The last several months has seen a great deal of publicity given to the 2007 IPCC Assessment Reports following the discovery of “errors” that have lead some to question the validity of the reports and thus the creditability of the science underlying global warming.  The situation has now been clarified sufficiently to permit a reasonable evaluation.  To date, two errors have been found and an additional two items can best be described as “sloppiness leading to confusion”.

As described above, the 2007 Assessment Reports were a massive undertaking, involving thousands of scientists from around the world.  These volunteers, participating in one of three “working groups” authored the three reports of the Climate Change 2007 Assessment ( “The Physical Science Basis” (996 pages)⁽¹⁾, “Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability” (976 pages)⁽²⁾, and “Mitigation of Climate Change” (851 pages)⁽³⁾) and a 104 page “Synthesis Report”⁽⁴⁾ which provides a combined summary of the three scientific Assessment Reports to fulfill the mandate of providing information to “policy makers”, and other interested parties.

All of the four identified issues are contained within “Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability” report, predominately prepared by social scientists.  (Note:  I have previously mentioned  the relative paucity of needed involvement of the social sciences in the study of climate change.)  No errors, or other issue, have been detected in the other volumes.  It is most significant that no errors have been detected in the  The report “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis” which presents the basic underlying science of global warming/climate change.  

The most onerous error in the “impacts volume” is a statement which vastly overstates the melting rate of the Himalayan glaciers:

“Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”

Due to the significance of the Himalayan glaciers as a water source for vast populations, a “high likelihood”  of their rapid disappearance would be of grave concern; and, referencing the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) as the authority for such a conclusion hardly seems appropriate.  In reality, while the data shows that the Himalayan glaciers are clearly retreating at a rate that will result in substantial loss by the end of the century, there is no evidence to make the predictions included in the report.  (Read more in The New York Times.)  It must also be noted that, as this error was not repeated in the summary Synthesis Report (see recent IPCC clarification statement).

The other error was a statement in the chapter on Europe that “55% of the Netherlands is below sea level”; when in fact 26% of the Netherlands is below sea level and 29% is susceptible to flooding.  This misstatement has been attributed to information provided by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has recently provided a correction and clarification.

In the chapter on Africa, the report says that climate change and normal variability could reduce crop yields in northern Africa.  In later discussions the verbiage “normal variability” was omitted, making it appear that climate change would be the sole cause of reduced crop yields in the future.

And finally, the “Impacts” volume reignited a long standing debate between economists regarding the costs of climate change.  The report says that the more extreme weather events are due to global warming and are causing increased costs.  Some feel that it is unclear whether increased costs are due to weather events, or societal behaviors such as building in hazard-prone areas.

In the 3 years since the publication of the 2007 Assessment Reports, which total almost 3,000 total pages in length (exact page count may vary by format and publisher), these are the only issues of questionable accuracy that have arisen.  No errors, typos,  or other issues, have been uncovered in the first volume which presents the basic, underlying science of global warming and climate change.  While regrettable, and sloppy science, It should be readily obvious that these errors and issues have no bearing upon the reality of global warming nor the contributing role of humankind.  However the so-called “climate change deniers” have managed to seize upon these issues, blow them entirely out of proportion and use them as proof that the science of global warming is false, causing inestimable harm.  At a minimum they have so swayed public opinion that it will be vastly more difficult, if not impossible, for political bodies to pass meaningful climate change legislation. 

______________________________________

1.)  Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.

2.)  Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 976 pp.

3.)  Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change.  Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007.  B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds).  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 851 pp.

4.)  Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.  Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds.).  IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. pp 104.

Mankind has long relied on energy provided by other humans and animals to accomplish work.  But humans and animals can supply only a limited amount of power, for a limited duration and require a constant energy input of food and water.  Thus mankind sought to tap natural resources to overcome these limitations.  Perhaps the first successful utilization “natural power” was the addition of sails to ships, replacing or supplementing the power provided by oarsmen.  Sailing vessels are known to have existed in Egypt by 3000 BC, and the technology has been worldwide for most of recorded history. 

Just as it was over 5,000 years ago, wind is still being being used to power ocean-going vessels.  Perhaps the most recent example is the 20,000 ton MV Beluga SkySail which uses a bow-mounted “kite” to achieve fuel savings of approximately 30% while primarily carrying cargo between Europe and North America. 

The first known use of windmill to power a machine was in 150 BC by Hero in Alexandria, Egypt.  By the 9th Century windmills where widely used thought the Persian Empire to grind gains and pump water, applications that are currently in common usage throughout the world.   In 1887 James Blyth constructed a windmill powered generator in Scotland to provide lighting.   By the 1920’s the basic design of contemporary 3-blade windmills was fixed, with some of the windmills that supplied electricity on farms, islands and other remote areas during the 1930's still in use today.  A Jacobs wind generator installed  by Admiral Byrd in Antarctica on his 1933 exposition was found to be operating perfectly in 1955 after running in the severe Antarctic environment without maintenance for over 20 years.

In 1881 a water driven generator in the British town of Godalming,  used to provide DC electricity for street lighting, become the first public power supply.  While electricity was first generated by the renewable energy sources of wind and water, Thomas Edison added a third energy source in 1885 when he constructed a coal-fired steam DC generator in London, England.  Because direct current (DC) electricity could not be transmitted for any great distance early generating plants could service only local customers.  The distribution of electricity was revolutionized in 1895 when the work of Nikola Telsa made possible the construction of a large AC (alternating current) water driven generating station at Niagara Falls, NY.  The alternating current from the Telsa generators could be transmitted for long distances, and is still the system in common usage today.

Unlike wind–driven generators, steam plants can produce a uniform supply of electricity, and do not require a source of running, or falling, water.  Steam driven AC generating rapidly spread throughout the world, providing the majority of our electrical energy.  The only major variable is the source of heat used to generate the steam, with fossil fuels being the most popular.  Biomass, solar energy, geothermal energy and most recently nuclear energy are also used to produce the steam required to drive the generators. But all share the same design as a water-powered plant, with the steam driving a turbine connected to an AC generator. Coal, wood or nuclear the principle is the same – a “fire” boiling water to make steam which spins a turbine connected to a generator.

The photovoltaic effect was first noted in 1839 by a French physicist, but it was not until 1883 that an American, C. Fritts, built the first solar cell; a selenium/gold device.  Early solar cells were highly inefficient, however recent advances have demonstrated efficiencies of 20% to 40%, under laboratory conditions.  As individual solar cells have a very low, DC, electrical output many cells must be connected together into modules or arrays to provide useful power.  Solar cells have undergone an application curve much like windmills, initially providing low voltage DC power primarily used to charge batteries in remote locations, but are now being connected to the public power supply grid.  Current solar cells typically have a life span of 25 – 30 years, and remain economical only with government subsidies. 

The history of automobiles is much the same.  While a great deal of attention is currently being focused on  “new, green” technologies these same technologies were  common place in the early years of automobiles.  Electric vehicles were popular in Europe in the late 1800’s, with the first major U.S. manufacturer being the Pope Manufacturing Company, established in Hartford, Connecticut in 1897.  Within two years Pope had built over 50 cars and in 1899 merged with two smaller companies to form the Electric Vehicle Company, which by 1904 was producing over 2,000 taxis, buses and trucks per year.  A subdivision, of the Electric Vehicle Company, the Columbia Automobile Company was selling hundreds of personal vehicles per year by the turn of the century.  During the early 1900’s electric vehicles were the most popular in America, followed by steam, and then gasoline.  

During a visit to the 1901 Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, NY. (a celebration of electric lighting) President William McKinley was shot by an assassin.  McKinley was carried to the hospital in the electric ambulance pictured here, becoming the first U.S. President to ride in a motorized ambulance, and most likely the first to ride in an electric vehicle.  

In 1903 the Krieger Company produced a hybrid electric/petrol vehicle as did Woods Motor Vehicle Company of Chicago in 1917. Several other companies introduced hybrid vehicles, but none became popular due to slow speed, poor reliability and difficulty of servicing. 

Due to their durability many electric trucks were still in service during World War II, during which they found increased usage due to diversion of gasoline to the war effort.   If you ate the original Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, your breakfast was transported from the factory in Niagara Falls, NY to the nearby railroad siding by a  fleet of electric trucks until the early 1950's.

With the introduction of the Ford Model T in 1908, and the “self-starter” in 1913 demand for electric vehicles declined.  The Model T and Model A Fords that rapidly became the most popular cars in the word, were both so called “flex-fuel” cars, using either petroleum products or biofuels such as ethanol for fuel. 

Meanwhile, the Wright brothers flew the first fixed-wing airplane in 1903, at Kitty Hawk, NC.  Most importantly they also defined the “three-axis” (yaw, pitch and roll around the center of mass) of flight dynamics, and designed the basic control systems which has made it possible to control all fixed-wing aircraft from their “Flyer” to the space shuttles.

Thus none of the technologies that we commonly rely on today for our energy and transportation are new, they are all over a century old, as are the so-called “green” or “alternate” fuels currently returning to popularity.  We might actually refer to such fuels as wind, electricity, ethanol as “traditional” fuels rather than “alternate fuels”.  

The current state of our energy and transportation technologies is the result of incremental development or “tweaking” over the past century, not innovation.  We are suffering from a lack of innovation, and radical innovation is needed if we are to address and adapt to climate change.  Innovation is rooted in education; a rigorous foundation in mathematics, engineering and technology is essential for innovation in energy, transportation, communication, housing and other fields.  However, we will also need innovation in governance, institutions, and other social fields.  No one country, or society, is going to solve climate change, nor will any one nation be able to adapt without global cooperation.  As a civilization, we cannot continue to be satisfied with incremental development, but rather must foster and embrace innovation.

  — Global warming causes climate change!

Heat is energy.  The increase of the atmospheric greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane and other gases; and,  the direct addition of heat due to energy consumption increases the thermal content and energy of the planet.   The increased thermal directly alters both the patterns and intensity of  air currents in the atmosphere and the ocean currents.

  — Weather is not climate!

Weather is a short-term, local condition, while climate is a long-term, regional descriptor.  Just as we properly speak of the weather today, this week or this year; but not the climate of this winter, the weather of this year does not reflect climate.  Climate is a long-term aggregation of weather conditions, and often defined and identified by the vegetation and fauna of the region. 

  — Climate change does not necessarily imply a warmer climate!

While global warming induced climate change may result in a warmer climate, it may also result in a cooler climate of a region.  The regional climate may also be wetter or drier, seasonal patterns altered,  and any number of climatic variables impacted.  If, for example the route of the warm currents of the North Atlantic were changed, it is entirely possible that the British Isles and Europe could experience a mini-ice age, as could the northeastern United States. 

While the these three points are a simplistic summary of an extraordinarily complex subject, their proper usage and acceptance is necessary if one is to understand global warming and climate change, and conduct a constructive dialog.

To understand what is going on this winter we need to call upon the science of meteorology (weather) as well as climatology.  A climatologist will tell us that global warming will result in weather that is more variable, and extreme than we have previously experienced.  Which we are indeed experiencing.   A meteorologist will tell us that the recent heavy heavy winter rain and snow storms are the result of a high amount of moisture in the atmosphere.  The climatologist will point out that a warmer atmosphere will hold more moisture and warmer water has a higher rate of evaporation – which has indeed be observed for the past several years.  In the United States, the prevailing air currents have pushed the warm, moist air farther to the south than “normal” resulting in increased precipitation across the South West and South East, and increased snowfall when the moisture meets the cold air of mid-Atlantic region. 

The meteorologists talk about a stronger than usual El Nino circulation pattern causing the circulation shifts, and there is no doubt that we are in the midst of an El Nino cycle.  While there is no consensus among climatologists, many feel that the El Nino cycles will become more frequent, stronger and last longer.  There is evidence that this is indeed happening.  While the link between El Nino cycles and global warming warrants additional research, it should be noted that the conditions observed this winter are in in complete agreement with the long-standing predictions of more variable and extreme weather events resulting from global warming.

It is both important, and necessary, to again repeat that “weather is not climate”.  While the observed short-term weather conditions of this winter are entirely consistent with what would be expected from climate change, they cannot be taken as “proof” of long-term climate change.  But, for one to claim that the observed weather conditions this winter disprove climate change exhibits a complete lack of knowledge of climate change and the underlying science.

Herein lies the great dilemma.  If the world waits to take effective action until the last skeptic/denier is convinced of the reality of climate change we as a civilization, and perhaps as a species, will indeed be toast.  We have already passed the point where we can stop climate change within our life times.  The carbon dioxide that we have already dumped into the atmosphere will remain there for centuries, causing subsequent global warming until a new equilibrium is reached at some unknown point.  The best that we can do is slow the rate of global warming, and do our bit to keep that new equilibrium point as low as possible.  No human alive to day will live to see a reversal of climate change, the question is whether or not any living human will live long enough to see the nations of this planet implement the necessary, effective actions.

The January 29th announcement establishes the targets required by the October 5, 2009 Executive Order 13514 (Federal Leadership in Environmental, energy and Economic Performance) mandated that Federal Agencies submit a 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target within 90 days; and, increase energy efficiency, reduce petroleum consumption, conserve water, reduce waste and increase recycling.

The announcement does not include any emission reductions by federal contractors and suppliers, or resulting from employee commuting as called for by the executive order.

The full text of the White House announcement is:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 29, 2010

President Obama Sets Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target for Federal Operations

 

Target to Drive Energy Cost Reductions in Federal Operations, Creating Clean Energy Jobs

WASHINGTON, DC – President Barack Obama today announced that the Federal Government will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 28 percent by 2020.  Reducing and reporting GHG pollution, as called for in Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, will ensure that the Federal Government leads by example in building the clean energy economy.  Actions taken under this Executive Order will spur clean energy investments that create new private-sector jobs, drive long-term savings, build local market capacity, and foster innovation and entrepreneurship in clean energy industries.

As the single largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy, the Federal Government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone.  Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year.  This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama.  “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

Federal Departments and Agencies will achieve greenhouse gas pollution reductions by measuring their current energy and fuel use, becoming more energy efficient and shifting to clean energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal.  Examples of agency actions that are underway are available on the White House Council on Environmental Quality website and can be found at www.whitehouse.gov/ceq.

On October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, setting measureable environmental performance goals for Federal Agencies.  Each Federal Agency was required to submit a 2020 GHG pollution reduction target from its estimated 2008 baseline to the White House Council on Environmental Quality and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget by January 4, 2010.  The Federal target announced today is the aggregate of 35 Federal Agency self-reported targets.

Greenhouse gas emissions serve as a useful metric to measure the effectiveness of agency energy and fuel efficiency efforts as well as renewable energy investments. Agencies are already taking actions that will contribute towards achieving their targets, such as installing solar arrays at military installations, tapping landfills for renewable energy, putting energy management systems in Federal buildings, and replacing older vehicles with more fuel efficient hybrid models.

As a next step, the Office of Management and Budget will validate and score each agency’s sustainability plan, assuring a long-term return on investment to the American taxpayer. To ensure accountability, annual progress will be measured and reported online to the public.

"Global Warming" and "Climate Change" are two terms that are often, and erroneously, used interchangeably.  While it is important to know the difference between these two terms, we must also know how they interact.

Global warming  is exactly what the term implies, a warming of  Earth.  It is the warming of Earths' land, water and atmosphere, and is measured by network of temperature observations at scattered around the globe.  Global warming is real, and is readily observed from the temperature measurements which show that the surface of the Earth increased steadily through the last century, with a total increase of approximately 0.75^oC, or 1.33^oF during the past 100 years.  This data is so overwhelming that it has been endorsed by virtually all scientific societies and national Academies of Science throughout the world.

This definition immediately raises two questions:

• “Can’t the observed warming be natural variability?” Certainly natural variability has always been present, but in the past changes of this magnitude have occurred over thousands, or millions, of years.  There is no known natural explanation for such a rapid temperature increase.  Secondly, the Earth should actually be in a cooling phase as the Earth is in that part of its elliptical orbit around the sun where it is moving away from the sun, not closer.
• “How can such a small change make any difference?”  The answer to this question is found in high school physics.  Heat is energy and is measured by temperature, therefore if the temperature of the planet increases, the planet contains more energy.  And in accord with the First Law of Thermodynamics energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but merely transformed in nature. 

Thus the simplest description of “global warming” is the addition of energy to the planet.

Having defined global warming as the addition of energy to the planet, we can now view Climate Change as a consequence of that added energy.  The addition of energy to the system has a number of effects upon the Earths’ systems, including the alteration of thermal gradients between the polar and equatorial regions on the planet. These thermal gradients are a primary driver of the air currents, such as the jet streams, and the ocean currents; which in turn are determinants of the Earths’ climatic patterns.  A planet with increased energy also exhibits greater volatility, or variability, in its weather.

But, what is “weather” and how does it differ from “climate”?  The answer is both duration and scale.   Weather is what we experience today, this year, this decade.  Weather is short-term.  Only when we average weather conditions over a long-term is it climate.  There is no universally accepted agreement on how long “long-term” should be before weather becomes climate, but the generally accepted minimum is 30 years.   Weather is also a local feature, and at times may be quite different just a short distance away, while climate is a regional feature, shared by many localities. 

It should also be noted that since the climate of a region is largely determined by large-scale air and ocean currents, climate change may result in the climate of a region becoming either warmer or cooler, wetter or drier, due to shifts in the air and ocean currents.  For example, if melting of arctic ice causes a shift of the gulf stream,  the eastern U.S. and western Europe may experience a much cooler climate, as has happened in the past. 

“Global warming”, “climate change”, “weather”, and “climate” – four terms describing four distinctly different, but related, parameters.  Proper usage of these four terms is essential for meaningful communication and for the formulation of effective public policy necessary to address climate change.

If we are to make meaningful progress in curtailing global warming broad public support and involvement will be necessary.  Attempts to gain such support have received little attention, and examination of the disparity of public attitudes between the U.S. and other nations even less.

There can be no question that the sciences will become increasingly important in the future of mankind.  Technological advances in electronics, medicine, and communication have altered lives in the developed nations and promise to rapidly transform the developing nations in unforeseen ways.  An understanding of science is also necessary to the understanding of climate change and, critically, our adaptation to a changing environment.

Much of the responsibility for enhancing the role of science must fall on scientists.  In fact,  as a scientist I feel that because we have shirked our responsibilities to our fellow citizens in the past we don’t know how to react now to those who are skeptical of our motives.  I wonder if part of our problem as scientists trying to communicating with a lay audience is that we do not present a consistent message.  Apart from humans being predisposed to being against any apparent threat, the climate deniers are effective because they have a clear, simple and consistent message. On the other hand, due to the very nature of science our message is constantly being altered as new information becomes available. I fear that by attempting to being super-accurate, we are perceived as inconsistent and lose our creditability with the lay-public.

I am rapidly becoming convinced that those of us concerned with with the future role of science in the United States and in presenting the climate change message might be wise to re-focus our efforts to embrace three core objectives:

1. The re-establishment of the Office of Technology Assessment within Congress. After 20 + years as a Congressional agency, the 200 person OTA was eliminated as a budget reduction action in 1995. Their mission of providing impartial advice and analysis to the Senate and House has not been replaced and is sorely needed as in addition to climate change Congress will face increasingly complex scientific issues in the future.  Currently Congress relies on lobbyists and others with a special interest to promote for information.  As employees of Congress, staff of the OTA was accountable to Congress, not some outside, special interest.  The reestablishment of the OTA should help avoid such debacles as the ethanol program and would be a tremendous bargain for the taxpayers.
2. Strengthening science education in our schools.  Educators say that students really need a solid understanding of science to readily accept the reality of global warming, when once achieved the task becomes simple. An a broader basis, a solid foundation in the sciences, math and engineering will be necessary to merely cope in an increasingly technological world, and absolutely critical for a competitive workforce.  The Obama administration has recently an additional $250 million in support of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) program.  In announcing this public-private venture, John Holdren, Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, stated “we really need all hands on deck from the private sector and the philanthropic sector because the government can’t foot the whole bill for this”.   I would say that we can’t afford not to foot the bill for this.  We must make the scientific education of our children a national priority.   And by the way, the White House (executive branch) has an Office of Science and Technology Policy – why doesn’t the legislative branch have a comparable office?
3. Scientists must learn to effectively communicate with the general public – and then actually do it!  Scientists are currently trained in “scientific writing”, a style of writing designed to ensure accuracy and objectivity.  Due to the increasing complexity and specialization of science, scientific articles are best understood only by fellow-scientists in the same specialized field, and are often totally incomprehensible even to scientists in other fields.  Unfortunately, scientists are not trained in communicating to non-scientists and thus lack the skills to translate their results so that they may be readily understood by a lay audience.  Additionally, science is an increasingly competitive endeavor and many scientists are either unable or unwilling to devote time to activities that do not hold the promise of an immediate return.   Especially for publicly supported university and government science this situation should no longer be acceptable.  Training of scientists should include social responsibility and communication skills.  Public outreach and communication should be a job requirement for every scientists on public funding. If we keep hiding in our labs and communicating only with each other scientists will have no one to blame but ourselves when we are ignored by the public whose support we need.

We as citizens must demand more from our legislators, educators and scientists. The need for immediate action on global warming is critical and cannot wait for the education of a new generation of scientists.  However, we also have an obligation to ensure that future generations will have the skills and knowledge to make wise decisions and deal with the changing climate that will be our legacy to them.

Rather than screw in a light bulb – write a letter!  Secondly, citizens must demand improved education in the sciences, math and engineering.  Thirdly, individuals should educate themselves about the causes and likely impacts of climate change so that we can all make well-informed decisions.

On December 6, 2009 the Washington Post carried an opinion piece by Mr. Mike Tidwell, founder and Director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, which states the issue with  clarity and eloquence.  I encourage the reading and discussion of this article, which is reproduced here with permission of the author:

“To really save the planet, stop going green

Posted by Mike Tidwell

07 Dec 2009

Here’s some food for thought: Like civil rights, we need statutes not gestures. And all domestic statutes and international talks should aim for one unmovable number: 350 ppm carbon in the atmosphere. It’s the only number that matters.

As President Obama heads to Copenhagen next week for global warming talks, there’s one simple step Americans back home can take to help out: Stop “going green.” Just stop it. No more compact fluorescent light bulbs. No more green wedding planning. No more organic toothpicks for holiday hors d’oeuvres.

December should be national Green-Free Month. Instead of continuing our faddish and counterproductive emphasis on small, voluntary actions, we should follow the example of Americans during past moral crises and work toward large-scale change. The country’s last real moral and social revolution was set in motion by the civil rights movement. And in the 1960s, civil rights activists didn’t ask bigoted Southern governors and sheriffs to consider “10 Ways to Go Integrated” at their convenience.

Green gestures we have in abundance in America. Green political action, not so much. And the gestures (”Look honey, another Vanity Fair Green Issue!”) lure us into believing that broad change is happening when the data shows that it isn’t. Despite all our talk about washing clothes in cold water, we aren’t making much of a difference.

For eight years, George W. Bush promoted voluntary action as the nation’s primary response to global warming — and for eight years, aggregate greenhouse gas emissions remained unchanged. Even today, only 10 percent of our household light bulbs are compact fluorescents. Hybrids account for only 2.5 percent of U.S. auto sales. One can almost imagine the big energy companies secretly applauding each time we distract ourselves from the big picture with a hectoring list of “5 Easy Ways to Green Your Office.”

As America joins the rest of the world in finally fighting global warming, we need to bring our battle plan up to scale. If you believe that astronauts have been to the moon and that the world is not flat, then you probably believe the satellite photos showing the Greenland ice sheet in full-on meltdown. Much of Manhattan and the Eastern Shore of Maryland may join the Atlantic Ocean in our lifetimes. Entire Pacific island nations will disappear. Hurricanes will bring untold destruction. Rising sea levels and crippling droughts will decimate crops and cause widespread famine. People will go hungry, and people will die.

Morally, this is sort of a big deal. It would be wrong to let all this happen when we have the power to prevent the worst of it by adopting clean-energy policies.

But how do we do that? Again, look to the history of the civil rights struggle. After many decades of public denial and inaction, the civil rights movement helped Americans to see Southern apartheid in moral terms. From there, the movement succeeded by working toward legal change. Segregation was phased out rapidly only because it was phased out through the law. These statutes didn’t erase racial prejudice from every American heart overnight. But through them, our country made staggering progress. Just consider who occupies the White House today.

All who appreciate the enormity of the climate crisis still have a responsibility to make every change possible in their personal lives. I have, from the solar panels on my roof to the Prius in my driveway to my low-carbon-footprint vegetarian diet. But surveys show that very few people are willing to make significant voluntary changes, and those of us who do create the false impression of mass progress as the media hypes our actions.

Instead, most people want carbon reductions to be mandated by laws that will allow us to share both the responsibilities and the benefits of change. Ours is a nation of laws; if we want to alter our practices in a deep and lasting way, this is where we must start. After years of delay and denial and green half-measures, we must legislate a stop to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

Of course, all this will require congressional action, and therein lies the source of Obama’s Copenhagen headache. To have been in the strongest position to negotiate a binding emissions treaty with other world leaders this month, the president needed a strong carbon-cap bill out of Congress. But the House of Representatives passed only a weak bill riddled with loopholes in June, and the Senate has failed to get even that far.

So what’s the problem? There’s lots of blame to go around, but the distraction of the “go green” movement has played a significant role. Taking their cues from the popular media and cautious politicians, many Americans have come to believe that they are personally to blame for global warming and that they must fix it, one by one, at home. And so they either do as they’re told — a little of this, a little of that — or they feel overwhelmed and do nothing.

We all got into this mess together. And now, with treaty talks underway internationally and Congress stalled at home, we need to act accordingly. Don’t spend an hour changing your light bulbs. Don’t take a day to caulk your windows. Instead, pick up a phone, open a laptop, or travel to a U.S. Senate office near you and turn the tables: “What are the 10 green statutes you’re working on to save the planet, Senator?”

Demand a carbon-cap bill that mandates the number 350. That’s the level of carbon pollution scientists say we must limit ourselves to: 350 parts per million of CO2 in the air. If we can stabilize the atmosphere at that number in coming decades, we should be able to avoid the worst-case scenario and preserve a planet similar to the one human civilization developed on. To get there, America will need to make deep but achievable pollution cuts well before 2020. And to protect against energy price shocks during this transition, Congress must include a system of direct rebates to consumers, paid for by auctioning permit fees to the dirty-energy companies that continue to pollute our sky.

Obama, too, needs to step up his efforts; it’s not just Congress and the voters who have been misguided. Those close to the president say he understands the seriousness of global warming. But despite the issue’s moral gravity, he’s been paralyzed by political caution. He leads from the rear on climate change, not from the front.

Forty-five years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson faced tremendous opposition on civil rights from a Congress dominated by Southern leaders, yet he spent the political capital necessary to answer a great moral calling. Whenever key bills on housing, voting and employment stalled, he gave individual members of congress the famous “Johnson treatment.” He charmed. He pleaded. He threatened. He led, in other words. In person, and from the front.

Does anyone doubt that our charismatic current president has the capacity to turn up the heat? Imagine the back-room power of a full-on “Obama treatment” to defend America’s flooding coastlines and burning Western forests. Imagine a two-pronged attack on the fickle, slow-moving Senate: Obama on one side and a tide of tweets and letters from voters like you.

So join me: Put off the attic insulation job till January. Stop searching online for recycled gift wrapping paper and sustainably farmed Christmas trees. Go beyond green fads for a month, and instead help make green history.”

___________________________________

This copy of Mr. Tidwell’s article was reproduced from the CCAN blog, and can be found at:  http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/blog/?p=2498"

(The United States, responsible for 36% of the baseline 1990 emissions, is the only developed nation which has failed to sign the Protocol.)  The nations of the world are now gathered in Copenhagen with the goal of fashioning a climate change agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.  It is thus timely to review the progress since the last world meeting.

Since Kyoto: 

• Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion and the manufacture of cement have increased by 32%
• The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased 6.5%
• Global ice masses have melted far more rapidly than predicted, with Greenland losing over 1.5 trillion tons of ice
• Arctic sea ice, especially “old” ice is disappearing at record rates.  This past summer history was made when commercial shipping was able to cross the Arctic from Asia to Europe via the fabled Northeastern passage, without the aid of ice breakers. 
• Sea levels have risen over 1.5 inches
• Global temperatures continue to rise with the past 12 years showing 0.5^oC increase over the 12 years preceding Kyoto.  10 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years.
• Methane emissions from melting permafrost are increasing at an alarming rate
• Weather patterns have become more volatile and violent, with increasing typhoons and flooding  in the southern hemisphere, major drought in Africa, Australia and the Western US, with an accompanying increase of record-setting wildfires.
• Over 40 million acres of pine forests, predominately lodgepole pine, have been killed by the mountain pine beetle, whose population is no longer controlled by low winter temperatures. In British Columbia alone, the amount of carbon dioxide released by decaying pine trees is five times greater than the annual emissions of the entire Canadian transportation sector.
• Polar bears have been declared an endangered species due to loss of Arctic ice, in the N. American west warming temperatures are forcing mountain dwelling Pikas to the mountain tops, leaving them no place to retreat.  Amphibians, insects, other wildlife and plants are under stress from changing climate.
• The oceans are becoming more acidic, resulting in the death of vital corals and other invertebrates; while fish are shifting migration patterns and locations, in response to temperature shifts.
• Perhaps, most ominously, the earths lands and oceans are losing their ability to act as carbon dioxide “sinks”  removing about 4% less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they did 12 years ago.

Progress is indeed hard to find, in contrast the news appears to be primarily negative with greenhouse gas emissions increasing and climate change  accelerating faster than all but the most dire predictions of 12 years ago.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Both tables below are from the Wikipedia at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol.  While not specifically related to progress since Kyoto, the tables can provide some useful insights as 1990 is the accepted, standard baseline year for calculating emission changes. 

Below is a list of the change in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2007 for some countries that are part of the Climate Change Convention as reported by the United Nations. (National greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990-2007". UN FCCC. 2009. pp. 16-17.)   “LULUCF” = Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry.

Below is a table of the changes in greenhouse gas emissions of some countries. Global Carbon Project.

To understand the reality, first consider an individual tree.  This tree, like all plants utilizes solar energy to combine water and carbon dioxide, resulting in the production of carbohydrates (sugars).  We call the combination of chemical reactions involved in the process "photosynthesis".   Photosynthesis requires the presence of the green pigment chlorophyll, and thus occurs predominately in the leaves, or needles, of trees: and of course, only during the daylight hours.  Like all living organisms the tree requires energy for life processes, which it obtains by oxidizing some of the carbohydrates manufactured by photosynthesis.   This process of "respiration" is chemically the reverse of photosynthesis, occurs throughout the life of the tree, and results in the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. (http://arewetoast.com/energy-biology-chemistry-and-physics.html)

Plants typically manufacture far more carbohydrate than is utilized during respiration; some of which is stored in the living cells, while most is converted into cellulose which provides the rigid structure (wood) of the tree, both above ground and below ground (roots).  Growth of the tree represents the accumulation of carbohydrates and typically occurs more rapidly in young trees  and then slows as the tree matures.  Throughout the life of the tree, foliage is shed and decays, and the smaller roots die and decay as the root system expands.  Eventually the tree dies, and also decays.  The process of decay, conducted by fungi and other micro-organisms is again the process of oxidation, breaking down the accumulated carbohydrates and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Thus when the tree is completely decayed we have a balance, the carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere during photosynthesis is eventually returned to the atmosphere by the oxidative processes of respiration and decay.  The net result is zero, no carbon dioxide permanently removed from the atmosphere and none added.  The tree has been a CO₂ reservoir, accumulating and storing CO₂ during its lifetime, and then returning CO₂to the atmosphere as it respires,and ultimately decays.

If we view a forest as simply a collection of trees we can better relate to the forest as a reservoir.  A young forest will typically consist of a number of young, rapidly growing trees, with their growth made possible by the accumulation of carbohydrates manufactured using atmospheric CO₂.  A forester calls this stage a period of high "productivity".  However, as the forest ages, or becomes mature, growth will slow and individual trees will start to die and return their accumulated CO₂ to the atmosphere.  Eventually the forest will essentially come into equilibrium with its environment and over time maintain a relatively constant amount of accumulated carbohydrate per unit of area (i.e., "standing crop" or "biomass").  Like a reservoir, or lake,  with the amount of water flowing in equal to the amount of outflow, the amount of CO₂ removed from the atmosphere by the forest remains equal to the amount of CO₂ returned to the atmosphere. Just as the amount of water in a reservoir may vary between seasons, or from year to year, the accumulated CO₂ (biomass) of the forest may vary by season and from year to year, but in both cases, over time the net accumulation is zero.

There is no doubt that our forest reservoir can hold a vast amount of carbon, with catastrophic events such as fire, disease, or pests resulting in the return of significant amount of CO₂ to the atmosphere.  For example, the Mountain Pine Beetle is currently devastating the lodgepole pines in western North America.  According to the CBC (http://tinyurl.com/yguojjr) the Canadian Forest Service estimates that by 2013 the damaged forest will release almost one billion megatonnes of CO₂(eq) into the atmosphere, an amount equal to the total 5-year emissions from Canada's transportation sector.  Likewise, deforestation by humans causes the release of vast amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere, and is indeed one of the major sources of CO₂ emissions on a global basis.  Deforestation is analogous to emptying the reservoir into the atmosphere.  Given enough time the reservoir may refill to its original capacity, however it will most likely take centuries for a stable ecosystem to return.

When balanced over the globe, and over time, the analogy of forests as CO₂ reservoirs, not steadily accumulating  sponges, holds true. Thus any claim that forests can be used to offset CO₂ emissions should be viewed with skepticism.

Thus we have three sources of energy, but with the exception of passive heating, none of these sources is directly useful – they all require capture, storage, conversion and distribution in order to provide the "work" desired by mankind.  For example, electricity is converted and distributed energy from the sun (coal, oil, wind, bio-fuel, or "solar"), rocks (nuclear) or gravity (hydro-electric).  Whether we burn gasoline or ethanol in our internal combustion engines, both are solar energy captured by plant photosynthesis, either refined or distilled, and then distributed to our engines.  The only real difference is that one has been stored in the ground for about 320 to 360 million years while the other has not.  [See "Too Valuable to Burn" for another perspective on this ancient carbon.]  We use the heat energy of a nuclear reaction to make steam, which drives a generator and makes electricity to be distributed to users.  Electricity is again a distribution medium, not the ultimate source of the energy.

The sun remains our largest source of energy, either through fossil energy stored as coal or oil, or such fuels as wood and biofuels.  As we attempt to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of coal and oil, we are primarily turning toward other forms of solar energy such as solar-driven air currents (wind) or "direct solar" (photovoltaics, steam/electric), and increased reliance upon hydro.  It is ironic that these so-called "clean", "green", or "renewable" energy sources are all extremely sensitive to climate change: and, in fact, are already being negatively impacted by climate change.  The western, and southeastern regions of the United States are in the midst of a prolonged, severe and increasing drought, which has already curtained the production of hydro-power, and as also occurred in other regions throughout the world.  "Direct solar" energy conversion requires copious amounts of water for cooling and steam generation.  In the U.S. the Southwest receives the most dependable supply of solar energy, but this water-short arid region is also impacted by multi-year drought. 

The wind industry is rapidly expanding, with many countries placing increasing reliance upon wind to help meet emission reduction targets.  But, a research study just reported in the esteemed "Journal of Geophysical Research"(1)  suggests a significant reduction of about 10% in wind (speed and duration) in the mid-west and eastern regions of the United States.  Similar results have been reported from Europe and Australia.  It has been suggested that the reduction is caused by global climate change with the warming conditions at the poles reducing air pressure gradients.

Throughout the world agriculture has been impacted by climate change.  Growing season temperatures, water supply, pests and disease are climate sensitive and directly influence agricultural production.  While plant breeding has resulted in exceptionally hardy varieties, the monoculture resulting from reliance on these "improved" varieties has resulted in an agricultural system that may prove to be especially vulnerable to effects of a rapidly changing climate, thus reducing the supply of materials for bio-fuels in addition to food.

The fact remains, that our current emphasis on wind, bio-fuels and "solar energy" is not introducing new energy sources, but rather new methods of capturing, or converting energy from the sun.  And the quandary is that while we are banking upon these alternate, "green" sources of solar energy to reduce slow global warming and subsequent climate change, the changing climate may already be reducing the effectiveness of their implementation.  In this regard, the longer we delay an effective global program to reduce warming of our planet, the less likely its success.

___________________________________

1.)  Pryor, S. C., R. J. Barthelmie, D. T. Young, E. S. Takle, R. W. Arritt, D. Flory, W. J. Gutowski Jr., A. Nunes, and J. Roads (2009), Wind speed trends over the contiguous United States, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14105, doi:10.1029/2008JD011416.