Happy Groundhog Day!

Thank you Flickr Photographer: http://www.flickr.com/photos/qmnonic/2482789921/

The Climate and BP's Energy Outlook to 2030

Mark Finley, the General Manager for Markets and Economics at BP, spoke on the recently released "Long-Term Outlook for Energy to the Year 2030" yesterday at the monthly meeting of the National Capital Area Chapter of the U.S. Association for Energy Economics. He made it clear from the beginning that this report is not what BP wants, but what their best rational projections are for the future of world energy given what they know right now. I, of course, was listening as someone concerned about our climate and our future, and that was a scary way to hear Mark Finley's news.

Right now they are taking into account a higher price on carbon in "some" countries. They projected climate policy action to be a lot less than 2 years ago and that it was unlikely that there would be an effective "international climate regime." In the Q & A someone asked Mark if BP predicted any type of policy that raises the price of carbon emissions in America, and Mark responded that though some type of carbon tax or market mechanism was possible, it wasn't as probable as it was two years ago because the "policy momentum" was "going our way" and so the BP augurs had accounted for very little change in policy despite acknowledging at the end of the report that our emissions are "too high" for our climate.

Yet, there was hope even in BP's projections: a major caveat that accounted for our unknown future entitled "What Can Bend the Trend." Their reason number two (after their number one: a slower global economic growth rate), was stronger policy action on climate change.
 
Sitting among the economist, I thought: what do these lines mean to me, my generation, and my grandkids based upon the scientific consensus upon global warming? The blue one is for my grandkids growing up in a future where most people can get enough food, where coastlines begin to recede, where severe weather routinely threatens lives, where ecosystems and economies collapse, and where hundreds of millions of malnourished climate refugees make the world a much less stable place as the climate spirals out of any human control. Below, the situation gets better until we hit the 400,000 year average of around 275 parts per million of CO2.

More importantly to us now, these lines mean that we all have a choice: that if we organize ourselves to articulate that democratic power is stronger than vested economic power, then we CAN transform our economy to sustainably meet our needs and ensure that our actions do not ruin the livelihoods of the generations to come.

Right now, BP thinks they're in a cozy position. When asked what kind of rise BP expected for the price of carbon emissions due to policy changes over the next few years, Mark Finley chucked and said with a smile, "pretty modest."

It is time that we as democratic citizens take our future into our own hands, apply sound science to define our energy growth path, and teach laughing fossil fuel executives what modesty means in the 21st century: applying rational, science-based policy to encourage technological innovation and clean energy growth for the benefit of the people who will be living through the other half of this century.

Man Peddles from Colorado to D.C. to Demand 100% Renewables by 2020.

What is that strange vehicle resembling a three-wheeled motorcycle side car cutting across Pennsylvania Avenue, I thought as I turned to chase it down 7th street. A driver shared my excitement and honked at the low-riding bike pod as it passed through the intersection towards Eastern Market.

"What do you call this thing," I asked. Turns out, it was a hybrid-electric assist cycle ridden all the way from Colorado by Tom Weis, the President of Climate Crisis Solutions. He's friendly guy on a mission to promote renewable energy and demand that our country is powered by 100% renewable energy by 2020.

These statements come from Tom's Climate Crisis Solutions website where he describes the rationale for his journey.

"I believe 2010 is the critical year for America to set the agenda for the coming decade in response to the ever-worsening global climate crisis, and I am committed to taking action. On September 12, 2010, I am biking from Boulder, CO to Washington, DC, calling for a 100% renewable electricity grid for the U.S. by 2020. I will be pedaling roughly 2,500 miles over the course of eight weeks on a hybrid electric-assist recumbent trike.

My intention is to launch a new national conversation around America's energy and climate policies, while building grassroots support for this revolutionary green energy paradigm shift. This is about everyday Americans "taking back our power" by demanding a green industrial revolution that will put unemployed Americans back to work, reestablish our role as world economic leader, and help ensure future generations a livable planet."

For some more "why!?" behind such a long journey through the cold, check out http://rideforrenewables.org/ and click here to sign Tom's petition for a 100% Green Grid by 2020.

Major Climate and Energy News

Yes, major links to recent reports intimately related to climate change.

The first is the World Bank's 2010 Environment Strategy Consultations in which the World Bank Group outlines its role in sustainable development. The full report can be found here.

The next link pertains to one of America's biggest messes, the oil spill. The National Report on BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling was released today.

And the final link is by far the most American. Stephen Colbert presents irrefutable evidence that Americans voted global warming out of existence while some penguin fanatic resists with fanciful stories of melting ice citadels.

Highlights of Jonathan Pershing's Post-Cancun Update at CSIS on January 5th

Jonathan Pershing, the Deputy Special Climate Envoy for the U.S. State Department, spoke at CSIS on January 5th. To watch the video and find his powerpoint, click here: http://csis.org/event/post-cancun-update.

For those of you who don't have a spare 64 minutes to watch the video, I've highlighted a few key points. Please note that despite punctuation, this is not a transcript and these are not exact quotations, but an honest attempt at very close paraphrases of what Dr. Pershing said.

At the beginning of the talk, Jonathan Pershing gave a history of the UNFCCC process and emphasized that the U.S. was alone in not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

'The structure of Kyoto would not work for us. Copenhagen represents a shift from a top down method to a bottom up structure in which countries make pledges and move forward and take actions suitable to their national circumstances. They can do quite diverse things to cause reductions without a top-down dictation of how reductions ought to be achieved, which was the pre-Copenhagen paradigm. The new paradigm ends up incorporating a much lager group. It's no longer just OECD participating. Now anybody who wants obligations and is prepared to step forward can do it. All major economies made emissions reductions commitments and inscribed in a 2 page list called the Copenhagen Accord.'

What were the big paradigm shifts that occurred in Cancun?

'There is a new framework happening that is the result of an underlying structure developed in Copenhagen. Many countries didn't like the Copenhagen Accord for many reasons: because process was closed, because they felt it was new and too different and because it obligated countries who thought they should not have to act. The past year was a big diplomacy year. There is now a global consensus that it is true that we need a worldwide agreement, not just one that accounts for 25%, of emission like the Kyoto Protocol, and now we have different expectations based on different national needs/situations. We now have commitments that cover over 80% of GHG emissions. Under Kyoto, GHGs rose 40%, so it wasn't so successful. Annex 1 countries did not fail (in fact most are below the Kyoto obligations), but global emissions still went up 40% in 17 years. This is not a workable scenario for the future. So, this new paradigm of everyone acting may be better, especially for India and China, as actions start to show up on the global stage. Programs underway in China are significant: the incentives for RE in China are so big that the WTO might soon get involved.'

When the question and answer sessions came, he spoke a first about the goal of keeping the climate from changing less than 2 degrees.

 'The 2 degree goal is a very useful framing construct. The 2 degrees frames a goal aside of all the legal/technical stuff. If U.S. and other countries take current steps and stop there, we would not meet this goal. If we take current steps and then iterate and elaborate additional steps, then we could get there. You can't, in our view, set something up in the next 10 years about how to get there. Trying to set up a vision and rational and plausible pathway to get there is essential. Current emissions pledges are a legitimate first step, but they are not enough.'

Someone named Vicky asked a question about Bolivia's objection to the agreement in Cancun and was probably hoping that Jon would talk a little bit about why Bolivia objected. Instead, he answered it in terms of UNFCCC procedures.

'Bolivia was the only country to object to the agreement reached in Cancun. Countries have never adopted rules for themselves for UNFCCC procedures. They must be adopted by consensus, and so rules cannot be adopted because of Rule 42, which is a voting rule. If there is an overwhelming view that chair has that room is in agreement, then they will move the process forward. We don't want a formal definition of consensus. Instead, business is conducted by a general consensus as decided by chair after surveying the room. In Copenhagen 30 countries objected, so there was significant objection in the room. In Cancun, there was only Bolivia. Bolivia alone did not reflect the room. In that sense the room and the large view of the room moves us forward.'

And, there was a little bit of talk about legal versus non-legally binding agreements.

'Jairam Ramesh, the environment minister from India said in his parliament that it is good that the agreement is not legally binding because India could not take legally binding obligations. Right now, China would probably not take legally binding obligation. LCDs would also probably not accept legally binding obligations. The U.S. will not accept legally binding agreement in this context. If the agreement has different character, either if all have leg binding, or if focused on other elements, then it could work, but KP's paradigm of binding for developed and nonbinding for developing; well, the U.S. will not be a part of that. I don't believe that Durban will yield necessary paradigm shift for legally binding pledges.'

Finally, just in case some journalist in 2050 is looking for historical opinions about geo-engineering, I'll let you all know that you can hear Pershing say something about it at the very end of the video.

National Security and Climate Change

“We in the very top of the Navy absolutely believe that climate change is real, it is a threat to national security, and we have to deal with it now.”

Rear Admiral Titley said this yesterday at the international climate negotiations here in Cancun at the U.S. Department of Defense Panel on National Security Implications of Climate Change. He went on to say that “our world is changing because of gasses that are put there [in the atmosphere] by human activity.”

These words followed those of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy Amanda Dory who said that “the climate is already changing in troubling ways that have implications for national security.” She described how climate change is being considered by the the DOD as one of the many factors making the world a less safe place in the future. Climate change makes the list of “Enduring Trends” in the Quadrennial Defense Review because it “will shape the future security environment for the foreseeable future” along with resource scarcity, disease, and demographics. According to Dory, the Quadrennial Defense Review is the DOD's “preeminent defense strategy document” that evaluates “plausible future challenges," in terms of prevention and “deterrents of future conflicts."

Dory touched on how climate change will destabilize weak states and challenge strong states. Other speakers cited research related to climate change and investments by the military to reduce its carbon footprint.

Guest Post: Health and Climate Change

I have had the good fortune of meeting Sudhvir Singh, a medical student from Auckland, New Zealand who is here at the negotiations with the International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations. Below is a guest post he has asked me to share that summarizes recent research on the connections between health and climate change.

" When most people think of climate change, they probably think of rising sea levels, dying polar bears and controversial, boring discussions about carbon emissions that never seem to progress. This reflects a lack of understanding of the profound impacts of climate change on human health. Indeed, the well-respected medical journal The Lancet describes climate change as the biggest threat to global health in the 21st century. Appreciating the relationship between climate change and health adds to the argument for urgent mitigation by underlining the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to both health and the economy.

In most simple terms, global climate change will affect health directly by increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events – including some of the natural disasters that we commonly see and hear on the daily news such as floods, storms and heat waves. The devastating floods in Pakistan this year and the deadly European heat wave of 2003 (which claimed more than 40,000 lives) are the type of events that are likely to become more common in the future. This, along with rising sea levels and the increasing demand for scarce resources, will result in forced migration and potential conflict. As many crops will have poorer yields, food security and human nutrition is likely to be threatened. Environmental change will also alter the conditions under which vector-borne infectious diseases spread. For example, mosquitoes will be able to inhabit new geographic areas and therefore expose more people to diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. These adverse health impacts will impact poorer countries to a much greater extent than developed countries, an injustice that cannot be ignored.

Simple actions taken to live more sustainably have profound benefits to health and save money by reducing health care expenses. For example, consuming less meat and more fresh produce and choosing to cycle, walk or use public transport instead of driving are healthy lifestyle choices that reduce the risk of developing cancer, heart disease and diabetes and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing the number of coal-fired power plants in favour of renewable energy sources would simultaneously reduce the occurrence of respiratory illnesses such as obstructive lung disease and lung cancer. The Health and Environment Alliance has estimated that if the EU reduced carbon emissions by 30% by 2020, there will be an associated reduction in healthcare costs of up to €30.5 billion per year, which represents 2/3 of the costs of implementing a 30% reduction compared to a 20% reduction. Action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will therefore result in substantial benefits to health and to the economy.

Appreciating the human impacts of climate change is an important addition to the argument for urgent mitigation. To find out more please visit the World Health Organization climate change and health webpage (http://www.who.int/topics/climate/en/) or Physicians for Social Responsibility (http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/global-warming/). Please also visit our blog for information about how you can help join the health movement and our network 'Young Friends of Public Health'
(www.ifmsa.wordpress.com)."

-Sudhvir Singh, International Federation of Medical Students' Associations