When the first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970, population growth was of high concern.  The 1968 book  The Population Bomb⁽²⁾ become quite popular',  spawned organizations such as Zero Population Growth, and entered population into the mainstream of environmental concerns.  When The Population Bomb was published the world population stood at 3.5 billion⁽³⁾; it has now doubled.

With a growing population demanding more energy and goods, population growth is a significant cause of climate change, but the synergistic relationship between climate change and population growth is far greater and more complex than just a simple cause and effect.

We are currently witnessing a decline in both arable land and world-wide food production due to extreme weather events associated with a changing climate.  Severe droughts, floods, fires, temperature extremes,  and altered growing seasons are routinely occurring in virtually all regions of the world.  Less well defined, but nonetheless real, is a decline in beneficial insects and other pollinators, and the spread of exotic agricultural pests. 

Malnutrition is currently increasing in a number regions such as the Horn of Africa and Southern Asia. In addition to individual and local effects, malnutrition is of global consequence as it contributes to social unrest increasing political instability, population migration, warfare and the spread of disease.  Additionally, since children who are malnourished may never reach their full potential it robs deprives society of their contributions. 

As most of the population growth is occurring in developing nations it also makes it harder to slow climate change, as the increasing population will increasingly aspire to the standard of living of the  developed nations.  These developing, and growing, societies will like follow the same path as developed nations, slowing changing from individual energy sources such as wood or coal fires for cooking and heating, to central energy generation facilities utilizing cheap, readily available fuel such as coal-fired electric generation facilities, and ultimately to cleaner fuels.  The challenge is to short-circuit that pathway by jumping directly from individual energy sources to electricity produced from clean sources.  But that step has not yet been achieved in the developed countries, and seems far out of reach for developing regions.

The fact that climate change is global, and requires a global solution bears repeating.  The required cooperation between nations, and the very stability of the governments of nations can be easily undermined by the political instability, migration, competition for resources, and a declining land base caused by a growing population.

The consequences unrestricted population growth were spelled out by Malthus in the late 1700’s, but yet it remains a topic that most governments don’t what to talk about.  Yet, it is readily apparent that if they cannot control population growth and reduce global warming  the survival of our civilization remains uncertain.

______________

1.)  The world population clock was provided by 7billionactions.org, a United Nations Population Fund initiative.

2.)  Ehrlich, Paul R. (1968). The Population Bomb.. Ballantine Books. p. 161.

3.)  U.S. Census Bureau.  http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldpopinfo.php

There can no longer be any doubt about a changing climate.  Our climate is changing now and it is too late stop it, or perhaps even significantly slow it down.  Our only choice is to finally recognize the reality of climate change, and learn to live with a climate  that differs from the one in which we, and the ecosystems upon which we depend, evolved.

The evidence is all around us.  No matter where on this globe you live, your region, or one nearby, has been suffering from long-term weather that is either drier, wetter, colder, or warmer than normal.  The gentle 3-day rains of 50 years ago have been replaced by heavy downpours. June, 2011, was the 316^th consecutive month with a global temperature (land and sea) above the 20^th century average⁽¹⁾.   While weather is not climate, violent and extreme weather are indeed characteristics of climate change and are readily explained by basic laws of physics to be the direct consequence of a warming planet.

The seasons are changing, The flowing times of many plants are changing, animal migrations and distributions are changing, and species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate.

Around the globe, ice is rapidly melting.  The Artic ice is melting so rapidly that commercial shipping is now using the Northwest Passage Polar region to move cargo between Asia and Europe during newly ice-free summer periods.  The spectacular Glacier National Park, in northern Montana, U.S., contained 150 glaciers in 1850.  There are now only 25 glaciers left in the park, and these are predicted to melt within the next 10 – 20 years⁽²⁾ leaving a national park dedicated to glaciers with none.

These, and many more, signs of climate change are direct observations.  They are not predictions, calculations, or speculation; they are observed facts with direct and immediate impact upon individuals and communities, and long-term economic and social consequences for the world’s societies.

By in large our leaders and governments have been increasingly ignoring climate change, or even denying it.  This is partially due to concerns about the global economies, but also due to political philosophies.  Unfortunately, the number of “climate deniers” in the United States national and state governments was greatly increased by the latest elections.  Many of these leaders have used their beliefs that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by those wishing to increase taxes and pass laws stifling economic growth and reduce individual rights to justify their policy positions.  The United States, and many other nations, did not act when we had the opportunity, nor did the nations of the world agree to a meaningful cooperative treaty during the IPCC conferences.  Now it is too late.

In apparent response to the growing social conservative movement in the U.S. the number of Americans who are either  “concerned” or “alarmed” by climate change has decreased from 51% in November of 2008 to 39% in May, 2011 according to the latest “Six Americas” update⁽³⁾.  Of even greater concern is the climate deniers are encouraging an anti-science sentiment that threatens science education and the future supply of scientists and engineers that will be essential for addressing the impacts of climate change.

What does the future hold?  It seems reasonable to assume that the global economic downturn will initially result in decreased energy consumption and the corresponding emission of greenhouse gases.  But, in the longer term there will most likely be an increased consumption of cheaper, dirtier fuels, such as wood and coal, primarily as a result of population growth in the developing nations and the reluctance of business to invest in cleaner energy sources as the economy improves.  Any meaningful legislation will be delayed, probably for decades, as social conservatives retain political power and influence public opinion.

A continuation of climate change is far less speculative than the economic and political future as many of the physical processes causing climate change have a built-in momentum and a changing climate results in self-reinforcing biological and physical “feedback” feed back processes⁽⁴⁾.

It is possible that global economic recession might cause a temporary slowing in the rate of climate change.  But in the mid- to long-term the Earth’s climate will continue to change at an increasing rate.  How we adapt to a new, and constantly changing climate is up to us.

________________________________

1.  National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center.  State of the Climate, Global Analysis, June 2001.  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/(viewed August 5, 2001)

2.  Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.  Retreat of glaciers in Glacier National Park.  http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm  (viewed August 6, 2011)

3.  Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Smith, N. (2011) Global Warming’s Six Americas, May 2011.  Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/SixAmericasMay2011.pdf

4.  AreWeToast.com, System Feedback and Tipping Points. http://arewetoast.com/system-feedback-and-tipping-points.html

“It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government in order to save the environment.”

The above quote by famed photographer Ansel Adams has been attributed to a statement that he made in conjunction with the first Earth Day, in 1970.  In any event it is an apt sentiment as we mark the 4oth Earth Day as our environment is once again imperiled by our government.

Earth Day 2009 was entirely different from today.  In spite of the economic situation, people remained concerned about the environment.  Climate change was a major concern, with high hopes for a positive outcome from the 2009 United Nations Convention on Climate Change (COP 15).  But in December the international Copenhagen conference turned into a shambles.  The COP 16 Convention, held in Cancun, Mexico in 2010 was practically invisible, making no substantial progress toward renewal of the Kyoto Protocol set to expire in 2012.  Little noticed, but highly significant, COP 16 marked a shift by the 194 nations represented from prevention of climate change to mitigation and adaption to climate change.

In the United States, the 2010 elections resulted in a dramatic shift toward the right, with a Republican take over of the House of Representatives and gains in the Senate.  On April 8th the government finally reached a budget agreement for Fiscal 2011 (which began October 1, 2010), which in addition to providing funds for this year also provides indications of future government policies.  The budget drastically cut programs for wilderness protection, conservation activities associated with agriculture, and climate change research.  The budget for the Environmental Protection Agency was cut 19%, but on the basis of a 50 – 50 vote in the Senate retained the ability to regulate air polluting emissions.  Clean energy research was reduced from 2010 by $1.2 billion.  Significantly a “rider” attached by the House overrode the science required by law and removed Timber Wolves from the endangered species list in 5 western states. 

The U.S. 2011 budget reductions do not bode well for the future.  When you couple the actions of Congress with the inaction of the President, whose election campaign included numerous promises of action on climate change and who now cannot bring himself to even say the words “climate change”, or “global warming”, it is clear that there is little hope for  effective government action on climate change, at least in the United States, for the foreseeable future.

Thus we must return to the words of Ansel Adams and renew the fight with our own governments to protect the environment.  This is not a one day a year, Earth Day task but continuing, year-round responsibility.  At the very least, make the 22nd of every month your Personal Earth Day, and on that day let your leaders know of your concerns regarding climate change and the environment!

 Learn! Teach! Act!

While he still actively promotes clean energy, Mr. Tidwell now believes that we are “running out of time” and that “our weather has gone haywire”.   As proof, he cites the string of extreme weather events that have been experienced in the mid-Atlantic region this past year.

There is no doubt that the Washington, D.C. area set snowfall records last winters, record heat last summer,  thunderstorms so frequent that “thundersnows” occurred during the winter, and periods of high winds became increasingly common.   None-the-less, Mr. Tidwell’s article appears to, at least border on, confusing climate and weather, or more precisely, climate change and individual weather events.    For example, Mr. Tidwell cites the frequent, widespread and long-duration power outages that have been experienced during storms in the Washington region.  While undoubtedly demoralizing, poor maintenance practices by a dysfunctional power company (Pepco) and a dense, aging urban tree canopy could have been major contributors to the power failures, rather than storms caused by climate change.  While extreme weather is indeed one of the expected consequences of global warming it is impossible to say that any specific weather event, or its severity, is a consequence of climate change.  Mr. Tidwell may indeed by quite correct that the number of extreme weather events recently experienced in the Washington region are an indication of climate change, but only time will tell.

The actions to protect his family described by Mr. Tidwell basically fall into two very human categories, self-defense and self sufficiency, which are obviously correlated; i.e. I have food, electricity and heat and must protect these resources from others. 

Mr. Tidwell's article has been cited and republished in a numerous other publications and blogs, such as ClimateProgress.org, and have thus generated a number of comments.  Many of the commenters describe actions that they have taken, with the vast majority again falling into the two categories of self-defense and self-sufficiency.  Interestingly, many of the commenters have purchased property to be used as a retreat from the impacts of climate change.  When describing these properties, commenters often focused on such attributes as a short drive to the property; good soil and water for food production and wind for power generation; and/or well armed neighbors.  That people have purchased their climate refuge only a short distance from their current location is interesting since both locations will most likely be experiencing the same change of climate.

While perhaps appearing fatalistic, self-defense and self-sufficiency are really a variation of what may be the only course of action that we have left, and that is “adaptation” to climate change.  We may be beyond a tipping point, with major climate change inevitable.  Our failure to act has ensured a changing climate for at least the next century, the only option now is to act in time to slow the rate of change, or perhaps even reverse it. 

Having failed to prevent climate change, the question becomes will we adapt to a changing climate as civilized societies.  Will our nations and communities prepare, and take adaptive actions, or will we become a collection of armed individuals protecting their resources against roaming bands who “have not”?

“Phenology” is the science that studies the influence of climate upon of plant and animal phenomena as the budding and flowering of plants, and the migration of animals.   Many of us are already phenological scientists; bird watchers  routinely record migration and nesting data, while many gardeners record flowering, harvesting and other data.    The USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN) depends upon volunteers to observe and share their data, and to organize and analyze previously collected data.  To be an observer, you can watch the same tree in your front yard, and each year report when the leaves appear, or fall.  Such data collected by many can tells us a great deal about climate change, and help us prepare for the future.

You are obviously using a computer to read this; if it is yours you can donate some computer time to a climate change project (if it is not your computer you don’t want to do this!).  Climateprediction.net is a a project to produce predictions of the Earth’s climate up to the year 2100, and to test the accuracy of climate models.  Based at Oxford University, the project utilizes “distributed computing”, which depends upon the donation of time on individual, personal computers.  The project utilizes a free, open-source software program, “BOINC” developed at the University of California-Berkeley for volunteer and distributed grid computing.  BOINC is currently running on nearly a half-million computers belonging to over 300,000 volunteers and organizations. 

To participate in an distributed computing project you load BOINC on your computer, and then select a project to receive your donated computer time, of which Climateprediction.net is just one.  Other projects include topics such as the control of Malaria, mathematics, protein analysis, and genetics.   Climateprediction.net recently published a ground-breaking study based on computation conducted on approximately about 60,000 donated computers.  The entire process of setting up a computer for this use takes less than 15 minutes.  The program then runs in the background, using only unused computer cycles, and automatically shutting down when it might slow, or otherwise interfere with your usage.  As most computer tasks typically use only a small percentage of computer capacity, the Climateprediction.net is using only wasted resources and is invisible to the user. 

These are but two of many volunteer opportunities that require very little time and effort, but where the collective contribution of many volunteers is of great value.  And in each case, you can watch the progress and results of the project in which you are participating.  Visit http://usanpn.org for more information about phenology,  http://climateprediction.net for information on climate modeling projects, and http://boinc.berkeley.edu for open source grid computing software and to volunteer for various projects. 

“Cause” vs. “contribute” are really two different, but related, questions.  By way of illustration we can start with a couple of very fundamental facts.  Warm water evaporates more quickly that cold water, and warm air holds more moisture than cooler air.  Thousands of global temperature measurements tell us that the oceans and the atmosphere are warming, therefore moisture is being added to the atmosphere more rapidly and the air has the capacity to hold more moisture.  Therefore it stands to reason global warming may contribute to the intensity of individual rainfall events and may even cause them.  

However, the ability to quantify any effect of climate change upon rainfall, and to scientifically prove a cause and effect relationship is a more difficult task.   Two recent papers in the on-line version of the esteemed British journal, Nature, have addressed this topic.  The first, “Human contribution to more intense precipitation extremes”⁽¹⁾ compared  50 years of precipitation records (1951 – 1999) over much of the northern hemisphere with the results of several computer models used to predict 20th century precipitation.  It was only when the effects of greenhouse gases was added to the models that agreement with the actual measured precipitation was obtained.  The study showed an increase of 7% in the probability of extreme precipitation on any given day during the later half of the 20th century in the Northern Hemisphere, a far greater percentage than would be expected from the natural variability of weather.  A second finding was that existing climate models tend to be conservative in predicting precipitation, typically underestimating the amount that was actually measured.

With a more narrow geographic scope, another paper “Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000” ⁽²⁾ examined the data from a single, regional event, the wettest autumn since records began in 1766, and found that the chances of such  heavy floods as the region experienced in the fall of 2000 were roughly doubled by the increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Nine out of ten of their computer model simulations showed that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the probably of such flooding as experienced in 2000 by over 20%, while two-thirds of the simulations showed an increased probability of over 90%.

The fact that both of these groundbreaking studies took nearly 10 years to complete, even when an base of actual data existed, shows the tremendous amount of computer time that the highly complex climate models require.  While such models may not be perfect, they are rapidly becoming more accurate, and as demonstrated here, capable of more highly refined results; and they are definately the best available tools for understanding climate change.   Note that in both cases, these studies are not saying that specific weather events were directly caused by climate change, but rather that the probabilities of their occurrence was increased by climate change. It is also noteworthy that the second study, dealing with the 2000 flood risk in England and Wales, was conducted by the ClimatePrediction.net project at Oxford University, using a computer grid composed of approximately 60,000 donations of unused computer cycles on individual personal computers around the world.

_________________________________________

1.) Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

2.) Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html

The study surveyed 2030 adults, selected on the basis of U.S. Census distribution, who were asked 43 questions to test their knowledge of climate change, and 12 questions about their sources of information.  Based on the number of correct "knowledge" answers, only 1% of the respondents received an grade of “A”, while 77% received either a “D” (25%) or an “F” (52%). 

The authors’ summary of the study⁽²⁾ is:

"Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change reports results from a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming. Among other findings, the study identifies a number of important gaps in public knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change.

Overall, we found that 63 percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening, but many do not understand why. In this assessment, only 8 percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 40 percent would receive a C or D, and 52 percent would get an F. The study also found important gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system. These misconceptions lead some people to doubt that global warming is happening or that human activities are a major contributor, to misunderstand the causes and therefore the solutions, and to be unaware of the risks. Thus many Americans lack some of the knowledge needed for informed decision-making in a democratic society. For example, only:

• 57% know that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat;
• 50% of Americans understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities;
• 45% understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth’s surface;
• 25% have ever heard of coral bleaching or ocean acidification. 

Meanwhile, large majorities incorrectly think that the hole in the ozone layer and aerosol spray cans contribute to global warming, leading many to incorrectly conclude that banning aerosol spray cans or stopping rockets from punching holes in the ozone layer are viable solutions.

However, many Americans do understand that emissions from cars and trucks and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to global warming, and that a transition to renewable energy sources is an important solution.

In addition, despite the recent controversies over “climategate” and the 2007 IPCC report, this study finds that Americans trust scientists and scientific organizations far more than any other source of information about global warming.

Americans also recognize their own limited understanding. Only 1 in 10 say that they are “very well informed” about climate change, and 75 percent say they would like to know more about the issue. Likewise, 75 percent say that schools should teach our children about climate change and 68 percent would welcome a national program to teach Americans more about the issue."

If we, as a society, are to make the intelligent decisions and choices that are necessary to adapt to climate change, and reduce global warming, our citizens must have far more complete understanding of basic climate science.  We must all Learn, Teach others, and Act!

The Yale study was restricted to the United States – how do the results compare to your country?  Leave a comment and let us know.

___________________

1.)  Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N. &  Marlon, J.R. (2010) Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateChangeKnowledge2010.pdf

2.)   http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/knowledge-of-climate-change

NASA recently reported that the first seven months of this year were the warmest on record while the just released U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  2009 State of the Climate Report  using data combined from a number of sources shows that 2009 was the warmest on record, the first decade of the 21st Century was the warmest on record, as in turn were the decades of the 1980’s and the 1990’s. 

While the recent extreme weather is entirely consistent with climate change, short-term weather is not climate.  However the 30 years of constantly increasing global temperature is a pretty strong statement about our changing climate.  It is increasingly apparent that climate change is not a topic for future speculation, but rather a current reality.  While no single weather event can be said to be caused by climate change, the variable and extreme weather that we are now observing is the type and pattern of weather long predicted by climate change science.  If fact, the oft-maligned 2007 IPCC reports described regional weather patterns that perfectly match the events mentioned above. 

It is too late to debate whether or not climate change is real, or think of it as something that may happen in the future.  Climate change is real, and it is happening now.  It is no longer a question of how we can prevent climate change, but rather a question of how can we best adapt and will we take the steps necessary to slow the rate of climate change for future generations.  A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America demonstrates that climate change will be irreversible for at least 1,000 years after a complete elimination of CO₂ emissions and that the effects of climate change will be greater as the CO₂ level increases.  Thus it is clear that the longer we fail to act, the more dire the consequences.  And the sad reality is that we are no closer to acting on climate change than we were 100 years ago.  The United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen was a total fiasco, ending without the widely anticipated binding agreements.  As the international Bonn meeting in preparation for the 2010 conference in Cancun ended in disarray, there is no reason to hope that the issues that could not be resolved in Copenhagen will be resolved in Cancun one year later.  And displaying a total lack of leadership the U.S. Senate has failed to even consider climate change. 

As we continue to dump greenhouse gases, and other pollutants, into the atmosphere climate change will continue to gain momentum.  Floods, drought, fire, blizzards, extreme hot and cold temperatures, and violent storms will increase.  Species extinctions, crop failures, water shortages, non-productive oceans,  and storm damage will add to human misery, and extract an increasing economic cost.

Welcome to the new normal. 

Can mankind adapt to the changes in environment caused by global climate change?

Will mankind be wise enough to protect our planet for future generations?  Or, are we toast?

Time and experience will be required before the first question can be answered.  But, unfortunately the answer to the second question is becoming increasingly clear. 

On July 22, 2010,  U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nevada) announced that the Senate would not act on climate change but instead would attempt to pass a bill limited to raising the liability caps on spills by oil companies and providing incentives for developing natural gas vehicles.  

At the time of Senator Reids’ action, the Senate had two draft bills for consideration.  The 39-page Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act (CLEAR) Act of Senators Collins and Cantwell, was a focused bill in which the government would auction pollution credits and rebate 75% of the proceeds to each citizen and legal resident of the U.S. as a dividend, with the remaining 25% used for clean-energy research, reduction of emissions from agriculture, forestry and manufacturing and provide transition assistance to workers and communities in carbon-intensive regions.  CLEAR established a price for carbon, supported clean energy development, and encouraged conservation; exactly what an ideal climate change bill should do.  CLEAR did not establish a carbon trading market for speculation in carbon credits, attempt to predict winners in the development of clean energy alternatives, or provide favors for special interests or “dirty” industry.

In sharp contrast, the 1,000 page  American Power Act (APA) authored by Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham was laden with pork and exemptions.  It was a “cap and trade” bill with unrestricted trading of carbon credits and allowances.  It was fashioned by compromise upon compromise in an attempt to provide benefits for every special interest, lobbyist and politician at the expense of the American taxpayer and the environment.  During the long preparation of the  APA  emphasis was steadily shifted from climate change to energy development.  By the time the final draft was completed, carbon caps would have been initially placed on only largest electric utilities, which seems to be an act of sheer hypocrisy when you consider the government support for electric cars as the vehicle of choice.  

As the proposed CLEAR Act did not provide special benefits there were no favors for Senators to hand out to special interest or business groups.  Therefore, it had very little support in the Senate.  On the other hand, the pork-laden APA had goodies galore, with new ones added daily.  Consequently it had considerable support from special interest groups and business lobbyists.  Regrettably most of the major environmental groups supported the APA, claiming that while it was not perfect it had the best chance to to pass the Senate, and then could always be fixed at a later date.  In other words, to their shame, these organizations traded integrity for expediency. 

Congress has also lacked any leadership from President Obama, in spite of his campaign promises to place a high priority on climate change legislation.  Indeed, when BP presented him with the opportunity to link our dependence upon hydrocarbons and a changing climate President Obama passed.  Climate change science is complex, and national leadership which links climate change to the environment, national security, and the economy is sorely needed and currently lacking.

Eighteen months ago the passage of climate change legislation seemed more likely than ever.  A new Democratic President promised action, appointed excellent people with outstanding scientific backgrounds to important positions,  and had a solid majority in both the House and the Senate.  Realizing that passage of a bill was inevitable and that it presented ample opportunities for profit, climate change legislation had considerable support from the “clean” business sector; and, polls showed that the majority of Americans supported such legislation.   However, the economy deteriorated,  and emails were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University and distorted in the popular media.  Consequently, political leadership in Congress or by the President did not materialize and in the end, the U.S. Senate in an act of pure political cowardice elected not to even acknowledge climate change or to stand up and be counted.

But the blame does not stop with our leaders, representatives, environmental organizations or special interests, because we, the people, also did not act and did not apply sufficient pressure to make the lack of action uncomfortable for our elected representatives and leaders.  Thus we also demonstrated cowardice by not standing up to be counted.  Our failure to stand up will be our legacy to our grandchildren.

On Earth Day (April 22) 2010 the state-of-the-art oil drilling platform the Deepwater Horizon sank in the Gulf of Mexico following a well blow-out and subsequent fire.  The Deepwater Horizon was under contract to BP, and was drilling an exploratory well in 5000 feet of water approximately 42 miles from shore.  At this point, even if BP would be able to immediately stop the flow of oil from a ruptured pipe into the Gulf of Mexico the oil leak would still be an environmental and economic disaster of historic proportions.  The location and timing of the accident could hardly be worse.  The Gulf of Mexico has the most productive fishery in the world, the home of many National Wildlife Refuges, and provides vital habitat for migratory birds, waterfowl and marine mammals.  It is the spring breeding season, with some species nesting and reproducing and others seeking food to feed their young.  In contrast to previous spills such as the 1969 Santa Barbara leak and the 1989  Exxon Valdez spill much of the Gulf coastline is not a hard surface that can be readily cleaned, but rather consists of extensive marshes that cannot be cleaned, and whose vegetation and decaying organic matter will act as a sponge, absorbing and then slowly releasing oil back into the environment.  The sensitive coastal marshes, which have been vanishing at a rapid rate,  are actually several feed of mud covered with with vegetation which both holds them in place and provides wildlife habitat.  If the stabilizing vegetation is killed, only unstable mud flats will remain; and will shortly vanish. 

The site is also located near a branch, or loop, of the Gulf Stream virtually ensuring that some, unknown amount of oil will be carried from the Gulf and up the East Coast of the United States.  In addition, hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico officially starts June 1st,  39 days after the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon, with the potential for severe disruption of attempts to control the leaking oil and the cleanup of impacted areas, and to increase the spread of the oil.  

And least we forget, the big connection between climate change and oil – politics!  At the time of the Deepwater horizon/BP accident, in the U.S. Senate,  Senators Kerry and Lieberman had been preparing to release the long-anticipated climate bill that they had been drafting with the cooperation of Senator Graham.  In order to gain support of industry their draft contains something for everyone, including support for “expanded” off-shore oil drilling.   Yes, a climate change bill intended to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases that actually calls for expanded drilling for oil!  Shortly before the planned (and cancelled) press conference to unveil the draft bill, it was announced that 3 large oil companies would endorse the bill.  Leaked information identified the companies as BP, Shell and ConocoPhillips.  It now appears likely that the inclusion of the drilling provision has doomed the bill, and thus most likely any chance of Congress passing  climate legislation for many years.

There has long been a close relationship between “big oil” and the U. S. government.  The 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill would probably have been avoided if the government regulator, the USGS, had not acceded to Union Oil’s request to waive the Federal safety requirements regarding the well casing.  Subsequent investigations identified the USGS decision to bypass Federal regulations and permit Union Oil to lower its costs by installing a shorter casing than required as the primary cause of that accident.   Today, the Washington Post reported that on April 26, 2009 the Minerals Management Service (U.S. Dept. of the Interior) granted BP/Deepwater Horizon operation a “categorical exclusion” from preparing an Environmental Impact Statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.  Reports prepared by both MMS and BP concluded that any oil spill was unlikely, and that if any oil were to spill the impact upon the environment would be minimal with no oil reaching the shore.  The BP exploration plan submitted for the lease stated that  "no mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources."  Consequently, there were no backup plans in case of a massive accident.  BP told the government that it would do the minimum required, and no more, and the government basically said “fine, here is a lease of public property in an environmentally sensitive area”. 

The current BP oil disaster closely follows coal mining accidents in China and the West Virginia accident in the US; and should be a stark lesson that our dependence upon fossil fuels is dangerous and harmful to both mankind and the environment upon which we depend.  If we had the willingness to break our dependence upon fossil fuels, curb CO₂ emissions, and protect our planet’s environment for future generations it would also have immediate benefits to our economy, environment and health. 

The fact that we must dig and drill deeper should make it apparent that we are exhausting our fossil fuel resources and will be forced to seek alternate sources of energy.  The Deepwater Horizon/BP, recent mining, accidents should be a wakeup call that the time to start the transition away from fossil fuels is now. These incidents also clearly demonstrate why sound climate change legislation is of economic and environmental concern.  The economic loss from the Deepwater Horizon accident will be severe and long-lasting.  Twenty years after the Exxon Valdez accident, fishermen are still not working and the oil which is found just below the surface of the beaches will take decades to dissipate.  At this point there is no reason to believe that the situation in the Gulf will be any less. Sound climate change legislation would diminish our need for fossil fuels, protect and expand the economy, and protect our planet and the environment that we depend on.

We need legislation, and legislators, who will do what is right for our children, grandchildren and the planet that will be their home; not just pander to special interests.  Is that too much to ask?