While the celebration of Earth Day has spread, much has also been lost, at least in the U.S.  The original Earth Day was a day of involvement.  It was a day of service, a day to pick up, clean up, plant and otherwise care for the Earth.  It was a day to work with other members of your community to reduce the damage that we have inflicted on the planet, and erase our footprints.  Today we more likely watch a dignitary “plant” a tree in front of City Hall, or go to a park to attend a concert and tour the booths of commercial vendors .  The concept of actual physical work and community involvement in environmentally-oriented projects has been replaced by mere passive attendance.  The irony is that rather than reducing our footprint on the Earth, we now increase it by our Earth Day “celebrations”.

On his return trip to the nations' capital from the 1969 oil well blowout off the coast of Santa Barbara, California Senator Gaylord Nelson conceived  the initial Earth Day.  The Santa Barbara oil spill and the Cuyahoga River (Cleveland, Ohio) fires had resulted in significant press coverage and heightened environmental awareness. Senator Nelson, a dedicated conservationist, had been deeply disturbed by the destruction caused by the mammoth Santa Barbara oil spill, and was also intrigued by the new college campus "teach-in" movement. Sensing the opportunity for increased citizen environmental involvement he directed some of his college age staff members to develop an national environmental teach-in, and stipulated that it be organized and managed at the community level, with only coordination and support at the national level.  Conceived in September 1969, the first Earth Day was held the following April.

On the eve of Earth Day 2010 the drill rig Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank causing the largest oil spill in history.  While the well was eventually capped, it is reported⁽¹⁾ that oil is still seeping in the vicinity of the well.  Oil is reported to still be present in the Gulf wetlands, and observed abnormalities in Gulf fish, invertebrates and marine mammals are being reported.  Meanwhile oil production from deep water wells in the Gulf have returned to pre-blowout levels, and new permits for deep water drilling are being issued at a record rate.  Even more disturbing, permits have been recently issued for drilling in the pristine Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea, sites were weather conditions would prevent a spill response similar to that mounted in the Gulf.   In sharp contrast to 1970 there is little, if any, media coverage of Gulf recovery, or future Arctic drilling, other than heightened calls for increased offshore drilling, which is claimed will lower the price of gasoline.

Likewise, both public and governmental interest in climate change appears to be waning, in spite of the extreme weather that has been, and is being,  experienced around the globe.  Media Matters recently reported⁽²⁾ that U.S. broadcast TV coverage of climate change has “plummeted” in the last two years with nightly news coverage dropping 72% between 2009 and 2011, with coverage dropping 90% on the Sunday shows.  During the two-year study period the majority of climate change information came from either politicians (50%) or media personalities (45%), and none from scientists.  At least in U.S. politics climate change has rapidly become a term that is associated with a fringe, liberal viewpoint, and is to be avoided at all costs.  Even being labeled as a past believer in climate change can be detrimental to a political career.   It appears to widely believed that climate change is a false belief that will destroy our economy, and increase unemployment.

Population, a primary cause of climate change, was a major focus of the 1970 Earth Day as demonstrated by this popular image from the cover of the journal, Environmental Action.  At the time, the global population was 3.7 billion, which has increased 90% to over 7 billion today.  However, the rate of population growth has slowed from 2.07% in 1970 to 1.07% today⁽³⁾.  It is important to bear in mind that this is a drop in growth rate, not a drop in absolute numbers.  Since the world population now is 90% greater than in 1970 the actual population is increasing by about the same number of people (approximately 75 million) today as it was in 1970 (about half the rate, but about twice the population).  Demographers do not agree on a reason for the past decline in growth rate, nor the future growth rate,  but if it remains at its current level the world population should reach  8 billion in 2023, 9 billion by 2041 and then 10 billion at some point after 2081.  However a slight increase in the growth rate would greatly increase the population by the end of the century, while a slight decrease in growth rate could actually result in a lower world population by 2100.

As long as we are dependent upon fossil fuels, population and consumption will be the primary drivers of climate change.  Since both population and consumption have increased since 1970,  and consumption will continue to do so as the economic condition of the citizens of developing nations improves, the ultimate result will be an increased rate of climate change.     The conventional surrogate for greenhouse gases (CO2) has continued to increase from value of 325ppm in 1970 to the current level of approximately 395ppm as measured at the isolated Mauna Loa Observatory.  More significantly, while the rate of population growth has decreased since 1970, the rate of CO2 increase has more than doubled since 1970, from 0.8 to over 2.0 today – a indication of increasing consumption. 

   A simple extrapolation of the Mauna Loa measurements indicates that CO2 levels will reach 550 ppm, by 2050, a value toward the low end of most predictions.

The challenge we face this Earth Day is nothing less than the reversal of the red, "extrapolated" line in the graph above.  While scientists disagree about the specific point at which climate change becomes irreversible, virtually  all agree that it is lower than 450 ppm, a level that will be reached in about 20 years at the present rate of increase.  

As citizens of the world, we must ask if complacency is warranted this Earth Day.  Have we done all that we can to fulfill the promise of the original, 1970 Earth Day?  Have our activities today “given back” to the planet?  It is apparent that we cannot rely on our leaders to protect the planet, but rather we must act to make it uncomfortable for them not to do so.  It has been reported that after the 1970 Earth Day President Nixon told his staff that “I don’t understand what those people want, but do whatever it takes to make them happy”.  Consequently the Environmental Protection Agency was established, and a broad array of legislation to protect the air, water, land and endangered species was rapidly signed into law. When 20 million Americans in communities all over the country united for the benefit of our planet the government had little choice but to listen and respond.  While such an outpouring of effort, at the grassroots level, seems unlikely today, we can, and must, make our voices heard.  Write your elected representatives, let them know that you care about our planet, and are concerned about climate change.  Watch how they vote, and thank them when they vote to protect the planet.  Not just on April 22, but make the 22nd of every month your own personal “Climate Day”!

Learn! Teach! Act!

___________________

1.)  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/03/20123313318459762.html

2.)  http://mediamatters.org/research/201204160010

3.)  http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldpoptotal.php

4..)  Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory from: Dr. Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) and Dr. Ralph Keeling, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/)

5.)  CO2 extrapolation graph from:  http://greenphysicist2.blogspot.com/2010/02/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels.html

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.

There are three basic options that governments can implement to regulate pollutant discharges:  “cap and trade”, “cap” and “tax”.

Under a “cap and trade” scheme the government establishes a “cap” on the amount of pollutant, say CO2, that an industry can discharge into the environment.  The cap is lowered at regular intervals, thus reducing the total amount of pollutant that can be discharged.   Businesses must then buy “allowances” to discharge, either from the government or at specially created, open market “trading” exchanges (comparable to a stock exchange).

• The selling of allowances has the potential to generate vast sums of money for the government.  It is thus in the governments interest to sell more allowances during difficult fiscal times, with fiscal needs and politics becoming the driving factor.
• Proponents claim that the selling and trading of pollution allowances “moniterizes” the pollutant, or turns it into a commodity with a defined value.
• Cap and trade requires the establishment of a vast bureaucracy to establish and regulate the caps and to establish and regulate the trading exchanges.
• Cap and trade creates a vast new constituency  of lawyers, lobbyists, traders, investment banks, hedge funds and other speculators; all of whom have a vested interest in perpetuating the scheme.
• A cap and trade scheme is inherently complex few, in any, individuals being in a position to have a good understanding of the entire operation. Consequently cap and trade creates large opportunities for graft, fraud and abuse.
• Due to the complexity of the scheme, cap and trade is usually applied only to large companies, leaving vast numbers of individual and businesses free to pollute as much as they want.
• Under a cap and trade scheme, the cost of the required large bureaucracies will be passed on to the taxpayers.  Businesses and utilities will also pass on to the consumer the cost of their allowances, whether purchased from the government or at trading exchanges.  And, when the cap is lowered to the point that available allowances will no longer cover a businesses discharges, companies will be forced to install new equipment or otherwise reduce emissions; at a cost which will again be passed on to the consumer.  Note that it is only this last, of three, cost that provides any benefits to the consumer.
• Cap and trade schemes have not proven to be universally successful, especially as the profit motive both on the part of governments and trades often obscures the intended purpose.

Under a “cap” or “regulatory” scheme the government would merely place a “cap” on emissions and issue discharge permits to businesses and utilities.  In essence such a scheme would be no different than the current  processes used to regulate discharge of pollutants into waterways.  In the United States, the government has just placed a “cap” on 2016 tailpipe emissions of CO2 from vehicles of 250 grams per mile, a 34% reduction from the 2009 models.  There appears to be no justifiable reason that a government could not just as easily place a CO2 cap on all CO2 discharges, including those from industry.

• Under a pure regulatory cap, the government would not receive money from the sale of pollution allowances.
• There would be no trading exchanges, since there would be nothing to trade, and thus no establishment of a constituency dedicated to preserving the right to pollute. And the opportunities for graft, corruption and abuse would be greatly decreased.
• Essentially all developed nations have an environmental regulatory agency, so there is no need to establish a new, separate bureaucracies as required under a cap and trade scheme.  No doubt, the existing regulatory agencies might need to be expanded, but new agencies and their associated costs would not be needed.
• The governmental costs borne by taxpayers would be minimal compared to a cap and trade scheme, and there would be no costs of allowances for businesses to pass on to consumers. Consumers would share only the costs of new equipment and practices to reduce pollution, as passed on by businesses.  Thus consumers would pay only one cost, rather than three, to obtain the desired environmental benefits.
• Since a purely regulatory cap removes profit opportunities, opponents claim that it would be politically unpalatable.   But the fact remains that in the long run, a pure regulatory cap would be just as effective, and far cheaper for all involved, that a cap and trade scheme.

While there are several variations, a carbon tax is by far the simplest means of lowering CO2 emissions.  Most tax proposals are for a “rising”, “rebated” tax under which the tax would be steadily raised (just as a cap is lowered), and the collected tax dollars are rebated to consumers.  As the cost of energy increases, market forces would lower carbon fuel consumption, and thus reduce CO2 emissions.  In theory, consumers would choose energy-efficient products and adopt conservation practices, while energy efficient businesses would have a competitive advantage.  In practice, CO2 emissions in the United States actually decreased 2.8% in 2008 – a decrease attributed to high gasoline prices and a sagging economy.  Upon closer examination, we find that CO2 emissions of the transportation sector actually decreased by 5.2% and that CO2 emissions per dollar of economic output decreased by 3.8%; both decreases indicating that the high cost of energy was the major contributing factor rather than the economic downturn.

• Virtually all developed nations have a well established, and experienced bureaucracy dedicated to the collection and rebating of taxes.  While the tax agencies might need to be expanded to cover an increased workload the cost would be minimal.
• Any added cost would be minimal.
• Opportunities for fraud, corruption and abuse would be no greater than under current tax practices.
• If the tax is equally rebated to taxpayers, those who consume an average amount of energy would break even, while those who consume less energy than the average would actually make money, thus providing an economic incentive to conserve energy.  Also, while all surveys show that energy usage tends to increase with income, those with a low income would tend to receive a larger rebate than their energy taxes paid.  (More lower income people utilize public transportation than drive Hummers.)
• The base cost of energy and any increased cost of manufactured products would be driven by competitive market forces.
• As the energy tax rises, and oil consumption decreases, more dollars would remain at home, rather than being shipped to the oil producing nations.
• Any additional tax would be difficult to implement since citizens of all nations abhor taxes.  Therefore implementation of a rising, rebated tax scheme will require political foresight and courage.  However, a rising, rebated tax scheme is by far the cheapest alternative, and of proven effectiveness.

The need to address climate change is urgent.  We do not have the time to experiment with various schemes to lower CO2 emissions, but rather must get it right the first time.  Citizens should inform themselves on the issues and possible actions, and demand that our political leaders have the courage to do what is right, not what is “expedient”.

Release date: 04/17/2009

(Washington, D.C. – April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.

The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.

“This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,” said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”

As the proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.

The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways. Findings from a recent EPA study titled “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,” for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:

• increased drought;
• more heavy downpours and flooding;
• more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;
• greater sea level rise;
• more intense storms; and
• harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.

In proposing the finding, Administrator Jackson also took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.

In addition to threatening human health, the analysis finds that climate change also has serious national security implications. Consistent with this proposed finding, in 2007, 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals signed a report from the Center for a New American Security stating that climate change “presents significant national security challenges for the United States.” Escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources – including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world.

The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. Today’s proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.

Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn, 202-564-4355 / 7849 / milbourn.cathy@epa.gov; En español: Lina Younes, 202-564-4355 / younes.lina@epa.gov

More information: http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html