap in the near future.

This concession marks a significant moment: Our government is failing to act on a defining issue of our time — and, in doing so, is neglecting to respond to the will of the people.  A George Mason University poll found that 77 percent of Americans support CO2 regulation. For that matter, most Senators might very well support a carbon cap.  But the minority party, along with several Democrats, has successfully obstructed action through the threat of a filibuster.

In the end, Senate obstructionists on both sides murdered the climate bill.  But the underlying problem is that, in the American government, partisan interests always come before the greater good.  Even among its supporters, energy reform is often just another political goal to check off on the agenda.  As a moral responsibility, cutting pollution is a major issue.  But as a political goal, it’s easily superseded by more important goals, such as getting re-elected.

Maybe this is one reason why Democratic leaders — including the President — did not fight to keep the energy reform alive.  Remember that the healthcare bill nearly died, but Obama and Pelosi revived it with some arm-twisting and deal-cutting.  They also had a moral rallying point (“Millions of people don’t have health insurance”).  The gulf oil spill, tragic as it was, could have served the same purpose (“This is the cost of our oil addiction”).  But the Administration missed that chance.

While I’m attributing blame, I can’t, unfortunately, leave out fellow enviros.  For years, many mainstream environmental groups have told us that, if we just write letters, sign petitions, and buy fluorescent light bulbs, everything will be all right.  Each person who types their name and clicks “send” is another reason for Congress to save the world.  But how many angry letters does it take to equal a six-figure check from an oil company?

Our focus on the carbon market may be what resigned us to letter-writing in the first place.  Cap-and-trade has been deemed the best market-based option for curbing global warming pollution.  Better yet, it doesn’t require drastic lifestyle changes.  But that system requires top-down regulation; average people can’t do much besides write letters.  And the best chance for Congress to act on those letters has already passed.

Maybe the climate movement needs a new approach.  It’s not too late for meaningful change to take place, but letter-writing alone isn’t going to help.  If Congress won’t pass a response to climate change from the top, we can still build solutions from the bottom up.

Share

Do Americans support climate legislation?

Posted on by
1

While the effort to pass a meaningful climate bill is often presented as an uphill battle, new polls by George Mason University show that the situation in Congress does not reflect public opinion.

According to the reports (read them here), 65 percent of American adults think the U.S. should reduce emissions regardless of what other countries do.  When it comes to specific policies, 77 percent support CO2 regulation, while 61 percent think utilities should produce a fifth of their energy renewably, even if this increases electricity bills.  Overall, most Americans feel the environment should be protected, even at the expense of economic growth, but a smaller majority believe that protecting the environment improves economic growth.

Judging by these numbers, the Senators obstructing the climate bill are not representing the public’s interests.  Whose interests are they representing, then?  A quick look at lobbying stats gives you the answer.

Bookmark and Share

Energy-related CO2 emissions down almost 10% from 2005 levels

Posted on by
1

Although we’re doing a lot of things wrong, it seems we’re doing something right.  According Energy Information Administration’s new report, energy-related CO2 emissions dropped faster than expected.

Although the economy played a role in this, the EIA has another chart showing that GDP drop only accounts for about a third of the decrease in emissions.

There are many factors in the emissions drop — decreasing consumption of fossil fuels played a role, as did lower natural gas prices, efficiency gains, and state renewable energy standards.  You can read the report for details on why emissions dropped.  The EIA concludes that

…longer-term trends continue to suggest decline in both the amount of energy used per unit of economic output and the carbon intensity of our energy supply, which both work to restrain emissions.

Remember, the goal of the Senate climate bill is 17 percent below 2005 emissions by 2020.  So, we’ve already met more than half of that (admittedly lame) target.  This makes it a bit harder to believe that the other 7 percent is impractical or would cripple the economy.

So there’s some positive news, in contrast to this year’s rather depressing Earth Month.