Archive for the 'Global Warming' Category

Report: Bush Administration Has Been Manipulating Climate Change Science

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on December 12, 2007
in Bali, Bush Administration, Climate Change, Global Warming and IPCC
. 1 Comment

It shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s been following U.S. politics on climate change, but a new report has been released by the House Oversight Committee revealing the White House’s effort to stifle climate change science.

According to the report, the Bush Administration censored 150 federal climate scientists from eight federal agencies and “exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues.”

“The Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.”

Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA’s top institute studying climate and widely regarded top climate scientist on Earth, has said it. The world’s most outspoken journalist reporting on climate change, George Monbiot, describes it in his book. Now the House Oversight Committee shows how low the Bush Administration is willing to stoop to avoid taking action on climate change. It’s absolutely reprehensible, not to mention a little fascist for the executive branch of any democracy to manipulate science and censor what it doesn’t agree with.

Meanwhile, in Bail, talks continue in an effort to develop a post-Kyoto pact to take aim at climate change beyond 2012. Embarrassingly, it is again the U.S. that is the outcast here, refusing to commit to any kind of binding regulation to cut carbon emissions. I guess the Bush Administration must have chosen to ignore the recent IPCC report that warns of accelerating climate change and demands immediate international action. UN Chair Ban-Ki moon, who recently called climate change “the defining challenge of our age”, has called on the U.S. and China to take a “more constructive role” in the fight against climate change, yet the Bush Administration remains completely out-of-touch with reality.

Photo: Dan Wasserman, Boston Globe

Tufts Report: Miami could be Hottest Major City on Earth by 2100

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on November 30, 2007
in Climate Change, Global Warming, Miami-Dade County and Sprawl
. 5 Comments

A recent report conducted by Tufts University paints a very grim picture of Florida’s future if we don’t take swift action to fight climate change. According to the report, South Florida will be particularly vulnerable to warming effects.

Throughout the report, the researchers discuss two scenarios; the first, known as “rapid stabilization”, is the most optimistic scenario in which global emissions decrease at least 50% by 2050 and U.S. emissions decline at least 80% by the same period. The second scenario, referred to as “business-as-usual”, is a pessimistic scenario that projects the damages to our state if we continue to take little action.

Some of the reports noteworthy conclusions in the “business-as-usual scenario”:

  • Within vulnerable zones:
    • residential real estate now valued at over $130 billion
    • half of Florida’s beaches
    • 99% of Mangroves
  • Sea level could rise by as much as 23” by 2050 and 45” by 2100
    • 70% of Miami-Dade would be under water
    • 99.6% of Monroe would be under water
    • The Everglades would be almost completely inundated by salt water, and effectively destroyed
  • Heat waves will become more severe and more common, with new record temperatures and a gradual decline in nighttime cooling. The average heat index in summer will increase by 15-20% in much of the state. Miami will become several degrees warmer than Bangkok (probably the world’s hottest, most humid major city today) and daily highs in many Florida cities will exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit for nearly 2/3 or the year.
  • Annual statewide economic losses (that’s right…this is per year)
    • $92 billion by 2050
    • $345 billion by 2100
Of course there are those within the rapidly dwindling skeptic community that feel the negative effects of climate change are nothing that good ‘ol human ingenuity can’t solve. Such a reliance on technology to fight nature’s fury is such a dangerous and fleeting philosophy. The Miami-Dade County Climate Change Task Force’s Science and Technology Committee had this to say in the Tufts Report:

“The highly porous limestone and sand substrate of Miami-Dade County (which at present permits excellent drainage) will limit the effectiveness of widespread use of levees and dikes to wall off the encroaching sea.”

However, even if levees and dikes did present a viable option for fighting rising sea levels, it would be inordinately expensive to build such infrastructure in a state with over 1,200 miles of coastline (this doesn’t even factor in Lake Okechobee and other vulnerable watersheds).

This is serious business we’re talking about here. If we don’t start taking swift action to fight climate change, we all lose. Environmentalists lose for obvious reasons, business interests suffer as insurance rates skyrocket, tourism declines, and billions of dollars tied up in real estate become threatened. If you’re indifferent, you’ll still suffer from unprecedented heat and humidity, extremely high costs of living due to insurance and energy price hikes, and more frequent major hurricanes that threaten the lives of us all.

This makes the recent vote to move the UDB line all the more disgraceful. If there is any place that should be leading the fight on climate change, it’s South Florida and Miami-Dade County. Few places are as vulnerable geographically and no other region on Earth can lay claim to an ecosystem like the Everglades. However, this hasn’t stopped self-interest and incompetence from making South Florida one of the most sprawling, unsustainable regions in all of North America.

Click here to download the full report, “Florida and Climate Change: The Costs of Inaction”.

Transitography 40: US Oil Consumption

Published
by
Gabriel Lopez-Bernal
on November 26, 2007
in Consumption, Global Warming, Oil and United States
. 0 Comments

Today’s Transitography comes to us from It’s Knuttz and really puts US oil consumption into perspective. Keep in mind, these figures are nearly 5 years old…

Transitography 6

Published
by
James Wilkins
on September 9, 2007
in Energy, Freeway, Global Warming and Wind Turbine
. 1 Comment

Here is an interesting proposal?! As commuters expend energy through fuel consumption the energy released by the automobiles will then be harnessed by turbines. The poetics of no energy ever being created, but simply transferred, is satisfyingly embraced in this concept. Not to mention the benefit of a constant visual mantra of the global warming crisis being ever present while driving.

Quantifying Our Disproportionate Contribution Toward Climate Change

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on August 14, 2007
in Climate Change, EPA, Global Warming, carbon dioxide and emissions
. 1 Comment

Many of us hear, on a fairly consistent basis, how harmful our daily actions are to the environment and global warming. We drive too much, live in houses too big (that are poorly insulated), and expend way too much energy with a shmorgishborg of energy-gluttonous appliances. However, I find it’s very rare that any of us can actually quantify these outputs.
I find this very troubling. It serves to distance ourselves from the realities our consumption. It’s like swiping a credit or debit card and never looking at the receipt - it’s much less painful that way because we don’t see the numbers were spending, and thus do not feel the full weight of the transactions. Similar to money management and cutting one’s budget, if we never see (or know) how much carbon dioxide we’re responsible for emitting each year, how will we know where to make cuts? The answer is, we probably won’t.

Fortunately, however, the EPA has done most of the legwork, creating an easy-to-use personal emissions calculator. It takes just a few minutes to fill out, and you’ll have a fairly accurate projection of your personal annual emissions. Even better, once you’ve quantified your emissions, you can check out the EPA’s thorough “What You Can Do” page, which breaks down how and where you can improve your energy efficiency, translating to carbon emissions cuts. There are links at the top and sidebar of the EPA’s page to a few other calculators related to energy consumption or emissions, that are worth checking out as well.

I mean, it’s a win-win to take advantage of these resources. If you care about making a difference and fighting climate change, then this tool will allow you to quantify your energy consumption and where you can make cuts. If you could care less about global warming, then this calculator will still point you in the direction of energy savings, which translates into more money in your pocket each month.

Newsweek: Global Warming Denial Industry Exposed

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on August 7, 2007
in Climate Change, Global Warming and newsweek
. 4 Comments

If you haven’t read George Monbiot’s Heat yet, you need to check out this week’s Newsweek. In this week’s edition, the news periodical does an excellent job exposing the shameful, yet intricate workings of the global warming denial industry. Click here to read the article.

This is significant, because as far as I know, this is the most mainstream and widely circulated piece of literature to date breaking down the tactics of climate change naysayers.

The article does a good job naming names, connecting the dots, and following the money trail. Let’s hope this wakes up politicians and the general public, because we cannot afford to be paralyzed by pseudoscience while the world becomes increasingly destabilized by climate change.

Though I highly recommend reading this Newsweek piece in its entirety, regardless of how you feel about climate change, I’ve summarized some major tactics used by naysayers below, as mentioned in the article:

  • Exxon Mobile, the world’s most profitable corporation, has been paying “scientists” $10,000 to write articles undercutting peer-reviewed climate change reports.
  • The deniers have been employing similar tactics used by the tobacco industry, such as relying on the notion that there is too much “scientific uncertainty”; to do this, they regularly print white papers and “studies” (not empirical research, but critiques of others’ work).
  • Former employers from the coal/oil industries landing high-ranking government jobs related to environmental action, largely resulting from connections with Washington conservatives who feel action taken to fight global warming will harm business (and thus, those lining their campaign pockets), have been avoiding action, and even editing the research and reports of top climate scientists to portray “scientific uncertainty”.
  • Constantly changing their story; for example, first they claimed the “world is not warming”, then they claimed warming was occurring, but that it was natural instead of anthropogenic (caused by humans). Now, their most recent claim is that the world is warming, but the effects will be small and harmless.
  • Their main goal is not to argue global warming is good, or even neutral, but to create doubt among politicians and the general public that it poses a serious threat to global stability. This, they hope, will keep us from achieving the consensus and support necessary to act.
  • Making up “think tanks” and disguising them with names like “The Global Climate Coalition” and “Information Council on the Environment” (aka ICE - a not so subtle acronym).
  • The use of lists and petitions that aim to portray climate science as divided; funny thing is these “petitions” are mostly signed by a motley crew of folks who’ve never done any real climate research.

Though the Newsweek piece does a solid job exposing the global warming denial industry, I still recommend Monbiot’s book, Heat. He does an even better, more comprehensive job articulating how the denial industry functions.

TransitMiami Must Read - Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on July 8, 2007
in Climate Change, George Monbiot and Global Warming
. 0 Comments
In the wake of the Live Earth concerts on Saturday, I want to take a moment to recommend a powerful book addressing climate change and what it will take to beat it.

In the book, titled Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, by popular columnist for the UK’s Guardian newspaper, George Monbiot, it is stated we must cut carbon dioxide emissions by 90% by 2030 in order to avoid reaching a catastrophic tipping point.

To read a good review by Streetsblog writer Aaron Donovan, click here.

There is also an excellent interview of Monbiot on YouTube, where he discusses elements from his book as well as some very well articulated insight on climate change.

One of the many moments during the interview that stood out to me was Mobiot’s outlook regarding Africa and food a few decades from now. According to Monbiot, climate change as we currently know it has initiated a process leading to net global drying, which will be especially pronounced in Africa. In turn, this could lead to crop failures, ultimately creating a global food deficit as population continues to grow by the billions.

“It is beyond my powers of description to tell you what a world of 9 billion people in net food deficit would look like. It makes all previous human crises - wars, acts of genocide, famines, plagues - look like a side show at the circus of human suffering.”

To see Part 1 of the interview, click here.

I highly recommend watching these interviews, at a minimum. The book will knock your socks off, and hopefully it will get you thinking about and comprehending the issue of climate change and the urgent action we must take. Perhaps the best thing about this book, though, is that you come away feeling energized by the “can do” tone of the book, instead of demoralized by the defeatist tone that many previous climate change books have emanated.

Click here to buy the book on Amazon.com

Climate Change News

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on July 3, 2007
in Antarctic, Chile, Climate Change and Global Warming
. 0 Comments

Herald: Global warming blamed for vanishing lake

Can Working Less Fight Global Warming?

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on June 27, 2007
in Climate Change, Employment and Global Warming
. 2 Comments
Given the urgent action that must be taken to fight climate change, it is important to be searching for ways to cut our harmful emissions. One particularly simple, yet important area that has not received much attention thus far is work hours. Is it possible that we could curb our emissions significantly just by working a few less hours per week?
According to a study led by Harvard economics professor Mark Weisbrot, it’s very possible. The study, conducted for the Center of Economic and Policy Research and titled Are Shorter Work Hours Good for the Environment?, claims that if Americans adopted European standards for work hours, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2000 would have been 7% lower than its actual 1990 emissions. This assumes U.S. workers would average 35 hours of work per week, as is typical throughout much of Europe.

Not only would this help the world’s worst global warming offender curb its emissions, it would provide workers with the equivalent of seven weeks of additional time off per year. This is time that could be spent with families, friends, relaxing, or even getting more sleep. Sound unrealistic? A survey issued by the Center for the New American Dream found that half of all Americans with full-time jobs would prefer to work a four-day week at 80% of their current pay.

Perhaps even scarier, though, is if the inverse were to occur. According to the study, if Europe was to move in a new direction and adopt the American standard of work hours, it could consume 25-30% more energy per year. However, this isn’t just a US vs. Europe issue. As the economies of developing countries grow, they will almost certainly move in a direction to adopt either the American or European standards for work hours. If these countries were to choose the American standard, they would likely consume between 15% and 30% more energy than if they had adopted the European standard. What’s the significance? All the extra carbon emissions could result in a devastating 1-2 degrees Celsius of additional warming.

Considering that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80-90% this century, changing the American standard of work hours deserves some serious consideration. Perhaps at a minimum, we should be given a choice of whether we want to to take an “hour cut” or not, as is argued by the Preservation Institute.

Climate Change and South Florida

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on March 27, 2007
in Al Gore, Climate, Everglades, Global Warming, Greenhouse, Hurricanes, Miami, Sea levels, South Florida, Sprawl and Transit
. 13 Comments
Photo Source: Miami Herald via Green Peace, AP File 2006

Our global warming crisis continues to become more foreboding. Today the Herald reported findings from a recent study that predicts serious local climate change in South Florida’s future. According to the study, which is one of the first to predict local climate change stemming from global warming, by 2100 South Florida will likely have a novel climate that is warmer, drier, and unlike any other on Earth. Among the findings:

  • Mean temperatures in South Florida could rise by 5-7 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer/wet season (+ 3 ½ degrees in the winter/dry season)
  • High temperatures in the mid-to-upper 90’s can be expected during the summer/wet season
  • Much drier conditions: 3 ½ fewer inches of rainfall during the wet season (Note: Drier does not mean less humid)
  • Even if worldwide action reduces greenhouse gas emissions, 4-20 percent of the world’s land could experience novel climates
These findings have grave implications for South Florida. As I noted above, a “drier” climate does not mean a less humid climate. High temperatures in the mid-to-upper 90s coupled with high humidity would make it feel like 110-120 degrees based on heat indexes. Also to consider, the 5-7 degree rise is in mean temperature, which is the average temperature over a 24-hour period. For the last 30 years, Miami’s mean temperature has averaged about 83 degrees during the peak of the summer/wet season. If the predictions are true, then our average daily temperatures could be as high as 90 degrees! Imagine stifling days with highs of 95 and lows of 85. Factor in humidity, and even our nights would feel as warm as 100 degrees!

All of this does not even consider the potentially catastrophic effects of rising sea levels, increased frequency of major hurricanes, drought, and the decimation of the Everglades. It is now critical that we begin making major changes in the way we live and the way our cities function. Given the implications of climate change in South Florida, you would think that our region would be on the leading edge of sustainable urban planning. Sadly, as we all know, this is not currently the case. Yes, Mayor Diaz should be complemented for his green building proposal, Miami 21, and the Miami Streetcar initiative, but this barely scratches the surface of sustainability. We need a progressive, regional effort to significantly reduce our dependence on the automobile, boost alternative transportation modes, and design sustainable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods. We cannot wait any longer to act.