Paul Douglas: Why We Need a Comprehensive Climate Bill

News Topic(s): Weather*   Staff Picks*   News!   Climate   

06/23/09 - Last week I got a big dose of democratic reality during a whirlwind visit to Washington D.C. I was invited by the Union of Concerned Scientists, my trip coinciding with a new, alarming report on climate change currently underway in the U.S., released by the USGCP, the United States Global Change Research Program. The bottom line of their report: climate change isn’t some esoteric, futuristic daydream. It’s happening right now, subtle and troubling changes are already showing up in the national and international data – today. We’re witnessing the tip of the iceberg – far more ominous changes are predicted later this century, especially if don’t find a way to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. With China surpassing the U.S. as the biggest source of greenhouse gases, or GHG, the challenge becomes global and will ultimately require political compromise as well as technological breakthroughs. Along with health care, international terrorism and our current economic travails, climate change promises to be one of the biggest ongoing stories of the 21st century, affecting almost every sector of our economy, from agriculture and transportation to energy production, health and our very quality of life.

As a private citizen and Minnesota business owner who has been tracking the science of climate change for 15 years I had a chance to visit a number of Minnesota legislators, congressmen and women and senators who would be voting on HR 2454, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act. I spent some time with legislators and their staffers reviewing some of the trends I’ve witnessed in the data since the 1980s. We talked about the need to take an important first step and set a price on carbon emissions, an economic incentive to reduce greenhouse gasses over time.

The political representatives we met with were engaged; they listened politely, but most were noncommittal about their support for the pending bill in the Congress. Minnesota is one of a handful of Midwestern “swing states”; it’s unclear whether the bill will pass the House of Representatives, although most experts seem to believe that some sort of (watered down, environmentally weaker) bill will ultimately pass, setting the stage for a vote in the Senate sometime this fall. The goal: get a U.S. bill on the books in time for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, scheduled for mid December, 2009. America has been all talk, no action. No effective global solution will be possible until and unless the United States sets a powerful example.

The key findings of the United States Global Research Program?  Here are some of the bullet points, taken directly from the report.

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.
Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. 

 2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.
Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow.

3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase.
Climate changes are already affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health. These impacts are different from region to region and will grow under projected climate change.

4. Climate change will stress water resources.
Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the potential impacts varies. Drought, related to reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants, is an important issue in many regions, especially in the West. Floods and water quality problems are likely to be amplified by climate change in most regions. Declines in mountain snowpack are important in the West and Alaska where snowpack provides vital natural water storage.

5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged.
Agriculture is considered one of the sectors most adaptable to changes in climate. However, increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production.

6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge.
Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected. 
 
7. Threats to human health will increase.
Health impacts of climate change are related to heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. Robust public health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts. 

8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses.
Climate change will combine with pollution, population growth, overuse of resources, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone.
 
9. Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems.
There are a variety of thresholds in the climate system and ecosystems. These thresholds determine, for example, the presence of sea ice and permafrost, and the survival of species, from fish to insect pests, with implications for society. With further climate change, the crossing of additional thresholds is expected.
 
10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today.
The amount and rate of future climate change depend primarily on current and future human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases and airborne particles. Responses involve reducing emissions to limit future warming, and adapting to the changes that are unavoidable.

Last Tuesday I had a chance to meet and talk with some of the climate scientists who work with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Ph.D researchers who study global data sets and long-range climate models. They agree that even if we could magically halt all greenhouse gas emissions today, temperatures would continue to rise for decades (GHG’s have a latency of a century or more). Levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases have spiked 38% since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, most of that increase in the last 50 years.

What about Minnesota’s cool spring and early June frost up north? They agreed it was a classic example of confusion caused over “weather,” not “climate," and they pointed out the obvious: you can’t just take a snapshot of any one location over a span of days or even weeks and reach global conclusions. The arctic regions continue to warm over time, along with the world’s oceans, which are becoming increasingly acidic, threatening a wide range of aquatic life. The melting of Greenland’s ice pack has accelerated in recent years, vast chunks of Antarctic ice have broken off into the sea, and the vast majority of the world’s glaciers continue to shrink at an alarming rate.

A slow-motion warming trend has created a ripe environment for more daily weather extremes, more flash flooding, while the frequency of drought and wildfires, especially west of the Mississippi River, continues to increase. Sea levels continue to rise worldwide, raising the potential for more storm-related damage along coastal regions, especially when hurricanes threaten, while warmer, sunnier weather leads to more evaporation and threatens water levels in the Great Lakes. Under a “high emissions scenario” water levels in the Great Lakes could fall by one to two feet by the end of this century. Although no one storm or heat wave can be blamed on climate change, the overall trends are now undeniable.

Here in the Midwest temperatures are trending steadily upward, the largest increases observed during winter months, extending the length of the frost-free growing season by one week. Heavy downpours are now TWICE as frequent as they were a century ago. Both summer and winter precipitation has been above average for the last 3 decades, the wettest period in a century. The Midwest has experienced two record-breaking floods in the past 15 years. There has also been a marked decrease in lake ice, including on the Great Lakes. Since the 1980s large heat waves have been more frequent in the Midwest than any time in the last century, other than the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s.

I was working in Chicago during the Heat “Storm” of 1995, when more than 700 people died over the span of 3 days, nighttime “lows” staying above 83 degrees F downtown. People without air conditioning couldn’t find any relief, and a disproportionate number of elderly people succumbed from the heat. If current trends continue and greenhouse gases increase substantially, deadly heat waves like the one that struck Chicago would be expected twice every summer. In a higher emissions scenario severe heat waves like the one that claimed 30,000+ lives in Europe during the summer of 2003 might occur every other year across the Minnesota by the end of this century.

Like to ski, snowmobile or ice-fish? It may be a lot tougher to participate in winter sports in the years ahead. In a worst-case emissions scenario the average number of days with snow every year might fall from 35 (1961-1990) to 23 by the end of the century. More precipitation would fall as rain, rather than snow. Flash flooding would become even more common, and Minnesota winters and springs, when the flood risk is already elevated, would become as much as 30% wetter. This year’s catastrophic flooding on the Red River in Fargo and Moorhead may become commonplace every spring, within our lifetime.

Farming may become even tougher in the decades ahead unless greenhouse gas emissions are held in check. Yes, the growing season will almost certainly be longer, but crops and livestock would face more heat stress, decreasing crop yields and livestock productivity. Pests like corn rootworms and European corner borers would be able to expand their range and subsequent damage. Crop production might be inhibited by changing rainfall patterns such as wetter springs (which delay planting and increase flood risk), with 15% less rain falling during the increasingly hot summers. Corn and wheat crops can fail at 95 degrees Fahrenheit, with the risk increasing the longer the heat lasts. 1988 was a devastating year for Minnesota farmers; nationwide losses were estimated at $40 BILLION dollars, mostly due to crop losses. Yields here in Minnesota dropped dramatically; corn and wheat fell by nearly two-thirds and soybeans saw a three-quarter drop in yields.

Over the next few decades more than half of Minnesota’s summers are projected to be hotter than 1988; by mid-century, under a worst-case “high emissions scenario” almost all of Minnesota’s summers are projected to be hotter than that scorching summer.

Air quality will be impacted, even here in the relatively clean, industry-free, pristine Land of 10,000 Lakes. A warmer climate means more ground-level ozone (smog), which can cause respiratory problems. Asthma cases have quadrupled in recent years; many physicians suspect increases of ozone pollution as the main trigger, and these trends are forecast to get worse with time. A warmer environment creates a greater risk of mosquito-borne diseases like West Nile.  The impact on Minnesota’s hardwood forests are expected to be mixed, with any positive effect of higher carbon dioxide and nitrogen levels acting as fertilizers potentially negated by decreasing air quality. Beetles and other insects, usually killed off when winter temperatures reach -40 F. might survive and thrive indefinitely during our warmer winters, resulting in considerable damage similar to what’s blighting millions of acres of forestland from Alaska into British Columbia. During a recent trip to the BWCA with explorer Will Steger I personally witnessed thousands of black maple saplings, growing like weeds amidst the towering pines. Historically it has always been too cold for maples to survive the harsh winters of the Boundary Waters. No more.

The U.S. emitted over 7 BILLION metric tons of heat-trapping emissions in 2005, the most recent baseline of available data. Coal-fired electricity generation and emissions from cars and trucks are the two largest sources of GHG pollutants. But there are some encouraging trends, as entrepreneurs react with new technology that provides cleaner energy without the greenhouse gas pollutants.

Private industry has installed more wind power in the U.S. in the last 2 years than in the previous twenty. Strong sales of hybrid vehicles suggest that a transformation to a clean energy economy is now well underway. Climate scientists and policy experts are aiming for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels – by 2050. In the short term a “cap” of GHG emissions is being set at 26% below 2005 levels – by 2020, and a 56% reduction from 2005 levels – by 2030. The good news: achieving these cuts will save all of us money, as much as $465 billion in energy savings annually by 2030. Over the long haul the proposed cuts in GHG pollutants should yield a cumulative savings of $1.7 TRILLION between 2010 and 2030, coming at a time when the spiraling federal deficit is prompting the need for massive cuts in spending.

The bottom line: reducing greenhouse gas emissions will save all of us money over the long haul, although in the short term we’ll have to invest in new renewable and hybrid technologies to help clean up the air, new technologies and industries that will employ hundreds of thousands of Americans. Going green should green up our wallets as new businesses invent new ways to power our cars, homes and industries, without the harmful carbon-based by-products.

Concern has been raised about the cost, the initial up-front investment necessary to jump-start a clean-green economy, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and foster a new generation of renewable technologies that will provide the energy we need, while ramping down the greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere. J Drake Hamilton, a scientist at Fresh Energy in the Twin Cities sent me a CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimate, predicting the proposed Waxman/Markey bill would cost the average U.S. household $175 per year by 2020, which works out to roughly $15 per month. But the net savings in energy efficiency and clean technologies should ultimately bring the cost to consumers close to ZERO within 10 years as we make the transition. The bottom line: ramping up a new energy-efficient economy will save all of us money over the long haul. Going green will generate extra green in our wallets and purses over time. But taking this necessary first step isn’t an option – it’s an imperative.

As a nation the U.S. is truly at a crossroads. Our free lunch is over. For decades we’ve been using the atmosphere as a convenient sewer. Yes, by some measures the air overhead is cleaner, but we’ve been pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air with impunity. As the USGCP study points out, we can choose business as usual, and suffer the increasingly dire symptoms of a warmer, more polluted world, or make a much-needed transition to a clean energy economy, one that cuts our dependency on foreign oil, reinforces our energy security and reduces the potential for conflict abroad.

Like it or not we are conducting a massive, global experiment on the Earth’s atmosphere; in the span of a few decades we’ve released carbon which had been trapped in the earth’s crust in the form of oil, coal and natural gas for hundreds of millions of years. To pretend this isn’t impacting our climate, to continue with business as usual, is morally indefensible and economically dangerous for the security of future generations. Actions have consequences, and all of us are accountable.

In the Bible there’s a passage in the book of Luke:  “Man has been appointed as a steward for the management of God’s property, and ultimately he will give account for his stewardship.”

Native Americans have a similar saying which sums up our challenge and our ethical responsibility to future generations of Minnesotans:

“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children.”

-- Paul Douglas

Reader Comments (6) | Post a Comment

June 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Joe:
Wow, I'm saddened and disheartened by some of the comments on this page, but I feel it's necessary to respond to some of them.

Teri: We don't believe that we will destroy the Earth. Humans are just visitors on this planet and the Earth will eventually reach equillibrium once again when we are gone. The Earth has a remarkable ability to adapt and rejuvinate after crisis. But the problem is in the time frame. The Earth experiences change in geologic time, where natural systems take decades, centuries, even millenia to vacillate before reaching a temporary stasis. We humans operate and experience the world in a much shorter time frame. We can't adapt to the rapidly changing climate brought about by our intense use of fossil fuels and deforestation. The Earth's climate is changing due to this spike in carbon dioxide and we are ill-prepared to deal with it, especially populations living in the most vulnerable (and poorest) parts of the world along the coasts. So while it's folly to say that the Earth itself will be "destroyed" and indeed arrogant to believe this, it's unequivocally the case that human practices are dramatically altering the climate in such a way as to make human life now and in the future much more difficult to endure.

The climate/energy bill is not some ploy to tax Americans. In many cases, the lowest income portion of our population will actually receive money from their utilities! So Teri, do your research into allowance allocations before you talk about this as a needless tax. It's not a tax, it's an opportunity to invest in clean energy jobs, end our dependence on fossil fuels, assist those most in need (including those living in developing countries), and combat the worst crisis the human race has ever faced.

We need this bill to pass in order to jump-start our economy and position ourselves once again as a world leader in innovation and social issues. I would hate to be on the wrong side of history on this, but that's where our Congress will be if this bill fails.


June 25, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Teri :
ENCOURAGE YOUR REPRESENTIVE TO  VOTE NO TO THE LINK AT THE TOP RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN DON'T BE LEAD TO VOTE FOR INCREASED TAXES !  DO YOUR RESEARCH! 

We should not be so arrogant to believe that we as are a group of people could possibly destroy the earth-- Mother Earth in all of her glory would bump us as a civilzation right off of her beautiful face- she has done it before and would do it again- this is a ploy to increase taxes all levels. 

June 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Rebecca:
I'm behind Paul Douglas all the way.  I'm glad he's pursuing the issue of climate change.  Even if climate change didn't exist and wasn't something to be concerned about, what's the harm in changing our ways for the better?  I happen to love this earth and the amazing creatures (us included) that inhabit it.  I want it here for our children.  I think it's time we quit being so selfish and start taking care of things.  And I, too, miss seeing Paul on the news every day.  He sure made weather fun, and you could tell he really wanted to teach people about weather and get them involved.  I'm glad you're still here in Minnesota Paul!


June 25, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Teri :
I am apalled that Paul Douglas would attest to this nonsense.  Ron Paul has submitted a petition where thousands of scientists have attesteed that global warming is NOT due to human consumption.  This is a ploy to extract huge amounts of taxes out of the taxpayers on a global level.   Vote NO to cap and trade and educate yourselfs on what this means- the earth is changing in it's own evolution- it is NOT your fault!!! 

google Campaign for Liberty- see the following excerpts: 

You see, the “Cap-and-Trade” bill currently in the House is really nothing more than a thinly disguised energy tax that will hit every single American.

By invasively manipulating an already over-regulated energy industry, this legislation seeks to fix an alleged problem that has recently been discredited by over 31,478 scientists -- including over 3,803 with specific expertise in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences.

All 31,478 of these scientists are trained to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis -- and are speaking out against government “remedies.”

With this bill, Congress is once again just doing what it does best -- fleecing taxpayers to further an alarmist agenda.



Barack Obama has estimated the costs of this legislation to American taxpayers to be over 650 BILLION dollars over the next eight years, and that figure is no doubt just a fraction of the real cost.


June 24, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Joe:
I had the pleasure of watching Paul Douglas every night on TV growing up as a kid. He helped foster a fascination of the atmosphere that grows even today -- although I no longer plan on becoming a meteorologist, I do plan on working on climate change issues now and in the future. I had the pleasure of meeting Paul recently and it struck me how daring his advocacy has been. Here's a guy who began talking about climate change when it wasn't "cool" or the "in" thing to do. I remember hearing little antecdoes and facts sprinkled in the newscasts and morning paper growing up; never alarmist, but always with a gentle prodding and a nod to the cold, hard, scientific facts. We need more people like Paul not only to tell us if it'll rain tomorrow, but also to tell us why we should care about drastically changing precipitation patterns in a warmer, more unpredictable world. Becuase this is a world that is too fast approaching.

Also, to respond to the post below: I don't believe the most esteemed scientists in the country and the world would risk their reputations on "junk" science. They aren't reading the tea leaves or interpreting the clouds when they come to their conclusions -- they're building on the strong foundation of climate science to help us make better policy decisions that may help avert the worst case scenario world we are hurdling towards. Also, the U.S. Government agency that looks at the cost of legislation (Congressional Budget Office) estimates that the climate/energy bill currently being voted on (on Friday) in the House will cost consumers very little -- about a postage stamp per day. Other estimates put this on the other side of zero, actually saving consumers money on their energy bills. The Bill will also create hundreds of thousands, even millions of clean, high tech jobs -- just what this flagging fossil-based economy needs to rise out of the ashes. The cost of incation, Appleton Patriot, is far greater than taking the necessary steps to achieving a new climate-friendly green energy economy. Al Gore didn't create this "hoax"; climate change is happening, humans are mostly to blame, and there is conclusive evidence to prove it. Which of the thousands of peer reviewed scientific reports would you like to read as evidence?

We can take steps now to make our future world a better one -- but we need people like you, who are fossil relics of a now obsolete (yet still powerful) industrial past, we need people like you to either wake up and look at the evidence or shut up and let us get to work.


June 24, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Appleton Patriot:
While polution is to be avoided, man made global warming is based on junk science.  There are hundreds of reas scientists who are not paid to create results to fit an agenda that deny man made globl warming.  This cap and trade legislation will cost far more than this report in terms of industrial and energy cost increases and job loss.  Al Gore has created the biggest hoax upon the American citizens for his own glorification and enrichment.  The whole concept is a farce.